HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-23 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12 , 2008 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. SOUTHGATE -1st AMENDMENT TO CONNECTOR 'S AGREEMENT #8 .
(ATT. 2)
3. UNION AVENUE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION BID (ATT . 3)
4 ARTICLE FROM WEF.ORG MAGAZINE-"THE FUTURE LOOKS
BRIGHT." (ATT 4)
5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATES FROM DAVID HILL DATED JUNE 6, JULY 10
AND SEPT. 10, 2008. (ATT. 5)
6. DEMONSTRATION OF RATE INCREASES. (ATT. 6)
7. OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
August 12, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 5 :06 p.m .
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Oakley,
Habenicht
Burns, Clark, Moore, Woodward
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 2008 MEETING.
ATT. 1
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received a record of the July 7 , 2008 phone vote
approving the minutes of the June 10, 2008 meeting.
2. SOUTHGATE SUPPLEMENT #164.
A request was made by the Southgate Sanitation district representing the owner, Colony
fuvestments , for inclusion of Supplement #164 consisting of a parcel totaling 53 .59 acres
into the Southgate Sanitation District for residential and commercial use. The property is
currently zoned residential with 209 single family units anticipated.
Before the proposed inclusion into the Southgate Sanitation District could be considered,
the DRCOG sewer treatment service area map needed to be amended to reflect the
inclusion. DRCOG reviewed the request for consistency with the Clean Water Plan and
it was approved . The request for exclusion from the Parker service area was approved by
DRCOG on October 18, 2007 and the inclusion of the site into the Littleton/Englewood
service area was approved on July 15, 2008.
Mr. Clark entered at 5:08 p.m.
Mr. Cassidy moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded: To approve the Southgate Supplement #164
for the owner, Colony fuvestments, for a
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
parcel totaling 53.59 acres for residential
and commercial use.
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Oakley,
Habenicht, Clark
None
Burns, Moore, Woodward
Mr. Moore and Mr. Woodward entered at 5:09 p.m.
3. TRIBALOMETHANEIHALOACETIC ACID CHART.
Bill McCormick, Operations Superintendent at the Allen Water Filter Plant, appeared to
discuss the Total Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acid Analyses Charts distributed to the
Board. Trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic (HAAS) acids are disinfection byproducts
that are produced when organics react with chlorine. These are regulated by EPA because
they are contaminants that may cause cancer.
Per EPA standards, trihalomethane readings must be under 80 ppb and haloacetic acid
readings must be under 60 ppb . THM's have been ranging in the 30's and the most
recent reading for HAA's was 27.91. Recent readings are lower because of the total
organic carbon removal and the chloramines process that has been added at the Allen
Water Treatment Plant.
4. GUEST: LORRAINE SMITH AND CINDY GRAINGER RE: CITY DITCH
AND W. RADCLIFF A VE.
Ms . Loraine Smith of 1080 W. Radcliff Ave. and Cindy Grainger appeared before the
Board to discuss their concerns regarding the City Ditch behind their homes being piped.
Ms. Smith voiced her concerns about not being notified before the City Ditch was piped.
They noted that the open ditch had provided a separation from an undesirable neighbor
and would have prevented another neighbor's car from rolling into her yard. Traffic
safety issues were discussed, with Ms. Smith requesting concrete barriers be installed. It
was noted that the Traffic Department will be notified to investigate the possible traffic
hazard.
Tom Brennan, City Engineer, was present and reviewed ditch boundaries and rights-of-
way with Ms. Smith and Ms. Grainger. Ms. Grainger noted that sink holes have appeared
in her yard after the ditch was piped . Stu Fonda directed Mr. Brennan to inspect her yard
to see ifthe sinkholes were caused by the ditch being piped . Mr. Brennan noted that the
sinkholes may be caused by drought conditions over the last few years .
Ms. Smith and Ms. Grainger will be notified of the findings after Tom's investigation.
They also requested to be notified of any changes along the section of City Ditch adjacent
to their properties. Mr. Clark noted that because of a potentially dangerous condition of
the ditch bank failing, even if the adjacent residents were notified, the outcome would
have been the same with the City Ditch having to be enclosed in pipe.
5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED MAY 16 , 2008
The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update
dated June 6 , 2008 and July 10, 2008. Stu discussed developments in water litigation
cases in which Englewood is involved.
6. 2009 BUDGET.
The Board received a preliminary draft of the 2009 budget. Stu discussed major
upcoming projects including replacing the Union Avenue 16" water main, a 18" water
main that needs replacing in front of Swedish Hospital and the two 3-million gallon
elevated storage tanks valve modification project. Stu also discussed the upcoming ultra-
violet process that will have to be on-line by 2013. Proposed water and sewer rate
increases and implementation options were discussed . John Gallagher of Red Oak may
be used as a consultant to review the proposed rate increases. The final budget and
recommendations will be reviewed with the Board at a future meeting.
The Board adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board will be held Tuesday, September 23, 2008
at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONNEC:TOR'S AGREEMENT
SEWER CONTRACr NO. 8 -
1. PARTIES. The parties to this First Amendment to Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No .
8 (herein; "Amendment") are: the CITY 01= ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation, ("City''); and SOUTHGATE SANITATIOtN DISTRICT, a Title 32 special district.
2. RECITALS AND PURPOSES. The parties previc1usly entered into a Connector's Agreement
dated June 2Qth 1961, which was subsequently superseded by a Connector's Agreement-
Sewer Contract No. 8 dated November 16, 1988, ("Agreementn). The Agreement, by its
terms, is due to expire In 2009. The parties de~.ire to extend the term of the Agreement and
the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Agreement by a like-period of years as set
forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the parties covenant, acknowledge, and agree to the
following terms and conditions as an amendment to the Agreement.
3 •. MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby modified and amended by the
deletion of certain language in existing paragraph 7, as shown l?Y stril<eout, pertaining to the
term of the Agreement, and repl~ced by the following new language:.
7. The term of this Agreement is for C:I period of three (3) years from tl=te . sate af
e:iceel:ltlen November 16. 2009. and automatically renewed for six (6) subsequent
three-(3}-year periods unless either party gives a minimum of six months written
notice, during which time the District agrees that all effluent produced from taps
within District shall not be in violation of any federal, state or City laws, rules or
r~gu/atfons, _c;:ir .arJY Qther applicable governmental regulations or the permits under
which the City operates its .sewage .. treatrnent .. system. ·city a·grees, di.iring the 'term ...
hereof, to treat said effluent and to rm1intain adequate facilities for treating of the
same.
4. ANNU~L APPROPRIATION REQUIRED. Any provision of this Agreement, or its. attachfl)ents,
which directly or Indirectly Impose upon either party, any financial obllgatlon whatsoever .to
be performed or which may be performed in any fiscal year suJ;>seQuent to the year of ·the
execution of this Agreement is expressly made1 contingent upon, and subject to, funds for
such financial obligation being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available by the
parties' respective governing boards.
5. RATIFICATION. The parties hereby ratify all other provisions of the Agreement which
provisions shall remain in full force and effect
Dated: ___ 2008 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
ATIEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Dated: ~fp../2oos
~~~~~
Secretary
1
Date
October 20 , 2008
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT. 2
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Southgate Connector's
Agreement -1st Amendment
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTlON
In 1961 the City of Englewood and Southgate Sanitation District entered into a Connector's
Agreement. In 1988 Englewood and Southgate entered into an updated Connector's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Water and Sewer Board, at their September 23, 2008 meeting , recommended Council
approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving the Southgate C<;mnector 's Agreement -First
Amendment.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The 1988 agreement with Southgate was executed with an effective date of November 16,
2988 for an initial term of three years plus six automatic three year renewals. This agreement
will be expiring on November 16, 2009.
Southgate and the City of Englewood are mutually agreeable to extending the contract using
an addendum to keep the existing Connector's Agreement as written . The proposed
addendum will extend the contract by the same terms as originally proposed, with the
exception of changes to the Section 7 language, as recommended by the City Attorney's
office , to distinguish between the City and the enterprise funds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Southgate Sanitation District Supplement #163
SGSUPP163
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT
SEWER CONTRACT NO. 8 .
1. PARTIES. The parties to this First Amendment to Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No .
8 (herein; "Amendmef!t") are: the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation, ("City"); and SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT, a Title 32 special district.
2 . RECITALS AND PURPOSES. The parties previously entered into a Connector's Agreement
dated June 20th 1961, which was subsequently superseded by a Connector's Agreement-
Sewer Contract No. 8 dated November 16, 1988, (~Agreement"). The Agreement, by its
terms, is due to expire in 2009. The parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement and
the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Agreement by a like-period of years as set
forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the parties covenant, acknowledge, and agree to the
following terms and cond itions as an amendment to the Agreement.
3.. MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby modified and amended by the
deletion of certain language in existing paragraph 7, as shown by stril<eout, pertaining to the
term of the Agreement, and replaced by the following new language:
7. The term of this Agreement is for a period of three (3) years from the date of
execution November 16. 2009. and automatically renewed for six (6) subsequent
three-(3)-year periods unless either party gives a minimum of six months written
notice, during which time the District agrees that all effluent produced from taps
within District shall not be in violation of any fec;ieral, state or City laws, rules or
regulations, .or.a1,1y c,>ther appl~ca_bl~.gqvemm~_ntal regulation~ or the p~rr_nits under
which the City operates its sewage treatment system. City agrees, during the term
hereof, to treat said effluent and to rm:iintain adequate facilities for treating of the
same.
4. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED. Any provision of this Agreement, or its attachments,
which directly or indirectly impose upon either party, any financial obligation whatsoever to
be performed or which may be performed in any fiscal year supsequent to the year of the
execution of this Agreement is expressly made contingent upon, and subject to, funds for
such financial obligation being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available by the
parties' respective governing boards.
5. RATIFICATION. The parties hereby ratify all other provisions of the Agreement which
provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated: ___ _.2008 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
ATIEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Dated: ~pp.-/2008
~#~
Secretary
1
c T y 0 F E N G
0 F F I C E 0 F T H E c
July 22, 2008
Duane Tinsley
Southgate Water & Sanitation Districts
3 722 East Orchard Road
Centennial, CO 80121
Dear Duane:
T y
LEWOOD
ATTORNEY
Re: Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No. 8
While I agree that both parties to this agreement are enterprises, with the City the line
between the enterprise and the City is frequently blurred; therefore, we would appreciate
the inclusion of the following language in the proposed "First Amendment to Southgate
Sanitation District Connector's Agreement Sewer Contract No. 8":
"Subject to Annual Appropriation. Any provision ofthis agreement or its
attachments which impose upon the City, directly or indirectly, any financial
obligation whatsoever to be performed or which may be performed in any
fiscal year subsequent to the year of the execution of this agreement is expressly
made contingent upon and subject to funds for such financial obligation being
appropriated , budgeted and otherwise made available."
Thank you for your help .
..........
/~1187-
N cyN. Reid
Assistant City Attorney
bb
CC: Stu Fonda/
Daniel L. Brotzman , City Attorney
Nancy N. Reid, Assistant City Attorney Dugan 5. Comer, Assistant City Attorney
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Phone 303-762-2320 FAX 303 -7 83-6892
www.engle woodgo v.org
Date
October 20, 2008
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT. 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
W. Union Ave . Water Main
Rehabilitation Project
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Utilities staff recommends Council approval, by motion of the West Union Avenue Pipe
Rehabilitation Project.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The 16" water main on West Union Avenue between S. Santa Fe Drive and the S . Platte River has
experienced numerous leaks over the past ten years and has been determined to be past its useful life.
This water main is a vital link for the Englewood water distribution system, being it is the largest of
three mains crossing the South Platte River, serving customers on the west side of the Platte . Loss of
this water main would significantly impact the entire water distribution system west of the Platte River.
The Utilities Department determined that a no-dig main rehabilitation was necessary due to the high
volume of truck traffic and a number of businesses along W . Union Avenue. Waste Management and
a local concrete plant access their businesses from Union Avenue. Slip lining, pipe bursting and
directional boring were methods evaluated for this rehabilitation project. Trenchless rehabilitation will
be the least disruptive and allow businesses to remain operating .
The project consists of a potable water main rehabilitation of approximately 1400 feet of 16" schedule
20 steel pipe with 5/16" thick wall. A bypass piping system will provide service to effected customers
during construction, along with traffic control, asphalt and concrete removal and replacement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A bid opening was held September 18, 2008 and the following bids were received:
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
Bid Tabulation Sheet
UNION AVENUE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION BID
BID OPENING WILL BE SEPT. 18, 2008
RESULTS OF THE BID AND
THE ENGLEWOOD CITY ENGINEER'S
RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PRESENTED
TO THE BOARD AT THEW ATER BOARD MEETING
SEPT. 23, 2008
Ultraviolet irradiation systems are rapidly gaining traction in the
water treatment, wastewater treatment, and water reuse markets
B e rtrand W Dus sert
!though ultraviolet (UV) irradiation
technolo gy has been available for
more tha n a century, it only gained
prominence in the water management
field during the last 2 decades. Now,
UV irradiation is a hot growth area in
the water treatment market.
The worldwide water market for UV tech-
nologies currently is estimated to be worth a
total of $500 million . This includes municipal
wastewater treatment ($120 million), municipal
drinking water treatment ($120 million), indus-
trial pretreatment ($100 million), commercial
use ($80 million), and consumer-residential use
($80 million). This market is forecast to grow to
more than $900 million by 2010 (assuming a 10 %
growth rate for the industrial , commercial, and
• WE&T • WWW .WEF .O RG/MAGAZ I NE
consumer-residential markets and a 15 % to 20 %
growth rate for the municipal water and wastewa-
ter treatment markets).
Prompted by Milwaukee
While chemical disinfectants, such as chlorine,
can treat bacteria and viruses effectively, they are
less effective against protozoa (such as Giardia)
and almost useless against Cryptosporidium . The
1993 Cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Milwaukee ,
which resulted in more than 100 deaths, prompt-
ed water management professionals to find more
reliable technologies for inactivating or removing
Cryptosporidium from water.
The late-1990s discovery that UV irradiation
readily inactivates Cryptosporidium created a
huge opportunity for UV disinfection systems in
\
the drinking water market. Cryptosporidium oo-
cysts are prevalent in surface waterbodies, such
as rivers and reservoirs, worldwide. Ozonation
and membrane filtration also are effective at
removing Cryptosporidium, but UV irradiation is
much less capital-and operations-intensive.
(Drinking water utilities are not the only ones
concerned about Cryptosporidium. Numerous
Cryptosporidium outbreaks in swimming pools
have been documented recently.)
Multiple Uses
UV irradiation typically is used to disinfect
water (inactivate waterborne pathogens, such as
bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi). However,
it also can be used to remove chemicals from
water.
In high-purity applications (pharmaceutical
and semiconductor industries), UV irradiation
is used alone (a process called photolysis) to
remove total organic carbon from water. In other
commercial and industrial applications, pho-
tolysis is used to remove chemical disinfectants,
such as chlorine , chloramines, and ozone, from
water.
In advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), UV
irradiation is combined with chemical oxidants
(such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide) or semi-
conductors (such as titanium dioxide) to oxidize
refractory chemicals, including chlorinated
solvents, taste and odor compounds, nitrosodi-
methylamine (NOMA), methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), endocrine-disrupting chemicals , and
pharmaceuticals.
In addition, UV irradiation effectively reduces
chloramine levels in swimming pools . A chlorine-
disinfection byproduct, chloramines produce the
"chlorine smell " in indoor pools . Recent studies
indicate that chloramines contribute to dry skin,
burning eyes , and respiratory ailments. Such
problems especially affect children , professional
swimmers, lifeguards , and other people who
work in or around swimming pools .
UV Benefits and Limitations
UV irradiation is an alluring treatment technol-
ogy for various water markets . It handles a wide
variety of microorganisms (bacteria, viruses,
fungi , and protozoa, such as Cryptosporidium and
Giardia). It does not use chemicals, so it is not
corrosive, susceptible to accidental hazardous
overdosing, or subject to chemical transport,
storage, handling, or removal rules. It also does
not require hazardous-material management
plans .
UV irradiation systems are compact and easy
---..,~. -. ------_.-:---
to retrofit into existing treatment plants. They
have low overall capital and operating costs, and
are easy to maintain and operate. UV systems
also are safe , environmentally friendly, and do
not form disinfection byproducts. The process is
not pH-dependent and does not affect the water's
aesthetic qualities (taste, odor, or color).
However, the efficacy of UV irradiation sys-
tems is difficult to monitor during operations.
Certain viruses (such as adenovirus) require
high UV doses . Also, the technology is not effec-
tive as a preoxidant, as a taste-or odor-control
method, or when treating water containing high
concentrations of solids (such as municipal
wastewater). The lamps contain mercury, and the
process does not leave behind a residual amount
of disinfectant (to handle any pathogens that may
exist in the distribution system).
Continually Improving
UV irradiation systems have evolved over the
years. Earlier systems used low-pressure, low-
output mercury-gas discharge lamps. They were
expensive and difficult to install (large footprint
and headloss), operate (sensitive to changes in
water temperature), and maintain (numerous
lamps to manually clean and replace).
Technological developments have reduced
the effect of water temperature and increased
lamp life and power. Today's UV systems use
either low-pressure (low-output, high-output , or
amalgam) or medium-pressure lamps . The choice
of lamp depends on the application.
Meanwhile, manufacturers continue to work to
reduce overall operating costs and extend lamp
life. For example, costs should drop as a result of
continuous hydraulics enhancements that lead to
better UV dose distribution in both closed-vessel
and open-channel systems.
Low-pressure amalgam lamps currently can
last as long as 15,000 hours. Manufacturers are
trying to develop electrodeless lamps that can
Lamp Improve-
ments have
made ultra -
violet Irradiation
systems more
attractive.
JU NE 2 008 .
!
i
.,
r
,' 'I
'f'
I
'
I
'• ~ !·
I il
ii r· '
,.•
1,.
! ' ;;i.
' ' I
I I ;. I
.~ I
~ I
I
Was tewat er
treatme nt plants
typically use verti-
cal open-channel
ultraviolet syst ems .
last 30,000 hours or longer, using such technolo-
gies as microwave UV. Newly developed coatings
also should extend lamp life .
Eventually, mercury-free UV lamps may be-
come commercially available if regulators ad-
dress the perceived environmental concern
about mercury in light bulbs. Other options
include broadband xenon pulsed lamps , narrow-
band di e lectri c barrier discharge excimer lamps ,
a nd light-emitting diodes (LEDs). To succeed,
however, such lamps will have to overcome
major hurdles , such as high cost, low power,
short life, and poor UVC efficiency (conversion
of electricity into UV light).
Regu lat ion -Driven Marke t
Before the Milwaukee outbreak, few water
treatment plants in North America used UV for
disinfection . Today, New York City ; Vancouver,
British Columbia; Seattle; Cincinnati; and other
large municipalities either use or are installing
UV irradiation systems in their treatment plants.
Most use UV technologies as part of a multiple-
barrier approach, in which several complemen-
tary technologies are combined to make the
overall water treatment process safer and more
efficient.)
By 2010 , North America's water treatment,
• WE&T • WWW.WEF.ORG /MAGAZ I NE
wastewater treatment, and water reuse sectors
are expected to make up about 45 % of the grow-
ing worldwide market for UV irradiation systems .
Other growth markets include Europe (waste-
water treatment), the Middle East (wastewater
treatment and water reuse), and the Asia-Pacific
region -primarily China (wastewater treatment)
and Australia (water reuse).
Regulations greatly affect UV market growth in
both Europe and the United States . Th e European
Bathing Water Directive , the Water Framework
Directive , and the Integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control Directive are just a few of the many
statutes driving the UV market in Europe.
In the United States , the Stage 2 Microbials-
Disinfection Byproducts cluster of rules, which
address the trade-offs between disinfection
and th e byproducts of chemical disinfec-
tion , is expected to lead to widespread use of
UV irradiation systems . These rules includ e
the Long-Term Two Enhanced Surfac e Water
Treatm ent Rule (LT2ESWTR) and the Stage 2
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated LT2ESWTR in 2006 ; it primarily
targets Cry ptosporidium, which is prevalent in
most surface water supplies and in groundwater
influenced by surface water. The agency also
.l
. I
.~~
' "
promulgated Stage 2 DBPR in 2006 ; this regulates
harmful disinfection byproducts .
In addition, EPA promulgated the Groundwater
Rule in 2006 ; its effect on the UV market is
unclear. The rule requires that groundwater
be treated via a multiple-barrier system to en-
sure that virtually all bacteria and viruses are
removed before the public drinks the water. It
also requires that disinfection processes reliably
achieve 4-Iog inactivation or removal of viruses .
One pathogen often found in groundwater -ad-
enovirus -is particularly UV-resistant For most
waterborne pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, and
most viruses), a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 is consid-
ered largely sufficient for 4-log inactivation; how-
ever, the dose must be more than 100 mJ /cm2 for
adenovirus removal. That said , Duke University
(Durham, N.C.) researchers have found that
medium-pressure UV lamps can achieve a 4-log
inactivation of adenovirus at a much lower dose
(less than 60 mJ /cm2).
Meanwhile , stricter regulations for trans-
porting, storing, and handling toxic chemicals,
such as chlorine (primarily chlorine gas), have
speeded up the adoption of UV irradiation
systems . About 50 % of all new wastewater treat-
ment plants built in the United States use UV
technologies.
Because the efficacy of UV treatment is diffi-
cult to monitor during operations, all UV irradia-
tion systems must be validated and certified for
various applications to ensure that the proper UV
dose is delivered at all times. Certifiers typically
use bioassay (biodosimetry) testing to validate
reactor performance (dose delivery).
To meet EPA's LT2ESWTR requirements , for
example, UV reactors must be validated for
Cryptosporidium , Giardia , or virus inactivation .
Other drinking water requirements for UV sys-
tems can be found in DVGW W294 (Germany),
ONORM (Austria), EPA's UV Disinfection Guidance
Manual, and the National Water Research Institute
(Fountain Valley, Calif.) guidelines.
In water reuse applications , UV systems must
comply with the Title 22 guidelines specified by
the National Water Research Institute .
In wastewater treatment applications, more
and more engineers now specify UV systems that
have undergone bioassay testing , because of the
uncertainty associated with existing mathemati-
cal models.
Opportunities Abound
In the past 5 years, the number of companies
specializing in UV technology has shrunk as ITT
(White Plains, N.Y.) acquired Wedeco ; Danaher
(Washington , D.C.) acquired Trojan Technologies
and Aquafine; Siemens Water Technologies
(Warrendale, Pa.) acquired Sunlight Systems;
and Severn Trent Services (Fort Washington, Pa.)
acquired Quay Technologies. This consolidation
trend is expected to continue because small ,
successful niche players provide excellent op-
portunities for large corporations wishing to get
in on the UV action.
New applications for UV-related AOPs proba-
bly will develop as concerns arise over chemicals
in the environment (such as endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and algal toxins).
Such AOPs also would become more prevalent
in both drinking water and water reuse applica-
tions.
In the years ahead, UV irradiation systems are
expected to become more prevalent in the food
and beverage, biopharmaceutical, semiconduc-
tor, and fish hatchery and aquaculture industries .
Other industries are expected to use it to treat
their cooling-tower and ballast waters .
The municipal market for UV technologies
(water treatment, wastewater treatment, and
water reuse) is projected to grow steadily. As
concerns over water scarcity and droughts in-
crease, water reuse will become a more accept-
able practice in arid regions, such as the Middle
East, Southeast Asia , Europe, and certain parts of
the United States . Both UV irradiation and mem-
brane filtration probably will be used to reclaim
water for reuse .
Demand for UV technologies also is expected
to increase in both residential and commercial
drinking water markets worldwide as a result of
renewed public awareness of municipal water
quality issues and increasing concerns over
bottled water's quality, cost, and environmen-
tal effects . Potential commercial users include
hospitals (to control Legionella, for example),
office buildings , schools , restaurants , and camp-
grounds . In these applications, UV systems will
be either point-of-use or point-of-entry devices.
Meanwhile, the United Nations and other
international organizations are encouraging
UV-system manufacturers to develop simple,
inexpensive UV technologies that can be made
available to the more than 1 billion people who
currently lack access to clean drinking water.
B ertrand W. Dussert is global product
manager for ultraviolet irradiation technologies
in the Vineland, NJ., office of Siemens Water
Technologies (Warrendale, Pa.).
JU NE 20 0 8 •
q
!:
1 11
i
II
II
ii
i;
!
!
i:
i
I
Ii
i
1.
.1/ I!
I
!
i
I
!I
ir ii
ATT. 5
BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
D avid G. Hill
Partner
Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq .
City of Englewood
I 000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-0110
Re: May Invoice
Dear Dan :
1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601
bhgrlaw.com
June 6 , 2008
dgh@bhgrlaw.com
Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for May I , 2008,
through May 30, 2008 , in the amount of $74,883 .07 , with a total for the year of$408,202.39.
The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below :
I Name I Amount I No. I
General (No Charged this Month) $ 981.00 001
FRICO (02CW105) Change and Related Cases 66, 156.08 504
CCWCD (01CW264) Fulton Ditch 1,327.00 506
Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood's
involvement in all cases which appear on out bills each month, as well as a brief summary of the
work performed by this firm during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions
with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices:
Introduction. Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client
communication. Please keep it confidential.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6, 2008
Page 2
Again, almost all of the work relates to the Denver/FRICO 1999 Agreement, the closure of
the Chatfield reservoir outlet gates, and the FRI CO/United/East Cherry Creek change. (All of them
are related, of course.)
The trial ended about noon on Tuesday (May 13). We will not have any decision from the
Judge until maybe September; see schedule of written closing arguments below. But here are my
impressions and some rulings.
SIGNIFICANCE TO ENGLEWOOD
Englewood faces increasing quality problems because Denver intends to greatly expand its
exchanges to Chatfield Reservoir. When Denver exchanges to Chatfield, the Chatfield gates close
and hardness, manganese and other quality problems soar at Union Avenue on the river. In addition,
the 1999 Agreement between Denver and FRICO will enable Denver to divert more winter water
from Bear Creek into Marston Reservoir, which will reduce Englewood's quality at its Bear Creek
diversion point (McBroom headgate). In the past the water quality in Bear Creek has often been
much better than that in the river when the Chatfield gates are closed, and Englewood has used good
Bear Creek water to blend with South Platte water. But good quality in Bear Creek may not last.
Englewood's "escape" from quality problems are the 1948 McLellan right and the 90CW220
exchange from Bear Creek to City ditch. Both allow Englewood to divert from Chatfield, where
quality is much better. The Chatfield water can be blended with river water to reach acceptable
quality . '
In addition, the McLellan right and the 220 exchange provide a good deal of water to sell to
Centennial. If Englewood can continue to meet its delivery "thresholds" with Centennial, the price
of the water sold to Centennial will jump markedly at the end of 2012, from a present price of $108
per acre foot to perhaps $3 75. So it's important to keep deliveries to Cente1mial above the
thresholds.
There are two related palis to the FRICO case. The first is the expansion of the 1885
Burlington storage and direct flow rights. The second is the 1999 Agreement between Denver and
FRICO . Both create injuries to the McLellan right, and the 1999 Agreement creates injuries to the
220 exchange and the Bear Creek diversions .
Finally, the over-diversions on the various rights at the Burlington headgate have been so
extreme, over the years, that in times of drought they could injure Englewood's 1865 Nevada right,
one of Englewood's core rights.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6, 2008
Page 3
BURLINGTON EXPANSION
The rights at the Burlington headgate make well over fifty percent of the calls against the
McLellan right. So if we can reduce their calls we will get a good deal more water.
The 1885 Burlington storage right and the 1885 Burlington direct flow right were effectively
"sold" to FRICO in 1909, after which FRICO dramatically expanded the geographical area of use,
the gross diversions and the consumptive use. (Both Burlington and FRICO were originally
speculative land and water companies, with original promoters who sold stock and to-be-irrigated
land under the ditches.)
My partner Jon Banashek and Kate Griffin of Martin and Wood put on a "slide show" of the
Burlington usage before the FRlCO expansion, using ancient ditch company minutes, water
commissioner records, testimony before the referee in the FRI CO and Henrylyn adjudications, and
ancient maps. They had worked on it for days. Their presentation got rave reviews from the Court
Reporter (best he'd ever seen), Aurora, the Division Engineer, and (reluctantly) Henrylyn. Our
assertion is that the Burlington right is limited to what existed prior to the FRICO takeover. The
referee in the FRI CO adjudication of 1918 so held, on a now-non-binding point, but his findings are
quite persuasive and the Judge in the present case actually knew that referee. We are quite hopeful
that a drastic reduction in diversions and consumption from that sought by Applicants for the shares
transferred to East Cherry Creek will result. Ultimately that will cause reduced calls.
The work needed to assemble the "slide show" was enormous. FRICO disclosed over
20,000 pages of additional historic documents to the opposers on March 20, 2008. Those documents
were due in May of 2007. The Maiiin and Wood staff and our staff spent several all-night or nearly
all-night sessions and several weekends going through them. Lots of nuggets were found. The
significant documents we retrieved from that great mass helped enormously in the presentation by
Kate and Jon.
With great good fortune (and considerable preparation), I managed to do a very effective
cross examination of the FRI CO expert, Duane Helton. I got him to confess a lot of problems with
his consumptive use ai1d gross diversion analyses, and got compliments from the bystanders,
particularly Jim Hall (Division Engineer) and Aurora.
So Jon and I feel good about the Burlington historic expansion case.
In addition, a new Burlington headgate has been built without benefit of a decree. It will take
more water thai1 the old headgate (these people miss no opportunity to "take a little more"). We and
Public Service are seeking to constrain diversion to the old level.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6 , 2008
Page 4
Finally , the Burlington people have historically pumped a lot of Metro effluent into the
Burlington canal , when their rights are in priority. We sought the continuation of pumping at historic
levels, since pumping reduces calls from the headgate.
Aurora made a separate presentation asserting that the Applicant 's farm efficiency rates were
too high , resulting in exaggerated consumptive use.
THE 1999 AGREEMENT
The 1999 Agreement took off the call for the 1885 Burlington storage right, which diverts
at the Burlington headgate. It substituted the 1909 Barr Lake call for the 1885 call. Denver 's
upstream rights at Chatfield and Strontia have priorities between 1885 and 1909. The agreement was
intended to allow Denver to divert on those rights but to keep McLellan and others from dive1iing ,
by substituting the 1909 call for the 1885 call.
Denver has been diverting 4,000 to 6,000 acre feet at Strontia Springs and Cheesman as a
result of the agreement. The 1885 storage right still fills, because it is the most senior storage right
on the river and it can't be called out. It just takes a lot longer to fill. The extended fill time injures
McLellan by putting off the time when McLellan will come into priority because the four storage
rights which divert at the Burlington headgate are filled . And it causes rebound calls from reservoirs
below the Burlington headgate, because the river is shut off while the 1885 is filling. (The "shutoff'
causes calls from downstream reservoirs which extend for some time.)
The extra Denver diversions upstream reduce the flow at Chatfield, which reduces
opportunity for McLellan diversions and exercise of the 220 exchange to City Ditch.
Finally, Denver tells Joe Pershin that they intend to take more water from Bear Creek. The
absence of the 1885 call will enable Denver to dive1i from Bear Creek 01rits 1892 Marston reservoir
right, which will reduce Bear Creek flows and quality.
So Denver gets an additional amount upstream, the 1885 right still fills, and the river gets
shorted. (Denver does not replace its upstream diversions to the 1885 right.)
Denver used to exchange against the 1885 call, which helped us because 1) sometimes they
released the exchange water from Chatfield, which fixed quality, and 2) the exchange caused an
immediate "fill" effect on the 1885 right.
The Judge's rulings before and at trial gave us some modest progress. He stated it was
improper to use the 1909 Ban Lake call to fill the 1885 right. That means that while the 1885 right
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6, 2008
Page 5
is filling, there usually will be no call from the Burlington headgate. The 1885 fill generally takes
place in November and December, and sometimes January. During that period there are periodic
calls from reservoirs downstream of the Burlington. However, there are also days with no calls from
downstream reservoirs. So McLellan should get some additional diversion time every winter as a
result.
In addition, the proposed decree submitted by the Applicants called for the upstream Denver
diversions into storage to "paper fill" the 1885 storage right. I e., the upstream diversions by Denver
would be treated as having gone toward fill of the 1885 right, which would cause the 1885 right to
"get off the river" at the correct time. That would eliminate the delayed fill problem, if that
provision survives (see below).
I sought to force Denver to replace some of its diversions above Chatfield, or to leave a flow
in Bear Creek when Marston diverted. My position, in essence, was that Denver took a whole lot
more water upstream, the 1885 right still filled, Englewood and the rest of the river got sh01ied, and
the transaction was unlawful for several reasons. The Judge ruled very strongly against me on that,
partly in a decision on a motion by Denver entered shortly before trial, and partly at trial. The Judge
went so far as to refuse to admit evidence on the amount of water which Denver diverted upstream
during the 1885 fill period, a time during which there used to be a call against Denver from the 1885
right.
We will not have a final ruling for a long time (see below). But if the final ruling does not
include both the preclusion of the 1909 call to fill the 1885, and the paper fill of the 1885 for
Denver's upstream diversions, I would like to discuss an appeal at my expense. I.e., I would not
charge, except for court filing fees and similar expenses. I offer that because I feel ve1y strongly
about it, Englewood has been very good to me over the years, and the appellate brief is already
written, for the most pa.ii.
RULING SCHEDULE
Closing argument at the end of a case usually consists of an oral presentation by the various
lawyers. Judge Klein has said he wants written closing ai·guments, including briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. His schedule is as follows: Applicants submit their closing
by May 30. Opposers (Englewood, Aurora, Central Colorado and Public Service) must make a joint
response by June 20. Then Applicants have an opp01iunity to file a rebuttal argument before July 14.
I doubt we will have a decision before sometime in September, although August is possible.
We will coordinate our joint response with Aurora and the others. We are not necessarily
on the same page with the others on several issues, including Applicants' re-use of seepage and
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6, 2008
Page 6
continued pumping of Metro effluent. Aurora wants to allow reuse of seepage, because Aurora has
bought some ditch shares where seepage is reused; but reuse is clearly unlawful. For inexplicable
reasons Public Service takes the position that Metro pumping in the past was unlawful, even though
it helps Public Service. So we will have separate parts of the joint presentation on those issues.
Again, it's been exhausting. I was in the office every day but three between January 1 and
last Tuesday, and Jon worked terribly hard. I hope it pays off for Englewood.
The remainder of the cases are described below.
1. General (#001): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific
cases . In some instances, the work is not specific to a paiiicular matter. In other instances, the time
spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group
of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various
daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are
not case specific . It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition.
2 . McDonald (92CW152) (#297): This case involves an application for direct flow and
storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest was to monitor the case
to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed motion for substitution of
Sandstone for Fazzio as opposer.
3. Buffalo Park, et al. (94CW290) (#341 ): Applicants seek ground water rights, surface
water rights , change of water rights and an augmentation plan, including exchange for the purpose
of providing augmentation water to four subdivisions located in the Bear Creek/Turkey Creek water
shed in the Evergreen area . Englewood entered this case to preserve return flows from Warrior
Ditch. We have reached a stipulated settlement with applicant and will continue to monitor the case
for compliance with that stipulation. We reviewed order granting stay of bill of costs awarded to
Bear Mountain and order clarifying same.
4. Aurora (98CW458) (#447): Applicant seeks a fully consumable 20 cfs priority for
Englewood's use as a result of the settlement of Thornton's and Westminster's Standley Lake chai1ge
cases. This will be dive1ied as many locations between Union Avenue and High Line Canal.
Englewood entered this case to ensure that the Standley Lake settlement remains intact. We
corresponded with Applicant's counsel regarding unacceptability of this application .
5. Brighton (99CW142) (#457): This case involves water rights for all municipal
purposes from seven tributary wells in the South Platte alluvium. Englewood entered this case to
Daniel L. Brotzman
September 10, 2008
Page2
We received the Judge's ruling in the current FRlCO/United/East Cherry Creek case. We
had a massive victory on the historic use of the FRlCO and Burlington rights. While we do not have
the numbers calculated yet, it appears to me that for change purposes we have cut the 1885
Burlington right by well more than half, which is devastating. This case, coupled with the 2006 case
which for the first time required proper accounting for the FRlCO and Burlington rights, may have
cut their historic use by as much as 25 ,000 acre feet. It is hard to give a precise amount of the
reduction, because for years there was no adequate accounting and it was clear that there were
substantial over-diversions which could not be "tracked."
Again we do not yet have the numbers figured, but it appears we offered perhaps twice as
much in settlement as they got from the trial. The Judge was very hard on them ; More information
is being developed and is being relayed. The Judge directed drafting of a decree to reflect his ruling,
which will require engineering work and negotiations among the lawyers.
These cases relate primarily to protection of Englewood's 1948 McLellan reservoir right and
Englewood's use of its Bear Creek exchange to supply Englewood and Centennial (Highlands
Ranch), although there is some impact on Englewood's more senior rights. Historically McLellan
and the Bear Creek exchange and aug plan have been important because they enable Englewood to
meet the requirements for a bigjun1p in the price for the water which Englewood sells to Centennial.
If the targets are met, there will be a big jump in price in a little over four years . Those rights have
become very important for another reason, however.
It is now clear that during the non-irrigation months Denver intends to close the Chatfield
gates as often as possible. Denver is building a pump station at Chatfield to take water to its Marston
plant, and Denver has applied to exchange water to Chatfield from its new gravel pits near Brighton.
Denver also intends to exchange from Big Dry Creek (a creek by that name which enters the river
below Brighton), using its return flows from Broomfield water. Between the pump station and the
new exchanges, Denver will close the Chatfield gates most of the time unless we can protect the
McLellan right and the Bear Creek right. Denver is also enhancing its raw water treatment plant at
Marston Reservoir which will enable it to use more low-quality water from Bear Creek, to the injury
of Englewood's Bear Creek exchange and aug plan. Denver will get more Bear Creek water because
of the 1999 Agreement (see below).
When the Chatfield gates are closed, hardness in the river at Englewood soars and becomes
almost unusable without dilution with water with low hardness. The low-hardness water has to come
from Chatfield. Only the McLellan right (and sometimes the Bear Creek exchange) can take water
from Chatfield in the non-irrigation season when Denver seeks to exchange. Englewood could build
the facilities to treat for hardness at the Allen/Fonda plant, but the amount of sludge with radio
Daniel L. Brotzman
September 10, 2008
Page 3
nucleides would be almost tripled, as I understand it. (That is only a rough estimate I received from
Joe Pershin.) It is expensive to haul and dispose of that sludge.
So we need to try to protect the McLellan and Bear Creek rights.
While we obtained an exceptional victory on lawful use of the FRICO /Burlington rights, we
suffered two losses on which I will probably recommend an appeal. The first is that the Judge said
that FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn could not pump effluent from the Metro Sewer pumps into the
Burlington canal to satisfy their rights. That pumping has been going on since 1968 or earlier and
it provides a lot of the water to FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn. Without that water, their calls will
increase a lot. I think we can appeal rather inexpensively, and we have a reasonably good case ,
especially since the pumping was forced upon FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn by the imposition of the
Metro Sewer District, and was recognized by a Supreme Court case . It is likely that others will
appeal , it seems to me . The time for filing briefs is a long ways off. The Judge will not enter a final
appealable order for some time, since no decree has yet been prepared and there will be controversy
over the ultimate form of the decree.
The second loss , which we have been aware of for some time , is a ruling on an issue of law
about the 1999 Agreement between Denver and FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn. That agreement
enables Denver to take substantially more water at Chatfield and on Bear Creek during the non-
irrigation season, by eliminating the historic 1885 call from the Burlington Canal headgate. Before
the trial, the Judge had ruled in substance that Englewood had no legal recourse because the 1999
Agreement was a "no call" agreement and not an injurious subordination agreement. There is no
case law describing the agreement in question as a "no call" agreement, and indeed there is no case
law anywhere in Colorado concerning "no call" agreements. Similar agreements have been treated
by the case law as subordination agreements . I think the Judge's ruling was a mistake, and he made
further mistakes in dealing with the issue at trial. I think we have a good appeal here, and I have
offered to do the appeal at no charge for my time, but with charge for expenses and any time of
associates or other partners that I find to be absolutely necessary . I think the briefing should be
relatively simple. It was done for the pretrial motion practice, in large measure. As to this issue, a
notice of appeal is due roughly October 12. We will be discussing the appeal with you.
The Cannon case is a change case by Aurora on the Platteville Ditch, a direct flow irrigation
right which is senior to a number of Englewood's core rights. There has been serious unlawful
expansion of this right. However, there are several other strong opposers who are going to try the
case on expansion and other issues. In light of that, and the budget situation., we elected not to
participate in the trial. We did participate in unsatisfactory settlement negotiations, and in a study
and numerous discussions of the expansion . We will participate in further settlement discussions ,
if there are any .
MEMO
TO: John Bock, Utilities
FROM: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
DATE:
RE:
September 8, 2008
Review of Contract for Consulting Service to do a
Rate Study for Water and Sewer Rates with
Red Oak Consulting
Red Oak provided their version of "Standard Terms and Conditions for Professional
Services , a 7-page contract for approximately $57 ,000 . The scope of the contract is to
provide "professional financial consulting services ".
The following are comments on the contract:
Section 4.1 provides for a draft report within three months of receipt of the Client
Notice to Proceed. There is no time frame for final performance that should be
addressed.
4.2 and 4 .5 discuss equitable adjustment of compensation should there be a delay.
The criteria is very vague and I would recommend clarification.
4.4 makes no sense. It defines completeness of performance as completion of
Red Oak's services will occur upon completion of the Services. The second
"services" is in caps and that should be clarified -completion of the services
described in Attachment A , Scope of Services -"to the satisfaction of the client".
5.5 Collection. Attorney fees and other reasonable costs , the following should be
added to that paragraph: "if so ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction".
Section 6.2.1 provides that it is secret and confidential. One phrase should be
added to the end of that-"subject to statutory requirements for open records
24-72-101 et seq C.R.S ."
6.3 Provides that "Red Oak shall retain ownership and property interests in the
Service Instruments whether or not Client completes the Project and Red Oak
shall retain sole ownership or pre-existing proprietary property. (Is this ok with
Stu?)
6.3.2 There is a typo. It provides that copies of documents that may be relied
upon by the Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies)
that are signed or sealed by the Client. That doesn 't make any sense. It should be
signed or sealed by Red Oak which would show that the Client, i.e. the City, can
rely upon those hard copies.
6.5 Limitation of Liability. While we do allow some limitations on liability for
professional services, this complete blanket limitation of liability is not
acceptable. Regarding Red Oak's negligence, breach of contract or warranty to
allow Red Oak to limit their liability, it needs to be limiting their liability for any
damages as a result of the City's actions, not theirs.
With those comments, the remainder of the Professional Services agreement is legally
acceptable.
bb
ATT.6
City of Englewood
Utilities Department
Water Ente rprise Fund
Demonstration of Rate Increases
Water Rate Increases with the Inclusion of $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs
Assumes 6% Annual Increase in O&M
2009 7%
2010 7%
2011 7%
2012 7%
2013 7%
Water Rate Increases with the Inclusion of $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs
Assumes 4% Annual Increase in O&M
2009 7%
2010 7%
2011
2012
2013
7%
5%
5%
Water Rate Increases excluding $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs
Assumes 6% Annual Increase in O&M
2009 7%
2010 7%
20 11 7%
2012 6%
2013 6%
Water Rate Increases excluding $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs
Assumes 4% Annual Increase in O&M
2009 7%
2010 6%
2011 6%
2012 4%
2013 4%
(' ~ -~ ::. \,:.'---~ t~ ~-·-_,,