HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1207.SS.MIN MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 1998
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. Attending: Councilors Hauck, Wheeldon, Reid, Hanson and
DeBoer: Staff: Freeman, Scoles, Brown, Turner, and Wanderscheid.
I. Comprehensive Water Supply Plan
Director of Public Works, Paula Brown, noted correction to memo submitted for the study session under Option #5.
In second paragraph, the word "not" should be stricken out.
Brown gave brief synopsis of proposed presentation on water alternatives being presented by Carollo Engineers.
Explained that the special study session on Ashland's long term water future was designed to provide the City
Council with a great deal of complex information in a fairly short period of time.
Bob Elmstad and Ken Wilkins from Carollo Engineers presented an overview to council. Presentation included the
following: 1) Basis for Study; 2) Concepts; 3) Alternatives; 41) Cost Comparisons; and 5) Summary & Questions.
Explained that this was a follow-up from workshop No. 2 which would include baseline demand for planning and
restatement of water supply and demand condition. Water-Supply Alternatives would include project concepts,
infrastructure, costs, and implementation issues.
Graph outlining baseline demand w/conservation and curtailment for 1997-1998 noted curtailment in summer time
and showed inadequate supply in summer months. Supply and demand comparison graph identified basis of
demand in three categories, 1) No new conservation/No curtailment: 2) Conservation; and 3) Conservation + 10%
curtailment.
Water supply components included looking at reclamation, TID pipeline (due to leakage issues), TAP pipeline
(linking Medford to Talent/Phoenix), and co-op projects with TID.
Reclamation project concept included supply to large irrigation customers, and estimated supply of 75-250 MG
(million gallons) in summer months with 20-60% of 2050 drought year deficit. Noted that the intent was to meet
demand for potable water.
Map showing what would be the required reclamation infrastructure was shown. Stated that new pipelines would
need to be built to keep the different water levels separate and a larger amount of piping would be needed
depending on how large the area of use was.
Noted benefits and drawbacks to reclamation implementation. The benefits were as follows: 1) re-use of water; and
2) high reliability and sustainability; which was an important issue for this community. The drawbacks were as
t¥11ows: 1) New distribution infrastructure-high unit cost; 2) Restricted use - irrigation only (not potable water); and
3) Public acceptability.
TID pipeline project concept, which is the piping of the westside canal, included new supply for irrigation or
domestic use, estimated supply of 105-300 MG in summer months, and 25-70% of annual deficit. Commented that
the BOR (Bureau of of Reclamation) and TID (Talent Irrigation District) have tried to estimate the amount of water
that is lost due to leakage, but have not completed their study. Explained that the TID pipeline infrastructure would
pruvide new turnouts for existing customers and would be beneficial to in-stream habitat.
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 1
Presented the benefits and drawbacks to the TID pipeline implementation. The benefits are as follows: 1) Maximize
TID supply; which would save water through more efficient use of water and 2) Existing connection to city
infrastructure. The drawbacks are as follows: 1) Available drought supply is uncertain, and capital costs are fixed
which may mean spending up front; 2) Habitat impact with new pipeline, as the canal currently functions as a
habitat for wildlife; 3) Multiple agency coordination; and 4) Water right re-allocation, which would mean water
right issues.
T, qP pipeline project concept included new potable water supply, supply 0-2000 MG in summer months or year-
round, which could be variable, and up to 450% of annual deficit. Noted that bringing in potable water from
Medford would mean acquiring water rights from Lost Creek Reservoir. Presented illustration of infrastructure for
the TAP pipeline.
Presented benefits and drawbacks to the TAP pipeline implementation. The benefits are as follows: l)
Redundant/Reliable supplyi and 2) Potable supply. The drawbacks are as follows: 1) Reliance on Medford for
supply, which is a community concern; and 2) Doesn't encourage water conservation/reclamation. It was noted that
the long-term redundancy would provide no incentive for conservation.
Cooperative prctjects with TID included water marketing, which would mean the city buying water from TID
irrigators during drought, re-allocating water rights and type of usage, which would mean that the city would buy
land within the T1D service area and re-allocate water right place of use and type of use. Noted that there are no
water rights available currently, and that these were the only options. Also noted that there could be some up-front
costs involved in buying water from TID irrigators.
Councilor Reid questioned whether anyone had explored the possibility of changing the usage on current land used
for crops. It was explained that there is plenty of land not currently being used for crops that is available.
Presented the benefits and drawbacks for the implementation issues on the components for reclamation, TID
pipeline, TAP pipeline and Co-op projects. Reclamation benefits included: l) Reliable/Sustainable; and 2) Re-use
of water. Drawbacks included: l) New infrastructure costly; and 2) Restricted use. TIDpipeline benefits included:
l) Maximize TID supply. Drawbacks included: 1 ) Drought supply uncertain; and 2) Water right re-allocation. TAP
pi£eline benefits included: 1) Redundant/reliable; and 2) Meets long term needs. Drawbacks included: l) Doesn't
encourage conservation/reclamation. Co-op Project benefits included: 1) Flexibility of supply. Drawbacks
included: 1) Drought supply uncertain; and 2) Water right re-allocation.
Stated that all of the water supply alternatives included the requirement that they meet the 2050 deficit,
conservation, and 10% curtailment potential. Submitted several alternatives.
Alternative #1: Reclamation with TID Co-op noted distribution infrastructure for irrigation with reclaimed or TID
supply, co-op supply must provide 200 MG minimum, and most ofco-op supply for domestic use.
Benefits for Alternative #1: Reclamation and Co-op were as follows: l) Maximize use of existing supply; and 2)
High reliability from reclaimed water. Drawbacks were as follows: l) Co-op supply during drought uncertain; 2)
Unit cost high for combined project; and 3) Water right change for co-op supply.
Alternative #2: TID pipeline with TID/Co-op noted pipeline supply for domestic or irrigation use; 105 MG firm
supply, new distribution system for irrigation with TID water, and co-op supply target 350 MG; 200 for irrigation.
Benefits for Alternative ~2: TID pipeline and Co-op were as follows: 1) Maximize TID supply; and 2) Irrigate with
TID water instead of potable water. Drawbacks were as follows: l) Supply available through co-op uncertain; 2)
Drought supply somewhat uncertain; and 3) Multiple agency coordination (BOR, TID, and Oregon Water
Resources).
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 2
Alternative #3: 'FID pipeline with Co-op and Reclamation noted pipeline supply for domestic use; 105 MG firm
supply, re-allocate water right from city-owned land - 150 MG finn supply, and reclamation supply target of 200
MG.
Benefits for Alternative #3: TID pipeline with Co-op and Reclamation were as follows: 1) Maximize use of existing
supplies: and 2) Positive environmental benefits. Drawbacks were as follows: 1) High unit cost for combined
alternative: and 2) Co-op supply during drought uncertain.
Alternative #4: TAP pipeline Buy-in and Use noted buy-in to TAP pipeline and extend to Ashland, redundant
supply for domestic or irrigation use, and target supply of 450-2000 MG.
Benefits for Alternative #4: TAP pipeline buy-in and use were as follows: 1) Redundant/reliable long term supply.
Drawbacks were as follows: 1 ) Disincentive for conservation or reclamation; and 2) Reliance on Medford.
Alternative #5: TAP pipeline and water rights re-allocation noted extending pipeline to Ashland, co-op supply for
domestic use, and TAP supply of 300 MG, co-op supply of 150 MG.
Benefits for Alternative #5: TAP pipeline and water rights re-allocation were as follows: 1) Redundant/reliable long
term supply. Drawbacks were as follows: 1) Disincentive for conservation or reclamation or other options; and 2)
Reliance on Medford.
Alternative #6A, 6B: TAP pipeline buy-in only with T1D Co-op noted pay costs to up size TAP; no extension to
Ashland - "Contingency Alternative", co-op supply for domestic or irrigation use, and total co-op supply of 450
MG: 200 MG minimum for potable supply.
Benefits for Alternative #6A, 6B: TAP pipeline buy-in only with T1D Co-op were as follows: 1) Maximum
flexibility; and 2) Maximized use of existing supply. Noted that this allows for flexibility to explore other
alternatives. Drawbacks were as follows: 1) No immediate redundant supply; 2) Added costs for separate irrigation
distribution; 3) Multi-agency coordination; and 4) High cost. Noted that it would take a couple of years to build a
pipeline if this alternative was chosen.
Alternative Cost Summary was submitted as follows for all alternatives:
Supply Target MG Total Project Cost
$ Mil
Total Unit Cost
$/Mil Gal
1) Reclamation w/co-op 250 (Domestic) 11.7
200 (Irrigation)
2) TID pipeline w/co-op 250 (Domestic) 17.3
200 (Irrigation)
*Note.' Alternative #3 was not shown as the costs were too high for target costs.
4) TAP buy-in and Use 450-2,000 (Domestic) 7.4-12.9
3,700
4,800
1,500-1,300
5) TAP pipeline w/co-op
450 (Domestic) 8.9
2,800
6A, 6B) TAP buy-in only
w/co-op & Reclamation
200-450 (Domestic)
8.7-12.9
2,400-3,500
6C) TAP buy-in only w/co-op
& Reclamation
250 (Domestic) 15.2
4,400
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 3
Presented a proposal by the Medford Water Commission as Alternative #7: Medford Water Commission Proposal
which noted extending TAP pipeline to Ashland, cooperative agreement to provide back-up supply to Talent, and
TAP supply of 100 MG; Talent 200 MG; TID co-op supply of 150 MG. Explained that this would involve 600 acre
feet of water rights that the City of Talent has targeted as a back-up supply in emergencies. Commented that the
proposal had also been sent to the City of Talent, but no discussion had taken place with their council or
administration.
Presented the public involvement in the planning process which included numerous WAG (Water Advisory Group)
meetings, three city council presentations, individual input from concerned citizens, community water form
sponsored by Chamber of Commerce, and public hearing/decision which is scheduled for December 15, 1998.
Commented on the WAG findings and conclusions which included all project alternatives as viable, no consensus
on a preferred alternative, and the evaluation criteria that WAG developed. Stated that they had not been able to
reach a consensus with WAG.
Carollo recommended that the city should participate in the TAP project (Alternative 6A) and up sizing pipeline to
24", purchase rights to 450 MG from Lost Creek Reservoir, not to extend pipeline to Ashland, and to pursue other
supply options in the near term. Explained that the recommendations did not come from an engineers outlook and
that their recommendation came from listening to lots of concerns regarding keeping Ashland self-sustaining and
preserving the policy of water conservation. Commented that there was concern that if the pipeline was extended to
Ashland now, it would change the nature of Ashland.
Director of Finance, Jill Turner presented the impact on water rates based on each alternative. Noted that
Alternative #7, which was received late, would fall in the graph between Alternative #6A and 4A. The calculation
of the impact assumed 75% of capitol costs paid in System Development Charges, 25% through rates, and 100%
operating costs paid through rates. Impact was based on current rates, and what the impact on water customers for
current water use would be.
Councilor Wheeldon questioned council that were involved in the previous discussion and decision, on keeping
effluent in Ashland, about how they came to their decision. Hauck explained that the overall costs were all about
the same and that he felt it was important to keep our resources. Laws felt that in the future when more water was
needed, water reclamation technology would be available to treat effluent for water usage. Reid stated that it would
be a resource to the community and to wildlife habitat in the creek, and was seen as too valuable to lose given the
possibility for re-use as technologies develop. Mayor Shaw commented on how inexpensive, reliable and easy the
study had shown it to be to connect with Medford, and voiced concerns on the decision to keep the resources in
Ashland.
Reid noted how the wetlands demonstration site played a dramatic role in keeping the effluent here. And stated that
Ashland should be viewed as a part of the greater whole of the Rogue River basin. Mayor Shaw pointed out that
previous discussions of returning water to the Creek hadn't raised the issue that Ashland would still be considered
the point source and would need to meet water quality standards. Also commented that while she supports the
wetlands project, previous information submitted to council showed that the size of the wetlands would need to be
enormous to make it work.
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted for council that a large portion of the costs for reclamation would be for
intYastructure (a redundant piping system) and outside of that costs wouldn't vary much.
Carollo representative Bob Elmstad explained for Councilor Wheeldon that they had looked at constructing a
separate reservoir downstream, and found that the current reservoir would need to be higher and larger. That
construction would be environmentally difficult and that Reeder Reservoir has a life span that goes beyond the
planning period of the current study.
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 4
Discussed the effect of a separate reservoir on flooding, noting that it might improve the situation. Also noted that
discussions have occurred in the Water Advisory Group about the possibility of relying on Medford for water so as
to leave all of Ashland's water in the creek for fish.
Elmstad explained that reclamation impacted conservation in that 20% conservation would be challenged and made
more difficult. It would reduce overall deficit by including conservation, can't double count the 20% conservation.
Commented that there is no change involving the hnperatice property other than there would need to be a change in
water rights for spray irrigation. Elmstad clarified Alternative #5, building the TAP line to Ashland and that better
use of TID water for cooperative projects would allow use of water from lmperatice property rather than using TAP
water. The intention is to not build additional separate infrastructure but to use the water rights that the City already
has for a combination of irrigation and domestic purposes.
Eimstad clarified that the reclamation schematic map provided in the Comprehensive Water Supply Plan did not
show all of the large water users.
Clarification on whether Ashland would lose water rights if not used within specific time frame. It was explained
that municipal water rights cannot be canceled and this would not be a drawback or problem.
Wheeldon questioned whether there were any incentive programs offered by the federal government that could play
into funding "innovative" City projects. Wilkins commented that there may be money available if the project could
be tied with fish habitat or an infrastructure project under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Emphasized that any Safe
Drinking Water Act monies would be in the form of very low interest loans.
Ed Olson and Jack Day/Medford Water Commission came forward to answer questions by council regarding
Alternative #7. Mayor Shaw noted her appreciation of their proposal.
Day commented on how Medford was viewed as wanting to have control, which he disputed. Commented that it
really involved significant cost savings to Ashland customers.
Laws commented on concerns that commission wasn't interested in having Ashland participate in an intertie, and
the possibility of losing the power of conservation incentives. Day explained that the commission wasn't interested
in having control, that they are nothing more than a wholesale water supplier. How a customer uses their supply of
water is that customer's business. Ashland would place an order for a certain amount of supply, the commission
would provide the supply, and how Ashland controlled that would not be the commission's concern.
Olson explained that the Medford Water Commission is a chartered organization through the City of Medford, and
that all commissioners are placed on the commission through the city charter of Medford. The commission
encourages liaisons to participate with the commission. Stated that this proposal had not been discussed with the
City of Talent and encouraged city officials to do so. Felt this was an opportunity to develop regional water
resources and improve flow in Bear Creek. Noted that when Ashland has the highest need for water (historically
September-October), is the time when the commission has a surplus supply. Stated that the reality is that there is
large surplus of water available during drought times for Ashland.
Olson stated that he saw this as a benefit for a regional system, and that reliability is important and would help with
the City of Talent's system as well. Noted that the pipeline would need to be oversized if this option is chosen.
DeBoer questioned what would happen if the Water Treatment Plant went down, what would the time frame be for
getting water to Ashland in an emergency situation. Elmstad explained that alternatives #4 and #5 would provide
water if the treatment plant went down. Discussed emergency options, including piping in water or using firehoses,
but noted that if there was a true emergency situation, the temporary answer would be to truck in water.
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 5
Laws commented on how we were operating on the assumption of the water need for 2050, and questioned the
reliability of these scenarios. Suggested that the suggested planning figure may not be what will be needed and felt
that cutbacks in conservation/curtailment were not realistic in this community. Elmstad explained that there was a
need to follow growth projections and rates used in the Comprehensive Plan and felt that the report reflected a very
aggressive conservation method.
Discussion ended with encouragement to the public to speak with councilors or participate in Public Hearing
scheduled for December 15, 1998.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by,
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Council Study Session 12/07/98 Page 6