Loading...
03-05-87 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MARCH 5, 1987 The Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District met in a regular session, March 5, 1987, 4:00 P.M., 1900 Lake Tahoe Blvd. City Council Chambers. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Chairman Wynn, Directors Olson, Mason, Jones, Madden ROLL CALL STAFF: Cofer, Baer, Fischer, Mamath, Miller, Plasterer, Tiran, Schroeder, Taylor, Swain, Cartwright, Attorney Weidman GUESTS: Melvin Schwake, Jr., Attorney Fulstone, Dan Hinrichs-ERM-West, Keith Klein-City Council, Jim Dipeso-Tahoe Daily Tribune None COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE None CORRECTIONS/ADDITIONS TO AGENDA OR CONSENT CALENDAR None CONSENT CALENDAR Moved Olson/Second Jones/Passed Unanimously to approve 2/12/87 Adjourned Regular Board Meeting; Moved Olson/Second Mason/Passed Unanimousl~ to approve 2/19/87 Regular Board Meeting. None APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES REPORT BY BOARD MEMBERS BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS None 2/20/87 - Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board @ TTSA 2/23/87 - 4:00 PM - Continued Public Hearing/Alpine Co. Land Acquisition @ STPUD 3/02/87 - 3:30 PM - Film on Cross-Con- nections 4:00 Workshop/Agenda Items 3/5/87 Board Mtg. PAST MEETINGS REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1987 Page 2 MANAGER'S REPORT: Manager Cofer reviewed the discussion at the Lahontan Board Meeting on 2/20/87 and announced a plan- ned visit by the Lahontan Board to the plant site on 4/9/87. He requested our Board members be present if possible. Manager Cofer talked about the informa- tion in the letter from Larry Walker in- cluded in the Board Agenda packets re State Legislation to Clarify that State Clean Water Grants Constitute Contract- ural Obligations. Manager Cofer stated he had sent a letter to Lahontan this day requesting considera- tion of two District projects under their grant program be placed on their priority list: (1) The ½ Million Dollar Sealing of the Emergency Retention Basin and (2) The 1½ Million Dollar Expansion of the Emergency Storage Capacity. He noted he had received a positive verbal response from Lahontan staff and the Board would make a decision at their Board meeting scheduled for 3/12/87 in Bishop. ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Attorney Weidman stated he had been working on the San Marcos matter which is scheduled for the Assembly on March llth in the Local Government Committee. PROGRAM MANAGER'S: None SHOP STEWARD: None STAFF REPORTS PUBLIC HEARING - ALPINE COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION HEARING RESUMED - 4:10 P.M. by Chairman Wynn STAFF COMMENTS - by Manager Cofer, Attorney Weidman and Dan Hinrichs- ERM-West, Inc. (A verbatim trans- script will be attached to these minutes after Board Approval at their 4/2/87 Regular Board Mtg.) PUBLIC COMMENTS - by Attorney Fulstone and Melvin Schwake, Jr. HEARING CLOSED - 4:50 P.M. by Chairman Wynn. AMENDED RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY NO. 2428 - MELVIN SCHWAKE, JR. PROPERTY (Amending Resolution No. 2403) REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - ALPINE COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION (continued) BOARD ACTION - Moved Olson/ Second Jones/Passed Unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2428, Resolution of Necessity subject to the changes detailed in the verbatim transcript by Attorney Weidman. MELVIN SCHWAKE, JR. PROPERTY ITEMS FOR BOARD ACTION STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Moved Olson/Second Jones/Passed Unan- PAYMENT OF CLAIMS imously to approve payment in the amount of $ 395,356.09 The Sewer Ordinance Violation was corrected prior to the Board Meeting and was removed from Agenda by request of District staff. Presented by John Cartwright. Moved Olson/Second Madden/Passed Unan- imously to authorize staff to proceed with water and/or sewer disconnection proecdure for the accounts presented to Board this date. (list attached) Presented by Rich Tiran. Moved Jones/Second Madden/Passed Unan- imously to approve Award of Bid No. 86-87-14 to lowest, responsive, respon- sible bidder, Western Nevada Supply Co. in the amount of $88,365.66. Presented by Gary Plasterer. Moved Mason/Second Madden/Passed Unan- imously to authorize CWC-HDR, Inc. Task Order No. 28 for an amount not to exceed $7,O00. Presented by Manager Cofer. Moved Olson/Second Madden/Passed Unan- imously to authorize a Master Agreement and Task Order with Brown & Caldwell for an amount not to exceed $18,000 contingent on dollar commitments from Tahoe City PUD and North Tahoe PUD for 1/3 each of the $18,000. DISCONNECTION PROCEDURE ON PARCEL NO. 23-211-191 DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS: NECTION PROCEDURE DISCON- SEWER SERVICE INVENTORY SUPPLIES VENICE DRIVE PUMP STATION: DESIGN AND CONTRACT/BID DOCUMENTS UPDATE OF DRAFT EIR, POLICY FOR WATER ALLOCATION IN THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DT: March 2, 1987 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FR: John Cartwright, Collection Officer RE: ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED FOR AUTHORIZATION OF DISCONNECT PROCEEDINGS 023 171 131 023 211 391 023 311 301 025 510 561 026 023 221 026 023 231 -^2C ~ ~=~ 027 135 171 027 151 221 027 321 151 027 322 191 029 082 121 029 141 161 029 150 081 029 381 491 032 161 091 032 242 191 291 900 601 291 900 602 291 900 603 029 200 101 J.V.F. Corp Richard Davis Tom Pischel Fred Puliafico George Dupuy 817 Emerald Bay Rd. 2238 Eloise 937 Third Ave. 3260 Pioneer Trail 716 Lakeview Irene & Sam Tercero 1120 Sonora @ Larch Delores Ramsey Ski Run Lodge Play Chalet Motel Donald Anton 3678 Larch 1180 Ski Run 1200 Ski Run 3994 Manzanita King Franklin Motel 3988 Pine Blvd. Big 7'Motel New Frontier Inv. Paula Wheaton Dick Yaghlegian Elm Inn 3790 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 3840 Pioneer 1345 Bonanza 1168 Tara Ln. 4082-4090 Lko Tahoe $ 635.65 $ 711.31 $1179.06 $ 792.38 S1~61.90 ~ 822.99 $1218.92 $1632.42 $1858.99 $ 984.27 $2116.46 $ 887.15 $5761.39 $2528.61 $ 729.63 $7814.12 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - MARCH 5, 1987 XIII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION (1) PUBLIC (2) COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN (3) PROGRAM MANAGERS REPORTS A. Bob Baer, Assistant Manaqer/Engineer Construction Contracts and Safety B. Gary Plasterer, Manager of ODeration~ Plant Construction Operations Pump Stations Water System Operations & Wells C. Ken Schroeder, Manager of Maintenance Equipment Infiltration/Inflow Emergencies Inspection and Maintenance D. Gene Eppler, Manager of Land Application Alpine County Land Application Contracts E. B. Fischer, Finance Officer Budget Insurance Computer Programs F. Bob EpDler, Manager of Customer Relations Inspections Sewer & Water Service G. Pat Mamath, Clerk of Board/Grant Administrato~ Grant Status Meetings and Agendas Election Procedures (4) MANAGAER/ENGINEER Inspection Water Service Public Information Budget (5) JOHN WEIDMAN Water Rights Alpine County Actions Grant Contracts Other Legal Services Page 3 No Board action will be taken on the items appearing in Section XIII. XIV. NOTICE OF FUTURE MEETINGS 3/06/87 - E1 Dorado Water Purveyors Assoc.@ SLT 3/09/87 - 9:00 AM - Workshop: Oral Presentations on Proposals for Emergency Holding Pond Lining BOARD MEETING, 3/5/87 PUBLIC HEARING, ALPINE COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION SCI~K~ PROPEItT¥ 4:10 P~ WEIDMAN: I think at this time we have made some changes in the proposed operation of the project. We distributed those Monday at the Study Session, the same document I sent to Suellen Fulstone and Melvin Schwake. I think perhaps Dan Hinrichs should explain for the record on the chart there exactly how the System is proposed to operate and changes which have been made since the February 23rd hearing. DAN HINIRCHS: (Referred to drawing as he spoke) We have the West Fork Carson River, Snowshoe Thompson #1 Ditch, Millich Ditch, there is another Snowshoe #2 which is not really important on this project. We have the Harvey Diversion Structure down in here which empties into the Harvey Channel. The Diversion Structure is one of the easements. The Diversion Structure is designed to divert all of Indian Creek around the project, the Harvey Dam and reservoir, in essence the Harvey Channel is the new route for Indian Creek, rejoins the stream down below our dam (the red line). The structure is designed so that water flows that have historically been diverted or divided at this point can continue to be divided. The water rights on Snowshoe Thompson #1 include about 370 acres in the Diamond Valley Ranch, about 100 acres on the Schwake Ranch, and approximately 82 acres on the Harvey Place which the District now has possession. The Harvey Channel is your second easement, the beginning section of upper Dressler Ditch is one PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3~./87 4:10 PM Page - 2 of the easements, this is shown for water I did not show the access road, but the access road is the fourth easement we are looking at. One of the concerns that was brought up at the beginning of the continued meeting, was how to divide this irrigation flow. The first concern is dividing the water rights of part of Snowshoe Thompson Ditch #1. Our intent is to operate this as has been done historically. The prior rotation, the flow is split 50/50 between the Schwake Ranch and the Harvey Place. After rotation, they have a procedure that they go through where half the week, the Schwake Ranch gets all of the flow and the second half of the week, the Harvey Place which previously went down to Clarence Burr. We have discussed this with the Federal Water Master, and he has no problem of us continuing that operation. The other issue that has come up, and this is the issue of Indian Creek. There are actually four people that are listed--there are four ranches that are listed of having rights on Indian Creek. Indian Creek is supplemental water. There is no measurement at this time. But, basically, the four are: Schwake, Heise, Smith which is run by Burns, (father & son) and the Springmeyer Ranch which is primarily-more than half of it-is-in Nevada. So, what we have done is change as John mentioned, we had provided the ability to take the Indian Creek flows that are destined for part of the water rights down the Heise Place to go through the Harvey diversion structure and the Harvey channel. We have changed the language that says that we will run that flow through our project which is actually a benefit to the District, but did allow PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 3 that under emergency conditions--if there was some reason this route were blocked, that that flow could go on down to the Harvey Channel. Anything else, John? WEIDMAN: We have also allowed the use of the Harvey Channel for the Heise claims as we did before. ~INRICHS: But, we worded it in such a way that the primary route is through the project and this is a secondary or emergency type situation allowed through there. MR. COFER: Dan, Why don't you go over how the diversion structure would work to pass the water through the various structures on the channel. HINRICHS: Prior to rotation, there are flows coming to the Snowshoe Thompson #1 coming from the West Fork o£ the Carson River, that £1ow will be split 50/50 in our diversion structure--the two little boxes represent the structure diversion boxes that are there now. Our structure will have a little different design, but essentially will do the same thing. Indian Creek flows will be split 50/50 at the same time. The flows basically come together. After rotation, as I was saying as the flows are split by days of the week, rather than split on a flow basis, in other words--50/50 time, rather than 50/50 quantity. And, this diversion is set up so that the flows at Indian Creek can go through the diversion structure itself and down the channel; it can be diverted as Schwake has done historically into his Indian Creek ditch which dumps into Snowshow Thompson #1 ditch or he has the capability of by passing that ditch now and by our project in the future. That PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 4 flow can go into the channel and go on down the stream. For instance, there are times that he is not irrigating and that flow could go down the channel and on into the downstream users. MR. COFER: Could you show how that water could be by passed when he is irrigating? HINRICHS: Well, during irrigation, if you are standing in the ditch and looking downstream, this is how it appears, two squares or rectangles, represent boxed culverts and during the winter flows, those are opened, and during summer irrigation times, those are closed and there are two pipes, each pipe will have a gate on it and that is set up so that if Mr. Schwake is irrigating, this, the circle on the left would be where the water is normally running, if there is a reason to continue some flows down through the ditch, this gate will be opened to allow, partly opened, to allow some flow to continue on down the stream. So, it is physically possible to slip the flows according to how wide open those gates are. DIRECTOR MASON: At the control of those two points there, is there a diversion structure there? HINRICHS: What happens is the water backs up behind this structure which the top is higher than those pipes and these pipes will have their rotating gate and it is just like you open it up and it rotates and you could open it up just to allow just a small amount of flow or whatever amount you want. Most of the water will be going out into the farm ditch, but you could allow some to go on downstream. PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 5 ~EIDMAN: Can I ask you a question Dan, about those two pipes--How big are they? HINRICHS: These two here? 24 inch. WEIDMAN: When you designed that, did you consult with anybody about the design and their needs? DAN HINRICHS: Well, we did talk to Mel (Schwake) about this in the field and actually, this was his idea as far as allowing some flow to bypass the structure so we did put that in. It was one of his ideas. WEIDMAN: Now, when you outlined all that procedure, is it possible, in your opinion, for Mel to irrigate his land without impairing all of these other claimed rights make the proper diversions that we make the diversions to get Harvey Place, Scossa and Trimmer or the Indian Creek water with Sc~ossa and Trimmer and Harvey Place, is it possible for him to still irrigate both prior to rotation, after rotation. HINRICHS: You threw a lot of stui£f in there.. As far as the District getting any water for the Harvey Place, that's quite simple. There is an easy diversion structure there. WEIDMAN: Where is that? HINRICHS: That's up in the diversion structure itself. There is no problem there. This was presented because the question came up-- Can you irrigate on the Schwake Ranch and simultaneously release an amount of flow downstream from downstream water rights culverts-- PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 6 that's why that was presented and that can be done. DIRECTOR JONES: When you've got the two rectangular portions opened, that will take the full flood flow down the channel? HINRICHS: Well, the way this is designed the flood flow will go through each of these, if one of these becomes plugged, this plus overflow on this, we've got a bit of a drop, as you are coming across there, this will work as a spillway. So with one plug, this plus the spillway, this will provide flow for 430 cu. ft. per second. That's the design flow of a 100 year flood. DIRECTOR JONES: Upstream you said you would be able to split the Indian Creek flow. Is that just low flows, or are you going to try.. HINRICHS: We'll try to do that at a high flow. That's.. The intent would be, during the winter when there is high flows and not a real serious flood condition, 30 CFS would be diverted out of that structure or rediverted out of a diversion structure, that would go to the upper Dressler ditch for flushing flow for Indian Creek Reservoir. When there is storm happening or an emminent storm event then that diversion would be shut off, then all flow will be by passed down through the Harvey Channel. WEIDMAN: And, the Board will recall, we signed an agreement on the 29th of May, 1985. In the Operational Agreement, the District agree to pay Melvin to maintain the channel and his usual customary rates for his usual rates for equipment and labor. I just wanted to call that matter to your attention. That's an agreement which we agree to and authorized by Board action. PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3~/87 4:10 PM Page - 7 CHAIRMAN WYNN: Is there anything else to report? WEIDMAN: Dan, do you have any other comments? HINRICHS: No. CHAIRMAN WYNN: It is time for public comments.. SUELLEN FULSTONE: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board. We have something of the same problem as before, in the sense that we have not had enough notice to look at this thing or talk about it with you, certainly we don't understand it, the way Mr. Hinrichs has explained it. If I understood him correct!y,'what he is saying is that the Harvey Channel would be used only by Heise as an emergency in case of emergency as a secondary route, if something else is blocked, is that correct? WEIDMAN: That's not true. SUELLEN FULSTONE: That's not the way it is written. WEIDMAN: We have given Heise the right to use that channel in Indian Creek Harvey Channel in Indian Creek the Scossa and Trimmer claims and in a practical matter Dan can explain that probably a lot of time prior to rotation that the Indian Creek water for Scossa and Trimmer was going up to Harvey Place, I mean to Indian Creek reservoir where he has a storage right of 110 acre feet that he formally had at Stevens Lake that we have taken from him in the emminent domain action, so as a practical manner, prior to rotation, as far as Indian Creek is concerned, the Indian Creek water, the share that goes through Scossa & Trimmer for Heise and the share that goes to the District for Harvey Place will not be going down the channel-it will be going up to the Indian Creek Reservoir. But, you are correct Suellen, he does have the right to use the channel. PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING, 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 8 SUELLEN FULSTONE: WEIDMAN: Yes. As I read the language, it remains at his option. SUELLEN FULSTONE: I think there has been an effo~ on the part of the Staff to make some provision for Mel in the sense that now the use of the Harvey Channel shall not preclude irrigation flows for Schwake, however, the language that restricts Mel from impairing the rights of others, including Heise is still in the description, which kind of leaves the whole thing in an uncertain posture. Mel is supposed to have a right and at the same time he doesn't quite have a right because he can't impair Heise's right which was the problem we raised last time. As long as Mel can't interfere or impair the rights of Heise to put his water through the Harvey Channel, Mel really can't irrigate with. In terms of the structures--there are five structures designed to be put in the Harvey Channel. Those were worked out between us and the District before the Army Corps agreement with the purpose of allowing Mel to irrigate and also to handle the flood flows. At that time, there was no mention of Heise and they were certainly not designed to allow for Heise water to be separated and somehow in someway and allow Diamond Ditch while Mel was taking his water out to irrigate with. In terms of how the structures themselves were, I would ask Mel to come and talk about that to you, as I can't do it very well. I think Mel has more practical experience with this kind of irrigation than Dan does and Mel is convinced you can't use those structures in the way that Dan described. MEL SCHWAKE: This is pretty much how the structure is divided, laid out for the Army Agreement. I believe this head gate here was at the insistence of the District staff. I don't need this head gate, I don't PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING, 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 9 MEL SCHWAKE, CONT. have this head gate in my current ditches right now. Essentially what I have is a pipe or box I can put boards in and stop the flow in the channel and divert it down the ditch. When I go to irrigate, I usually, (it depends on what time of the year it is) if I have a lot of water, I'll let some of my water go through this structure, flow most of down this ditch and cap whatever water I left through in the first structure at the second structure and dam the second structure off tight and take it down my ditch. One of the problems in terms of trying to let an amount of water go through here for the Heise right, is in front of this structure you are going to have a little reservoir. That reservoir, I don't know what the ditches are going to look like, but it may be as big as this area right here and as deep as this is or whatever. Now, I am particularly thinking about a shortage of the water like this year, I'll go up--the way I envision it working, I would go up and simply close this pipe, these boards would be closed off and it would be a simple process of taking maybe 30 seconds to close it, take a look at it and walk away. Now, it may take, it depends on how much water is in the channel--it may take 1/2 hour or an hour for this little reservoir to fill up to a height high enough to push water down the ditch, then I know because it is all closed off, eventually it will fill up and water will go down the ditch and I will have my boxes in the ditch set and the water will go out and irrigate out in the field. Now, if I have to sit there for an hour or so, waiting for this to come up so I can adjust this pipe for some certain Indian Creek flow of Clarence Burr's, that's an hour worth of time I am not PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 10 MEL SCHWAKE, CONT. going to waste, but if I was to do that, somebody would have to sit there and wait for that flow to come up however long it takes, then there is no measuring device -- all one could just do is eyeball how much water you are going to put through there and you can maybe measure the water up at Harvey diversion structure to say that Clarence Burr's Indian Creek water he is entitled to, say 1/2 second foot. But, I come down here to this, how wide do you open that gate to accommodate 1/2 second foot? I don't know, I am not a very good judge of water, just to eyeball it and just say, Well, I'll open this much and maybe it is a 1/2 second foot. I~ it is too much, I have given my water away, if it is not enough, Clarence is not getting his water. But, then we get down to the next structure--this is just the first one, now I'm down to the next structure and my water seeps through these boards, one of the reasons why I agreed to the boards here, knowing that water is going to seep through those boards, I'll cap it to the next structure, it will back up, at the next structure that seepage water will start filling up the pond created at the next structure so that by the time I get ready to irrigate at it, I'll just open this gate and close this gate and let my water run down and my water will run down in the pond, and it will run out the ditch. In terms in trying to monitor, for me to adjust this gate for some flow to go through there would be a terrible laboring intensive endeavor, but right now, I would either close it off, or if I let some through, it would be my own water. SUELLEN FULSTONE: One of the arguments we had last time was this whole issue belonged to the Water Master. I think the difficulties that we've PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/!5/87 4:10 PM Page - 11 SUELLEN FULSTONE, CONT. had in working it out demonstrate that to be the case. It is the Federal Water Master who is in charge of Federal Court of Reno of this entire water distribution system and we can use in a proper position and proper information to accommodate everybody's rights and interests. I am not going to go back through what I have done in terms of the objections we have raised of this and other portions of the takings. This is a continued hearing. A couple of things with respect to description as it now exists, I would like to mention, and again, this came to me Tuesday afternoon--I was in a hearing yesterday so I haven't had much time to look at it. It seems the way that it is drawn, you have too many halves of Indian Creek that you are talking about. I don't know if you all have a copy, the one I am working off of, this is pretty much repeated, it is Exhibit A the diversion structure easement. On Page - 2 Subparagraph A, it says one-half of the flow of Indian Creek between April 1 and October 1 of each year may be diverted, that's for the Heise, Scossa and Trimmer supplemental rights. And then on the next page under Subparagraph 5, it has Claim # 47 and #48 which are the Harvey Place water rights which the District has taken and again it says one-half of the flow of Indian Creek between April 1 and October 1 can be diverted to those flows which is already two-halves and you haven't gotten around to Mel's half which is claim #45 and #46. So, I think there is some problem in the descri- ption, there. As I understand it, in fact, the entire set were original Heise rights, Diamond Valley, which are the Scossa and Trimmer supplemental rights described in Subparagraph A and 47 and 48 Harvey Place Rights, Subparagraph 5 constitute one-half of the flow of Indian Creek. PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PM Page - 12 There is not one-half for Diamond Valley and one-half for the Harvey Place. So, you are taking too much in both of those sections and leaving nothing for Mel as it is presently written and Me1 does have one-half of the flows of Indian Creek. In terms of your description of the way the system is worked after rotation, you've got Mel having it for half the week and the District having it for second half of the week. We talked about this some last time. The way it is written, 6 AM Monday to 6 PM Thursday, and then 6 PM Thursday to 6 AM the next Monday, is not the way it has worked, it is not, in fact, the historic practice. The historic practice has been changed at 8 o'clock on Thursdays, Thursday evenings and that is because even though the water has been turned on at 6 on Monday morning, there is water to be irrigated with until for a couple of hours. Again, even though the water is turned off, 6 o'clock the following Monday, there remains water in the stream for a couple of hours. The way it actually works is 6 to 8 and 8 to 6 with a practical effect of working 8 to 8 to 8. What we would like to do with that is either to describe it simple in terms of historic practice without this kind of specific description or simply to trade with you. If you really think it works 6 to 6, we will take your half, for we think the way it is now, you short-change us by two hours, so, we will take your half and your take our half--if that's all right--that shouldn't be a problem--if you really think this is the way it works. Another part that I really don't understand that is added, is on Page 3, Paragraph 6 which is to use the Harvey Channel for water delivery flows on the conveyance system under the diversion structure is not operative and PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3~/87 4:10 PM Page - 13 maybe Dan or Jim can explain what "delivery flows" means in that section. I think you have the right to use the Harvey Channel when- ever you want to use it, I just don't understand the specific provision that is added. HINRICHS: The provision, that was my comment earlier, is the intent to run the flow 99 times out of 100 to run the flow through the project to run it through-- SUELLEN FULSTONE: Now we are talking about the District water not Heise water. WEIDMAN: Ok, are you talking about when your system and upper Dressler ditch are inoperative? Well, my understanding of this is that and Dan has to correct me on this if I am wrong, is: that may occur at a time when there is plenty of water in Indian Creek in April on a good year and there are other downstream users besides the District at Harvey Place, Heise, Scossa and Trimmer those downstream users are Smith and Springmeyer. If our system is inoperative, what we are talking about water flow delivery is getting that water for everybody downstream through Harvey Channel until we have got the repairs done. Now, that is the way I understood it, now Dan will have to amplify that. Do I have it ri~ght? HINRICHS: You have it right. The thought there is that we're completely changing the existing route of Indian Creek. This Harvey Channel is actually a new channel, and the concern there was that if some reason our project were, to be preventing flows going through our project that would be open, which you could get flows to the other users through the new channel. PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87- 4:10 PM Page - 14 SUELLEN FULSTONE: If I understand the way this thing works, under the way it is described now, you always have the right to put Indian Creek flows through the Harvey Channel. That's what Part B says, "Indian Creek flows shall be diverted into the diversion structures and then put through the Harvey channel", but mo~t of the time at least you are going to be putting them back into the old Indian Creek, putting them into upper Dressler Ditch easement and into the Indian Creek Reservoir. So, is the idea of this provision that you use the Harvey Channel when you can't use the Upper Dressler Ditch? WEIDMAN: Correct. SUELLEN FULSTONE: Except you can't get from the Harvey Channel to Indian Creek Reservoir. WEIDMAN: Our water would be going downstream, we wouldn't be using our Indian Creek water at that stage. SUELLEN FULSTONE: At that stage, you mean you wouldn't be going here, you wouldn't be trying to go here, but it is something you already have the right to do is what I'm trying to figure out. WEIDMAN: That's right. SUELLEN FULSTONE: Those are the specific questions about this particular description. WEIDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could take a 5-minute recess. Jim and I and Dan want to talk a couple of minutes before anyone of us talks individually at the hearing. We want to make sure we are together if we want to make any statements in response to Suellen's comments and Mel's comments. Would that be alright? PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:'10 PM Page - 15 CHAIRMAN WYNN: Fine. (Public Hearing is recessed) (Public Hearing is reconvened) WEIDMAN: I think we can accommodate by very simple changes in these descriptions. As mentioned, it was never our intent to take all of the flow of Indian Creek. What we would do is: Under description under legal Description Harvey Diversion Structure Easement, Page - 2 A, which Suellen refers to: Where we say one-half of the flow of Indian Creek from April 1 to October I of each year may be so diverted and any use of Harvey Channel we can put right in there, may be so diverted for claims #49, #50, #51, #52 which are the Heise claims, and #47 #48 which are the Harvey Place claims. And, this very clearly says that one-half of the flow is what those claims will get, and Mel will get the other half that he has historically gotten. Now, on Page 3 #5, where we say, one-half of the flows will go for us--we are going to add claim #'s 49, 50, 51 and 52 for Heise so that the combined flow, again, of Harvey Place claims and Heise claims to Indian Creek only one-half of that can be used and the other half is there for Schwake. Now, they said if we wanted to handle the 6 AM to 6 PM time issue, that is 6 AM Monday to 6 PM Thursday, they were willing to trade with us. So, we will recite "Pursuant to mutual agreement between the land owner and the District at this hearing the diversion will be made exactly the opposite as it appears in the descrip- tion'' because they wanted to switch. The District will take it from Monday 6 AM to 6 PM Thursday and Schwake will have the Thursday 6 PM to Monday 6 AM. I would have to make the same changes. I can make them on Page 2, Exhibit B. You will have to make the conforming changes there and also Part A and Part C 1 and we will have to make the PUBLIC HEARING, BOARD MEETING 3/5/87 4:10 PMM Page - 16 WEIDMAN, CONT. same changes on Exhibit C, Page - 2, #2 and #5. And, if those changes are made, I am wondering if they take care at least part of the concerns, Suellen, that you raise here with Mel. SUELLEN FULSTONE: Yes, obviously they do address the two specific issues on the halves that are being used at Indian Creek and the historic practice in terms of dividing-- CHAIRMAN WYNN: It seems you are both in agreement, as for language, change perhaps we can leave those details to you. It is our understanding those changes will be made and our action will be made on that basis. Do you have any other comment? Anyone else in the public that wishes to comment? WEIDMAN: The only other comment I have is about impaired water flow at Harvey Channel and I talked to Suellen about it at recess and I'd like the record to show the reason for that is that we don't want to allow any owner of the Schwake place, be it Melvin Schwake or his successor when that time comes to use our diversion structure to impair the rights of others. That is the intent of that provision. We don't want to have a diversion structure there that would allow that to happen. So, that's the only comment I have to put on the record. WYNN: Close the Public Hearing at this time and return it to the Board for action. Moved Olson/Second Jones/Passed Unanimously to Adopt Resolution No. 2428, Resolution of Necessity Subject to Changes Noted by Attorney Weidman after the Public Hearing was reconvened (Page 15).