Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Citizens Utility Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 3/6/2019MINUTES CITIZENS UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION OASIS WATER CAMPUS 7070 NORTHERN AVE. GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85303 MARCH 6, 2019 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Liebman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Liebman, Vice Chair Short, and Commissioners Amber Ford (arrived during agenda item 6), Robert Gehl, and Robin Berryhill, and David McGrew Absent: Commissioner Larry Flatau Also Present: Craig Johnson, Water Services Director; Angela Ruffalo, Management Assistant, Water Services; John Henny, System Operations Deputy Director; Ron Serio, Plant Operations Deputy Director; Megan Sheldon, Environmental Resources Deputy Director; Drew Swieczkowski, Environmental Program Manager; Joanne Toms, Administrator — Environmental Programs; Katrina Alberty, Administrator — Water Services Chair Liebman announced that Commissioner Ford would be arriving shortly and that Commissioner Flatau was out of town on vacation. Chair Liebman introduced new Commissioner David McGrew and stated that the Commission is fully seated with his appointment. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS No comments. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Short, second by Commissioner Berryhill, to approve the February 6, 2019 meeting minutes as written. Motion carried 5 — 0. [Commissioner Ford was not yet present.] a. Citizen Utility Advisory Commission Minutes of February 6, 2019. 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT a. Updates presented by: Craig Johnson, P.E., Director, Water Services Mr. Craig Johnson, Water Services Director, gave a report which included the following: • The Commission's appreciation hockey game is scheduled for March 16th. RSVPs are needed by the end of this evening. • The Council Budget Workshop was held yesterday. Consensus was received by Council to move forward on the Commission's recommendations regarding the Utility Assistance Program, incorporation of the Backflow and Pre -Treatment Fees into commercial rates, and Urban Irrigation rate increase. 6. DROUGHT UPDATE Presented by: Drew Swieczkowski, Environmental Program Manager [Commissioner Ford entered the meeting.] Mr. Swieczkowski gave a presentation on the Drought Contingency Plan Update (DCP), which included the following information: • Glendale Water Resources - Glendale residents receive water from four different sources • Salt River Project: 44% • CAP: 46% • Effluent: 6% • Groundwater: 4% • Overview of the Colorado River/CAP System • Upper Basin States: CO, WY, NM, UT • Lake Powell • Lower Basin States: AZ, NV, CA • Lake Mead, Lake Havasu, CAP Cana • Current Conditions for Colorado River Supply • Lake Powell • 1/1/2000: 3,690 feet - 87% full • 2/25/2019: 3,572 feet - 38% full • Lake Mead • 1/1/2000: 1,215 feet - 91% full • 2/25/2019: 1,087 feet — 41 % full • The following charts were presented and explained in detail: • Colorado River Basin Snowpack • Verde River Watershed Conditions • Salt River Watershed Conditions • 3 -Month Precipitation Outlook • Glendale's Colorado River Supply (CAP) • Current Total: 22,582 acre-feet/year • Does not include 2,363 acre-feet/year future White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) lease — possibly in 2021 • With WMAT lease: 24,945 acre-feet/year • Water Pressure Zones — Zones 1 to 4 • Off -Project: Non -SRP lands served by CAP water. SRP water can also be delivered with limitations. • On -Project: SRP Member Lands served by SRP water. CAP water can be delivered without limitations. • CAP Priority System • Not all CAP water is created equal. • Priority System was established over 35 years ago. • Provides certainty of how Colorado River water is delivered. • Basis for municipal investments to secure supplies and build infrastructure. • CAP Priority System — In order of High to Low • On -River (11 %) • Indian M&I (79%) • Non -Indian Ag (10%) • Agricultural Pool • Other Excess • The following charts were presented and explained in detail: • Lake Mead Conditions • Lake Mead Elevations • Lake Mead End -of -2019 Conditions • Lake Mead End -of -2019 Scenarios • The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) April and August 24 -month Studies: • These studies predict the end -of -year water level elevation for Lake Mead • If end -of -year predicted Lake Mead water levels (from the August study) are at or below a DCP shortage tier, the associated cuts begin on January 1st. • DCP Background • The 2007 Interim Guidelines were not enough to protect Lake Mead. • Arizona participated in DCP in order to reduce the risk of Lake Mead dipping to the lowest levels. • DCP is a set of agreements designed to protect the Colorado River system through voluntary reductions and increased conservation. • DCP is active for the next six years (2020 to 2026), then new rules need to be negotiated. • Shared reductions with other states and Mexico. • DCP Update • Resolution passed through the Arizona Legislature on 1/31/2019 to authorize the ADWR Director to sign the Interstate DCP Agreements on behalf of the State of Arizona if: • Federal Legislation passes directing the Secretary of the Interior to execute and implement the DCP agreements. • All parties other than the U.S. and AZ have authorized the execution of DCP agreements. • Current DCP Issues: • The Commissioner of the BOR set a deadline of March 4th to have all Lower Basin states agree to the DCP. This deadline was missed and the federal registry is now open. • The Governors of the seven Basin States now have an opportunity to send comments to the BOR in regards to what should happen next if DCP is not adopted. Input will be accepted until March 19 th. • California is having internal issues with the Imperial Irrigation District and the Salton Sea. •Arizona has several intrastate agreements to finish before DCP can be put in place. • It appears that the drop -dead deadline for implementation of the DCP would be before the August 24 -month study is released by the BOR. • It is hoped that the Secretary of the Interior does not have to get involved and may not have to get involved if all Lower Basin States can show all the due diligence has been done. • The following charts were displayed and explained in detail: • DCP Details — 2007 Guidelines versus DCP • Lake Mead DCP Shortage Tiers • DCP Details • Under DCP shortages, lower priority Colorado River water will not be available. • Water to be cut includes: Agricultural Pool and Non -Indian Agriculture (NIA). • DCP will replace or mitigate these lower priority waters, including: • Pinal Agricultural Pool Water Mitigation • 105,000 acre-feet for three years. • After the 3 years, expected to go on groundwater. • $50 to $60 million is needed for groundwater infrastructure. • NIA Priority Water Mitigation • Full mitigation for the first 3 years (money or water). • For next 3 years, either water (if available) or money. • $30 million is needed for this NIA mitigation. • Water for the mitigation of Ag Pool and NIA water will come from: • Pinal Agriculture mitigation water will come mainly from the Colorado Indian Tribe (CRIT). • This water will be from unused high priority On -River CRIT supplies. • NIA mitigation water will come from CAP water stored in Lake Mead. • 400,000 acre-feet NIA mitigation will be taken out but replaced. • The Gila Indian River Community (GRIC) will be providing the Colorado River water to offset this mitigation (at $240/acre-foot). • DCP Impacts to Glendale • Glendale's Total CAP Supply: 23,274 acre-feet/year • Supply with NIA maximum cuts: 21,038 acre-feet/year • Supply w/M&I 10% cut: 18,934 acre-feet/year • Supply w/M&I 25% cut: 15,779 acre-feet/year • Glendale's Current Total CAP Demand: 17,500 acre-feet/year • The greatest impact to our portfolio occurs at the deepest DCP cuts. • During the DCP M&I cuts, Glendale will be supplied water by the Arizona Water Banking Authority (AWBA) to cover the loss of CAP water by: • Long-term storage credits transferred to Glendale to be recovered by our groundwater wells. • Wet water delivered via the CAP canal. • It is anticipated that our M&I will be mitigated for the fully time period by the AWBA. • DCP Financial Impact to Glendale (chart displayed and explained). • Planning for Reduced CAP Water Supplies for Future Water Shortages and Plant/CAP Canal Emergencies • Glendale should continue ways to improve redundancy and emergency supplies by: • Continuing to recharge both CAP water and effluent to build our long-term storage credits (currently at 170,000 acre-feet). • Drilling both new and replacement groundwater wells. • Interconnections with both Peoria and Phoenix. • Continuing our water conservation programs. • Exploring new sources of supply such as desalinized water and advanced treated effluent. • Creative exchanges of water with other cities (Peoria/Phoenix) along with SRP/CAP. • Bottom Line for Glendale • A Colorado River shortage does not mean that Arizona is in a water crisis. • Arizona leads the nation with rigorous water conservation and sustainability laws that protect AZ water users. • The DCP provides a plan for how AZ cities, Ag users, industries, tribes, and others will share Colorado River water supplies during shortages, while honoring the existing priority system. • Arizona's 1980 Groundwater Act is one of the most complete in the U.S. • DCP efforts will help slow the decline in Lake Mead and help protect Glendale's CAP water. • California voluntarily shares in the shortage. • Glendale will be paying more money for CAP water. • Efforts to protect Lake Mead will continue to be planned and implemented (in 2026) after DCP. Commissioner questions were addressed during and after the presentation. Commissioner McGrew asked if staff had the percentage of water use in Glendale broken out by business versus residential customers. Mr. Johnson stated that he will provide that information to the Commission by the end of the week. Commissioner McGrew asked about the feasibility of desalinized water. Mr. Swieczkowski indicated that desalinization would take at least ten years and has potential but nothing is firm. Commissioner McGrew wondered if other cities are better off or worse than Glendale. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that Glendale is in a better position than some of its westside neighbors, such as Buckeye and Goodyear, who only have groundwater and are still growing. Commissioner Berryhill wondered what type of municipality might use treated effluent water first. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that it would most likely be a smaller, rural community such as Payson, or possibly a city such as Goodyear. Commissioner McGrew inquired about the percent of groundwater that other cities are using. Mr. Swieczkowski relayed that Phoenix is using about 3% of its groundwater and the cities of Goodyear and Buckeye are using all of their groundwater, because that is all they have. Chair Liebman commented that he heard on a local radio station that there are 19 state agencies that sill have to agree to the DCP terms. Mr. Swieczkowski noted that much of this has already been worked out. Chair Liebman asked where the $50 to $60 million for groundwater infrastructure would come from. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that the funds would come from the state of Arizona General Fund, NGO's, the federal government, non -profits, and other sources. Chair Liebman inquired if the new wells in Zone 3 are included in the CIP. Mr. Johnson replied in the positive and stated that there is $10 million forecasted in the CIP for the wells. Mr. Johnson stated that a location for the first well has been identified and staff is working on plans for the other two. Mr. Johnson also commented on emergency connections with the city of Peoria and noted that staff is working on agreements in case any of the City's plants go down. Chair Liebman inquired about the use of bonds. Mr. Johnson explained that $63 million in bonds over a 5 -year period will supplement the budget. Chair Liebman asked if these bonds were in the original pro -forma. Mr. Johnson replied that the original pro -forma included $45 to $50 million in bonds. Chair Liebman asked if the pro -forma from two years ago included the water costs increases. Mr. Johnson stated that the cost increase for 2017, 2018, and 2019 were included, but not 2020 and Mr. Hatch is now working on including 2020. Chair Liebman wondered if the rate increases would cover the costs increases for 2020 and 2021. Mr. Johnson replied that the City has adequate coverage for the rates. Commissioner McGrew inquired about SRP versus CAP costs. Mr. Johnson stated that SRP charges $40.00 per acre-foot and CAP charges $199.00 per acre-foot. Mr. Johnson noted that SRP has no pumping costs because it uses gravity. Mr. Johnson stated that the CAP cost is higher because it includes reimbursement for building the CAP canal, electrical power to pump the water, and operations and maintenance costs. Commissioner McGrew asked how the SRP water is allocated and Mr. Johnson provided details. Commissioner McGrew asked why the City is leaning toward CAP water. Mr. Johnson stated that SRP water cannot be taken Off -Project. Mr. Johnson relayed that the City has been taking its full allocation of CAP water, even if it is not needed at the time, and stores it. Other cities do the same. Commissioner Ford inquired as to who oversees the plan to ensure compliance. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that the overseer will most likely be the Bureau of Reclamation and some will be done by the state agencies, such as ADWR, and also CAP. Mr. Johnson noted that the ADWR will be designated as the signatory for water in Arizona. Commissioner Ford asked how long in advance planning for the next phase would begin. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that as soon as the DCP is approved, plans for 2026 would begin. Commissioner Ford inquired how residents could find out information. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources) and AMWUA (Arizona Municipal Water Users Association) are great sources for background and information on their websites. Mr. Johnson announced that Mr. Swieczkowski's presentation will be made to Council soon, however, Ms. Toms presentation will be given a little later because Ms. Toms is adding more information. Mr. Johnson stressed the importance and need for the DCP. Commissioner Berryhill wondered how deep the new wells will be. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that generally a well is drilled 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet. Commissioner Gehl wondered when the dead pool at Lake Mead would be reached. Mr. Swieczkowski relayed that the dead pool could be reached very soon, possibly eight years or less. Mr. Swieczkowski did not think that the modeling for this has been done yet. Commissioner Gehl wondered if the drought could be held off with continued population increase. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that the drought may not be held off forever, but could be stabilized. Mr. Johnson stated that this is the first time in history that Arizona has had such a long drought and it is very serious. Mr. Johnson commented on the need for the drought plan and praised the state for the 1980 Groundwater Act, noting that California does not have such an Act. Vice Chair Short asked if Glendale's population was expected to increase. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that the City's demand for water has decreased and praised Ms. Toms and her staff for its conservation efforts. Mr. Swieczkowski commented that people need to continue to realize that water is a resource that we need to conserve. Mr. Swieczkowski was thanked for his informative presentation. 7. GLENDALE DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN Presented by: Joanne Toms, Administrator, Environmental Programs Ms. Toms gave a presentation on the Drought Management Plan (DMP), which included the following information: Water Conservation vs. Drought Management • Water Conservation: on-going and long-term, regardless of a drought. • Drought Management: quick response and usually temporary due to a drought. City of Glendale Drought Management Plan (DMP) • Adopted by the Glendale Council in 2004 • Ensures the City has in place best practices to deal with potential water shortages caused by drought. • In the City Code — Chapter 33. • State statues established in 2005 require drinking water providers to develop water supply, conservation, and drought plans. • Updated in December 2016. Deja' Vu — We've Been Through this Before • City Manager declared a Stage 1 Drought Watch in July 2004 due to conditions on the Salt -Verde watershed. • Increased activities to help City departments and residents save water. • City Manager rescinded the Drought Watch in October 2005. Drought Management Plan Sections 1. Introduction 2. Definitions 3. Water Resources 4. Emergency Water Shortages (non -drought) 5. Drought Management Stages (4 stages) 6. Best Management Practices 7. Appendix — Table of Demand Reduction Measures Drought Management Plan Goals 1. Protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public. 2. Minimize the disruption of normal activities. 3. Maintain public trust through communication. 4. Provide a balanced and equitable plan. 5. Provide a plan that is effective, practical, and flexible. Kev Components • Drought Management Team • Public Information and Drought Awareness Communications Plan • Demand Reduction Measures Dr_ Ought Stages, Triagers. Reduction Goals (chart presented and explained) • Stage 1 — Watch • Stage 2 — Alert • Stage 3 — Declaration • Stage 4 — Emergency Demand Reduction Measures for City Operations • Details for Stages 1 through 4 presented on a chart Impacts to City Operations • Meet with City departments every August to discuss watershed conditions. • Multiple City departments will be part of the Drought Management Team • Mandatory participation for all four stages. • Track and monitor landscape water use at City facilities. • Landscape areas not to exceed landscape water budgets (stages 3 and 4). • Possibly drought surcharge (stages 3 and 4). • Restrict turf watering and develop a plan to maintain trees (stage 4). DEMAND REDUCTION MEASURES FOR THE COMMUNITY • Details for Stages 1 through 4 presented on a chart IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY • Voluntary participation (stages 1 and 2). • Mandatory participation and enforcement by the Glendale Code Compliance Department (stages 3 and 4). • Possible drought surcharge (stages 3 and 4). • Water users receiving SRP urban irrigation or other private water service are not required to adhere to the irrigation restrictions, unless the water provider imposes their own water restrictions. HOW TO CARE FOR YOUR TREES IN A DROUGHT • Outreach ad from the City of Burbank • Why is it important that trees survive the drought? Not only do they provide countless benefits to the communities, but they are a big time investment. A new lawn can be installed in a weekend, but a mature tree takes at least 50 years to grow. DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN TIMELINE • Ongoing: Maintain communication with the ADWR, AMWUA, CAP, SRP, and valley cities on the regional Colorado River Shortage Awareness Campaign. • April 2019: Review BOR's 24 -month study. • July 2019: Finalize updates to the DMP. The DMP does not include DCP, because it is not approved yet. The DMP utilizes the 2007 Guidelines. • August 2019: Review BOR's 24 -month study when a probable Tier 1 shortage may be declared. Meet with City departments to discuss DMP and watershed conditions. IMPORTANT TAKE -AWAY MESSAGES • ADWR, AWBA, CAP, SRP, and AMWUA-member cities have been planning for drought for decades. • Glendale has multiple water sources. • A Tier 1 shortage on the Colorado River will not reduce Glendale's water supply. • The Drought Management Plan will help minimize the impacts of a water shortage due to drought. • The City will continue to assist customers with improving their water efficiency. Ms. Toms opened the floor for questions. Chair Liebman asked if there was a state DMP. Ms. Toms did not believe so, but noted that the ADWR has a drought team, which included Arizona Forestry and Arizona Game and Fish Department. Chair Liebman wondered if a computer model was used to generate the DMP stages and reduction measures. Ms. Toms replied in the negative and explained that the DMP is similar to the plans in a lot of cities. Ms. Toms stated that some of the goals are arbitrary, however, staff has been performing a lot of internal use reviews. Ms. Toms did foresee the need to change the reduction measures eventually so that they are not so arbitrary. Chair Liebman inquired about the surcharge. Ms. Toms relayed that even if less water is delivered during a drought, there are still hard costs that do not fluctuate. Vice Chair Short asked if Maricopa County had a DMP. Ms. Sheldon stated that the County does not have a DMP because it is not a water provider. Ms. Toms was thanked for a very comprehensive presentation. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Chair Liebman thanked staff for the very important presentations and praised staff for its communication and transparency. Chair Liebman noted that last summer, he removed all of his grass and installed desert landscaping. Ms. Toms reminded Chair Liebman to apply for a rebate with the City of Glendale. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioners may suggest items for placement on future meeting agendas. April 2019: 1. Materials Recovery Facility 10. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission will be held on April 3, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Oasis Water Campus, 7070 W. Northern Ave., Glendale, Arizona, 85303. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Gehl, second by Commissioner Berryhill, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried 5 — 0. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS For special accommodations, please contact Miriam O'Neal at (623) 930-4103 at least three (3) business days prior to the meeting. Hearing impaired persons may use the Arizona Relay Service by dialing 711. Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431(4), one or more members of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission may be unable to attend the meeting in person and may participate telephonically Respectfully submitted, Denise Kazmierczak