HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-14 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 2009 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. LICENSE -CABIN MEADOW TRANSMOUNT AIN DIVERSION PIPE.
(ATT. 2)
3. LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -
DISCHARGE PERMIT RENEWAL SUMMARY. (ATT. 3)
4. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE DATED JUNE 5, 2009 FROM DAVID HILL.
(ATT. 4)
5 ENGLEWOOD POST OFFICES UPDATE. (ATT . 5)
6. LETTER RESPONDING TO INQUIRY FROM ROBERT RODEFELD AT 7713
GRAPE COURT. (ATT. 6)
7. ANNUAL BOARD AND COMMISSION APPRECIATION NIGHT -AUG. 10,
2009. (ATT. 7)
8. OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
June 9, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 5 :03 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Oakley, Habenicht
Bums, Clark, Moore
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
John Bock, Utilities Administration
Manager
1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 2009 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received a copy of the minutes of the May 12,
2009 meeting.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Water and Sewer Board
approval of the minutes of the May 12, 2009
Water and Sewer Board minutes .
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Oakley, Habenicht
None
Bums, Clark, Moore
2 . WASTEWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
The Board received a copy of the proposed Wastewater Collection System Maintenance
Agreement. The standard form will be used with various sanitation districts connected to
the Englewood collection system. Englewood's wastewater collection crew will provide
routine maintenance, repair and replacement services for the sewer collection facilities.
The term of the agreement will be for one year, and if both parties agree at the end of the
year, the agreement can be renewed in three year increments. Englewood has the option
of discontinuing maintenance services by providing sixty days written notice.
A question was raised about Englewood's maintenance crews competing with private
enterprises . Mr. Fonda explained the practical and economical advantages of having a
City crew for maintaining the inside City and district's sewer mains.
Mr. Woodward moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To approve the general format of the
standard Wastewater Collection System
Maintenance Agreement for use with the
various sanitation districts connected to the
Englewood transmission system.
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Oakley, Habenicht
None
Burns, Clark, Moore
3. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL.
The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update
dated May 5, 2009 . Stu discussed developments in water litigation cases in which
Englewood is involved.
4. ARTICLE FROM JUNEAU EMPIRE DATED MAY 26, 2009, "WHAT NOT TO
FLUSH."
The Board received a copy of an article from the Juneau Empire, "What not to flush,"
dated May 26, 2009 . While on vacation, Stu read this article in an Alaskan newspaper,
which illustrates problems that sewer systems encounter in coastal areas with lift stations.
5. "WATER RATES TO RISE," FROM PLATTE CANYON WATER AND
SANITATION DISTRICT PUBLICATION.
The Board received a copy of the Your Water publication from the Platte Canyon Water
and Sanitation District. Stu discussed the Littleton Sewer Rate Coalition and what
constitutes fair and equitable rates .
6. DELINQUENT WATER BILLS AT ENGLEWOOD POST ALF ACILITIES
(USPS).
The Board received a memo dated June 4, 2009 from John Bock, Utilities Manager of
Administration, discussing the delinquent bills at the USPS facilities at 3330 S.
Broadway and 925 W. Lehigh Ave. The unpaid balances are $1,156.94 and $1,615.07
respectively. The Englewood City Attorney recommended notifying the USPS of the
City's stand, red tagging the facilities and turning the water services off if payment is not
received.
It was proposed to red tag the post offices on June 23 and turn off water service on June
30, 2009. The Board concurred.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. Higday seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
To red tag the USPS facilities at 3330 S .
Broadway and 925 W. Leigh Ave. on June
23, 2009 and turn off the water service by
June 30, 2009 if payment is not received.
Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Oakley, Habenicht
None
Burns, Clark, Moore
Motion carried .
The meeting adjourned at 6 :40 p.m.
The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board will be held Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 5 :00
p.m. at the Community Development Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
Date
September 8, 2009
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
License -Cabin Meadow
Transmountain Diversion
Pipe Crossing Agreement
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None.
RECOMMENDED ACT ION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their July 14, 2009 meet ing, recommended
Council approval of the License -Cabin Meadow Transmountain Diversion Pipe Crossing
Agreement.
BACKGROUND , ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
David and Judith Huete r submitted a license agreement to install a driveway over the City of
Englewood 's rights-of-way for the Cabin Meadow Transmountain Diversion Project, which is
located in Grand County across from the Winter Park Ski area. In order to accomplish this, a
license agreement will be required . A legal description is included in the crossing agreement
and a map of the project is attached.
Our pipe is in a county road, and the adjacent owner's proposed road will cross the rights of
way but will not actually cross the existing pipe . The pipe is used as the outlet for Meadow
Creek Reservoir, which is part of Englewood's raw water rights.
The Licensee expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature
to person or property caused by the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in
connection with the encroachment into the Cabin Meadow Creek Tranmountain Diversion pipe
right-of-way provided by the Licensee. The City reserves the right to make full use of the
property necessary in the operation of the Cabin Meadow Transmountain Diversion pipe or
any other of its facilities or installation within the City's rights-of-way.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
License -Cabin Meadow Transmountain Diversion Pipe Crossing Agreement
Bill for Ordinance
LICENSE -CADIN MEADOW TRANSMOUNT AIN _QIVTIRSTOK PTP._13
CROSSING AGREEMENT
THIS LICP.NSF. AGR F.EMF.NT, made and entered into a.<> of this 1 f':: dny of ,Ti, ........ -.{E-----
' 2009, by and between the CITY Oft ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation or the
State of Colorado, herein referred to as .. Cit}"' and David & Judith Huctcr, herein rderred
to as "Licensee1
'.
WITNESSI:!TH: The City without any warranty of 1t~ title or interest whatsoever, hereby
aulhori:.e.cs Liccnsct:, its successor, ~ssigns, Lo install a <lriwway access over the City's
rights-of-way for the Cabin Meadow Tmnsmount.nin Diversion PrQjcct, described as a
parcel of land situated in the N\Vl/4 SW li4 of Section 24, Township IS, Range 75W of
the Sixth P.M., County of Grand, State of Colorado.
I. Any constiuction contemplated or perfrmned under this License shall comply
with and confonn to standards fonnulated by Grand County and the Director of
Utilities of the City o.nd such constmction shall be performed and compklc<l
according to these standards.
2. The licensee shall notify the City's Director of Utilities at least Llm.:c (3) <lays
prior to the t1me of commencement of the construction of, or any repairs made to>
Li<.:unsc1;:'s driveway a<.:uess so lhal thu City may, in its discretion, inspect such
operations. The Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance or the
installation.
3. The City slrnJI have the right to maintain, install, repair, remove or rulocal<:: the
Cabin Meadow Transmountain Diversion Pipe or any other of its facilities or
installations within the City's rights-of-way, at any lime and in such manner as
the Cily deems necessary or convenient. The City resen:es the exclusive right to
<.:ontrol all easements and installations. In the event the driveway access should
interfere with any foture use of the City 's rights-of-\vay by the City , the Liccns<::c
shall, upon reques t and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange, or remove its
instn!lations so as not to interfere with any such use.
4. Only Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles legal motor vehicle loads are
allowcu lo cross or lravcrsu the City's righls-of-wc.\y.
5 . Any repair or replacement of tmy City in~t.nllat.ion mude necessary, in the opinion
of the City's Director of Utilities, because of the construc..'tion of the driveway
access or other appurtenant installation thereof shall be thadc at the sole expense
of the Licensee.
6 . The rights and . prh:ilcgcs gi~ntcd in this License shall be subjec.t to prior
agreements, licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shaU be the
Licenst-e's sole re.spunsibiJily LO <fotcrrnine the existence of said documents or
conflicting uses or instJlllntions .
7. Licensee shall indemnify an<l save hamuC\ss the City, its of'Jiccrs anc.l cmpluyccs,
against any and all cla.ims, damages, actions or causes of action and expenses to
which it or they may be subjected by reason of said drive\vay access bdng within
Lhe rights-of-way of the City or by reason of any work done or omission made by
T .icensee, it~ agents or employees, in connection with the construction,
n::placemenl, mainl1,,"JJ.ancc or rt.'Pair or said installation.
8. It is expressly agreed that in case of Lic::ensee's hreach of any of the within
promises, the City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof~ or sue for
damages resulting from such breach.
9. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee
lo Urnt extent shall terminate, but its obligation to indcnmify and save harmless
the City, its officers and employees, shall not tenninate in any event.
Jn granting the above n.uthori7Jtt.ion, the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property involved as may be. necessary or convenit.nt in the operation or the Cabin
Meadow TransmountainDiversion System under the cont.rol of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first
above written .
ClTY OF ENGLE WOOD
By; -
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of P.nglewood
Chairman
Englewood Waler and Sewer Board
The undersigned has read the foregoing License and agrees that they will accept aml will
abide by nil the t.em1s and conditions thereof.
DAVID & JUDITH RUETER
544 COUNTY ROAD 8 #302
BOX 1450
FRASER , CO 80442-1450
JACQUELINE ERICKSON
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
My Commission Expires tt (Z..z..--/ ;2.-v 1 'b
..... I "
2· Alum . Cop
DWV.O PLS 16398
---p----
23
26
_<o~
24
25
Denver Water Board Road
and Pipeline
Fraser River Diversion
Project D-027914
Exception
Amended
60' Easement
Rec. No. 99005811
---~----
DavidC.
Rec .
--------------, ---
2-Alum . COp
C,, OWWD PLS 18398 . •
, ~"""--_...;; . Exception
1364.2-4'.
' ..... ,..._,,, I
... ,1 ..... ,
Denver Water
Board
60' Easement
Denver Water Board
Int. Ref.# 970125
;... --!l) ,.., ....
l.LJ
' '
N
1
x
S!4 Cor. Se'\ 2 4
'-.~· USGLO Bross .Eap
' 1933 ....
' ',,, ''X ' , ' ·. -,,
'\ .
A r-r. 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Woods Gary Sears
Littleton City Manager Englewood City Manager
Charlie Blosten Rick Kahm
Littleton Public Services Director Englewood Public Works Director
FROM: Mary Gardner, Regulatory Programs Administrator
DATE: June 23, 2009
SUBJECT: Draft Discharge Permit Renewal Summary
The Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) draft permit for discharge from the
Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant was public noticed on May 22, 2009. The Water
Quality Control Division (Division) granted an extension of the public comment period until July 6,
2009 as requested by the Cities of Littleton and Englewood. As part of the public comment process ,
the draft permit and associated fact sheet have been reviewed, and comments and requests have been
documented for submission to the Division by July 6, 2009 . A summary of the key successes and
challenges of the draft permit are attached for your review, as well as a draft letter from Mark
Wagner summarizing the legal authority for permitting.
Attachments
PERMIT RENEWAL SUMMARY
This is a summary of the main successes and challenges identified during full review of the Draft Colorado Discharge Permit System
Permit for the L/E Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit (No. C00032999) and Fact Sheet. A full comment letter with detailed comments
and requests for changes to the Permit and Fact Sheet will be submitted to the Water Quality Control Division a s part of the public
comment period process.
Draft Permit Successes
•
•
•
•
•
Overall, the permit is well-prepared .
Received tiered permit limits based on discharge flow from the WWTP .
The Commission approved the seasonal temperature shift and temperature temporary modification through 2014 that L/E
requested. In addition, there are no temperature limits in the draft permit and a compliance schedule was provided to install
monitoring equipment. Temperature monitoring equipment is already in place.
A compliance schedule is provided for alternate disinfection in the draft permit with a favorable effluent limitation for fecal
coliform. L/E expects that the Division will also allow a compliance schedule for ammonia, and that its omission in the draft
permit was likely an oversite.
Effluent limits for copper, silver, and lindane were removed from the draft permit, based on previous antidegradation efforts .
Copper and lindane are included as report only parameters .
1of2
C:\D oc uments an d Se ttings\cburrage\Local Settings\ Temporary Inte rne t Fil es\OLK 14C\Permit Ren ewal Summary for Supervisory Commi ttee 6_25 _09.doc
Draft Permit Challenges*
Issue Challenge How it is being addressed If accepted If rejected Potential cost
Total Received Requesting to collect data May allow use of alternate Have to rely on methanol to Status Quo.
Inorganic maximum daily for approximately one year carbon sources that may be meet the daily permit limit.
Nitrogen limit for TIN. to recalculate 7-day average less costly or more available
(fIN) to replace the maximum than methanol. Reduces
daily limit, as acknowledged permit liability. May reduce
b y Division in the Fact annual operating costs .
Sheet.
Ammonia Received some Requesting the use of a Provides operational The more stringent limits Increased potential
permit limits previously approved flexibility and minimizes will result in less operational for administrative
(acute and ammonia decay coefficient risk of permit violation. flexibility and higher penalties or fines
chronic) that are that will raise the ammonia Will be able to meet fecal potential for permit from permit
lower than values, especially the acute coliform limits while violations. There could be violations.
Preliminary values. Requesting changing to an alternate issues with disinfection and
Effluent Limits compliance schedule for disinfection system. chlorination effectiveness
(PELs) that were ammonia through 2014. while changing to an
used for process alternate disinfection system.
desil!fi.
Iron Received iron Requesting a longer Will have more time to The compliance schedule Potential effort could
limit that is lower compliance period to examine alternatives, will not be attainable if include pretreatment
than is measured examine the sources of iron control sources, and construction is required. program changes,
in the effluent. and determine whether construct treatment if development of site-
alternative treatment necessary. specific standards for
chemicals (o ther than ferric iron, or additional
sulfate) can be used and/ or treatment for iron.
if treatment is required .
Cyanide Received cyanide Requesting that the permit Will allow time to measure Will require a study of Potential effort could
permit limit. limit be removed because cyanide at newer lower sources of cyanide and include pretreatment
cya nide has not been detection limits to possible controls/BMPs to program changes or
detected in the effluent. determine whether there is limit the cyanide coming into development of site-
reason to have a permit the WWTP. specific standards for
limit. cyanide.
* These are the major issues identified . See "Comments of Draft Permit" for all issues .
2of2
C:\Documents and Settings\cburrage\Local Settin gs\ Temporary Internet Files\OLK14C\Pennit Renewal Summary for Supervisory Committee 6_25_09.doc
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
LIE WWTP Supervisory Committee
Mark J. Wagner
June 16, 2009
Discharge Permits--Legal and Regulatory Framework
This memorandum will provide a brief overview of the basic statutory and regulatory
framework of Colorado discharge permit system, including the authority for setting water quality
standards and implementing those standards in discharge permits. Finally, this memo will also
briefly the discuss the discharge permit application , issuance, and review process .
Federal Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress originally adopted what is now known as the Clean Water Act. 33
USC 1251 et seq . It has been amended from time to time since 1972. The objective of the Clean
Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters ." The Clean Water Act established the goal that the quality of all navigable water
should be suitable for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife , and for
recreation in and on the water. This is commonly referred to as the "fishable, swimmable" goal
of the Clean Water Act.
Consistent with this objective, the Clean Water Act prohibits unpermitted discharges of
pollutants into navigable waters of the United States. A section of the Clean Water Act
establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") under which
discharge permits cou ld be granted by EPA or by states with EPA-approved programs. Any
discharges by point sources, except in compliance with the limits imposed in a discharge permit,
were declared unlawful. The Clean Water Act also required that discharge permits include
effluent limits and compliance schedules that would implement water quality standards
established by the states or EPA.
Colorado Water Quality Control Act
In response to the Clean Water Act, in the mid-1970s the Colorado legislature enacted the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act. §25-8-101 et seq., C.R.S. The Water Quality Control Act
created both the Water Quality Control Commission and the Water Quality Control Division , and
includes an EPA-approved discharge permit program.
The Commission is comprised of nine citizens appointed by the governor with the
consent of the senate. Commission members serve for one to three-year terms and are required
to be appointed so as to reflect various interests and geographical areas in the state . Under the
Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the Commission is responsible for adopting water quality
classifications and standards for surface and ground waters of the state, as well as various
regulations aimed at achieving compliance with those classifications and standards. §25-8-201,
202, C .R.S .
The Division is a state agency comprised of state employees that is responsible for
issuing NPDES-equivalent discharge permits with effluent limits and other terms and conditions
designed to achieve compliance with the water quality standards adopted by the Commission.
Under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, no person may discharge any pollutant a point-
source into waters of the state without having first obtained a permit from the Division to do so .
§25-8-501, C.R.S.
Regulations
Under authority granted it under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the
Commission has adopted various regulations to implement Colorado's water quality control
program as a result of a public rulemaking hearing process . §25-8-402, C .R.S . These regulations
include the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (Regulation No. 31),
regulations setting the water quality standards and use-classifications for each major river basin
of the state (the regulation pertaining to the South Platte River basin is Regulation No. 38),
Discharge Permit Regulation (Regulation No. 61), and procedural rules governing hearings
(Regulation No . 21). Review and revision of these regulations is an ongoing process. The
Commission is required by law to review and revise its water quality standards and use
classifications regulations least once every three years. §25-8-202 (1 )(f), C.R.S.
When determining the appropriate level of water quality for a particular river or stream,
the Commission determines how those waters are currently used and what beneficial uses are
existing or are desired in the future . The Commission then adopts use-classifications for each
current or future used to be protected. §25-8-203, C.R.S. The Commission has classified each
river segment of the state for one or more beneficial uses. The Commission has designated the
river segment to which the L/EWWTP discharges as Segment 14 of the Upper South Platte
River, and has assigned the classified the uses of the segment as recreation, aquatic life,
agriculture, and water supply.
After assigning a use-classification for each river segment, the Commission then sets
both the numerical and narrative water quality standards applicable to each segment to protect
the classified uses. §25-8-203, C.R.S. Narrative standards describe the water quality goals for the
segment and are intended to provide protection from pollutants that do not have specific
numerical standards . Numerical standards set the maximum acceptable concentrations of
specific pollutants in a river segment that will protect the classified uses of the segment. These
concentrations are often based on criteria established by the EPA, taking into account available
scientific research referred to as "table value standards." Alternatively the Commission may
adopt numerical standards based on site-specific studies of what water quality will protect the
classified uses, taking into account factors such as the specific aquatic species needing protection
in that stream segment and their vulnerability to pollutants . Site-specific standards are generally
less stringent than table value standards .
On segments not meeting water quality goals, the Commission may adopt temporary
modifications of the standards . Temporary modifications allow lower water quality in a
2
particular segment for a specified period of time if the Commission is convinced that water
quality improvement is needed but may take additional time to achieve.
In addition to use-classifications and water quality standards, the Commission, based on
the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, has adopted an antidegradation rule. Under that rule,
all waters of the state are designated as being one of the following: "outstanding waters," "use-
protected waters,'' or "reviewable wat ers." §25-8-209, C.R.S. The main purpose of
antidegradation rule is to protect existing water quality where that quality is better than necessary
to protect the classified uses of the river segment. If the segment is designated as "outstanding
waters"--no degradation is allowed. If the segment is designated as "use-protected"--
degradation is allowed so long as water quality standards are met. All other segments are
considered to be "reviewable waters" --and in such segments before any significant new or
increased water quality impact from a discharger will be allowed, the discharger must prove to
the Division that there are not any reasonable alternatives that would result in less degradation to
existing water quality in the segment. Only if the Division finds that such alternatives are not
available may the discharger proceed as proposed. Segment 14 is a "reviewable water."
All new or revised water qual ity classifications and standards mus t be approved by EPA
before they become effective . 33 USC 1313 . IfEPA disapproves state standards, it has authority
to adopt federal standards that will apply in Colorado. In the past, EPA has disapproved some
Colorado standards. However, to date, EPA has not adopted federal standards, preferring to
afford the Commission an opportunity to revise its standards to address EPA's concerns .
Nevertheless, the reality of federal oversight and the possibility of federal action are important
considerations in the Commission's development of water quality classifications and standards.
Discharge Permi t
Once water quality classifications and standards have been set by the Commission, those
standards are implemented in discharge permits issued by the Division. The permit contains
terms and conditions that limit the amount of pollutants that may be released into state waters.
The Division is solely responsible for the issuance and enforcement of discharge permits. §25-8-
202(7)(b ), C .R.S. The Division is prohibited from issuing a permit which allows a discharge that
results in pollution of the receiving waters in excess of the that allowed by the applicable water
quality standards unless the permit contains appropriate effluent limitations reasonable necessary
to achieve the levels of protection required by the standards. §25-8-503(4), C.R.S .
Effluent limits fall into two major types: technology-based and water quality-based. The
technology based effluent limits requ ire that a discharger achieve a certain minimum level of
pollution control that EPA has determined to be technologically achievabl e . §25-8-503(1)(b),
C.R.S. Water quality-based effluent limits require a discharger to treat its effluent so that the
water quality standards will be met in receiving stream, even during low flow conditions. §25-8-
503( 4), C .R.S.
An important subcategory of water quality-based effluent limits is antidegradation-based
effluent limits. On a "reviewable water" such as Segment 14, the Division will also calculate
antidegradation-based effluent in permits for new or increased discharges. Antidegradation-
based effluent limits are calculated by the Division to maintain and protect the existing water
3
quality of the segment, and are often significantly more stringent than the effluent limits needed
to protect the classified uses of the segment. Regulation 31, §31.8
For publically-owned treatment works, such as L/EWWTP, all permit effluent
limitations, standards, and prohibitions, including those necessary to achieve water quality
standards are required to be expressed as average weekly and average monthly discharge
limitations, unless impracticable. Regulation 61, §61.8(2)(g).
Discharge Permit Process
Any person who wants to discharge pollutants from a point-source to waters of the state
must file a permit application with the Division. §25-8-501(1), C.R.S.
Before a permit is finalized, the Division issues a draft permit to allow for public
comment. The statutory comment period is 30 days. Any person may request a public meeting
on the draft permit. If a public meeting is held, the comment period is extended to 60 days. §25-
8-502(3), C.R.S.
After the close of the public comment period and consideration of any public comments, the
Division will issue a final permit. The permit becomes final 30 days after issuance of the permit
by the Division. Regulation 61, §61.6( d).
The permit applicant or any other person adversely affected by the final permit may
demand an adjudicatory hearing before a hearing officer or administrative law judge within 30
days of the issuance of the final permit. Regulation 61, §61.6(d). A hearing officer or
administrative law judge will be designated by the Colorado Department of Health . §24-4-105,
C.R.S.
Following the filing of the demand for the hearing, and within 30 days of the issuance of
the renewal permit, the applicant may request that the Division stay the contested terms and
conditions of the permit. The Division shall act upon the stay request within 10 days of its receipt
and shall grant the request if it reasonably appears that serious harm would otherwise result and
refusal to grant a stay would be without sufficient corresponding public benefit. §25-8-406,
C.R.S.
After a hearing on the permit, the hearing officer or administrative law judge will issue a
decision.
The decision of the hearing officer is subject to judicial review by the district court for
the district in which the pollution source is located. The case for judicial review of must be filed
within 30 days of the decision . §24-4-106, C.R.S.; §25-8-404, C.R.S.
4
Permit Renewal
Discharge Permit Renewal Process
and Estimated Timeline
• September 2005: LIE WWTP filed a timely application for renewal of its
discharge permit with the Water Quality Control Division ("Division").
• April 30, 2006: The existing permit expired and the Division issued a letter
administratively extending the permit for an indefinite period.
• May 21, 2009: The Division provided LIE WWTP an "advance copy" of the
draft Discharge Permit, and supporting documents, including a fact sheet and a
water quality assessment for the South Platte River.
• May 22, 2009: The draft discharge permit and supporting documents were made
available for public notice by publication on the Division 's website and local
newspapers .
• July 6, 2009 (30 days after public notice+ 14 day extension of time requested by
LIE WWTP): Comments are due on the draft permit.
• August/September, 2009 (estimated): The Division will issue a final permit
after consideration of comments from the public and EPA.
• September/October, 2009 (estimated): The final permit will become effective
30 days after the fina l permit is issued, unless LIE WWTP (or any other person
adversely affected by the final permit) demands an adjudicatory hearing on the
permit within that 30-day period.
Adjudicatory Hearing
• Within approximately two weeks after an adjudicatory hearing is demanded
(estimated mid September -mid October, 2009), a hearing officer or
administrative law judge will be designated by the Colorado Department of
Health to conduct the hearing and issue a decision.
• Within approximately 5 to 7 months after an adjudicatory hearing is demanded
(estimated February -May, 2010), the hearing officer or administrative law judge
will conduct an adjudicatory hearing on the issues and issue a decision.
• The decision of the hearing officer or administrative law judge is subject to
judicial review by the district court for the district in which the pollution source is
located. The case for judicial review of the decision of the hearing officer or
adminis tr ative law judge must be filed within 30 days of the decision.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 5, 2009
Page 2
A TTo '-f
Introduction. Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client
communication. Please keep it confidential.
Please note that in light of the ongoing budget situation, this bill has been reduced by
$2 ,3 62.50 from standard hourly rates .
The first case of magnitude is of course the FRJCO/United/ECCV change of FRJCO and
Burlington shares . After their huge loss at the trial, FRJCO and the other Applicants submitted a
proposed decree which was far more favorable to them than the Judge's ruling. There were lengthy
negotiations concerning revisions, which had to be drafted, and finally an agreed-upon form was
submitted to the Judge and signed. After the Judge signed the decree, FRJCO and the other
Applicants filed numerous post-trial motions, including three motions for reconsideration and a
motion for stay of the Court's order pending appeal. Review of the motions and the responses have
been time consuming. Fortunately, the work in considerable measure duplicates that which would
be necessary for drafting the appellate briefs. We submitted a notice of appeal on the Metro Pumps
issue (the preclusion of use of the Metro pumps to fill the Applicants' reservoirs) as a protective
measure, which might result , favorably, in a separate appeal on that issue .
Of interest is the change in Applicants' counsel. When the applications were filed in 2002,
and through trial in May of2008, John Akolt and his son represented FRJCO, Burlington and United
Water and Sanitation District. (United is essentially a speculative venture of Robert Lembke, which
had bought the shares which were sold to East Cherry Creek.) At this point, FRJCO and Burlington
are represented by a female attorney named Star Waring, (who is not affiliated with the Akolt firm)
and United Water and Sanitation District is represented by Tod Smith, again of a different law firm.
While John Akolt participates in negotiations and signs pleadings, his role is unclear except that he
is not lead counsel for any of the Applicants.
In the application and at trial Mr. Akolt sought to apply the Court's ruling to all the shares
of the two companies, so that the farmers could readily sell their shares for municipal use, without
a new change case. After the Court 's ruling came down, the farmers whose shares were not changed
have been seeking to exclude their shares from the ruling, despite Akolt's earlier position, which
adds to the pleadings and workload.
It should be remembered that Englewood and Aurora, before the trial, offered to settle for
approximately three times the water which the Judge ruled was available, and the offer was rejected
by Mr. Akolt on behalf of United, FRJCO and Burlington.
The next case is the appeal of the Court's ruling on the 1999 Agreement. We prepared the
notice of appeal , reviewed the transcript of trial for the critical evidentiary rulings, and worked on
the appellate brief.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 5, 2009
Page 3
We obtained a very nice ruling from the State Engineer with respect to the owe-the-river
(OTR) accounts in Chatfield. The ruling will be quite helpful to Englewood. The problem arose in
this way: No one can know , on a given day, how much water is flowing into Chatfield (it can't be
accurately gauged). So the inflow on, say, March 1 is not known until the gauge height changes over
the course of March 1 are figured out on March 2. The Water Commissioner endeavors to set the
river outlet gate so that an OTR account will result, instead of a "river owes reservoir" account, so
there usually is an OTR account which is calculated on March 2. If Chatfield is not in priority,
Denver, Centennial, Englewood and the DOW fish hatchery seek to take a portion of the inflow by
exchange. Denver takes a portion on March 1 because Denver has a storage decree in the reservoir
on March 1, and Denver just exchanges a part of the OTR into its storage decree (if Denver has
replacement water in the river, usually consisting of reusable effluent at Bi-City and Metro).
Denver's "take" or exchange is figured out on March 2. Then Centennial and Englewood wish to
take their portions of what Denver did not take, by making an exchange on day two. The Division
Engineer and Water Commissioner have refused to allow that, for reasons which are hard to
understand.
Englewood and Centennial finally demanded a meeting with Dick Wolfe, the State Engineer.
Yesterday the Division Engineer released a ruling which appears to allow Englewood and Centennial
to make their desired exchanges. The ruling is still under study, but at first view it appears
Englewood got what it wanted.
The next bill discussed is that which is under the heading of Chatfield Reservoir reallocation.
The title is slightly misleading. The work is an effort to require the Corps of Engineers to make
releases from Chatfield to solve Englewood's hardness problem. We have done extensive
investigation of the factual situation, and have come up with interesting information. First, Denver
states that it intends to pump its water out of Chatfield (and the river above Chatfield) so that the
reservoir never gets so full that it "spills," i.e., Denver seeks to preclude a situation in which the
river outlet gates must be opened because the reservoir is "full." Denver pays no attention to
Englewood's complaints about resulting hardness.
Our position will be that the Corps of Engineers must obtain an Environmental Impact
Statement on the cumulative effects of its decisions favoring Denver's pumping, and require 404
permits for several facilities before they can be used.
The actions of the Corps have been these: the Corps allowed the rehabilitation of the long-
abandoned Platte Canyon/Last Chance headgate at the mouth of Waterton Canyon so Denver can
pump out of the river there (which Denver does). A 404 permit should have been required, and it
was not.
The Corps allowed installation of a pump station, using underwater pipe and pumps, on the
west side of the reservoir without a 404 permit.
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 5, 2009
Page 4
The Corps allowed major expansion of the Fulton Ditch headgate (located above Brighton),
so as to enable Denver to take water to its gravel pit reservoirs. No 404 permit was required, it now
appears. Water from the gravel pits will be exchanged to Chatfield and pumped out, so that the
Chatfield gates do not open.
Denver plans a new multi-million dollar pump station in Chatfield, and apparently the Corps
will not require a 404 permit or an EIS.
Other water users want storage capacity in Chatfield, which is about to be granted. However,
if the Denver pumps are allowed, there probably will be no water for the new storage owners to take .
Our work is not quite complete. When it is , we will draft a proposed letter to the Corps and
the Colorado Water Conservation Board demanding an EIS and 404 permits before the pumps can
operate. We will submit this to Dan Brotzman and Stu Fonda. Ifwe get approval, we will probably
provide the proposed letter to Denver and ask if they wish to try to resolve the matter.
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 particular 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 (87CW32 l) (#14 7): This case involves an application for direct flow and
storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest is to monitor the case
to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed a motion to consolidate this
case with 92CW151 , 92CW152 and 98CW347 .
3. City Ditch Municipal Use (#166): This matter will encompass the research being
made into the proof of Englewood's entitlement to divert on the 1860 City Ditch decree , which was
originally decreed for irrigation. We prepared an outline of the City Ditch history.
4. 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 pleadings regarding
settlement with AR Sandstone, LLC, and a motion to consolidate this case with 87CW321 ,
92CW151and98CW347.
A TT,, s
Cathy Burrage
From: Dan Brotzman
Sent: Thursday , July 02 , 2009 8 :37 AM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock ; Cathy Burrage ; Rick Kahm; Dave Henderson; Larry Nimmo; Frank
Gryglewicz ; Jennifer Nolan
Subject: FW : Englewood Co lorado Post Offices 3330 South Broadway and 915 W. Leigh Ave.
Importance: High
From: Heininger, Rozann M -St Louis, MO [mailto:rozann.m.heininger@usps.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:47 PM
To: Dan Brotzman
Cc: Epperson , Selwyn D -Denver, CO
Subject: Englewood Colorado Post Offices 3330 South Broadway and 915 W. Leigh Ave.
Importance: High
Hi Daniel :
Pe r ou r conversation , in settlement of all outstanding issues regarding payment the water , sewer , storm water and concrete bills on the
above facilit ies , the United States Postal Service (USPS) ag rees to pay the follow ing : water bills $395 .08+ $600.45 for a total of $995 .53 ;
sewer bills $476 .72 + $464 .35 for a tota l of $9 41.07 ; Concrete bills $1 ,623.37 + $2 ,077.85 for a total of $3,701 .22 . The tota l payment will
be $5 ,637 .82 . The USPS will opt out of the concrete program . Finally , the USPS is not responsible for outstand ing storm water bills in the
amounts of $211 .04 and $138 .54 for a total of $349 .58 and future storm water charges . Th is is my understanding of our agreement. I will
forward you a draft settlement agreement early next week . I appreciate your cooperation . Have a nice holiday .
Regards ,
Rozann
Rozann M. Heininger
Attorney
314-872-5144
202-406-4547 (fax)
PRIVILEGED/CONFIDENTIAL
PROTECTED BY A TTORNEYICLIENT PRIVILEGE
DO NOT FORWARD
7/8/2009
Page 1of1
Cathy Burrage
From: Dan Brotzman
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8 :36 AM
To: Cathy Burrage
Subject: FW : Post Office
From: Dan Brotzman
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:47 PM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Rick Kahm; Dave Henderson; Larry Nimmo; Frank Gryglewicz; Jennifer Nolan
Cc: Gary Sears
Subject: Post Office
Change of plans ... again . Looks like the settlement is on again . They are going to pay water and sewer. They
are also going to pay for all of the concrete repairs but want to opt out of the program from this po int forward .
On our side , storm-sewer charges will have to be waived from this point forward .
7/8/2009
c T y
July 7, 2009
Mr. Robert Rodefeld
7713 Grape Court
Centennial, CO 80122
0
RE: Sewer Cycle Billings
Dear Mr. Rodefeld:
AT T. Co
F ENGLEWOOD
Thanks you for your inquiry. We always appreciate hearing from our customers .
As you have illustrated, Englewood's sewage treatment charges have undergone a series
ofrate increases that began in 2003, resulting in the charges you see now. The increases
were necessary to fund a major construction project at the Littleton/Englewood
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project increased the plant 's capacity, while also
installing mandated processes necessary to comply with Federal Clean Water Act
requirements. The new processes were mandated by the Water Quality control Division
of the State of Colorado Health Department.
The rate increases were mandatory to cover the debt service on the loans Englewood had
to obtain to fund its share of the construction. Also, the rising costs of operation and
maintenance (0 & M) contributed to the rate increases. 0 & M costs generally increase
with inflation. However, when the new mandated processes came on line in 2008, the 0
& M costs increased significantly to pay for operating the new processes .
There are three governing bodies , composed of people who also pay these same sewage
treatment charges that oversee and must approve our rates: the Englewood Water and
Sewer Board, the Englewood City Council and the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater
Treatment Plant Board of Directors .
If you would like to discuss this further , please contact me at 303-762-2643 .
JCTJlyl3oiL-
~:~ck
Utilities Manager of Administration
City of Englewood
1000 Eng lewood Park way Englewood, Co lo ra d o 8 0 11 0 Phon e 30 3-76 2-23 00
7713 South Grape Court
Centennial , CO 80122
July 5 , 2009
Englewood Utilities Department
1000 Englewood Pkwy
Englewood, CO 80110
Subject: Sewer Cycle Billing
I continue to be troubled over the rate of increase reflected in the billing I receive for
Sewer Service .
By my records, what I have been billed for 2009-2010 ($180.57) is 80% more than what I
was billed for 2004-2005 ($99.70), which was just five years ago. That is an average
compounded rate of increase of more than 12% per year. This far exceeds the measure of
general inflation experienced during that period.
This leads me to think that there is not effective cost control being exercised in the
service which this billing covers. And I cannot remember that any explanation has ever
been offered to justify such increases. One gets the feeling that the Department assumes
that it can bill whatever amounts are needed to cover whatever the expenses turn out to
be.
Yes, the increases in the last two years were smaller than the average of 12%. They were
10% and 8%, respectively. But even those exceeded inflation.
I think you owe it to your customers to explain this, and tell us where this is headed, and
to do whatever is necessary to get these billing increases to a more reasonable level. --
For those of us on fixed incomes, these measures of increases are unacceptable.
Thank you for your attention to this request. I await your response.
/~/~4'a/
Robert Rodefeld J/ ~ . ""
Account # 21364/31523077130
Copy: City Council
·,-.. -,A IT. 7
.'{
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Board, Commission and Authority Members
FROM: Mayor Jim Woodward and Members of City Council
DATE: July7, 2009
SUBJECT: Annual Board, Commission and Authority Appreciation Night
August 10, 2009
On behalf of the Englewood City Council, we would like to i~vite you to attend the City's
Annual Board, Commission and Authority Appreciation Night on Monday,
August 10, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. at Pirates Cove, 1225 West Belleview Avenue. City
Council would 'like to honor each of the board, commission and authority members that
evening.
We would also like to invite you and your family to bring your swimsuits and
enjoy the many fun features at Pirates Cove free of charge from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m.
Please check in at the main window where your name will be on a will call list.
At 6:30 p.m., when Pirates Cove closes to the public, City Council will then honor
each of the board, commission and authority members. Ice cream sundaes will be
served.
In addition, City Council would like to invite the chairs of each board, commission and
authority to give a brief description of the board, commission or authority and their
activities.
Please RSVP by Wednesday, August 5th to your Recording Secretary or to Sue Carlton-
Smith at 303-762-2311. ·
cc: City Council
City Manager Gary Sears
City Attorney Dan Brotzman
Department Directors
Recording Secretaries
THERE WILL NOT BE AN
AUGUST 11, 2009 WATER BOARD
MEETING, BUT A VOTE WILL BE
NEEDED FOR ITEM #2 -LICENSE
FOR CITY DITCH PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE AT 3700 S. OGDEN.
AFTER YOU HA VE REVIEWED,
PLEASE CALL OR E-MAIL WITH
YOUR VOTE.
303-762-2636
OR
cburrage@englewoodgov.org