United States Region 6 EPA 808/E—73—0C2A
Environmental Protection I860 Lincoln Street
Agency Os.iver, Coioraao 80255 J A N U A. • V , !86v
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
- -r--
\ \ Farmers
\ \ Startfiey Lake ,
wropiancs
i Storage
/ Lacocn
Nortngienn
Treatment
Ceils
wastewater
Collection
Water
reatment
Plant
Pumps
Lawn
irri. Return
Rows
Stontnocker
Reservoir
Terminal
Reservoir
Deep Weils
| Shallow Wells
Emergency Supply
Northglenn Water Management Program
City of Northglenn, Colorado
-------
A society which Lb clamo tiling {on ch.oi.ce.,
which own
vasUety o$ economic philosophy, will gi.vt each
new generation no peace, until all have chosen
oa gone undeA, unable to bmn the con.djjti.orj>
oi choi.ce.
Margaret Mead
Coming of Age In Samoa (1928)
-------
EPA - 908/5-79-002A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NORTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Approved b,
p£r L/S^iTliams
egiomn Administrator
Date:
JANUARY 11, 1980
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the EPA, Region VIII, Water
Division and approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
This document is available in limited quantities through the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Evaluation
Branch, 1860 Lincoln St., Denver, Colorado 80295. This docu-
ment is also available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
J.i
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NORTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO
Prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rocky Moun-
tain Prairie Region, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado, with assistance
from Engineering Science, Inc. and Tipton and Kalmbach Engineers,
consulting firms from Denver, Colorado.
A. Type of Action: (X) Draft EIS
( ) Final EIS
B. Brief Description of the Proposal
The Region VIII Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) intends to approve Federal matching funds for
wastewater treatment facilities for the City of Northglenn,
Colorado, through Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), as amended in the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (PL 95-217). Eligibility requirements and procedures
necessary to qualify for a grant are set forth in 40 CFR, Part 35,
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works. The Federal
share shall be 75 percent of the total cost found to be eligible,
with a portion of the facility being eligible for 85 percent
Federal Assistance as "innovative or alternative wastewater treat-
ment processes and techniques" referred to in Section 201(g)(5)
of PL 95-217.
The purpose of this environmental impact statement is to pre-
sent an evaluation of the environmental impacts of a plan submitted
by Northglenn proposing to construct a multiple-purpose water
resource project that includes a drinking water supply, wastewater
collection and treatment system, an urban stonnwater runoff collec-
tion system and an agricultural reuse program.
EPA issued an environmental appraisal/negative declaration on
September 29, 1978 which analyzed the current plan but left un-
answered critical questions on the impacts to agriculture and public
health. Subsequently, Northglenn modified its plan to Include
purchase of agricultural rights from the South Platte River follow-
ing denial by the State Engineer of permits for nontributary deep
wells. EPA has decided to prepare this environmental impact state-
ment in order to reevaluate the Northglenn plan with emphasis on
the effects of the revised plan upon agriculture and possible
health risks.
C. Lead Agency, Project Officer Contact and Address
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is the lead agency
in a joint effort with the State of Colorado and the City of North-
glenn, Colorado, to approve plans, necessary permits, and finance
ill
-------
or award grants in order to implement this proposal. Mr. Weston
Wilson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII is the
designated project officer.
Requests for free copies of this document should be addressed
to:
Mr. Weston W. Wilson, Project Officer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
or call (303) 837-4831.
D. Abstract of the Proposed Action
Northglenn has entered into a water exchange agreement with
the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) that allows
Northglenn to borrow from FRICO up to 7,785 acre-feet per year
of water stored in Standley Reservoir for municipal use. North-
glenn is committed to return 110 percent of the water borrowed
for municipal use to FRICO for agricultural use following waste-
water treatment. The schematic depicted on the cover represents
the components of this plan. In order to satisfy their pay back
requirements of 110 percent, Northglenn proposes to construct a
year-round storage reservoir in Weld County adjacent to their
proposed wastewater treatment facility. The plan requires the
development of a means of replacing the water borrowed by the
City plus 10 percent. This augmentation plan for the water pay
back includes a proposal to collect and treat urban stormwater,
plans to acquire sufficient surface and shallow ground water
supplies from the South Platte River and proposals to develop deep
nontributary ground water. Additional surface water supplies
have been acquired through the purchase of agricultural water
rights.
E. Date filed with EPA and listed in the Federal Register:
January 11, 1980
iv
-------
DISTRIBUTION
Federal or State Agency
State Engineers Office
Colorado Department of Agriculture
Federal Highway Administration
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Farmers Home Administration
National Park Service
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Colorado Water Quality Control
Division, State Department of
Health
Colorado State Board of Land
Commissioners
Colorado Department of Natural
Resources
Colorado Geological Survey
State Historic Preservation
Colorado Department of Health
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
State Clearinghouse, Division of
Planning
Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division, State Department of
Health
Colorado State Land Use Commission
Colorado Division of Highways
Colorado State Water Conservation Board
Bureau of Land Management
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
v
-------
Local Government and Organizations
Shaeffer and Roland
Denver, Colorado
Head, Moye, Graver, Ray
Denver, Colorado
Consolidated Ditches
Brighton, Colorado
Colorado Environmental Health
Association
Brighton, Colorado
Longmont Times
Longmont, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Consultants
Denver, Colorado
Zorich-Erker Engineering
Denver, Colorado
City of Westminster
City of Broomfleld
League of Women Voters
Boulder, Colorado
Colorado Open Space Council
Boulder, Colorado
Yagge, Hall and Evans
Denver, Colorado
City of Northglenn
Rocky Mountain Fuel Co.
Denver, Colorado
Davis, Cusham and Stubs
Denver, Colorado
Town of Frederick
Town of Firestone
Planning Commission
Town of Dacono
The Farmer-Miner
Frederick, Colorado
Wright Water Engineers
Denver, Colorado
Musick, Williamson, Schwartz,
Leavenworth and Cope
Boulder, Colorado
Greeley Tribune
Greeley, Colorado
Weld County Health Department
Denver Post
Denver, Colorado
W.W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc.
Englewood, Colorado
City of Thornton
Commerce City
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co.
Brighton, Colorado
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments
Loveland, Colorado
Engineering-Science
Denver, Colorado
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Norton, Underwood and Lamb
Greeley, Colorado
City of Ft. Lupton
City of Denver
vi
-------
Central Colorado WaCer
Conservancy District
Ft. Lupton, Colorado
Environmental Impact Assessment
Project
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Defense Fund
Boulder, Colorado
Denver Board of Water
Commissioners
City of Denver
Rocky Mountain News
Denver, Colorado
Trout Unlimited
Denver, Colorado
Sierra Club
Boulder, Colorado
Fort Collins Coloradoan
Fort Collins, Colorado
Sterling Journal-Advocate
Sterling, Colorado
Greeley Booster & Wild Co. New
Greeley, Colorado
Hi-Country News
Lander, Wyoming
KBTV-TV Channel 9
Denver, Colorado
KWGN-TV Channel 2
Denver, Colorado
Associated Press
Denver, Colorado
Boulder Dally Camera
Boulder, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Center on
Environment
Denver, Colorado
Colorado Municipal League
Wheatrldge, Colorado
Colorado Wildlife Federation
Boulder, Colorado
Environmental Action of Colorado
Denver, Colorado
Black and Veatch, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Denver Sewage
Disposal District No. 1
City of Denver
Sentinel Newspapers
Denver, Colorado
Loveland Reporter-Herald
Loveland, Colorado
Fort Lupton Press
Ft. Lupton, Colorado
Greeley Journal
Greeley, Colorado
KOA-TV Channel 4
Denver, Colorado
KMGH-TV Channel 7
Denver, Colorado
United Press International
Denver, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Journal
Denver, Colorado
vii
-------
Christian Science Monitor
Boulder, Colorado
Journal of Environmental Health
Denver, Colorado
Pollution Control Journal
Denver, Colorado
Wall Street Journal
Denver, Colorado
Colorado Rancher & Farmer
Denver, Colorado
Rocky Mountain Medical Journal
Denver, Colorado
Individuals
J. Robert Allshouse
Greg Hobbs
Tom Ambalaur
Barbara S. Holme
Fred E. Anderson
Raymond A. Hogan
Jerry Armstrong
Miller Hudson
Senator Robert Armstrong
Henry W. Ipsen
James Ayers
Dick Johnson
Polly Baca-Barragan
Roger W. Jordan
Adolph Bolander
Jamas M. Kadlecek
Dan Bowers
Barry Keene
Kenneth Broadhurst
John Kemp
Dave Brown
Wayne N. Knox
Charles Buchanan
Lew Ladwig
Richard Castro
Jean K. Larson
Gary Chambers
Frank LaSasso
George M. Chavez
John Lee
Ken Conright
Ellie Loftus
Joseph A. Cope
Sherman C. Lyon
Frank Culkin
Don MacManus
John Davoren
Jean Marks
Laura M. DeHerrera
Joe Martin
Cliff Dodge
Beulah Meeker
John DIGregorio
Frank Milavek
Joe D'Orazlo
Elton Miller
Jack Eckstein
Lee Morrison
Mike Englehardt
John Musick
Lorraine Eskelson
Jack McCroskey
Tom Faux
F. Robert McGregor
Eunice W. Fine
less McNulty
John Flori
Betty I. Neale
Jolaine Freitas
Alfred E. Nebring
Cecile French
Tom Norton
Malvin Frick
Jules Omstein
viii
-------
Dennis J. Gallagher
W.W. Gaunt
John Gerstle
W. J. Golth
Anne McGill Gorsuch
J. Craig Green
Regis F. Groff
Carl H. Gustafson
Mayor Holly Hall
John G. Hamlin
Senator Gary Hart
E. E. Hayes
Antone Heit
Barbara Hernandez
Donna Patrick
William F. Hilsmeier
Ron & Ellen Sheperd
Gary Sh±mp
Carl E. Shovalter
Cheryl Signs
Feme Skldmore
A. J. Spano
Kathy Spelt
Brent Sponk
Fred Tapla
Edward Taghente
Edward Tagllente
Arie Taylor
Mary Taylor
Betty Orten
Gary Palmer
Frederico F. Pena
Melvin Potter
Paul W. Powers
Gerri Quinlan
John Rutsteln
Charles Sabados
Thomas G. Sanders
Donald A. Sandoval
Paul Sandoval
Dan Schaefer
Bev Scherllng
3111 Schuler
Judith B. Sell
James M. Sheperd
Steve Thompson
Nancy Traver
King M. Trimble
Marvin Turber
Roy Van Dyke
Albert Watada
Bob Weaver
Robert S. Wham
Donald B. Wilson
Representative Timothy Wirth
L. Duane Woodard
Walter A. Younglund
Sam Hanna Zakhem
Ix
-------
Northglenn Water Management Program
City of Northglenn, Colorado
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1
Summary and Proposed EPA Decision 3
Chapter 2
Purpose and Need 15
Chapter 3
Significant Environmental Issues 19
Public Health 19
Public Health Risks and Irrigation with
Northglenn Effluent 21
Heavy Metals and Industrial
Pretreatoent Requirements 23
Agricultural Issues .... ...... 26
Water Supply to Agriculture. ........... 26
Bull Canal Water Distribution 28
Plan for Augmentation and
Change of Water Rights ..... 29
Agriculture Productivity ..... 34
Potential for Drinking Water Supply .... 39
Other Issues 41
Chapter 4
Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 45
Summary of Water Supply Alternatives 45
Treatment Site Selection. .......... 47
No Federal Action Alternative 51
Summary of Water Management Options 51
Water Quality 54
Public Health 54
Irrigation Water Quality . . ...... 55
Water Quality Effects on Livestock 56
EPA Funding Criteria. ......... 59
EPA Multiple-Purpose Construction Grant
Requirements 60
Application of EPA Funding to the
Northglenn Project 62
Other Direct Effects 65
Changes in Tax Revenue 65
Effects on Land Values Adjacent to
Treatment Site ................. 65
Groundwater Pollution from Lagoon
Reservoir Seepage 65
-------
Page
Potential Odor Problems 67
Reservoir Safety and Stability .... 72
Visual Features. . 73
Energy Sources 74
Other Indirect Effects 82
Lining of Bull Canal 82
Groundwater Under Lands Taken Out of Production. . 82
Noxious Weeds 82
Project Impacts Upon Urbanization 83
Chapter 5
Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts 87
Public Health Measures 87
Agricultural Reuse Manual .... 90
Commitment to Use Effluent for Agriculture 91
Additional Measures to Prevent Groundwater Seepage. . . 92
Additional Monitoring Requirements 93
Designation of Management Agency
for the llorthglenn Project 94
Urban Runoff Controls ...... 100
Compliance with the State Air Quality
Implementation Plan 101
Erosion Controls 104
Energy Conservation 105
Water Conservation 105
Radiological Emergency Response Plan 108
Archaeological/Historical Resources 108
Chapter 6
Public Participation and Coordination. ... ..Ill
Public Participation Trogram Ill
Northglenn Discussion Panel 119
Chapter 7
List of Preparers 123
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Description of the Existing Environment. ...... 127
The Study Area 127
Colorado Water Rights and Administration 127
Administration 127
Changes and Transfers .......... 129
Augmentation Plans 130
Measurement of Water 130
-------
Page
Water P^esources ±11 the Study Area 131
Water Supply Sources for Northglenn 131
Replacement Water 134
Water Quality 135
Water Quality Criteria 135
Existing Water Quality 137
Agriculture in the Study Area 147
Soils and Soil Productivity 147
Irrigation Practices in the Study Area 148
Cropping Patterns 148
Present Production and Yield 149
Climate 149
Geology 153
Archaeological/Historical Resources 155
Appendix E - Literature Review of Public Health Risks 157
Appendix C - Details of EPA Funding for the Northglenn Project. . 165
Costs for Treatment at Denver Metro 165
Costs of Conveyance of Wastewater to Denver Metro 170
Costs for Northglenn Multiple-Purpose Project 174
Sum of the Costs Rule 178
Appendix D - Agreements and Applications 181
D-l Agreement - Frico, City of Thornton, City of
Westminster, and the City of Northglenn (Four-Way
Agreement), Kay 4, 1979 181
D-2 Agreement - City of Thornton and City of
Northglenn (Severance Agreement), May 4, 1979 194
D-3 Agreement - FRICO and City of Northglenn (The
Exchange Agreement), September 7, 1976 208
D-4 Application for Change of Water Rights by City
of Northglenn, August 31, 1979 229
D-5 Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation
including Exchange by City of Northglenn,
August 31, 1979 232
D-6 Pending Litigation 236
Index and References 241
References 241
Special Reserve File 253
Index of Key Words 257
Conversion Table 261
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 3
Figure No. Title Page No.
3-1 Thornton Enclaves to be Served by
Northglenn 25
3-2 Option No. 1 (Without Deep Wells)
3-3 Option No. 2 (650 Acre-feet, Deep Wells)
3-4 Option No. 3 (2300 Acre-feet, Deep oversized at
Wells) back of report
3-5 Option No. 4 (Return to Metro)
3-6 Net Agricultural Productivity 38
CHAPTER 4
4-1 Treatment Sites Evaluated 48
4-2 Worst Case Odor Analysis 69
4-3 Artist's Rendition of the Northglenn
Bull Canal Treatment Facility and
Reservoir 75
4-4 Visual Impacts Looking East 76
4-5 Visual Impacts Looking North 77
4-6 Present View Looking North from Weisner
Subdivision 78
4-7 Future View Looking North from Weisner
Subdivision 79
4-8 View Looking Northeast from Interstate 25
and Weld County Line 80
4-9 Future View Looking Northeast from Inter-
state 25 and Weld County Line 81
APPENDIX A
A-l
Northglenn Study Area
128
A-2
Land Use and Facility Map (oversize at
back of report)
A-3
Water Quality Monitoring Stations
139
A-4
Water Quality Profile - Clear Creek -
Nitrate Nitrogen in mg/1
143
A-5
Water Quality Profile - Big Dry Creek -
Nitrate Nitrogen in mg/1
144
A-6
Water Quality Profile - Clear Creek -
Fecal Coliform (it/100 ml)
145
A-7
Water Quality Profile - Big Dry Creek -
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
146
A-8
Annual Wind Rose
154
APPENDIX C
C-l
C-2
Agricultural Reuse Service Area
Metro Denver Alternative
171
173
-------
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 3
Table No.
Title
Page No.
3-1
Comparison of Future Water Quality
20
3-2
Colorado Proposed Criteria for Fecal
Coliforms
22
3-3
Potential Industrial Dischargers in
Northglenn Service Area
24
3-4
Northglenn's Water Budget - 1988
Conditions
31
3-5
Estimated FRICO Farm Headgate Water
Deliveries
35
3-6
Surface Water Augmentation
36
3-7
Net Productivity of FRICO and the South
Platte Irrigated Lands Affected by the
Northglenn Project
37
3-8
Dry Land Productivity of South Platte Lands
Dried up as a Result of Northglenn Project
39
CHAPTER 4
4-1
Total Nitrogen Concentration in Bull Canal
55
4-2
Total Nitrogen Delivery to Sugar Beets and
Barley
55
4-3
Guide to the Use of Saline Waters for Live-
stock and Poultry
57
4-4
Recommendations for Levels of Toxic Sub-
stances in Drinking Water for Livestock
58
4-5
Grant Estimate
64
4-6
Odor Analysis
70
4-7
1960-1964 Hourly Relative Frequency Wind
Data Summarized for F Stability from
Stapleton International Airport,
Denver, Colorado
71
CHAPTER 6
6-1
Northglenn Discussion Panel
119
APPENDIX A
A-l Water Quality Parameters and Criteria 136
A-2 Summary of Existing Water Quality 138
A-3 Estimated Distribution of Irrigated and
Non-irrigated Areas within Farmer's
Reservoir and Irrigation Co., Standley
Lake Division in 1979 150
-------
Table No.
Title
Page No.
A-4 Estimated 1979 Crop Value in Frico
Standley Lake Division 151
A-5 Estimated Crop Value-South Platte River
in 1979 Dollars 152
APPENDIX B
B-l Suggested Treatment Processes to Meet
the Given Health Criteria for Waste-
water Reuse 158
B-2 Diseases and Causative Agents Transmissible
by Food that has been Contaminated by
Wastewater or by Soil that Contains Fecal
Material 159
-------
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY AND PROPOSED EPA DECISION
-------
The intellect o { man aj> lofuned to
chocie
?£A{jmetier. eft the Ufa, ok oi
the woKk...
William B. Yeats
The Choice (1933)
-------
Chapter 1
SUMMARY AND PROPOSED EPA DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Title II of the 1977 Clean Water Act established a program to
provide Federal assistance in the development and implementation of
wastewater treatment management plans and the construction of pub-
lically owned, treatment works. Federal financing of wastewater
treatment works is implemented in three steps: Step I, facilities
plans, Step II, preparation of construction drawings and specifi-
cations, and Step III, construction of treatment works.
Northglenn funded Step I and Step II without Federal assistance.
In September, 1977, Northglenn presented copies of their draft
facility plan to EPA. The Plan was revised in November 1977 and
again in March 1979. The State of Colorado Water Quality Control
Division, in March 1978, certified to EPA Northglenn's application
for funding. By regulation, EPA cannot award a grant until it has
approved a facility plan for the proposed project and performed an
analysis of the environmental impacts of the project under the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act. EPA issued an environmental
appraisal/negative declaration on September 29, 1978 which analyzed
the current plan but left unanswered critical questions on the
impact to agriculture and public health. Subsequently, Northglenn
modified its plan to include purchase of agriculture rights from
the South Platte River following denial by the State Engineer of
permits for nontributary deep wells.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN
The City of Northglenn, Colorado is proposing to construct a
multiple-purpose water resource project that consists of a drinking
water supply, wastewater collection and treatment system, an urban
stormwater runoff collection system and an agricultural reuse pro-
gram. This integrated approach to water resource management is pre-
dicated on the following factors:
1) Northglenn's stated need to provide an adequate source of
water for its users through the year 2000.
2) Northglenn's stated need for an improved water quality in
its potable water supply. Northglenn currently is pro-
vided a water supply from the City of Thornton, Colorado.
This water supply has, in the past, experienced concen-
trations of nitrite that exceed the National Drinking Water
Standard.
3) The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) can
provide an adequate supply of acceptable quality water to
3
-------
Northglenn and has demonstrated a willingness to parti-
cipate in the proposed plan.
Northglenn has entered into a water exchange agreement with
FRICO that allows Northglenn to borrow from FRICO up to 7,785 acre-
feet per year of water stored in Standley Reservoir for municipal
use. Northglenn is committed to return 110 percent of the water
borrowed for municipal use to FRICO for agricultural use. To
satisfy their pay back requirement of 110 percent, Northglenn pro-
poses to construct a year-round storage reservoir in Weld County
adjacent to its proposed wastewater treatment facility. The plan
also requires the development of a means of replacing the water
borrowed by the City plus 10 percent. This plan for the water pay
back includes a proposal to collect and treat urban stormwater,
plans to acquire sufficient surface and shallow ground water supplies
from the South Platte, and proposals to develop deep nontributary
ground water. Surface water supplies have been acquired through
the purchase of agricultural water rights. As defined under the
agreement between FRICO and Northglenn (see Appendix D), FRICO is
free from any obligation to provide water to Northglenn until all
necessary collection, storage, treatment, and transmission faci-
lities are constructed and Northglenn has secured a decree from
the Water Court that they have sufficient water to satisfy its
obligations.
Presently Northglenn's wastewater is conveyed by the Thornton
system and treated at the Denver Metropolitan Sewer District No. 1
(Denver Metro). This service is provided by Thornton through indi-
vidual contracts that will expire by 1988 with each property owner
in Northglenn. Consequently, Northglenn has negotiated an agreement
with Thornton whereby Northglenn's wastewater treatment will be
provided by Northglenn. Northglenn's revised facility plan (1)
makes the following recommendations for wastewater transport, treat-
ment, and disposal:
Collection System - In accordance with the agreement reached
with Thornton, Northglenn will make improvements to the
existing collection system to redirect the wastewater flows
to the new Northglenn facility (See Appendix D). These
improvements include sealing off several lines and connect-
ing them to a new interceptor which will convey the
wastewater from the City of Northglenn to the proposed
treatment site.
Conveyance System - One interceptor is identified in the
facility plan as needed to convey wastes from Northglenn
and the small Thornton enclaves within the service area.
The proposed Northglenn Force Main (46,900 feet) would
carry sewage and augmentation water eight miles north of
the City to the proposed plant Bite.
. Wastewater Treatment - The facility plan recommends an
aerated, three cell lagoon system for treatment prior to
storage and discharge.
A
-------
Storage and Disposal - The facility plan recommends a 4362
acre foot reservoir (Bull Canal Reservoir) to be constructed
in Weld County to provide for winter storage of the
effluent. The treatment and storage sites are located
adjacent to the Bull Canal, approximately IJ5 miles north-
east of the intersection of Interstate Highway 25 and
Colorado State Highway 7 in Weld County, Colorado. During
the irrigation season, FRICO has the right to call for
release of water stored in the reservoir. Consequently,
the discharge rate will fluctuate based on the calls made
on the reservoir. Chlorination of the effluent will occur
just prior to discharge from the storage reservoir to the
Bull Canal irrigation ditch.
Sludge Disposal - The facility plan recommends that sludge
be removed every five to ten years and be injected in the
surrounding agricultural land.
Description of Options
Within the framework of the Plan four options dealing with water
supply have been identified by Northglenn and EPA. Each of the first
three options assumes that wastewater and urban storm runoff is
conveyed and treated at the Weld County treatment site.
. Option 1 - Northglenn obtains South Platte surface water
rights and does not obtain any additional non-
tributary groundwater beyond their existing
decrees.
. Option 2 - Northglenn is awarded 650 acre-feet per year
of nontributary ground water, thereby reducing
the amount of FRICO borrowed water.
. Option 3 - Northglenn is awarded 2300 acre-feet per year
of nontributary ground water further reducing
the amount of FRICO borrowed water.
. Option 4 - An alternative to these plans is for Northglenn
to acquire its future water supply requirements
from FRICO by condemnation or purchase. Waste-
water under this system would be conveyed to and
treated at the Denver Metro plant with discharge
to the South Platte River.
A more extensive discussion of the four options is presented
in Chapter 4.
Five problems have been identified by EPA as key issues of
this proposal. These Issues are:
public health
. agricultural productivity
5
-------
protection of potential drinking water supplies
direct impacts of the wastewater treatment facility
eligibility for EPA funding
PROPOSED EPA DECISION
The Northglenn proposal integrates total water resource
management and includes such positive environmental features as
agricultural reuse of effluent, energy efficiency, urban runoff
controls and a water conservation policy. Therefore, EPA pro-
poses to approve the Northglenn proposal and to make a grant offer,
with conditions, in the amount of $6,948,000.
This proposed decision is based on an analysis of the follow-
ing factors:
1) additional public health control measures beyond those
originally proposed in the plan are required and will be implemented
by Northglenn;
2) the project includes significant benefits to agriculture
as compared to the situation if on-going water condemnation litiga-
tion had proven successful;
3) the Northglenn water rights applications, including change
of water rights and the augmentation plan, are a logical approach
to preventing injury to other vested water rights. There are a
number of legal issues to be resolved by the Water Court and some
changes to the water plan as filed are likely;
4) there are no significant direct adverse environmental
effects of the proposal other than a potential odor problem at the
treatment site;
5) assuming the Bull Canal is currently suitable as a domestic
raw water source, if the proposal is implemented Bull Canal will no
longer be suitable as a source of domestic raw water, due to nitrate
concentrations. EPA concludes that since the Canal is not presently
used for a domestic water supply, nor has there been any formal request
to designate the canal for domestic water supply, there is no need to
protect the canal for water supply;
6) the proposed wastewater system and agricultural reuse sys-
tem is eligible for a grant providing partial funding as a multiple-
purpose project using alternative technology as defined under the
Clean Water Act.
Further detailed explanation of the analysis of these factors
follows:
Need for Additional Public Health Control Measures
Based upon review of the medical literature, and EPA and
Colorado policies, EPA concludes that additional measures to further
6
-------
protect public health are necessary. These measures, contained as
grant conditions, include:
1. Chlorination prior to discharge to further reduce the
concentration of fecal coliform bacteria to 200 fecal
coliform organisms per 100 milliliters (ml).
A permit criterion of 1000/100 ml was considered
sufficient for agricultural use where some dilu-
tion of the effluent would occur. However, EPA
and Northglenn have agreed to meet a criterion of
200/100 ml for the discharge into Bull Canal.
2. Prevention of agriculture tailwater runoff into the
Towns of Frederick and Firestone.
Present agricultural practices combined with a
lack of proper storm water drainage allows run-
off to flow through these communities. North-
glenn will be required, at their expense, to
intercept and control these flows in order to
further reduce public contact with tailwater
runoff (treated sewage effluent).
3. Complete disinfection of Dacono's nonpotable irrigation
system.
The Town of Dacono operates a nonpotable water
system used for lawn and garden irrigation. The
source of this water is Bull Canal which will, on
occasion, consist entirely of treated sewage
effluent from Northglenn. In order to minimize
the potential for disease transmission in this
situation, Northglenn is required, at their
expense, to disinfect or replace this source of
nonpotable water.
4. Prevention of sale of raw edible crops grown under the
Standley Lake Division of FRIC0.
In order to receive a grant from EPA, Northglenn
will have to agree to a plan to prevent the public
sale or distribution of raw edible food crops
irrigated with effluent from the Northglenn plant.
Northglenn will assist farmers in marketing the
crops to buyers that will process the crops or
Northglenn will otherwise compensate the farmers
for economic losses to the extent of actually
purchasing the vegetables if no other satisfac-
tory solution can be found. This condition is
necessary in order to minimize the possibility of
disease transmission through Ingestion of conta-
minated vegetables. Northglenn will also issue
and reissue an advisory that will inform farmers
7
-------
and discourage direct contact with the water
and its use on private gardens.
See Chapter 5 for a complete description of these conditions.
Benefits to Agricultural Productivity
EPA analyzed the Northglenn water exchange plan for possible
adverse economic and water quality effects upon agriculture. As
originally proposed, the exchange plan included deep wells as the
entire source of make-up waters. With development of such a new
water source it was obvious that there would be a benefit to
agricluture because of this new supply. Following denial by the
State Engineer of the necessary well permits for these nontributary
waters, Northglenn purchased South Platte surface water, some of
which is currently used for agriculture, for their make-up water
supply. Under the latter scheme, it was unclear if indeed there
would be any agriculture benefits to the proposal. EPA decided
that further study of the possible economic impact upon agriculture
was necessary.
The results of EPA's economic analysis indicate that if no
additional deep wells are permitted, (currently on appeal by
Northglenn) a decrease in agricultural productivity of up to
$460,000 during a dry year could occur along the South Platte River.
However, this is more than compensated by continued agricultural
production in the FRICO system of $1,180,000 in a similar dry year.
Compared to either direct purchase or successful condemnation of
the FRICO water supply, the proposed Northglenn exchange plan is
beneficial tt> the agricultural community. Further, EPA concludes
that properly managed, the benefit of the nutrient values in the
sewage effluent will be a net asset which will enhance agricul-
ture production in the area at reduced costs.
Under the Colorado Constitution which recognizes domestic
preference, the condemnation proceedings against the FRICO water
supply would likely be successful. Therefore EPA supports the
proposed exchange as being consistent with EPA policy to protect
environmentally significant agricultural lands. (Chapters 3 and
4 provide further analysis.)
There are also possible adverse impacts to agriculture with
respect to the changes in water quality created by the return of
treated sewage effluent to the Bull Canal. Possible adverse effects
Include:
. reduction In sugar beet purity
. reduction In barley starch content
8
-------
EPA concludes that through proper management, such as reduc-
tion of nitrogen fertilizer applications and proper scheduling of
sewage effluent and Standley Lake releases, these possible
problems can be eliminated.
Protection of Vested Water Rights
Northglenn must receive approval of the Water Court for a plan
of augmentation in order to implement its proposal. In addition,
Northglenn has purchased various water rights and intends to trans-
fer such water. This shift in usage of the water in the over-appro-
priated South Platte system must comply with Colorado's Water Law
and receive approval by the State Water Court.
EPA concludes, based upon expert opinion, that 1) other complex
plans with similar principles have been approved by the Water Court
and this plan can be administered by the State Engineer; 2) the
amount of water obtained from surface sources is reasonable based
on historic ditch diversions and stream depletions; 3) the exchange
plan will sufficiently protect FRICO shareholders; 4) through the
Water Court process, out-of-priority diversions will be properly
augmented; 5) the water rights to be used for augmentation are
sufficiently senior for that purpose; 6) South Platte water users
will be compensated for additional ditch losses.
In analyzing the water rights and augmentation plans of the
Northglenn project, a number of legal issues have been identified
by EPA.
These legal issues will be resolved through the judicial pro-
cess if necessary. EPA concludes that some changes to the water
plans as filed are likely but the probable effect of any subsequent
changes during the court process will likely be limited to require-
ments for additional water for augmenting purposes.
Direct Effects of the Proposal are Not Significant
EPA's conclusion as to the significance and impacts of direct
adverse impacts is:
. Loss of tax base - The projected loss of $8,500 annually
to Weld County and $300 annually to Adams County is a small
decrease in net tax revenues to the two counties.
Effect on Adjacent Land Values - A decrease in adjacent
residential values up to five percent is possible with no
change in farmland values.
. Ground water pollution - The proposed clay liner of the
reservoir and lagoon system will minimize any change in
ground water quality. Additional construction measures
are required by EPA to properly seal a non-active fault
if present. No adverse impact upon ground water is pre-
dicted.
9
-------
Odor problems - Under "worst case" conditions which
include malfunction of the aeration system, the Colorado
State Standard for odor could potentially be violated up
to 2.5 miles from the facility. Noticeable increases
in odor could result.
Reservoir Dam Safety - The design standards meet those
recommended by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers and have been approved by the Colorado
State Engineer. No unusual risks are apparent.
Aesthetics - The storage reservoir embankment will be
revegetated and will have a low profile. Therefore, it should
not adversely affect the aesthetics of the area.
(See Chapter 4 for additional analysis of these effects and
other indirect effects.)
Protection for Drinking Water Supplies is Not Necessary
The Bull Canal is not currently used for a domestic water supply
and there has not been any petition to the State to designate this
source for domestic use. Based on very limited data, it does appear
the Bull Canal is currently suitable for a domestic raw water
supply. The Town of Frederick indicated to EPA they intended to
use water from the Bull Canal to augment their present surface
supplies. The Town of Ft. Lupton has Informed EPA of its intention
to use Sand Hill Reservoir which receives some flow from Bull Canal
as their future domestic water supply source.
The concentration of nitrates in the canal could adversely
affect such plans since the concentration will exceed the National
Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/1. Water containing such high
concentrations of nitrates is not economically suited as a domestic
source. EPA recognizes that this change in water quality poten-
tially represents a resource lost. EPA concludes that: 1) Bull
Canal discharges to Sand Hill Reservoir are insignificant to the
total inflow and, therefore, this proposal should not adversely
affect Ft. Lupton's intended use of this source and 2) the Town of
Frederick should seek other available sources for a domestic supply.
The Proposal Qualifies for EPA Funding
EPA is presently in the process of developing a method for
funding multiple-purpose projects which involve Innovative and
alternative technology in order to apply the Incentives provided
by the 1977 Clean Water Act Amendments. EPA has determined that
such projects are eligible for grant awards based on a formula of
115 percent of the ratio of the present worth cost of the most cost-
effective single-purpose option, to the present worth cost of the
multiple-purpose project. This formula calculates the fraction of
the multiple-purpose project costs which are eligible for EPA
funding. Portions of a multiple-purpose project which involve
10
-------
innovative or alternative technology are eligible for an 85 percent
grant rather than the normal 75 percent grant. Agricultural reuse
of effluent is defined in the Act as an alternative technology.
The total grant amount is therefore determined by multiplying the
fraction of the multiple-purpose project costs that are eligible times
85 percent for those items necessary for agricultural reuse and 75
percent for all other wastewater elements.
For EPA to participate in the funding of a multiple-purpose
project, the following rules apply. The Northglenn proposal meets
these requirements:
1. The cost of the multiple-purpose project must not exceed
the sum of the costs of the most cost-effective single-purpose op-
tions which accomplish the same purposes. (The Northglenn proposal
combines wastewater treatment with agricultural reuse less expen-
sively than two single purpose projects providing similar functions.)
2. The primary and secondary environmental effects are assessed
in accordance with the NEPA review procedures. (As a result of this
review under NEPA, EPA concludes that there are no significant net
adverse environmental impacts and that net environmental benefits
will result from this project.)
3. The pollution control purpose of the proposed project must
be necessary to meet an enforceable requirement of the Act. (Addi-
tional costs associated with wastewater treatment are necessary
for Northglenn during the 20 year planning period to meet enforceable
requirements of the Act as defined in Denver Metro's discharge per-
mit. These costs include the need to expand conveyance facilities
and to expand and upgrade the Denver Metro Plant.)
A. There is no purchase of existing facilities with federal
funds. (Northglenn's purchase of existing water distribution and
collection systems has been eliminated from grant eligibility.)
5. The project meets the definitio.n of treatment works, and
the works are publicly owned. (The wastewater treatment project
and all features of the Northglenn project will be publicly owned.)
6. The project is consistent with the adopted and approved
water-quality management plan. (EPA has determined that the North-
glenn proposal is in compliance with the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) Clean Water Plan. Adoption of an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Weld County as required by EPA as a prerequisite to final
grant payment will mean the project is also in compliance with the Lari-
mer-Weld Council of Governments Clean Water Plan.)
7. The applicant must demonstrate a commitment that effluent
will be applied to irrigated productive agricultural land for the
design life of the project. (Northglenn has committed to a con-
tingency plan where they will maintain sufficient land to reuse
all water generated by the treatment plant for agricultural irri-
gation for the design life of the plant.)
11
-------
a
CHAPTER 2
PURPOSE AND NEED
-------
To e.vesiy iking thvli a ie/non, and
a. time, to evtfty punpot t undex the. heave.n.
The Bible
Ecclesi&Btes 3:1
-------
CHAPTER 2
PURPOSE AND NEED
The City of Northglenn is located in a rapidly growing area
north of Denver, Colorado. Northglenn is largely developed and
surrounded by other incorporated communities. The 1976 population
for Northglenn was 32,000 people in 9,500 residential units. There
are 10,000 connections to the water system within the City to serve
commercial, industrial, public, and residential users. The future
population of Northglenn is projected to be 42,500 by 2000 with an
ultimate population expected to be as high as 48,000. Annual rate
of growth is expected to be 3.1 percent per year.
Until recently, the City of Thornton owned the water trans-
mission and sewage collection systems in Northglenn. Thornton was
responsible for operation and maintenance, billing of customers,
construction of new lines and all other functions related to the
total water and sewerage system.
Future water supply requirements of Northglenn have been esti-
mated for a year of average precipitation and a dry year based on
an expected population of 42,500 people. Based on this design popu-
lation, the average and dry year water requirements of Northglenn
are 6,840 acre-feet and 7,340 acre-feet of water, respectively.
Northglenn's stated position is that the City of Thornton can
not provide an acceptable water supply, either in terms of quantity
or quality. The raw water quality at Thornton's Columbine Water
Treatment Plant has on occasion had nitrite concentrations that
exceed the drinking water standard of 1.0 mg/1 (1). Thornton indi-
cates this problem has been corrected (2). Thornton also indicates
that they are currently developing water resources outside of the
Denver metropolitan area to supplement their existing water supplies.
The current position of Thornton is that they can provide an adequate
water supply for themselves and Northglenn (3).
The need to acquire additional water supplies for future growth
in Thornton, Westminster, and Northglenn resulted in several events
which began in 1963. These actions are presented chronologically
below:
1963 - Westminster entered into agreement with FRICO for
use and storage of water in Standley Lake.
1973 - Thornton files condemnation proceedings against
individual FRICO farmers.
1973 - Westminster files condemnation proceedings against
FRICO farmers.
. 1976 - Northglenn enters into an exchange agreement with
FRICO.
15
-------
1979 - Northglenn and Thornton enter into severance agree-
ment of water and sewer services.
1979 - Northglenn, Thornton, Westminster and FRICO enter
into a four-way agreement which establishes an approach to
cooperative planning for solving water supply problems, and
facilitates the withdrawal of all condemnation suits
against FRICO farmers.
The documents are presented in Appendix D of this report.
By obtaining water from FRICO, Northglenn has assured itself
of water of adequate quality and a certain water supply source for
the future. The City has also obtained utility independence through
purchase of its water and sewer systems. In the process of entering
into agreements to Insure its future water supply, Northglenn made
the commitment to return 110 percent of the water borrowed from
FRICO. To achieve this water balance in the FRICO-Standley Lake
Division, Northglenn intends to return its treated wastewater as
part of its commitment to FRICO. The City must therefore, have
access to the use and control of its wastewater. In order to accom-
plish this Northglenn must "sever" its dependence on Denver Metro
for sewage treatment. As required by the September 2, 1976 agree-
ment between Northglenn and FRICO, Northglenn must "collect the
water (after municipal use), treat it in accordance with FRICO's
specifications, store it and transmit it back to the FRICO irriga-
tion network for delivery to FRICO stockholders". (4)
The agreements previously discussed are vital steps toward full
implementation of Northglenn's current water resource management plan.
Equally important steps such as Water Court approval of the plan of
augmentation remain to be taken before the plan is fully implemented.
If all obstacles are not overcome, then Northglenn will have to
modify its current plan or use another approach to secure a safe,
dependable source of supply. Failure to implement the current plan
would also affect the plans of Thornton and Westminster, possibly
resulting in these cities refiling condemnation proceedings against
FRICO. The success of those proceedings could force Northglenn to
secure other sources of irrigation water, nontributary ground water,
tributary ground water, or combinations thereof. The environmental
consequences of such a chain of events can not be fully determined,
and may be of lesser or greater magnitude than those resulting from
the full implementation of Northglenn's current resource plan.
In effect Northglenn's wastewater treatment need is entirely
a function of the water supply and exchange program. In order to
implement the exchange, control of wastewater treatment and discharge
is essential.
16
-------
\
SI
CHAPTER 3
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
-------
"MeAG. paJtbAjnoroj -u net economy.
... Expense, ancf g/ie&t expense,
may be an eA4e«£ui£ paA*
&uit economy."
Edmund Burke
Latter to a Noble Lord (1796)
-------
CHAPTER 3
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
The significant issues of the Northglenn water resource manage-
ment plan are how the future water quality and quantity will affect
public health, possible drinking water supplies, and agricultural
productivity. Other environmental issues associated with specific
elements of the proposed plan include wastewater treatment site selec-
tion and other direct and indirect impacts of the treatment
plant and are discussed in the next chapter on evaluation of alter-
natives .
In the future, water in the Bull Canal will consist of Standley
Lake water and Northglenn wastewater effluent. The quality will
vary depending upon the relative amount of each type. Using the
projected effluent quality (1,2), Bull Canal water quality at the
reservoir site and the relative Standley Lake flows for each option,
future water quality in the Bull Canal below the discharge was
calculated. A comparison of the water quality of the three options
is presented in Table 3-1.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Potential health risks associated with uncontrolled use of waste-
water conveyed through irrigation canals are:
direct human contact with wastewater which has received little
or no dilution
. human consumption of raw edible crops irrigated with wastewater
The specific risks within the Study Area are:
. public exposure/potential contact with effluent in the Bull
Canal and lateral ditches
contact by FRICO farmers with effluent through irrigation
practices
public exposure/contact with effluent at Dacono through their
public irrigation system
. public exposure/contact with effluent as irrigation tailwater
in the communities of Frederick and Firestone
ingestion of raw food crops irrigated with effluent on FRICO
farms
raw edible food crops irrigated with effluent offered for
public sale (none presently grown in FRICO-Standley Lake
Division).
19
-------
TABLE 3-1
COMPARISON OF FUTURE WATER QUALITY
Proposed Projected
Discharge Water Quality in Bull Canal
Effluent * AVERAGE YEAR
Quality
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 450-500
410-440
400-430
400-430
Suspended Solids mg/1
20-30
190-20Q
220-230
24 -245
BOD mg/1
10
8
8
8
Fecal Coliform #/100 ml
200
170
160
160
Cadmium mg/1
0.005
.007
.007
.007
Chromium mg/1
0.005
.007
.007
.007
Copper mg/1
0.05
.07
.07
.07
Lead mg/1
0.005
.007
.007
.007
Manganese mg/1
0.05
.14
.16
.16
Mercury mg/1
0.001
.001
.001
.001
Zinc mg/1
0.30
.23
.21
.21
Sodium mg/1
30-40
30-40
30-40
30-40
Sulfate mg/1
100-120
90-100
90-100
90-100
Chloride mg/1
25-35
20-27
19-25
18-24
Nitrate nitrogen mg/1
20
14
12
12
1-Volume 3, Sheaf fer and Roland, Wastewater facilities Northglenn, Colorado
April 25, 1977.
2-Volume 4, Sheaffer and Roland, 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan, August 24, 19?'*
3-Dry Year conditions for all options assumed to be 100 percent effluent below
discharge. Therefore, water quality in the canal would be the same as the
effluent quality during such dry years.
20
-------
Coliform bacteria are the commonly used indicator organisms for
assessing public health risks associated with waterborne disease.
Fecal coliform, bacteria common to warm-blooded animals, are recog-
nized as positive indicators of potential health risks. The poten-
tial for isolating a specific pathogen per unit volume in 100 percent
effluent is significantly higher than when the same effluent has
been volumetrically diluted. It is therefore apparent that with
100 percent effluent the potential for infection is greater than
with a diluted effluent. The fecal coliform analysis however, does
not differentiate specific pathogens.
During dry year conditions flow in the Bull Canal may be entirely
sewage effluent, thus increasing the public health risk. The State
of Colorado provides minimal guidance on this problem in their
proposed water quality criteria and standards (3).
The draft water quality standards proposed by the State include
a standard for agriculture for a fecal coliform limit of 1000 orga-
nisms per 100 milliliters (ml). This value was based on the recom-
mended criteria presented in the National Academy of Science (NAS)
report (4). The value of 1000 organisms per 100 ml is based on an
ambient instream condition and is not based on a condition of 100
percent wastewater. In Colorado's final proposed water quality
standards (3) the 1000 organisms/100 ml has been omitted for agri-
culture. The State's current fecal coliform water quality criteria
are presented in Table 3-2.
The State separates recreational waters into two classes. Class I
recreation is primary contact and Class II is secondary contact. The
Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria (5) specifies that
the primary contact (Class I) category includes such activities as
wading and dabbling by children, swimming, diving, water skiing,
and surfing; where there is a relatively high probability of ingest-
ing small quantities of water and where there is contact with mucous
membranes. Secondary contact (Class II) includes activities in
which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental and
the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is
minimal. These include such activities as boating and fishing.
The Class I recreational criterion is based on data which indi-
cate a sharp increase in the frequency of detection of Salmonella
when fecal coliform densities exceed 200 organisms per 100 ml in
fresh water. Currently, this is one of the most acceptable relation-
ships which have been developed between Indicator organisms and
waterborne pathogens. This relationship is based on an instream
condition and not 100 percent effluent (4).
Public Health Risks and Irrigation with Northglenn Effluent
The reuse of wastewater, when out of control of the municipality,
should provide for the protection of the public health both during
agricultural uses and public exposure. A review of the medical
literature regarding such risks is presented in Appendix B.
In a dry year, irrigation water in the Bull Canal below the
21
-------
TABLE 3-2
COLORADO PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR FECAL COLIFORM*
Use
Parameter
Recreation
Class I Class II
Water Supply Agricult-i,,.^
Fecal Coliform
#/100 ml
200(A) 2000(B,C)
2000 (D)
no
standard(g
*Department of Health cites the following references as noted as jus-
tifications for criteria limits.
A. EPA, Quality Criteria for Water. July 1976, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U. S. Government Printing Office: 055-001-
01049-4, Washington, D.C. 256p.
B. Recommendations based on review of all available information by
the Committee on Water Quality Standards and Stream Classification.
C. Level modified by Water Quality Control Commission.
D. EPA - National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, 40
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 141.
E. Colorado State Water Quality Standards included a standard of
1000/100 ml for agriculture but this standard has been dropped.
EPA's Quality Criteria for Water does not specify a fecal coliform
criteria for agricultural use.
Northglenn discharge will consist of 100 percent effluent with no
dilution. It can be concluded from the literature review (in
Appendix B) that public health risks associated with effluent reuse
must be considered on a case-by-case basis. EPA, in its process
design manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater endorses
this approach by stating, "Safeguards must be established on a
case-by-case basis so that the relative risk of disease trans-
mission in each situation can be evaluated individually" (6).
Guidance for reasonable health safeguards for effluent irriga-
tion systems in which public exposure is not controlled is pro-
vided from EPA and the Colorado Department of Health. EPA, in
PRM 79-3 (7), recommends for areas where the public has access and
exposure to the wastewater, that the fecal coliform limit should
not exceed 200/100 ml. The Colorado Department of Health (8)
guidelines for landscape irrigation, because direct contact with
wastewater by the public is possible, also require that chlorination
result in less than 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml. The State
guidelines also indicate crops grown under these conditions shall
not be raw edible vegetables (8).
These values are not as conservative as the California Code
or the World Health Organization criterion of 2.2/100 ml (total
coliform) and 100/100 ml (total coliform), respectively. The Food
and Drug Administration currently recommends that raw edible food
22
-------
crops not be irrigated with domestic wastewater irrespective of
the degree of treatment.
Data on public health risks relative to irrigation with waste-
water are conflicting and are reflected in the lack of uniform require-
ments or standards covering such use. The data on public health
hazards associated with uncontrolled access/use of treated waste-
water are virtually nonexistent. EPA believes the proposed
Colorado primary contact recreational bacteriologic standard of
200 fecal coliform organisms per 100 ml is a reasonable bacter-
iological criterion for discharge of the treated Northglenn wastewater
to the FRICO system. This standard would be compatible with un-
restricted public access to the FRICO canal system (1). The pro-
posed bacteriological discharge level of the Northglenn effluent
(1,2) will provide a relatively high level of pathogen control, but
the presence of some pathogenic organisms in the irrigation water
can be expected. Therefore,EPA has required that prior to discharge
chlorination achieve a level of less than 200 fecal colonies per
100 milliliters (Chapter 5 includes this condition).
Heavy Metals and Industrial Pretreatment Requirements
Heavy metals present in wastewater are generally concentrated
in wastewater sludges. Major heavy metals of concern to the food
chain include, cadmium, copper, zinc, molybdenum, selenium, and
lead. All of these are of sufficiently low concentrations in the
natural soils and the projected wastewater effluent that they are
not expected to produce an adverse impact. Soils with high clay
content also protect against the availability of metals for plant
uptake. For most toxic metals,reduced crop yields are experienced
at lower levels than those that create health risks.
A likely source of heavy metals in the wastewater system will
be from industrial sources. A condition to obtaining construction
grant funds is that the applicant implement a sewer use and pretreat-
ment ordinance. Northglenn must have such an ordinance approved
prior to the construction grant prepared for the new treatment faci-
lity. A portion of Thornton will also be served by Northglenn and
this area will require a similar ordinance as required by the
May 4, 1979, Northglenn-Thornton agreement (9). (Reprinted in
Appendix D.)
The purpose of a sewer use ordinance is to prevent discharge
of materials into sewer lines which would create a discharge viola-
tion or make treatment unreasonably costly. A list of these
materials, critical concentrations, and treatment requirements will
be delineated in the sewer ordinance.
Although the City of Northglenn is comprised largely of resi-
dential units, there are some commercial and industrial facilities
which potentially may discharge harmful wastes. A list of dischargers
in the Northglenn service area is given in Table 3-3. A review of
these facilities in Northglenn indicates that car washes and
23
-------
laundries are the predominant potential sources of industrial waste.
An evaluation of these wastes on a case-by-case basis is necessary
to determine if pretreatment is warranted. The proposed EPA treat-
ment and control technologies for such facilities are:
Dissolved air floatation,
Coagulation/Settling/Filtration,
. Water Recycling, or
Polishing Filters - Multi-Media and Carbon
The Thornton areas served by Northglenn are indicated in
Figure 3-1. A review of zoning ordinances indicates that the majori-
ty of these areas are classified as commercial and industrial, with
minor sections classified as residential development. As in North-
glenn, laundries are the major industrial dischargers in Thornton.
Based on review of existing and proposed development it is
concluded that industrial wastes are and will be a very small com-
ponent of the wastewater from the Northglenn service area. The
wastewater from the potential industrial and commercial establish-
ments should be evaluated but it is unlikely that it will signi-
ficantly affect the operation of the treatment facility, the effluent
quality, or adversely effect sludge disposal. EPA concludes that
the expected heavy metal concentrations in the effluent and sludge
will not present any significant health risk.
TABLE 3-3
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
IN NORTHGLENN SERVICE AREA
NORTHGLENN
Discharger
Description
Whistle Stop Exxon
Huron Texaco
Robinson's Standard
North Washington Conoco
Clean-o-mat
Silver State Cleaners
Silver State Cleaners
Service Station w/car wash
Service Station w/car wash
Service Station w/car wash
Service Station w/car wash
Laundromat
Dry Cleaners
Dry Cleaners and laundromat
and Laundry
Robo of Northglenn
Car wash
THORNTON
Triple A Coin Op
Gigantic Cleaners
Laundromat
Laundromat
24
-------
NORTHGLENN
Northglenn area
to bt served
by Thornton
• 000
-Thornton wastewater
service area to be
served by Northglenn-
/
/
FIGURE 3-1
THORNTON ENCLAVES TO BE
SERVED BY NORTHGLENN
25
-------
AGRICULTURAL ISSUES
EPA has established policy designed to help protect environ-
mentally significant agricultural lands (10). The policy is to
protect significant agricultural land from irreversible conversion
to uses which result in its loss as an environmental or essential
food production resource.
The Northglenn plan is designed to provide a net benefit to
agricultural productivity. All elements of the plan, water supply,
wastewater treatment, and reuse, are closely integrated with agri-
cultural practices of both the South Platte River and FRICO-
Standley Lake Division.
It is a major goal of this document to determine if the pro-
posed plan is consistent with EPA's agricultural policy. The
determination of consistency will be based on a comparative review
of changes in agricultural productivity in FRICO and the South
Platte for the options evaluated. Also evaluated will be the
effect upon agriculture of the comparative changes in irrigation
water quality in the Bull Canal for the various options.
The projected future water quality of the Bull Canal has been
described. It is recognized that the increase in nitrogen can be
beneficial to nitrogen demanding crops. However, sugar beet and
malt barley are nitrogen sensitive crops. Nitrogen uptake by
sugar beets is approximately 80 pounds per acre, and the barley
uptake is about 75 pounds per acre.
When nitrogen deliveries exceed nitrogen uptake demand of sugar
beets, a reduction of the percent sucrose content and purity occurs.
This reduces the marketability and/or market value - of the crop.
Great Western Sugar Company in its contract with growers specifies
that after July 15 the growers are prohibited from further nitrogen
application. This provision assures that sugar beets will meet
specifications for effective sugar recovery.
Nitrogen uptake by barley affects the protein and starch con-
tent. Again, marketability is reduced and entire shipments may be
rejected by the processor if excessive nitrogen applications have
severely reduced the starch content.
WATER SUPPLY TO AGRICULTURE
Analysis of the Northglenn water plan has indicated a number
of potential issues which could affect the operation of the plan
and/or the amount of augmentation water ultimately required by the
City.
Nontributary Ground Water
Non tributary ground water (water that is not connected with
the surface stream system) is available within the underlying
aquifers of the City of Northglenn in the Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox
26
-------
Hills formations. Northgleiui has one well, Arapahoe Well No. 7,
completed into the Arapahoe formation which is estimated to yield
a small supply of 5 acre-feet per year. Information provided by
Northglenn's engineers, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., based on a
report prepared by John Romero of the State Engineer's Office,
indicates that an additional amount of ground; water might be avail-
able to provide 2300 acre-feet per year for a minimum of 100 years
(11). Mr. Romero's study generally encompassed a wide area and
additional site specific testing would have to be accomplished to
verify this amount of water is available to Northglenn. The
Arapahoe Aquifer is estimated to yield 1300 acre-feet per year
and the Laramie-Fox Hills is estimated to yield 1,000 acre-feet
per year for a minimum of 100 years. The effect of either of
these aquifers failure to yield that amount will require
Northglenn to borrow more from FRICO or aquire other surface
waters.
Tributary Ground Water
Part of Northglenn's plan includes obtaining some makeup
water from a tributary well field along the South Platte River.
The design of the well field has not been completed. One area
identified as a potential site was found unsuitable and additional
investigations are currently underway by Northglenn's consultants.
Since under current plans, this well field is not intended to be
a major water source, continuous pumping for long periods of time
is unlikely. It is improbable the well field will have a noticeable
impact on agriculture. In the event ground water levels were
lowered.through operation of the well field on a permanent basis,
there could be negative impacts. The final evaluation of the im-
pacts of the well field cannot be completed until the field is
located and the wells are designed.
Stoandley Lake Yield
In the period 1941 through 1976 the average yield to the farmer
from the Standley Lake system was 4.9 acre-feet per share. The
lowest yield was 1.3 acre-feet per share in 1955 (12). According
to a study by Blatchley and Associates, the amount of delivered
water in 1932 was about 0.80 acre feet per share, the lowest on
record (13). In contrast, Northglenn has projected a future dry
year yield of 5 acre-feet per share with an average yield of 7
acre-feet per share. This estimate is predicated on a number of
assumptions:
1. The Bull Canal system will be lined, reducing the ditch
loss from an historical average of 40 percent to about 10
percent in the future.
2. Losses in Big Dry Creek which historically have been
between three and five percent (14) will be zero in the
future and there may be an increase due to urbanization
of the area adjacent to Big Dry Creek, which would in-
crease runoff yields.
27
-------
3. The Cities of Northglenn, Westminster and Thornton now
own approximately 39% of FRICO's share and will take
their water directly from Standley Lake (15). This in-
crease in city ownership reduces losses associated with
agricultural use.
4. There is a better prediction of dry year yields based
on improved snowpack estimates. This will result in
a more efficiently managed water supply.
5. Previous studies have apparently been based on poten-
tially erroneous data relative to the Croke Canal (a
feeder canal from Clear Creek to Standley Lake).
Revised studies by Northglenn!s consultants have been
based upon the change in reservoir water levels.
6. The reservoir was enlarged in 1965, and the larger volume
will allow more efficient water use. In the dry year of
1977, which can be compared to 1954 — the driest on
record since 1941--the unit release was 5.9 acre-feet per
share (16).
For the analysis of the Northglenn water management study, the
yields of 5 and 7 acre-feet per share for dry and normal years is
considered reasonable by EPA. This will also be approximately
equal to the yield to the farmers because of lining of the Bull
Canal system and the 10 percent bonus provision in the Northglenn/
FRICO agreement. In the event the Bull Canal system is not lined,
a yield of 5 acre-feet per Share at the reservoir will be about 3
acre-feet per share delivered to the farm headgate.
One consideration which may reduce or have a negative impact
on the yield of Standley Lake in the future is that the Croke
Canal is the primary supply to Standley Lake and, with a 1902
appropriation date, is a relatively junior water right on Clear
Creek. The Croke Canal generally is in priority only during
winter and spring runoff periods. Because of increased efficiency
in water use by other senior appropriators within the Clear Creek
and South Platte River Basin, concern has been expressed that
the yield of the Croke Canal may continue to diminish (14).
Bull Canal Water Distribution
Through the Northglenn/FRICO water exchange plan, payback
water will be returned to the Bull Canal at the Bull Canal Reser-
voir site approximately 13 miles from the headgate of the Bull
Canal. In 1979, there were 401 farmer shares upstream of the point
of payback return and 1049 farmer shares downstream (17). Under
certain flow conditions with some of the options considered,
there is not sufficient water available in Big Dry Creek at the
headgate of the Bull Canal to give the upstream shareholders
the same yield as those downstream of the point of return. In a
mutual ditch company, the share yield throughout the system is supposed
28
-------
to be equal. Northglenn has stated, although no provision is
made in any of the agreements or within the augmentation plan, that
if such a shortage occurs, they will make water available either
from holdover storage in Standley Lake, by pumping to the upper
shareholders from the Bull Canal Reservoir, or by other means to
insure the same yield upstream as downstream of the point of return.
PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION AND CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS
The contract between Northglenn and FRICO and the water rights
owned by Northglenn provide a physical water supply to the City.
In addition to the physical supply, it is necessary to insure there
is a legal right for the City to use the water. Because the South
Platte Basin is overappropriated, application to the Water Court
for a new municipal water right for Northglenn would not provide
any water on a legal basis except during certain limited times of
the year when free water would be available.
The Northglenn water plan has three essential components in
terms of providing Northglenn a legal water supply. These are as
follows:
a. Change in water rights.
b. Plan for augmentation.
c. New water rights.
A copy of the change in water rights and the plan for augmen-
tation is included in Appendix D. Northglenn has filed a number
of new water rights which form a part of the plan for augmentation.
The filing for nontributary ground water from beneath the city
is pending with the Water Court.
The change of water right filing for the Northglenn Plan involves
changing the decrees of the Church Ditch, Farmers High Line Canal,
East Lake Water Company (carried in and served by the Farmers High
Line Canal) and the Berthoud Pass Ditch.
The plan for augmentation includes as rights to be augmented:
Northglenn Reservoir (proposed); the Bull Canal Reservoir; the South
Platte tributary wells Nos. 1 through 5; and, the Grange Hall Creek
diversion at Irma Drive. Water rights which will be used for augmen-
tation include the Lower Clear Creek Ditch, Burlington Ditch,
Burlington Reservoir, Fulton Ditch, New Brantner Extension Ditch
Company, Lupton Bottom Ditch Company, Brighton Ditch, and deep non-
tributary wells. Water rights on Grange Hall Creek and some storage
reservoirs are also included.
The documents requesting legalization of Northglenn's water
supply were filed with the Water Court in Division 1, the South
Platte River Basin, on August 31, 1979. Other water right users
had until October 31, 1979 to protest the action and identify any
rights which may be Injured by Northglenn's plan. There will then
be a period of disucssion and negotiation between Northglenn and
29
-------
objectors to eliminate or reduce the number of issues. It is un-
likely that a consent decree covering all issues can be negotiated
and the case will be heard by the water judge.
Yield of Augmenting Rights
The yield of the water rights to be used for augmentation was
reviewed from preliminary engineering studies provided by Northglenn.
EPA concludes that it appears that the water rights represent
sufficiently senior rights for augmenting purposes. Water used
for augmentation comes from lands historically in agricultural
production. Only the agricultural consumptive use can and will be
used for augmentation.
Administration
The plan for augmentation is not specific as to details of plan
operation and administration. The State Engineer normally assigns
only one Water Commissioner to each stream or stream segment for
administration. The Northglenn augmentation plan as well as opera-
tion of the water supply system is very complex. Operation and
proper monitoring will require measuring devices throughout the
system and may even require measuring crop consumptive use as well
as reservoir evaporation. The State Engineer's office has indicated
to EPA that it needs at least one additional employee to properly
administer Northglenn's proposed plan.
Ditch Protection
When shares in a mutual ditch company are used for augmenting
purposes it is necessary to either transfer the water out of the
ditch or divert water from the ditch back to the river source.
The other ditch users must be protected from injury and may suffer
a loss of water were Northglenn to transfer its shares out of
the ditch entirely. Northglenn has stated they will work with the
individual ditches to work out a means of insuring that the
remaining ditch shareholders are protected. This can be accomplished
through the use of augmentation stations, by diverting water from
the ditch back to the stream, or by leaving a certain percentage of
water right permanently in the ditch equivalent to the pro-rata
share of seepage loss. The balance of the water right would be
either left in the stream or changed to a new point of diversion
where Northglenn could utilize the water for augmentation.
Thornton Enclave
As shown in Table 3-4, the Thornton Enclave is expected to
contribute a total of 885 acre-feet per year of wastewater that will
be used as replacement water to FRICO by Northglenn. Northglenn's
opinion Is that this flow does not require augmentation. EPA has
no opinion as to whether such flow requires augmentation.
Thornton currently receives its water supply from tributary
wells along the South Platte River. The City's wastewater is
treated at the Denver Metro sewer district plant and discharged to
30
-------
TABLI 3-4
NORTHCLENN'S WATER BUDGET
1988 Conditions
0
FRICO Exchange
Net Amount Rec'd from TRICO
5937
4197
5292
3552
3642
1902
0
0
10X Bonus (500 AF min)
594
500
529
500
500
500
0
0
Reservoir Evaporation
316
236
316
326
316
236
0
0
Total Payback Requirement
6847
4933
6137
4288
4458
2638
0
0
——
——
¦ ' —
ssv
Reolaceaent/Wastevater Return
Sevage - Northglenn
4016
4016
4016
4016
4016
4016
4016
4016
Sewage - Thornton Enclave^
885
885
885
885
885
885
885
885
Sewer Line Infiltration
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Storm Runoff-Grange Hall Crk 1200
0
936
0
0
0
0
0
Tributary well Field
446
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Water Available
6847
5201
6137
5201
5201
5201
5201
5201
Excess Physical SuddIy2
(Total Available - Payback
Requirement)
_0
268
0
913
743
2563
To Metro
Sever
——•
" 1
'
for Treatment and
release i
to South
Flatte River
Diversions to be Augmented
Crange Hall Creek
1200
0
936
0
0
0
To Metro
Sever
Tributary Well Field
446
0
0
0
0
0
for treatment and
Additional diversion required
release <
to South
to Irrigate Northglenn
Platte River
lands3
0
1332
0
687
0
0
Total Augmentation Require*
A
ments
1646
1332
==sl
687
0
0*
zssssz
sans
—
Augmentation Rithts Available
A-Perm. removed
1002
1301
1002
1301
1002
1301
B-U»ed for ag. when possible
518
428
318
428
518
428
C-Future use unknown
235
220
235
220
235
220
Total
1755
1949
1735
1949
1755
IM
Excess Water Rlshts to Meet
Flow Requirements
109
617
619
1262
1735
1949
(1) Ait enclave of Thornton will be connected to the Northglenn lyetnn.
(2) Excess vster available in the eysten vlthout augmenting which can be used for
irrigation of Northglenn owned FR1CO lend.
(3) The addition*! water required to be delivered to the lull Canal to Irrigate
Northglenn owned FR1C0 land based on the assusptlon that all such available
lend for agriculture will be irrigated in an average year. The physical aource
of supply say be either Grange Hall Creak or the tributary vail field.
(4) There Is a surplus of 963 AT over and abovs the aaomt required to irrigate
Northslenn's TRICO lands.
31
-------
the South Platte River- The transfer of this wastewater from
Thornton to Northglenn depletes the South Platte River and requires
augmentation either by Northglenn or Thornton.
The effect of requiring additional augmentation of this flow
will be to require more surface water rights. The total diversions
to be augmented in Table 3-4 would be increased by 885 acre-feet
per year. Therefore, EPA concludes that in some of the options
(Option 1 average and dry year and Option 2 dry year) the City does
not have adequate augmentation rights available. Additional aug-
menting rights under these conditions must be obtained.
Grange Hall Creek
Grange Hall Creek is the most convenient and economical source
of replacement water subject to water being physically
available in the stream. Studies by Northglenn show the entire low
flow of the stream may be diverted for Northglenn's use. Only
during runoff from snowmelt or storm events greater than Northglenn's
ability to divert will water flow down the stream. Except for
runoff periods, Northglenn will have the capability of drying up
Grange Hall Creek.
While Grange Hall Creek is a small intermittent stream there
are some existing water rights along the creek which are senior to
Northglenn and must be protected. These rights are owned by one
person and total 10.6 cfs. Northglenn intends to augment these
rights when legally required to do so by releasing water into Grange
Hall Creek from the Lower Clear Creek Ditch, or by releasing Grange
Hall Creek drainage runoff to meet the demand of the lower water
right users (17).
Legal Issues
In analyzing the water rights and augmentation plans of the
Northglenn project, several legal issues were identified. These
will be resolved through the Water Court process if necessary and
the resolutions could have a significant impact on implementation
of Northglenn's Water Management Plan if decisions were adverse to
Northglenn.
Listed below is a summary of some of the important issues
identified during this analysis:
a. The plan includes successive use of water for both muni-
cipal and agricultural purposes. This includes FRICO
water owned by Northglenn as well as water borrowed
from FRICO. The legal question is whether this successive
use is allowed.
b. Northglenn has claimed 100% depletion credit for water
stored In Standley Lake. Historically, there has been a
certain amount of return flow from agricultural use of this
water. The legal question Is whether or not any down-
stream appropriators have a right to the return flow from
this irrigation use.
32
-------
c. Northglenn has claimed a total of 300 acre-feet per year
of Infiltration into the sewer system as part of the waste-
water replacement credit. The basis for this is its con-
tention that the source water is Standley Lake stored water
and can be 100% consumptively used. Adversely, it could
be argued that some of the infiltration is storm water.
Further it is questionable whether Northglenn has retained
dominion and control over this water.
d. Standley Lake and the Croke Canal are decreed for irrigation
and domestic purposes. The legal question is whether or
not a change of water rights to municipal purposes must
be included in the plan.
e. Another legal issue is whether or not a shareholder is
entitled to water of a quality suitable for a use other
than that for which the water has been historically used.
This issue involves cities that desire in the future to
use the Bull Canal system for domestic water supply.
f. Lining of the Bull Canal system will reduce the amount of
seepage to the ground water and may adversely affect irri-
gators who depend on such seepage. The legal question is
whether these irrigators have a vested right to the water.
The above legal questions will be resolved through the judicial
process if necessary. It is noted however, that resolution of all
of the legal questions will not necessarily insure that all adverse
impacts will be mitigated. For example, even though FRICO may
legally be able to line the Bull Canal, this action could adversely
impact downstream users that have historically depended on seepage
water from the canal.
Summary of Legal Issues
EPA concludes that the Northglenn water rights applications,
including change of water rights, and the augmentation plan are a
logical approach to preventing injury to other veBted water rights.
Although there are a number of legal issues to be resolved and some
changes to the water plan as filed are likely, approval by the Water
Court of a water supply plan for the City 1* likely. The probable
effect of any subsequent changes to the plan during the court
process will be to require more water to augment these changes
in flow.
EPA concludes, based upon expert opinion, that 1) other complex
plans with similar principles have been approved by the Water Court
and this plan can be administered by the State Engineer; 2) the
amount of water obtained from surface sources is reasonable based
on historic ditch diversions and stream depletions; 3) the exchange
plan will sufficiently protect FRICO shareholders; 4) through the
Water Court process, out-of-priority diversions will be properly
augmented; 5) the water rights to be used for augmentation are
sufficiently senior for that purpose; 6) South Platte water users
will be compensated for additional ditch losses.
33
-------
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
A key issue in evaluating the proposed project is to determine
if agriculture is benefited in agricultural productivity. For the
areas in question (FRICO and South Platte) the current (1979) average
crop value in dollars is presented in Appendix A - Description of
the Existing Environment. Because the key element in the analysis
is water, the productivities for the two areas are related to
farm headgate water deliveries. In 1979 the FRICO productivity is
$250 per acre-foot of farm headgate delivery and the South Platte
productivity is $109 per acre-foot.
In this analysis, the four options, which have been previously
described, have been analyzed.
Water Availability
The amount of water available to the FRICO farmers is dependent
on the option chosen. The estimated farm headgate delivery for
each of the options is summarized in Table 3-5. The values are
based on the schematic diagram^Figures 3-2 through 3-5 (oversized,
back of report) and Table 3-4. The analyses Ignore any benefit due
to lining of the Bull Canal and assume that the farm headgate
deliveries are equal to 60 percent of the sum of the releases from
Standley Lake and the FRICO exchange return.
Augmentation
Required augmentation water from surface sources for the four
options evaluated is summarized in Table 3-6. As previously dis-
cussed, some of the augmentation water will come from lands currently
out of agricultural production and some will come from lands cur-
rently in production. To determine the impact of each option on
agriculture only that water to be taken from lands currently in
production is of consequence. (See Table 3-6)
Net Productivity Change
The FRICO and South Platte net agricultural productivities for
the four options considered are presented in Table 3-7. The FRICO
productivities are based on the farm headgate water deliveries and
assumed productivity at $250 per acre-foot of delivery as it iB
estimated in 1979. The South Platte productivities are based on
the estimated water removed from currently productive lands and
the estimated 1979 South Platte productivity of $109 per acre-foot
34
-------
TABLE 3-5
ESTIMATED FRICO FARM
HEADGATE WATER DELIVERIES
Water (Acre-Feet)^
Option
Description
Average Year
Dry Year
1
Without deep wells
73502
4706
2
650 acre-feet from nontri-
73482
4666
butary wells
9
3
2300 acre-feet from non-
7928
5096
tributary wells
4
Water from Standley Lake
3572
788
Wastewater to Metro
^Equal to 60% of sum of FRICO exchange return and release from
Standley Lake (see Figures 3-2 through 3-5).
(2)
Includes water required to irrigate Northglenn owned FRICO
served land.
35
-------
of delivery. The net productivity of options 1 through 4 1b the
FRICO productivity less the South Platte productivity.
Option 4 does not include considerations of any increased
productivity along the South Platte due to the additional water
that would be discharged to the river from the Metro Plant (433
acre-feet per month). Alternative 4a presents an analysis of the
net productivity if it is assumed that this 433 acre-feet per
month is only available for six months each year during the
growing season. The maximum increased productivity along the South
Platte for this additional water based on $109 per acre-foot head-
gate delivery would be $280,000 per year.
TABLE 3-6
SURFACE WATER AUGMENTATION
Option Description
1 Without deep wells
2 650 acre-feet from
nontributary wells
3 2300 acre-feet from non-
tributary wells
4 Water from Standley Lake
Wastewater to Metro
Total Required
(acre-feet)
Average Yr Dry Yr
Water Removed From
Currently Product
Agricultural Lan
-------
TABLE 3-7
SET PRODUCTIVITY OF FRICO AND SOUTH PLATTE
IRRIGATED LANDS AFFECTED BY THE NORTHGLENN PROJECT
Option Description
1 Without deep wells
2 650 acre-feet from nontribu-
tary wells 1.84
3 2300 acre-feet from nontribu-
tary wells 1.98
4 Water from Standiey Lake
Wastewater to Metro 0.89
3
4a Same as 4 but assumes So. Platte 0.89
return has agriculture benefit
(IN MILLION DOLLARS)
FRICO1
Average Year Dry Year
1.84 1.18
1.17
1.27
SOUTH PLATTE
Average Year Dry Year
-0.38
-0.18
0
-0.46
-0.25
0
0.20
0.20
0.28
0.28
|
Based on $250/acre-foot of delivery. FRICO deliveries given in Table 3-5.
2
Based on $109/acre foot of water removed from currently productive land (Table 3s-*>.
NET PRODUCTIVITY
Average Year Dry Year
1.46 0.72
1.66 0.92
1.98
0.89
1.17
4
Option 4 plus inclusion of maximum increased South Platte productivity due to metro discharge.
Based on 433 acre feet per month, six months growing season, and productivity at $109/acre-foot of
headgate delivery.
1.27
0.20
0.48
-------
FIGURE 3-6
NET AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
AVERAGE YEAR
. 98
2.0
. 66
b ,.0
»
0.89
b*
<_>
3
O
©
a.
a.
4a
OPTIONS
DRY YEAR
2 .0
1.27
s
0.92
»
0.72
0
1
o
ae
0. 4-8
0.20
^7777X
a.
ut
z
OPTIONS
38
-------
EPA concludes from this analysis that under the exchange pro-
gram, positive agricultural benefits are obtained if all the makeup
source is derived from deep wells (Option 3). If Northglenn
implements an exchange which requires makeup water entirely from
other irrigators, (Option 1) then there will be some loss to agri-
culture but net productivity will be substantially higher, than if
Northglenn did not execute an exchange agreement (such as Option
4). Therefore EPA concludes that compared to the situation if
ongoing litigation would kave been successful, the proposed exchange,
regardless of which source Northglenn initiates for makeup water,
has a net economic benefit to agriculture.
These circumstances indicate that, on balance Northglenn's
stated claims that their proposal enhances agriculture are
accurate. The long term exchange arrangement with FRICO enhances
the likelihood that significant acreage of irrigated land will
remain productive farmland during this century. In conclusion, EPA
has determined that this plan meets EPA's policy to protect environ-
mentally significant agricultural land and therefore endorses this
proposal in this regard.
TABLE 3-8
DRY LAND PRODUCTIVITY OF SO. PLATTE LANDS
DRIED UP AS RESULT OF NORTHGLENN PROJECT
Land Crop Productivity($)
Option Description Average Yr Dry Yr Average Yr Dry Yr
1
Without deep wells
1260
1551
78,000
96,000
2
650 acre-feet from non-
615
841
38,000
52,000
tributary wells
3
2300 acre-feet from non-
0
0
0
0
tributary wells
4
Water from Standley Lake
0
0
0
0
Wastewater to Metro
Assumptions:
1. Land planted to wheat
2. Yield "16.5 bu/acre
3. Crop value $3.76/bu
4. South Platte current consumptive use is 2.7 acre-feet per acre.
POTENTIAL FOR DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
Concern has been expressed regarding the degradation of the
Bull Canal, making its water unsuitable as a raw water supply. Analy-
sis of the limited data currently available indicates that the
water is useable as a raw water supply; i.e. suspended solid
concentrations are high, no toxic parameters are present. However,
projected concentrations of nitrates in the canal after discharge
from the proposed facility will inhibit the development of these
waters as a water supply, particularly for the Town of Frederick,
and possibly could affect a raw water source for the Town of Ft. Lupton.
39
-------
The State of Colorado defines raw waters suitable for potable
water supplies as follows: (3)
"These are waters which, after receiving approved
disinfection such as simple chlorination or its
equivalent or which after receiving standard
treatment (defined as coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection with
chlorine or its equivalent) will meet Colorado
drinking water regulations and any revisions,
amendments, or supplements thereto."
Standard water treatment as defined above will not effectively
remove nitrate.
Annexation requirements of Frederick, Colorado require that
lands brought into the town must also provide additional water
supplies. Landowners surrounding Frederick generally own shares
in FRICO delivered by the Bull Canal. Therefore, implementation
of a plan which discharges effluent to the Bull Canal would ren-
der these waters unacceptable as a water supply for Frederick.
Filings have not been made to change the use of Bull Canal waters
to a water supply and the current Larimer-Weld 208 Clean Water
Plan designates the Canal solely for agricultural use. Thus it is
EPA's conclusion that the protection of these waters for a poten-
tial future water supply source is unnecessary and EPA recommends
that Frederick explore other options to satisfy future water supply
demands.
Fort Lupton is currently using a shallow well field along the
Platte River for their water supply source. However, this source
has high nitrates. Sand Hill Lake is an option the Town is consi-
dering as a water supply source. Sand Hill Lake is filled by the
Coal Ridge Ditch. Concern has been expressed that Bull Canal water
will reach the Coal Ridge by way of the containment pond at the
terminus of the Bull Canal. Fort Lupton is primarily concerned
that nitrates in the Bull Canal resulting from Northglenn's plan
will reach the Coal Ridge Ditch and render Sand Hill Lake unuseable
as a water supply.
Nitrate concentrations in Coal Ridge Ditch are between 0.9 mg/1
and 1.3 mg/1 which is well below the water supply criterion of 10.0
mg/1. Sand Hill has a nitrate concentration of 5.5 mg/1 probably
due to agricultural runoff. The projected Bull Canal nitrate con-
centration in an average year range from 12 tng/1 to 14 mg/1, de-
pending upon the option.
Operation of the Bull Canal is intended to make optimum use
of the irrigation water available. FRICO therefore does not deliver
water with the intention of having it reach the containment pond
since that water is lost. However, during occasional storm events
and flushing of the Bull Canal, water does reach the pond and is
available for the Coal Ridge Ditch. This reservoir does not have
more than 6 acre-feet of water in any one year (1).
40
-------
The operational flexibility of the Northglenn-Bull Canal
reservoir should adequately control effluent mixed water entering
Coal Ridge Ditch by way of the containment pond. However, tail-
water off lands irrigated below the reservoir discharge point may
enter Coal Ridge ditch and then Sand Hill Lake. Data to calculate
the increased nitrate concentration in Sand Hill Lake are currently
not available. EPA concludes that the Bull Canal will not contribute
a significant contribution of water supply to Sand Hill Lake and
therefore will not contribute to higher nitrate concentrations
there.
OTHER ISSUES
Several other issues of the proposed plan have been identified.
These issues are related to specific elements of the plan and var-
ious components. The issues are listed below:
the potential for ground water pollution from lagoon and
reservoir seepage
reservoir stability and safety
potential odor problems
. effect on relative land values adjacent to the treatment site
. visual or aesthetic effect of the facilities
These issues as they relate to the plan are discussed In the
next chapter.
41
-------
CHAPTER 4
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
An jjnpoAtant iCA.e.ntL^c innovation
tuvitly make* -Lti, way by gradually van-
ning ovVi and convicting lti opponent*:
it KafizZy happen* that Saul become*
Paul. What doti happen JU that it* op-
ponent* QHaritwJULy die oat and that the
growing generation it (amJUaAized vilth
the. idea the beginning.
Max Flank
The Philosophy of Physic* (1936)
-------
CHAPTER 4
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The Northglenn water resource plan is a water supply, wastewater
treatment, and agricultural reuse project which is predicated on
guaranteeing an adequate water supply for Northglenn's future popu-
lation. This document is specifically concerned with the environ-
mental impacts of the various options considered, the ultimate EPA
objective being to determine the eligibility of the wastewater treat-
ment portions of the project for federal assistance under the
Clean Water Act (1). In developing and evaluating the options, the
water supply and agricultural reuse elements of the plan can not
be completely separated. In order to determine eligibility of
the wastewater project only the agricultural reuse element is impor-
tant. Therefore, it is assumed that because of legal obligations
Northglenn is committed to the water supply program developed with
FRICO. Further, Northglenn has already purchased their wastewater
treatment site and developed construction specifications unique to
that site. The following provides a summary of the evaluation of
water supply and site alternatives that resulted in Northglennfs
current course of action.
SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The City of Northglenn in March 1976, conducted an analysis
of water supply alternatives to substitute for their current supply
from the City of Thornton (2). Five alternatives which integrated
land and water management were evaluated. These alternatives are
identified as:
. Box Elder Creek Water Borrowing
Develop South Platte/I-76 Well Field
. Standley Lake Exchange (selected)
. Develop Burlington Ditch Wells
. Denver Water Board
Box Elder Creek Water Borrowing
In this alternative, agricultural water would be pumped from
agricultural land in Box Elder Creek to Northglenn. This water
would be used in the municipal system, collected, and then returned
to the farmland for irrigation. Makeup water equal in amount to
that consumed within the City would be added to the system from
nontrlbutary wells located in and around Northglenn.
Develop South Platte/I-76 Well Field
A well field for municipal water supply would be developed south
45
-------
of Interstate 76, downstream of the Burlington Ditch headgate.
This site is upstream of the Denver Metro sewage treatment plant
discharge, a distinct advantage over Northglenn's present water
source supplied by Thornton. The well field area would be inte-
grated with the Denver Metro South Platte redevelopment project to
provide a continuity of river amenities. Water rights would be
acquired in harmony with the District No. 2 South Platte agri-
cultural interest so that the nutrient-enriched effluent would be
beneficially used through recycling.
Standley Lake Exchange
Initially, Northglenn would borrow water from Standley Lake
for municipal use. All water borrowed would be replaced acre-foot
for acre-foot to the FRICO shareholders. Makeup water for the
municipal consumptive use would come from nontributary wells and
the South Platte.
Discussions that further developed this alternative resulted
in Northglenn commiting to replacing the borrowed water with a 10
percent bonus and exploring options for makeup wates including deep
wells.
Develop Burlington Ditch Wells
A water source would be provided based on wells drilled into
terraced areas and the aquifer recharged with high quality spring run-
off and the water rights of the Burlington Ditch system. Water
borrowed from the agricultural interest would be returned to the
ditch with added nutrients to enhance crop yields.
Denver Water Board
The Denver Water Board policy, at the time the analysis of
water supplies was conducted, was not to serve any additional areas
outside of the Denver city limits or other designated service areas.
This policy is commonly referred to as the "Blueline" Policy. This
policy precluded Northglenn from being eligible for Denver Water
Board water since it is outside the designated boundary. This
policy is still in effect.
Northglenn decided to select the Standley Lake exchange due
to the adverse environmental implications of the other alternatives.
EPA agrees with this selection due to the following factors:
1) a transbasin diversion source, such as seeking a supply from
the Denver Water Board, would create salinity problems and minimum
flow problems for users on the western slope, 2) development of any
deep well source under State law is limited to extraction of such
waters to one percent per year arid vested in the owner of the land
above the formation which limits the supply available to Northglenn
from such a source and, 3) purchase or condemnation of agricul-
tural water surplus without return to agriculture harms tne important
environmental asset of irrigated crop land along the Front Range.
Therefore selection of one of the water exchange sources has the
least adverse impacts on the environment.
46
-------
TREATMENT SITE SELECTION
The Northglenn wastewater treatment facilities plan evaluated
ten alternative wastewater treatment and reservoir storage facility
sites. The locations of the ten sites considered are shown in
Figure 4-1.
The complete analysis of each site is presented in Northglenn's
application for site approval (3). The following is a summary of
that analysis.
Seven criteria were used to evaluate the ten alternative sites.
This criteria included:
compatibility with surrounding land use
safety of reservoir design
control of seepage losses
. underlying mineral resources
operational flexibility
. consistency with approved wastewater
management plans
. severability of system components
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed facility should be compatible with present land
useBand future land uses as delineated by comprehensive plans adopted
by local and regional governments. Sites in rural areas not sche-
duled for future urbanization were favored. The number of residen-
tial units on the site and within one-half mile of the proposed
facility was also an important consideration.
Safety of Reservoir Design
The proposed facility includes a reservoir to store wastewater
during the nonirrigation season. Potential flood hazards and
geologic hazards such as earthquakes and subsidence were factors In
comparing the candidate sites.
Control of Seepage Losses
The amenability of each site to the control of reservoir seepage
losses, for the conservation of water and the avoidance of any po-
tential pollution of ground water aquifers was evaluated. Sites
underlain by naturally impervious materials that would supplement
man-made seepage control measures were favored.
47
-------
Frederick
Dacono
WELD COUNTY
ADAMS COUNTY
FIGURE A-I
TREATMENT SlTfe- ^
EVALUATED S
MILES
N0RTH6LENN
-------
Underlying Mineral Resources
The construction of any facility at a poorly selected site
might preclude the future development of underground resources
such as gravel, coal and oil. The selection process favored sites
which were not underlain by any economically recoverable resources.
Operational Flexibility
The proposed facilities must be integrated into a comprehen-
sive plan to manage the water resources of the Northglenn/FRICO
plan. Sites adjacent to the Bull Canal were favored since the
treated wastewater would be discharged to the canal. Storage sites
capable of receiving Bull Canal flows by gravity were favored since
such a configuration allows storage of canal flows during flood
periods. This promotes the conservation of available water supplies
for beneficial.' uses. Weld County sites were favored since the
majority of the FRICO water users are located in Weld County and
preferred a Weld County site. In addition, FRICO wanted the
quality of the effluent from the treatment facility monitored by
Weld County Health Department personnel.
Consistency with Approved Wastewater Management Plans
An application has been made for federal funds under the con-
struction grants program of the Clean Water Act. The site therefore
must be environmentally acceptable and consistent with an approved
Northglenn facility plan and the 208 Wastewater Management Plan.
The proposed site must also be cost effective under £PA*s construc-
tion grant regulations.
Severability of System
Some commenters have suggested that the proposed facilities
should be separated, and that the aeration lagoons should be con-
structed within the Northglenn city limits. Neither of these al-
ternatives was found to be practicable or desirable.
Since the storage reservoir is an integral , part of the treat-
ment process, there will be more effective quality control and
flexibility of operation with the lagoons and reservoir at one lo-
cation. If one of the aerated lagoons must be drained for
scheduled maintenance, the lagoon water can be discharged directly
into the reservoir. Significant construction, operation, and main-
tenance cost savings will be realized if the lagoons are adjacent
to the reservoir. Common embankments can be used and the necessity
of constructing and staffing two separate maintenance facilities can
be avoided.
The evaluation of the ten sites concludes that Site 10 is the
preferred location. This site is a 321.7 acre parcel in southern
Weld County that is zoned agricultural and is outside areas desig-
nated for future urban development. Construction of the proposed
facilities at this site would not displace any existing residences
or businesses. However, there are 18 residences and one business
A9
-------
located within one-half mile of the site. The site is adjacent
to the Bull Canal which is to receive the treated wastewater. This
facilitates storage and management of the wastewater. According
to the analysis of the site it is not underlain by any active
geological faults nor economically recoverable mineral resources.
A nearby vertical inactive fault may underlie the northwest corner
of the site. The site is underlain by impervious materials and is
not located in an aquifer recharge area. The evaluation of this
site further concludes that it is cost-effective and compatible with
adopted water quality management plans. The site has received
approval by the Weld County Planning Commission (3).
The remaining sites evaluated were rejected because of the
following reasons:
displacement of existing residences and/or businesses
(Sites 1 through 9)
located in area planned for future urban development
(Site 2)
underlain by geologic faults, abandoned coal mine, natu-
ral gas line, and/or economically recoverable mineral
resources (Site 2 and sites A through 9)
presents difficulties in storage and management of
Bull Canal flows (Sites 1 through 5, 7, and 9)
, underlain by permeable materials or unproven impermeable
materials related to seepage control (Sites 1, 2, and 4
through 8).
Northglenn concluded that the selected site is consistent with
surrounding land use policies and applicable wastewater management
plans. It would result in the least impact on the surrounding resi-
dences and businesses and would best promote design safety and
efficiency. The overall impact of constructing and operating the
facility at this site would be minimal.
Between the Northglenn Wastewater Facilities Plan and the Lover
South Platte Facility Plan, a total of 21 alternatives to treat
Northglenn's and Thornton's wastewater were evaluated. Moat of these
alternatives involved treatment of Northglenn*s and Thornton's
wastewater at the Metro, Westminster, or Brighton facilities or
some combination thereof»
The Lower South Platte Facility Plan, approved by EPA, recom-
mends that wastewater flows in these two service areas be treated
in the Big Dry Creek Basin at the City of Westminster Plant primarily
because of the opportunities to reuse the effluent within this
drainage basin. The Northglenn Plan evaluated ten alternatives, all
of which involved construction of a new treatment facility at a new
location rather than using existing facilities such as Westminster's
or Metro's.
50
-------
A preliminary screening of the 21 alternatives eliminated all
those that were too costly. EPA reviewed this information and con-
cluded that the cost of treatment at the Westminster facility is
about equal to the coat of treatment at the proposed Northglenn
facility. Therefore, a single plant configuration does not appear
to have any advantages over a two plant configuration for the Big
Dry Creek Basin. Based on EPA's review, continued treatment at
the Metro facility is the least cost pollution control alternative
for the Northglenn and Thornton service areas. The Metro alter-
native does not have the same benefits as the Northglenn proposal.
These benefits include: 1) an improved water supply (quantity and
quality); 2) formation of a city/farmer exchange agreement over
the use of water in the basin; 3) development of agreements with
farmers which will be a positive factor toward the preservation of
agricultural land; and 4) a reduction in the amount of energy con-
sumed in the disposal of Northglenn's wastewater.
EPA concludes that the selection of a separate facility for
Northglenn that includes agricultural reuse is consistent with
previous facility planning efforts. EPA also concludes after re-
viewing the proposed treatment site, that this site is acceptable.
NO FEDERAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The "No Federal Action" alternative includes a denial or fail-
ure by EPA to make a grant to the City of Northglenn for wastewater
treatment. Such a denial by EPA could be based on a finding of
ineligibility under the Clean Water Act, significant unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts, or other reasons. Northglenn's total
water management program is expected to cost $67 million with $6.9
million eligible tinder EPA regulations. As only 10% of the capital
costs and none of the annual costs are expected from the federal
government, Northglenn has indicated to EPA that they will still
proceed with the project in the absence of federal funds. Thus,
it is possible that Northglenn will complete the water management
program entirely with local funds should EPA deny or fail to make
a grant.
The consequences of "no federal action" are then very similar
to Northglenn's proposal except that those grant conditions required by
EPA for additional public health protection need not be executed by
Northglenn. The Colorado Health Department could impose similar con-
tions through the NPDES permit if they decided to do so. EPA would
negotiate with the Health Department to secure such conditions as
tailwater control, additional disinfection and protection of Dacono's
water supply. Northglenn may decide to implement these or similar
conditions on their own.
SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Northglenn's basic water supply program involves borrowing
water from FR1CO, which will be used along with water it owns, to meet
51
-------
its municipal water requirement. To evaluate the effects of North-
glenn's plan, several options were selected for analysis. These
options are schematically represented on Figures 3-2 through 3-5
(oversized - back of report). The options include:
1. No deep well supply other than Arapahoe Well No. 7
2. A deep well supply equal to 650 acre-feet per year
3. A deep well supply equal to 2300 acre-feet per year
4. Acquisition of water required for municipal purposes
from FRICO with treatment at Denver metro. Discharge
will be to the South Platte River.
Shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-5 are estimates of the annual
yield or water requirement at various points throughout the FRICO-
Standley Lake system. Details of the water budget for each of
the options are shown in Table 3-4. The options were analyzed on
the basis of depletion and yield studies provided by the consul-
tants for the City of Northglenn and independently reviewed by an
EPA consultant.
Under terms of the agreement between Northglenn and FRICO,
replacement water is required to make up for the municipal use
loss and to provide for the ten percent bonus to FRICO. Replace-
ment water will be diverted from Grange Hall Creek or the tri-
butary well field. Both will have essentially the same overall
depletion effect on the South Platte system as water will be taken
out of priority and augmentation Is required to protect other
appropriators. Northglenn proposes that water will normally be
taken first from Grange Hall Creek as pumping costs are less. The
tributary well field will be used to supplement diversions from
Grange Hall Creek.
To provide augmentation rights, Northglenn has purchased land
and water rights in FRICO and along Clear Creek and the South Platte
River. This water will be used when out-of-priority diversions from
Grange Hall Creek or the South Platte tributary well field are made.
When this occurs some lands will be taken out of production.
A summary of the expected future use of the land and water rights
owned by Northglenn is shown in Figure A-2, oversized - back of report
As discussed previously, Northglenn has filed application for
nontributary ground water beneath the City. It is their intention
that this water will form a part of the City's raw water supply as
illustrated in Figures 3- 3 and 3-.4. The amount of nontributary
ground water used will reduce the amount of water borrowed from
FRICO which reduces the amount of water to be returned. Because
it is nontributary Northglenn will not have to provide augmenta-
tion rights for this water.
Discussed in the following paragraphs are each of the options.
52
-------
Option 1
Illustrated In Figure 3-2 aire the water requirements and aug-
mentation amounts required under Option 1. Under this option, the
only nontributary ground water included is that already approved
by the State Engineer to Arapahoe Well No. 7. The total yield of
surface water rights owned by Northglenn available for the City's
water supply system in a dry year is 1398 acre-feet, and in a year
of average water availability, 2638 acre-feet. Arapahoe Well No. 7
yields 5 acre-feet per year in both dry and average years. During
a dry year, the municipal water requirement is 7340 acre-feet and
Northglenn will need to borrow a total of 5937 acre-feet from FRICO.
Similarly, in an average year with a requirement of 6840 acre-feet
a borrow of 4197 acre-feet will be needed.
The primary reason dry year water requirements for a city are
greater than an average year is because of the need for more lawn
watering and other uses outside the home. The domestic and commer-
cial water demand and wastewater flow is essentially constant. The
total amount of wastewater estimated for all options is 5201 acre-
feet. This includes wastewater from an enclave of Thornton and sewer
system infiltration.
Under this option, in a dry year Northglenn will be required to
return to FRICO 6531 acre-feet of water, including the bonus. The
total replacement water requirement is 316 acre-feet greater because
of reservoir evaporation loss. The amount of replacement water for
an average year is determined in a similar manner and additional
water (1332 acre-feet) has been added to continue to irrigate North-
glenn owned FRICO lands.
For Option 1, diversions to be augmented are 1646 acre-feet
(1200 acre-feet from Grange Hall Creek and 446 acre-feet from the tribu-
tary well field) in the dry year and 1332 acre-feet (from Grange Hall
Creek) in an average year. In Table 3-4 the augmentation rights
available are 1755 acre-feet in the dry year and 1949 acre-feet in an
average year.
For all of the options, the numbers presented in Figures 3-2
through 3-5 and Table 3-4 are based on the current Northglenn pro-
posals and the augmentation plan submitted to the Water Court. The
final augmentation plan approved by the Court may be different.
Option 2
The schematic representation of Option 2 Is shown in Figure 3-3-
This option includes a total of 650 acre-feet of nontributary ground
water as an inflow to the water system both in dry and average years.
The amount of borrow required from FRICO is 5292 acre-feet for a dry
year and 3552 acre-feet for an average year. The total payback re-
quirement including reservoir evaporation is 6137 acre-feet in a
dry year and 4288 acre-feet in an average year. The amount of water
required to be augmented is 936 acre-feet in the dry year and 687
acre-feet in an average year. Augmentation requirements are less
in this option because of the use of nontributary well water that
does not need augmentation.
53
-------
Option 3
Option 3 is similar to Option 2 except that a total of 2300
acre-feet nontributary ground water is available. This option is
illustrated in Figure 3-4 . In this option the amount of borrow
from FRICO is 3642 acre-feet in the dry year and 1902 acre-feet in
an average year.
Under this option, the deep well supply reduces the amount of
borrow from FRICO so that the wastewater return is more than ade-
quate to meet both dry year and average year payback requirements
and no augmentation is required. The amount of excess wastewater
flow over the required payback is 743 acre-feet in the dry year and
963 acre-feet in an average year.
Option 4
Option 4 is an alternative to the exchange plan with FRICO.
The amount of water required to meet Northglenn's municipal require-
ments is acquired either by purchase or condemnation from FRICO.
Instead of returning wastewater for agricultural purposes, it is
treated at Denver's Metro Plant and released to the South Platte
River. As there are no out-of-priority diversions in this option,
augmenting rights are not required. The water supply to Northglenn
is covered by owned water rights and water rights acquired from the
Standley Lake system. The depletion due to the municipal use is
less than the historic agricultural depletion and therefore no other
rights would be injured.
Under this option the 5201 acre-feet of wastewater that is
returned to FRICO under options 1 through 3 would be available in the
South Platte. This is equal to 433 acre-feet per month.
WATER QUALITY
Public Health
Options 1, 2, and 3 will discharge into the Bull Canal. This
effluent will degrade the existing water quality of the Bull Canal
and in certain dry year conditions water below the discharge point
will consist of 100 percent effluent. Public health risks associa-
ted with this degradation are identified in Chapter 3. The health
risks are in areas where public contact and exposure with the waste-
water, particularly 100 percent effluent are likely to occur. Health
risks are also identified with using the wastewater for Irrigation
of vegetable gardens on farms and raw edible food crops grown for
public sale and consumption.
Although it is not clear based on limited data whether Bull
Canal is currently suitable as a domestic supply, future water
quality of the Bull Canal below the discharge will be unsuitable
as a water supply source after discharge by Northglenn because ni-
trate concentrations range between 12 mg/1 and 20 mg/1. Currently
no filings have been made to change the use of the Bull Canal to
54
-------
include water supply as a protected use. (See analysis of Poten-
tial Drinking Water Supply in Chapter 3.)
Irrigation Water Quality
The projected total nitrogen concentrations in the Bull Canal
at the point of wastewater discharge are presented in Table 4-1.
As a worst case condition in a dry year the canal below the discharge
will consist of 100 percent effluent.
Sugar beets and barley are the nitrogen sensitive crops grown
with Bull Canal water. The optimum nitrogen uptake of sugar beets
is 81 pounds per acre per year (lb/ac/yr), and for barley it is
75 lb/ac/yr. The total nitrogen delivered is presented in Table 4-2
for the three options.
TABLE 4-1
TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN BULL CANAL
Average
Option Effluent Concentration Year Concentration
1 15-20 mg/1 8.8-11.5 mg/1
2 15-20 mg/1 7.9-10.5 mg/1
3 15-20 mg/1 6.6-8.6 mg/1
TABLE 4-2
TOTAL NITROGEN DELIVERY TO SUGAR BEETS AND BARLEY
Total Nitrogen Delivery
(lb/ac/yr)
Dry Year Average Year
Option
Sugar Beets
Barley
Sugar Beets
Barley
1
42-56
42-56
25-32
14-18
2
42-56
42-56
22-29
12-17
3
42-56
42-56
18-24
10-14
-------
The projected nitrogen concentrations in Northglenn's effluent
should not exceed the recommended application rates for either sugar
beets or barley. Concentrations will approach the optimum nitrogen
uptake of sugar beets and barley in a dry year if effluent nitrogen
concentrations reach 29 mg/1 and 48 mg/1, respectively. That is at
these concentrations, which are higher than expected, all the crop
nitrogen demand could be provided by the effluent.
While total nitrogen concentrations are not expected to cause
problems in either sugar beet or barley production, management of
water applications to sugar beets will be necessary to satisfy
Great Western's contractual agreements of no nitrogen after July 15
of each year.
Water Quality Effects on Livestock
There is little quantitative information available concerning
the tolerances of livestock to various water quality parameters. The
permissible concentration of various substances in water depends,
to some extent, on the daily water consumption of the animal. It
appears that animals can tolerate higher salinities than humans, and
it is conceivable that they differ in their tolerances of specific
elements (4). Waters with high concentrations of nutrients (nitro-
gen and phosphorus) consumed by livestock can cause physiological
disturbances such as gastrointestinal symptoms, wasting disease and
death. Among the functions of animals, lactation and reproduction
are generally the first to be disturbed by continuous use of water
with high nutrient concentrations. Adverse effects of high salinity
waters on livestock are due to the osmotic pressure of the total
salts present rather than the toxic effect of any one constituent (5)%
In addition to the effects of the total salt concentration, some salts
are specifically toxic to animals, even in very low concentrations.
Among the compounds of concern in water are nitrates, fluorides, and
the salts of selenium and molybdenum. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 provide
a set, of recommendations for maximum levels of various elements in
drinking water supplies to livestock. The Northglenn effluent quality
is expected to remain within these recommended limits, thus posing
no threats to livestock. Neither is it expected th&t drinking re-
claimed water would make animal tissues unwholesome for human con-
sumption.
The issue of nitritls (toxicity to cattle caused by high nitrite
concentrations In silage) has been expressed. This situation occurs
when nitrate is taken up by corn In high concentrations. When the
com is stored as silage and anaerobic conditions occur, the biolo-
gical activity that occurs converts nitrate to nitrite which can be
toxic. Nitrate applications to corn will not be excessive under the
platv provided application of chemical fertilizers is reduced to com-
pensate for nitrates in the wastewater. This problem can further
be mitigated by maintaining aerobic conditions in stored silage.
56
-------
TABLE 4-3
GUIDE TO THE USE OF SALINE WATERS FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY
Total Soluble Salts
Content of Waters( rag/l)
Less than 1 000 mg/1
(EC < 1.5)
Relatively low level of salinity. Excellent for all classes of
livestock and poultry.
1 000 - 3 000 mg/1
(EC - 1.5 - 5)
Very satisfactory for all classes of livestock and poultry. May cause
temporary and mild diarrhea in livestock not accus tomed to them or watery
droppings in poultry.
3 000 - 5 000 mg/1
(EC - 5 - 8)
Satisfactory for livestock, but may cause temporary diarrhea or be refused at
first by animals not accustomed to them. Poor waters for poultry, often causing
water feces, increased mortality and decreased growth, especially in turkeys.
5 000 - 7 000 mg/1
(EC - 8 - 11)
Can be used with reasonable safety for dairy and beef cattle, for sheep, swine
and horses. Avoid use for pregnant or lactating animals. Not acceptable for
poultry.
7 000 - 10 000 mg/1
(EC - 11 - 16)
Unfit for poultry and probably for swine. Considerable risk in using for
pregnant or lactating cows, hprses, or sheep, or for the young of these species.
In general, use should be avoided although older ruminants, horses, poultry,
and swine may subsist on them under certain conditions.
Over 10 000 mg/1
(EC > 16)
Risks with these highly saline waters are so great that they cannot be
recommended for use under any condition.
Source: Environmental Studies Board, Nat. Acad, of Sci.,Nat. Acad, of Eng.
Water Quality Criteria 1972
-------
TABLE 4-4
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEVELS OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN DRINKING
WATER FOR LIVESTOCK
Constituent Upper limit
Aluminum (al)
5 mg/l
Arsenic (As)
0.2 mg/l
Beryllium (Be)
No data
Boron (B)
5.0 mg/l
Cadmium (Cd)
.05 mg/l
Chromium (Cr)
1.0 mg/l
Cobalt (Co)
1.0 mg/l
Copper (Cu)
0.5 mg/l
Fluoride (F)
2.0 mg/l
Iron (Fe)
No data
Lead (Pb)a
0.1 mg/l
Manganese (Mn)
No data.
Mercury (Hg)
.01 mg/l
Molybdenum (Mo)
No data
Nitrate + Nitrite
100 mg/l
(no3-n+no2-n)
Nitrite (N02-N)
10 mg/l
Selenium (Se)
0.05 mg/l
Vanadium (V)
0.10 mg/l
Zinc (Zn)
24 mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
10,000 mg/l
*Lead is accumulative and problems may begin at threshold value -
0.05 mg/l
Source: Environmental Studies Board
"Water Quality Criteria 1972"
National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineers.
58
-------
EPA Funding Criteria
The 1977 amendments to P.L. 92—500 ennuciate a major policy of
promoting the use of innovative and alternative waste management
techniques, with special focus on the municipal waste treatment pro-
gram. Though mentioned only briefly, innovative and alternative
technology was explicitly encouraged in the 1972 law - but few
projects applied such technology, largely because of perceived
greater risks and higher costs on the part of water quality adminis-
trators, public health officers and consulting engineers.
Congress, therefore, used the 1977 amendments to require every
community seeking an EPA grant for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities to fully evaluate innovative and alternative treat-
ment options. Innovative and alternative techniques taken together
foster three central objectives; recycling and reuse of water and
waste materials, energy conservation and recovery, and cost reduc-
tion.
Innovative refers to new and promising technology which is not
yet fully proven under the circumstances of itB intended use. In
conventional treatment systems, innovative describes technology which
reduces life cycle costs by 15 percent or more, or reduces the amount
of energy.required for waste treatment by at least 20 percent.
Innovative can also refer to new technology which advances the state
of waste treatment art.
Alternative technology is better known than innovative, offering
treatment approaches which are clearly alternative to conventional
secondary and advanced vaste treatment processes. Included in this
category are such techniques as land treatment, aquifer recharge,
water reclamation and reuse, use of nutrients, direct industrial
reuse of effluents, composting and land application of sludge, and
anaerobic digestion of sludge to produce methane.
To encourage the use of innovative and alternative treatment
facilities, Congress provided, in the act, that such facilities be
funded at 85 percent of construction costs rather than the normal
75 percent. To provide funds for the Increase, two percent (fiscal
year 1979-1980) of construction grant funds allocated to each state
(three percent in fiscal year 1981) must be set aside for innovative
and alternative facilities, with at least one-half of one percent
earmarked for innovative facilities. This two percent set-aside is
considered the maximum amount that states may use to supplement the
basic 75 percent wastewater treatment works construction grant;
therefore not all projects proposing innovative or alternative tech-
nology will receive the ten percent supplemental grant. Single-purpose
projects using innovative or alternative techniques qualify for the 85
percent grant if their life cycle cost under a cost-effectiveness analysis
does not exceed the life cycle cost of the most cost-effective convention-
al alternative by more than 15 percent. Within two years from the date of
final inspection, EPA will pay 100 percent of the costs of modifying or
replacing any innovative or alternative treatment facility which does not
meet design performance standards and for which correction of the failure re-
quires significantly increased capital or operation and maintenance costs.
59
-------
EPA Multiple-Purpose Construction Grants Requirements
Generally EPA awards construction grant funds for wastewater
treatment works which are shown to result in the minimum total
resource cost over time and be adequate to meet Federal, State or
local requirements. A cost-effectiveness analysis is used to screen
different alternatives in order to determine the least cost waste-
water treatment alternative. Should a municipality desire to
undertake a project that simultaneously performs a wastewater treat-
ment function and another function EPA can participate in the fund-
ing under multiple-purpose project funding criteria.
The current funding policy of EPA for the design and construc-
tion of most types of multiple-purpose projects is stated in Program
Requirements Memorandum 77-4 (6). This memorandum enunciates the
Alternative Justifiable Expenditure (AJE) method for cost sharing;
it has been used since 1976, primarily in projects which involve
combined sewer overflow and urban drainage problems. The AJE method
is founded on the assumption that achieving multiple purposes simul-
taneously should be less costly than achieving them separately, and
all purposes should share in the cost savings. Thus, the funding
for a project under this policy is less than it would have been had
the project been designed for the single purpose of pollution control.
EPA is presently in the process of developing a method for
funding multiple-purpose projects which involve innovative and alter-
native technology to apply the incentives for innovative and alterna-
tive technology that were provided by the 1977 Clean Water Act Amend-
ments. In June of 1979 the Office of Water and Waste Management of
EPA distributed "Strategies for Funding of Multiple-Purpose Projects"(7)
Seven alternatives were given for funding of multiple-purpose
projects,
1. Keep the status quo. Use the Alternative Justifiable Expen-
diture (AJE) method for allocating costs, except for recreation pro-
jects where the eligibility level is the same as the single-purpose
wastewater treatment project.
2. Make all multiple-purpose projects eligible at the cost
level of the least costly conventional wastewater treatment single-
purpose project.
3. Make all innovative/alternative multiple-purpose projects
eligible at 115 percent of the single-purpose cost, and all non-
innovative/alternative projects at the single-purpose level. (The
actual rule In this option is somewhat more complex, employing a
ratio of the present worth costs of the single-and multiple-purpose
projects.) This is the funding alternative selected by EPA for the
Northglenn project.
4. Use the same eligibility rules as option 3, except make
certain reclamation and reuse projects fully eligible—those in which
the reuse replaces existing water withdrawal and leaves water in the
stream which is required by a water-quality standard or a water-quality
60
-------
management plan, for a guaranteed period of 20 years. Expand the
definition of "Enforceable Requirements of the Act" so as to make
these reclamation projects eligible for placement on the state
priority list.
5. Use the same eligibility rules as option 3, except that all
reclamation and reuse projects would be fully eligible. Revise the
priority system process so that the list is based on a ranking of
all surface and ground water quality problems. Also, expand the
definition of enforceable requirements as in option 4.
6. Use the same eligibility rules as in option 5. Expand the
definition of enforceable requirements, and institute limits on the
proportion of state allotments which can be used to fund reclamation
and reuse projects.
7. Fully fund "integrated facilities" as defined in section
201(e) of the Clean Water Act, and all other multiple-purpose pro-
jects at the level of the single-purpose project.
It should be noted that the implementation of options 4 through
7 may require that a legislative change be made.
EPA Region VIII has been directed by EPA, Washington to use
option 3 for funding the Northglenn project. Option 3 employs this
eligibility formula for innovative/alternative technology projects:
115 percent of the ratio of (a) the present worth cost of the most
cost-effective single-purpose option, to (b) the present worth cost
of the multiple-purpose project, with a minimum eligibility of 115
percent of the capital cost of the single-purpose alternative. This
formula calculates the fraction of the multi-purpose project costs
which are eligible for EPA funding. Portions of a multi-purpose
project which involve innovative or alternative technology are
eligible for an 85 percent grant. Other portions are eligible for
a 75 percent grant. This grant amount is therefore 85 percent or
75 percent of the fraction of the multi-purpose project cost that
is eligible. The extra 10 percent grant for innovative or alterna-
tive wastewater treatment technology grants is taken from limited,
set-aside funds for each State. This money will be allocated at
the direction of the State.
For EPA to participate in the funding of a multiple-purpose
project, the following should apply:
1. The cost of the multiple-purpose project must not exceed
the sum of the costs of the most cost-effective single-purpose options
which accomplish the same purposes.
2. The primary and secondary environmental effects must be
assessed in accordance with the NEPA review procedures, and the project
must not have any significant net adverse environmental effects.
3. At least one of the purposes must be necessary to meet an
enforceable requirement of the Act.
61
-------
4. There is no purchase of existing facilities with federal
funds.
5. The project meets the definition of treatment works, and
the works are publicly owned.
6. The project is consistent with the adopted and approved
water quality management plan.
7. For agricultural reuse projects a commitment to this use
for the design life of the project is necessary.
Northglenn meets all of these requirements (see Chapter 1 -
EPA decision.)
Application of EPA Funding to the Northglenn Project
The application of option 3 for Northglenn requires that two costs
be used, the present worth cost of the Northglenn Multi-Purpose Pro-
ject and the present worth cost of the most cost effective single
purpose wastewater treatment alternative which was determined to be
continuing the conveyance of Northglenn'8 wastewater to the Denver
Metro wastewater treatment plant for treatment.
Although at present the wastewater from the City of Northglenn
is treated at Denver Metro, there are costs associated with this al-
ternative. Expansion of the secondary treatment capacity of the
treatment plant is necessary in order to enable the treatment plant
to continue to meet Its present effluent limitations and treat in-
creased projected flows from the service area (8). In addition, the
Denver Metro discharge permit requires that the treatment plant be
upgraded to meet more stringent effluent requirements, including
nitrification of the effluent. Capital costs of the treatment of
Northglenn's flow at the Denver Metro facility were determined to be
the difference between the costs of building facilities that are
designed to handle the projected design year capacity with and without
the design flows from Northglenn. The operation and maintenance costs
of the treatment of Northglenn's flows at Denver Metro were deter-
mined by the pro-rated fraction of the total operation and maintenance
costs.
If Northglenn were to continue to have its wastewater treated
at Denver Metro for the 20-year planning period, the capacity of the
existing interceptor system which conveys Northglenn*s flow to Denver
Metro would be exceeded (9). Costs were developed for an interceptor
and force main system that could accommodate the increased projected
flows. This system would serve Northglenn and part of Thornton. The
cost of this system that was attributed to Northglenn was a pro-rata
share of the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost based
upon Northglenn's flow and the total flow.
For the purpose of calculating the EPA funding of the Northglenn
project, it has been determined that the multi-purpose project will
be considered to be a wastewater treatment and agricultural reuse project.
62
-------
Therefore, portions of the Northglenn Water Resource Management Plan,
which involves domestic water treatment and distribution, water supply,
and urban runoff control, will not be included as part of the cost
of the project. The parts of the project that shall be included are
the costs of required wastewater collection, system changes, the
conveyance of wastewater to the treatment plant site, wastewater
treatment, wastewater storage, and measures taken to monitor and
control potential adverse impacts of the reuse plan. The purchase
of the existing wastewater collection system by Northglenn was not
considered as a cost of the project in the analysis since it in-
volved the transfer of existing facilities between municipalities.
Shown in Table 4-5, the funding ratio for the Northglenn
project is calculated to be .67. The construction costs of the
eligible portions of the project were therefore multiplied by .67 to
find the eligible fraction of each item. EPA Construction Grant
funds may then be used to pay 75 percent or 85 percent of this eli-
gible fraction. EPA has determined that only the storage reservoir
and the facilities that are planned to monitor and mitigate impacts
of the agricultural reuse system are eligible for EPA funding at
the 85 percent level since these items relate directly to the alter-
native function of the project - agricultural reuse. The extra 10
percent grant is taken from limited funds that have been set aside for
alternative wastewater treatment technology projects which will
be allocated by the State of Colorado. It is therefore unclear at
this time if this money will be made available to Northglenn.
The Step 3 EPA Construction Grant estimate was determined to be
$6,948,000 if the alternative wastewater treatment technology funds
are allocated to Northglenn and $6,503,000 if the alternative tech-
nology funds are not made available by the State.
63
-------
TABLE 4-5
GRANT ESTIMATE
Funding Ratio:
Costs of Treatment at Denver Metro +
Costs of Conveyance to Denver Metro
Cost of Northglenn Multi-Purpose Project
5,095,000 + 5,434.000 x 1.15 - .6702
18,067,000
x 1.15
Item
Cost
Estimate*
Treatment Lagoons $3,
Storage Reservoir 6,
Force Main 2,
Pump Station A
Field Monitoring
Program
Dacono Disinfection
Firestone & Frederick
Tailwater Control
450,700
361,100
139,500
712,600
77,500
32,500
Eligible
Fraction
{.6702)(.75)
(.6702)(.85)
(.6702)(.75)
(.6702)(.75)
(.6702)(.85)
(.6702)(.85)
163,700 (.6702)(.85)
TOTAL - $6,947,748 (rounded - 6,948,000)
75%
Grant
$1,734,494
3,197,407
1,075,420
358,188
38,955
16,336
82.284
Bonus for
Alternative
Technology
$ 426,321
5,194
2,178
10,971
$6,503,084 $ 445,654
*The actual cost will be the construction bid amount (See Appendix C
for further details of these cost estimates).
64
-------
OTHER DIRECT EFFECTS
Changes in Tax Revenue
Northglenn has purchased approximately 1840 acres of land in
Weld County and 49 acres of land in Adams County in order to obtain
water rights for the water resource management plan. This results
in a net loss in taxes to both counties because municipalities are
tax exempt. The loss of these irrigated lands from the tax rolls
of Weld County and Adams County will result in a loss in tax reve-
nues of $8,000-8,500 and $180-300, respectively.
These values are considerably less than the preliminary tax
losses presented at the Northglenn Panel Meeting on September 13, 1979.
The values presented at the Panel Meeting, which were indicated as
being preliminary and subject to revision, are not tax losses but
represent the assessed valuation of Northglenn owned land in Weld
County.
Effect on Land Values Adjacent to Treatment Site
To evaluate the effects of a sewage lagoon on land values in an
agricultural area, three realtors from Louisville, Colorado, and a land
assessor from Boulder, Colorado were contacted (10, 11, 12, 13).
Louisville and Boulder were selected because the rural-residential-
agricultural nature of land surrounding their wastewater treatment
plants has similarities to the proposed Northglenn plant location.
Louisville has a lagoon within one-half mile of the community and
Boulder has a mechanical plant near its eastern edge.
Two of the three realtors In Louisville were not aware of the
presence of the lagoon adjacent to their community. It has been EPA's
experience that unless a lagoon is controversial and a public stigma
is attached to the facility and Che land around it, there is no real
reason for land values to decline because of construction of the
facility. Suburban residences immediately downwind of the Boulder
facility are still in demand and it is estimated that prices there
are depressed no more than five percent. The value of agricultural
land around the Louisville lagoon has not decreased in value. Good
farmland is in such demand that proximity to the lagoon is not a
factor.
It Is concluded that the effect of the Northglenn facility on
surrounding land and residential values will be minimal. A decrease
of up to five percent of residential value may occur but farmland
values should not be effected.
Ground Water Pollution from Lagoon/Reservoir Seepage
Subsurface investigations (14, 15) have been performed at the
treatment plant and storage site. Exploratory borings indicate that
65
-------
the overburden soils and bedrock vary with respect to depth and
classification. The bedrock is predominantly claystone with some
claystone - siltstone deposits.
Water pressure tests were conducted to evaluate the permeability
of the subsurface formations. The results indicate that the silt-
stone is relatively impervious with variable coefficients of per-
meability (1 to 60 feet/year). Higher permeabilities were detected
at the interface of the claystone and sandstone lenses with a
maximum value of 2400 ft/yr and a general range of 60 to 530 ft/yr.
Claystone permeabilities are erratic and vary from 20 to 1000 ft/yr.
The claystone becomes less pervious with depth.
Undisturbed samples collected at the storage reservoir site were
tested and found to have a coefficient of permeability less than 1
ft/yr. This tends to indicate that leakage occurs in joints and
fractures within the claystone.
Exploratory borings show an erratic free water level. Depths
as shallow as 7 feet exist in the northwest protion of the site.
This water is believed to be perched water caused from seepage from
the adjacent Bull Canal. Other boring locations indicate water depths
of 11 to 28 feet.
Although the permeabilities are generally low, there is a possi-
bility for rapid movement through joints, fractures, and bedrock
interfaces. An inactive fault trace may underlie the northwest corner
of the proposed reservoir. Water movements along such fractures must
be reduced to prevent ground water contamination by the overlying
wastewater and treated effluent. To satisfy this requirement the
proposed Northglenn treatment facility and storage reservoir will
be lined with random clay fill material from the excavation site.
The design requires scarifying the reservoir and lagoon bottom soils
to a depth of at least six inches and recompactlng the soil to a
95 percent density. Northglenn states that if granular soils or frac-
tured materials are encountered in the reservoir bottom, they will
be covered with two feet of selected, compacted impervious fill
material. EPA will require as an alternative to this that Northglenn
consider moving the entire dike south to exclude such a fault trace
if present. Resolution of the problem will be done following removal
of overburden down to the competant zone. (See special construction
condition in Chapter 5.)
The estimated seepage of the lined reservoir after 95 percent
compaction is estimated to be 0.5 feet per year. The proposed lagoon
and reservoir has an area of 110 acres. The anticipated total seepage
volume per year is 55 acre-feet. Based®® a void ratio of 25 percent
in the soils below the reservoir, the radial movement of seepage is
estimated to be two feet per year.
During the subsurface investigation, many holes were drilled
or augered along the dam axis and throughout the area to be ponded,
which have created possible zones of permeability. These penetrations
are from 10 feet deep to 66 feet deep.
66
-------
A study by the USGS and State Engineer's office involved two
deep (1550 feet) monitoring wells within the impoundment area.
These cased holes will be abandoned and replaced by agreement be-
tween Northglenn, the previous owner, and USGS. A third hole, 600
feet deep, was drilled by the Chen Engineering and Associates under
contract with Northglenn.
Each penetration below the pond elevation base of 5120 feet
needs to be considered as a possible source of fluid loss. EPA
has determined that these penetrations will need to receive special
attention before the compaction of the pond base or the dike con-
struction.
EPA will require that all shallow test holes within the re-
servoir site that have a depth greater than 30 feet below the pond
base must be plugged with concrete. Any test holes that have a
depth of less than 30 feet must be back filled and compacted. The
cased USGS test wells (BW-77-15B and BW-77-17B) must be pressure
plugged with concrete from the bottom up to insure proper abandon-
ment. (A special construction condition has been developed for
this problem and is described in Chapter 5.)
In addition to the rate of movement, the concentrations of the
potential contaminants must be considered. Biological oxidation in
the aerated lagoon will reduce certain chemical constituents in mag-
nitude while others will be converted to another form. For instance,
the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) will be reduced by at least 90
percent and ammonia/ammonium will be oxidized to nitrite/nitrate.
Some chemical components of wastewater which remain after treat-
ment are potential ground water pollutants. Most wastewater pollu-
tants that pass into the soil will be filtered out, adsorbed, or
exchanged with other ions within the soil matrix. Nitrates, soluable
salts, and some heavy metals however, readily move through the soil
matrix and are of particular concern as ground water contaminants.
The clay liner In addition to EPA's special construction condi-
tions on handling of the fault trace and sealing of wells, should
limit the percolation of wastewater to an acceptable and practical
volume as designed.
Monitoring wells are proposed for the treatment plant and storage
reservoir site. Periodic chemical analysis will indicate any seepage
effects on ground water quality.
Potential Odor Problems
The Odor Emission Regulation of Colorado (16) prohibit emissions
of odorous air contaminants from any single source such as result
in detectable odors which are measured in excess of the following
limits:
For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial
purposes it is a violation if odors are detected after the
67
-------
odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more
volumes of odor free air.
In all other land use areas it is a violation if odors
are detected after the odorous air has been diluted
with fifteen (15) or more volumes of odor free air.
The "worst case" for potential odor problems is to assume that
the aeration system is not operating and wind conditions do not
allow for dispersion of the generated odor. Four "worst case"
meteorological conditions were examined to determine approximately
how far odorous air could travel from the proposed Northglenn treat-
ment site before being diluted seven and fifteen times, respectively.
The four "worst case" conditions tested were for:
. most unstable dispersion (Stability Class A)
. neutral dispersion (Stability Class D)
stable dispersion (Stability Class E)
very stable dispersion (Stability Class F)
The height of the odorous air, assuming the aeration system is
not functional above the lagoons/reservoir, is estimated to be ten
meters (33 feet). This is the minimum emission height for an area
source like lagoons. Accounting for this emission height, wind speed,
and downwind distances for effective vertical mixing, the distances
to seven and fifteen dilutions were calculated (17). The results
of this analysis are presented in Table 4-6 and illustrated in
Figure 4-2.
A very stable atmosphere, evident of a strong low-level tempera-
ture inversion accompanied by low wind speed, Is the "worst case"
meteorological condition for the dispersion of odorous air. Hourly
wind data from Stapleton International Airport show that Class E and
Class F stabilities occur 6.7 and 16.7 percent of the time, respec-
tively, for wind speeds from one to seven miles per hour (mph). The
Class F category, for this analysis, is the worst case condition.
Under the Class F category (winds 1 to 7 mph) the wind speed frequency
further separated into winds 1 to 3 mph and 3 to 7 mph. The wind
speed frequency of 1 to 3 mph occurs less than half of the time,
while wind speed frequency between 3 to 7 occurs about 66 percent of
the time. The wind speed frequency by direction at Stapleton Airport
Is presented in Table 4-7 . The diurnal drainage flow in the South
Platte River Valley may be more evident with on-site meteorological
data, but data from Stapleton International Airport are considered
representative of long-term averages for this area.
Accounting for both the topography and diurnal air drainage flows
at the proposed site the most likely areas effected by odorous air
will be in a northeasterly and southeasterly direction. The area
within a radius of 2.55 miles from the site is calculated to be a
maximum that could be effected by odorous air prior to 15 dilutions
66
-------
0.22
Treatment
FIGURE 4.-2
WORST CASE OOOR ANALYSIS
(using Class f wind stability - wind speed 3to7mph
and an inoperative aeration system)
LEGEND
Buildings (Residential, Agricultural and Commercial)
— Estimated area exceeding 19 dilutions
— Estimated area exceeding 7 dilutions
0.41
Base: US GS, Weld County, Colorado I97&
0
u
MILE
69
-------
TABLE 4-6
ODOR ANALYSIS
Meteorological
Condition
Distance to
Seven Dilutions
Kilometers (Miles)
Distance to
Fifteen Dilutions
Kilometers (Miles)
Unstable (Class A)
0.21
(0.13)
0.35
(0.22)
Neutral (Class D)
0.85
(0.53)
1.35
(0.84)
Stable (Class E)
1.27
(0.79)
2.37
(1.47)
Very Stable (Class F)
2.10
(1.30)
4.10
(2.55)
under worst case conditions. The maximum area for odorous air
impact to acheive 7 dilutions has a radius of 1.3 miles.
Potential odor sources at the proposed plant include: 1) raw
wastewater entering the plant; 2) dredging accumulated sludge from
the aerated lagoons; 3) odors emitted due to plant upset conditions;
and, 4) ultimate sludge disposal.
In the proposed facility raw wastewater enters through a closed
"force main" pipe to a covered concrete inlet structure. The waste-
water is then conveyed to the aerated lagoons through pipes that
discharge below the lagoon water surface. Based on analyses pre-
pared by Northglenn's engineer there will be a dissolved oxygen
concentration greater than 2 mg/1 at the plant site and therefore
no sulfide odors would be generated.
It has been estimated by Northglenn's engineer that sludge will
be removed from the plant every five to ten years. Some odor is
possible during dredging. Measures such as dredging only on calm
days which limit the transport of odors or on days which the pre-
vailing wind direction is away from developed areas would reduce odor
complaints. Also, the operation should be well planned so the
dredging process is completed in the shortest period of time and the
sludge removed to the disposal site.
Final sludge disposal will be by tank truck injecting the sludge
into nearby agricultural land. There are expected to be minimal odors
from this operation.
Aerated lagoons generally are a reliable treatment method that
have few plant upsets. The Northglenn plant design is based on a
concept that has not been proven in full scale operation. The process
according to Northglenn's engineer will control algae by limiting the
70
-------
TABLE 4-7
1960-1964 Hourly Relative Frequency Wind
Data Summarized for F Stability from
Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado (2)
Wind Wind Speed Frequency % Wind Speed Frequency % Total %
Direction (1-2 mph) (3-7 mph) (1-7 mph)
N*
0.25
0.36
0.61
NNE*
0.21
0.23
0.44
NE
0.19
0.20
0.39
ENE
0.24
0.27
0.51
E
0.26
0.41
0.67
ESE
0.29
0.66
0.95
SE
0.37
0.63
1.00
SSE
0.31
0.57
0.88
S
0.89
2.23
3.12
SSW
0.98
2.96
3.94
SW
0.47
1.06
1.53
WSW
0.32
0.47
0.79
W
0.18
0.22
0.40
WNW
0.13
0.22
0.35
NW
0.29
0.24
0.53
NNW*
0.18
0.24
0.42
TOTAL 5.56 11.11 16.67
*Wind directions that will effect the Weisner Subdivision which is the highest
concentration of residences within one mile of the proposed facility.
71
-------
carbon source through removal of alkalinity by total nitrification.
Presuming the continued operation of the aeration system, there should
be little likelihood of plant upsets and operational problem that
would result in odors.
Considering the general south or southwest wind direction and
speed in the vicinity of the plant, and the limited likelihood of
strong odor problems at the plant, the frequency of any odor prob-
lems for residences near the proposed lagoons will be small. Al-
though residences within a half mile of the facility may experience
infrequent doses of odor under certain wind conditions, the closest
residential area, the Weisner subdivision, is not in the direction
that the prevailing winds blow during expected worst case conditions.
Reservoir Safety and Stability
The reservoir embankment stability analysis is based on two
reports provided by Northglenn (14, 15). Review of these reports
concludes that the subsurface and geological investigations for the
proposed reservoir site have been adequate.
However, information contained in the September 12, 1979 (15)
report indicate that the analysis was not based on final design of
the reservoir.
Earthquake Analysis
In the Earthquake Susceptibility Evaluation of the report the
Denver Seismic Zone is noted as the feature most likely to have a
seismic effect on the Northglenn reservoir area. On page 15 it states
that "it is unlikely that future earthquakes (in the Denver Seismic
Zone) would exceed magnitudes greater than 5.5 to 6.0 (on the Richter
Scale)" (15). This Infers that a maximum design earthquake of magni-
tude 6.0 should be considered. On page 17 is stated "selected a
pseudo static seismic coefficient of 0.05 g for the operational base
earthquake and 0.10 g for the maximum design earthquake". The pseudo
static seismic coefficient of 0.10 g was used in the stability
analysis of the reservoir (18). For the Denver Seismic Zone an oper-
ational base criteria of 0.05 g, pseudo static seismic coefficient for
an earthquake magnitude of 5.3, and 0.10 g for a maximum design
earthquake of 6.1 Richter magnitude are reasonable based on D. S. Army
Corps of Engineer criteria.
Embankment Stability Analysis
The stability analysis methods used are the most commonly used
for these types of analysis. A detailed review of the adequacy of
the analysis is beyond the scope of this review. However, safety
factors arrived at in the analysis appear to be based on accepted
criteria (19).
Seepage
The influence of underseepage and the resulting pore water pressures
72
-------
on the stability of the embankment are significant factors in the
dam stability analyses. Pore water pressures should be monitored
as indicated. However, this can be better accomplished by installing
piezometers instead of observation wells, because the observation
well will at best show a composite flow water surface. The results
of the water pressure testing were correctly analysed as primarily
the result of secondary permeability.
Embankment Construction
The material to be excavated from the reservoir area appears
adequate for the embankment construction. Recommended construction
practices are along the lines of the Bureau of Reclamation Standards (20).
The report calls for a four foot freeboard with 18 inches of rip-
rap on the reservoir face of the embankment, but does not go into the
matter of how these design criteria were arrived at. The freeboard
of four feet was determined on the basis of an effective fetch of
2,355 feet and a design wind velocity of 63 miles per hour. No in-
dication is given as to whether or not wave run-up was considered in the
determination of freeboard.
This report further states that "An impervious asphalt liner
will be placed along the inside face of the embankment from top to
bottom to prevent wave action damage to the embankment. The asphalt
liner will consist of a 3% inch layer of hydraulic asphalt concrete,
a lh inch thick binder course and a 5-inch drain course". Based on
the analysis described by Mostertman (21) it would appear that with
the use of an asphalt liner the wave run-up would result in a required
freeboard in excess of 6 feet. Calculations for a rip-rap facing
indicate that 50% of the stone used should have a diameter of
15 inches or greater rather than the 12 inches mentioned in the report.
From the information supplied it can not be concluded whether
consideration has been given to potential embankment damages arising
from ice formation or the potential of damages from earthquake gen-
erated waves.
In a recent discussion (22) it was discovered that a third sta-
bility analysis report has been prepared which more specifically eva-
luates the proposed reservoir and lagoons. This report could not be
obtained in a timely manner to be reviewed and encorporated into this
assessment. However, discussion of the questions and issues raised
in the review of the September 12, 1978 report indicate the final
stability analysis adequately resolved the questions raised.
Visual Features
The proposed reservoir and lagoons will alter the topographic
features of the immediate area. The greatest Impact will occur during
construction when exposed soil will contrast with surrounding vegeta-
tion. However, as vegetation establishes on the slopes of the faci-
lity this impact will be significantly reduced. Analysis of the visual
features of the area indicate that the rolling terrain of the area will
aid in further reducing the visual effects beyond the Immediate site.
73
-------
The proposed facility, lagoons and reservoir, is illustrated in
Figure 4-3. This rendering is looking north with the Bull Canal
illustrated in the upper left hand corner. Shown in Figure V-9 and
V-10 is the facility in profile. Figure 4-4 is the north-south axis
viewed from the west. Figure 4-5 is the east-west axis viewed from
the south. The vertical and horizontal scales differ for illustra-
tion purposes. Figures 4-6 to 4-9 are "before" and "after" illus-
trations of the facility. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 represent the view
from Weisner Subdivision, south of the proposed site. Figures 4-8
and 4-9 represent the view of the site from Interstate 25, north
of the Base Line Road intersection (Weld County-Adams County Line).
EPA concludes that due to the vegetation effort planned by
Northglenn and the low profile of the facility, the visual intrusion
is a minor impact.
Energy Sources
With the rising costs of conventional energy sources it has be-
come necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative
sources of energy. Several additional sources are available. Wind
and solar energy sources are the most feasible alternatives to con-
sider for this project.
Solar energy is a clean energy alternative. Several types are
commercially available, the variation being in the medium used, i.e.
air, water, etc., depending on the type selected and the solar
characteristics of the geographical location.
The Northglenn project includes a control building at the aerated
lagoon treatment plant. The building design has incorporated passive
solar design features including window positioning and partial bury-
ing to conserve heat. The building design also has included a heat
recovery system that will heat the building with heat recovered from
aeration blowers.
Another form of alternative energy is the conversion of wind
forces into electrical power.
For wind energy to be an economical power source the average
annual wind speed should be greater than 10 mph - ideally at least
14 to 15 mph, since this criterion is essential for a cost-effective
design.
An approximate cost of wind energy is $25/sq. ft. of rotor.
The rotor area is dependent on the quantity of energy required. At
current energy costs the capital recovery time for a wind energy
system is 6 to 16 years, depending on the type of application (23).
Wind energy could potentially be used to supply the power neces-
sary to operate the aeration system of the proposed Northglenn treat-
ment plant. The average annual wind speed at Stapleton Airport is
9.5 mph (24), This value is close to the critical value (10 mph).
Anemometer data at the treatment plant site are necessary for final
analysis.
74
-------
J
FIGURE 4- - 3
Artist's Rendition of the Northglenn Bull Canal
Treatment Facility and Reservoir
(Aerial oblique view looking north)
-------
5400r-
5300
FIGURE 4--4-
ViSUAL IMPACTS
LOOKING EAST
^
N
CROSS SECTION
-------
FIGURE 4--5
VISUAL IMPACTS
LOOKING NORTH
5400
CROSS SECTION
5300
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
P 5100
UJ
5000
6000
8000
10,000
8000
4000
2000
2000
4000
6000
RESERVOIR
Horizontal Distance in Feet
( Vertical to horizontal exaggeration is 20 to I )
Horizontal I in.: 2000 ft.
Vertical I in.: 100 ft.
-------
FIGURE 4--6
Present view looking North
from Weisner Subdivision
-------
FIGURE A--7
Future view looking North
from Weisner Subdivision
Vy^r. & wJr^P
' ^ •' u
~CT&&
-------
F IGURE 4--8
View looking Northeast from
Interstate 25 and Weld County Line
-------
FIGURE -4- 9
-------
OTHER INDIRECT EFFECTS
Lining of Bull Canal
Pursuant to the four-way agreement between FRICO, Northglenn,
Thornton and Westminster, the City of Thornton is to pay FRICO the
sum of $3 million to line the Bull Canal system and laterals (25).
The purpose of the lining is to reduce seepage losses and improve
farm headgate yield.
Seepage measurements of the Bull Canal system and Big Dry
Creek below Standley Lake were made jointly by Wright Water Engineers,
consultants for Northglenn, and Hydro-Triad Engineers, consultants
for FRICO (26). No final report has been prepared, but interim re-
sults were made available for review. The extent of lining is yet
to be determined. In certain areas ground water may be flowing
into the Bull Canal; and lining these portions would be detrimental.
Historically, approximately 60 percent of the Standley Lake water
released in the Standley system (27) has been delivered to the far-
mers. Data presented by Wright Water Engineers indicates that present
seepage losses in Big Dry Creek between the outlet of Standley Lake
and the Bull Canal headgate are between 3 and 5 percent. In the
future, as the area urbanizes, it is expected losses in Big Dry Creek
will reduce to zero or even show a gain. By lining the canal system,
a future total system loss of 10 percent is estimated (28).
Reduction of seepage losses may lower ground water levels and
affect wells adjacent to the canal. Also, according to a study by
Colorado State University for the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, improvement or irrigation efficiencies by lining may have
an overall negative effect on water availability to agriculture in
the iSouth Platte Basin (29).
Ground Water Under Lands Taken Out of Production
Certain lands historically used for agriculture will, under the
Northglenn plan, be taken out of production. The water rights
associated with these lands will be used for augmentation by North-
glenn. Removal of irrigation from land decreases the ground water
recharge. The effect of this reduction by Northglenn's plan has been
estimated to be very small and will not have a noticeable impact.
For example, an analysis of one parcel along the South Platte indi-
cated an estimated ground water level lowering of less than three
inches as a result of removal of irrigation water. Continued removal
of land from agricultural production for urbanization in the long
term may have a significant effect on ground water levels.
Noxious Weeds
Under Colorado State law, counties are impowered to establish
weed districts. A district is responsible for controlling noxious
weeds within its jurisdiction. If a complaint comes to the adminis-
trator of the district, (generally the County extension office) the
landowner is notified that steps must be taken to prevent the weeds
82
-------
from going to seed. If corrective measures are not taken the
administrator can spray the land and charge the landowner by add-
ing the fee to his taxes.
Concern has been expressed that Northglenn-owned agricultural
land may not remain in continuous cultivation and a noxious weed
problem will develop.
Western Adams County currently does not have a designated
weed district that encompasses the Northglenn-owned land. South-
western Weld County does have a weed control district that does in-
clude Northglenn owned land. Northglenn is exempt from paying
taxes. Therefore, should a weed problem develop on their land the
weed district would not be able to assess cost to Northglenn through
the defined channels. At this time there is no enforceable policy
for controlling weeds on Northglenn-owned land in either Adams or
Weld County. Northglenn staff members have, however, publicly ex-
Pressed their intention to control weeds on city owned lands.
Project Impacts Upon Urbanization
The Northglenn water resource management plan has significant
implications for urbanization of the Denver area.
Following implementation of the plan, Northglenn will control
water from the South Platte River that historically irrigated approxi
roately 1390 acres of land. Future development of this land may be
severely limited if water is not available. Should developers
follow Northglenn's option to purchase agricultural water from the
South Platte forms there could be a further reduction in agricultural
lands as a result of the urban development. This "domino" effect,
over the long-term, may have a major impact on the agricultural
community around Denver.
The key to controlling this effect is in Northglenn's ability
to manage their water so that as much of the land historically irri-
gated is maintained as such.
83
-------
a
CHAPTERS
STEPS TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS
-------
tafmojib, AancheJU, and tnvJjio mentaJtJUt& a/ie
aZZiej> now in thelh. concern Ion. the good
6teuxvid&hip the nation'& agnicirfJwiaZ
Zanda. ThU paAtne/uhip ib an ismen&eZy
important one. Soit ii the /low mate/UaZ
o& agfiicuZtuJie. We can pave. it, ok we
can &ave it, knowing that wkateve/L choice.
we make, will ptio Roundly inllue.net the Zive&
oi unborn generation*.
Gus Speth, Chairman
Council on Environmental Quality (1978)
-------
CHAPTER 5
STEPS TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS
have ^gnlficant adverse impacts that may result from the proposed plan
®echani!R and discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. There are two
8 available to EPA and the State that will insure appropriate
gation measures are implemented by Horthglexm. These mechanisms are:
1) EPA Grant Conditions; and
2) State Enforcement of NPDES Permit Requirements
a li ^nder Construction Grants Program, a grant offer contains
the 8t °f requirementB that the grantee must agree to in order to receive
gra»frant* UBUBlly these grant conditions involve certain steps that the
an muSt accOBPllsh during the construction phase (e.g. finalization of
operation and maintenance manual, completion of an industrial cost
tt!CJVery 8yetein' €tc•^• Withholding final grant payment is the usual
cnanism that EPA uses to insure compliance with grant conditions. Grant
^aditions to assure continuous requirements can also be imposed by EPA
effective for the design life of the project.
Effluent discharge requirements of the EPA and the State are en-
.°5Ce&ble through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit system. This program requires that any municipality,
industry, or other entity discharging into waters of the United States
®^st do so with an approved discharge permit. The authority for the
WDES permitting system lies with EPA, but in many states, including
Colorado, the administration of the system has been delegated to a state
agency (in Colorado it is the State Health Department). The NPDES Permit
includes appropriate limitations on the quantity, quality, and location of
discharge.
During the development of this document, extensive discussion
been held with Northglenn and various affected parties regarding
the identified impacts and options for minimizing these impacts. Some of the
8pecific mechanisms that will be used to implement and enforce the mitigation
Procedures are being negotiated, while certain ordinances designed to reduce
adverse effects have already been passed by the City of Korthglexm•
Northglenn has concurred that certain impacts will require mitigation,
Particularly those associated with degradation of Bull Canal and the re-
sulting public health risks. EPA has developed the following mitigating
Programs for the impacts identified:
Public Health Measures
Additional disinfection to reduce risks due to public contact with
the wastewater
Additional disinfection for Dacono's nonpotable water supply
-87-
-------
Tailwater Control Plan
Plan to prevent the sale of raw edible vegetables
Agriculture Reuse Manual
Commitment to use effluent for agricultural purposes
Additional measures to prevent groundwater seepage
Additional monitoring requirements beyond NPDES Permit
Resolution of Management Agency Deeignation
Previously required mitigating measures, including:
Urban Runoff Controls
Compliance with the State Air Quality Implementation Plan, including:
a, Limiting sewer taps
b. Limiting development to within urban service area and con-
tiguous to existing development
Erosion Controls
Energy Conservation
Water Conservation Efforts
Radiological Emergency Response Plan
Archaeological/Historical Resources
A brief explanation of the need for these measures and the applicable
grant conditions follow6!
PUBLIC KF.AT.TK - PUBLIC CONTACT WITH WASTEWATER
Farm irrigation practices and public recreation around the Bull Canal
indicate that there is the potential for disease transmission through direct
body contact.
The draft discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health
proposed that effluent be disinfected to a level of 1000 fecal coliforma
per 100 ml. Detailed review of the medical literature (see Appendix B)
indicates that public health risks are associated with 100% effluent chlor-
inated to 1000 fecal coliforms/100 ml. Because the project would entail
uncontrolled use of effluent, meaning there would be human contact with
the water during irrigation and recreation, a more stringent disinfection
criteria should be applied. Therefore, the City of Northglenn has agreed
to chlorinate the effluent to a level of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml.
Whereas the City's engineer reports that the initial design included facili-
ties to provide this level of disinfection, the operational plans did not.
EPA anticipates that a dosage of 15 mg/1 chlorine as projected by Northglenn
provide the necessary level of disinfection.
-88-
-------
The EPA proposed grant condition is: "The City shall chlorinate the
effluent prior to discharge to achieve a criteria of 200 fecal coliform
colonies per 100 milliliters or less."
PUBLIC HEALTH - DACONO IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The Town of Dacono has a nonpotable vater system which draws water from
the Bull Canal and is provided, without treatment, for irrigation in certain
parts of the town. The degraded quality of the water in the Bull Canal will
create an unnecessary health risk within Dacono. Northglenn will resolve this
problem either by substituting an alternative water source for Dacono's use
in place of the Bull Canal water currently used, or installing and operating
a disinfection system on the water Dacono receives from the Bull Canal. If
disinfection Is chosen, the system will be designed to achieve a level of
disinfection acceptable to EPA which shall include a residual chlorine level
of not less than 0.3 mg/1.
The EPA proposed grant condition is: "Northglenn will undertake the cost
of modifications, operation and maintenance for the Dacono nonpotable water
supply to insure that the nonpotable water supply for the Town of Dacono Is
properly disinfected to protect public health for the design life of the
Northglenn project. (Alternatively at Northglenn's expense, a replacement
for this system could be provided.) Northglenn shall consult with the Town
of Dacono to obtain their concurrence with these plans."
PUBLIC HEALTH- TAILWATER CONTROL AT FREDERICK AND FIRESTONE
During irrigation periods, Bull Canal tailwater from lands adjacent
to Frederick and Firestone flows through town streets. Northglenn has agreed
with EPA to provide necessary facilities to control the tailwater so that it
will not enter the Towns of Frederick or Firestone. The plan, which has been
conceptually developed, will consist of three ponds tha.t will receive the
tailwater from collection ditches along the lower edges of the fields
adjacent to the towns. Low dikes will reduce stonnwater inflow into these
ponds. Water from the ponds will be recirculated back to the Irrigated land.
(Should these fields be irrigated during rainfall, some diluted tailwater
could flow into the streets.) According to the filings Northglenn has made
with the Water Court, their position Is that this water is from Standley Lake
storage and impounding of this water will not create a water rights problem.
EPA concludes that If the Water Court disagrees, this amount of water will
have to be included in Northglenn's augmentation plan.
The proposed grant condition Is: "Northglenn will provide physical
measures to prevent the flow of tailwater from adjacent agricultural land
into the Towns of Frederick and Firestone or any other residential area. Con-
sultation with Frederick and Firestone on the design and location of these
facilities is necessary."
PUBLIC HEALTH - FOOD CROP PRODUCTION AND GARDENS
In 1979 there were no raw edible food crops grown in the FRIC0
Standley Lake system. However, there is potential for these crops to be
grown in the future. Also, there is potential for private gardens within the
FRICO area to be irrigated with Bull Canal water.
-89-
-------
Northgleira has agreed to a plan to prevent the public sale or distribution
of raw edible food crops irrigated with its effluent. Northglenn will assist
farmers in marketing the crops to buyers who will process the crops or
Northglenn will otherwise compensate the farmers for economic losses to the
extent of actually purchasing the vegetables if no other satisfactory solution
can be found.
Regarding the possible irrigation of private gardens, Northglenn has
agreed to develop an educational plan that will inform fanners of the problem
and discourage direct contact with the water and its use on private gardens.
The proposed EPA grant condition is: "In the event that raw edible vege-
table crops irrigated with Northglenn's wastewater are offered for sale or public
distribution, Northglenn agrees to find alternative process markets for the
crops or to acquire at their own expense the crop itself. Northglenn agrees
to issue and reissue on an annual basis for the design life of the plant, to
all shareholders of record in the Standley Lake Division of FRICO, and to all
shareholders of record of any other division of FRICO to which waters from the
Northglenn reservoir are diverted, an advisory concerning the constituents of the
wastewater in the reservoir and a notice that such water should not be used for
the irrigation of raw edible vegetable crops."
AGRICULTURAL REUSE MANUAL
The proposed project will result in delivery of reclaimed effluent and
Standley Lake water to FRICO fanners. The reclaimed water is suited for the
agricultural uses intended, with the exception of raw edible vegetables as
noted above. There may be some minor operational changes that can or should
be made by the fanners for certain crops. For example, one change that would be
advised is the modification of fertilization rates to compensate for the nitro-
gen content in the wastewater applied. The City of Northglenn has agreed to
prepare an Agricultural Reuse Manual that will provide information on such
matters. This manual will be available to all farmers in the FRICO-Standley
Lake Division. Projections regarding water delivery and quality would be
updated monthly. A preliminary outline of the manual is given below:
A. Water Yield Projections
1. Snow survey
2. Standley Lake Yield
a. Bull Canal Shares
b. Reuse Water
B. Water Delivery Projections
1. Crop Projections
a. Type
b. Acres
2. Standley Lake
a. Cities
b. FRICO delivery
-90-
-------
3. Bull Canal Reservoir
a. Wastewater
b. Makeup Water
C. Nutrient Delivery Projections
1. Bull Canal Reservoir Qualities by Month
2. Recommended Commercial Fertilizer Application Rates
3. Crop Advisories
D. Adjustments to Delivery Projections
1. Standley Lake Quantity and Quality
2. Bull Reservoir Quantity and Quality
3. Crop Advisories
4. Field Monitoring Results
E. Distribution of Reports
1. Agricultural Advisory Reports
2. Water Quality Monitoring Reports
The proposed EPA grant condition is: "Northglenn will develop an Agricultural
Reuse Manual (as outlined above) to provide advice to farmers of the Standley Lake
Division of FRICO on the use of treated sewage effluent for crop irrigation.
Periodic public reporting in the advisory notices will be provided to the FRICO
Board and to anyone requesting this information."
Commitment to Use Effluent for Agricultural
Implementation of the Northglenn agricultural reuse project requires the
commitment of large sums of money, both from the City and EPA. Assurance must
therefore be given that the City of Northglenn can and will continue the proposed
means of wastewater treatment and disposal for a reasonable period of time. The
proposed plan of agricultural reuse depends on the availability of sufficnent
agricultural lands to receive the effluent. While EPA concurs with Northglenn
that future demand for this effluent should be adequate, in order to Insure this
Northglenn will develop a contingency plan whereby sufficient land under the
City's control will be continuously committed to receive the effluent. This
commitment can be in the form of land ownership by the City, Irrigation easements,
effluent sale for irrigation, or effluent lease for irrigation. The commitment
is for a minimum of 20 years beyond the date of the grant award.
-91-
-------
Northglenn purchased 1,836 acres within the Standley Lake Division incidental
to water rights purchases. Fifteen hundred acree of this land are irrigated.
Northglenn's engineer estimates that a minimum of 1,065 acree producing alfalfa
will be sufficient to insure continuous disposal of its wastewater without adverse
effects on groundwater. EPA agrees with this determination and therefore pro-
poses to require as a grant condition that Northglenn maintain 1,100 acres under
their control for effluent disposal.
The proposed EPA grant condition is: "Northglenn shall assure that suf-
ficient land, approximately 1,100 acres, in the FRICO-Standley Lake system is
under their control—through ownership, lease, or contract—for the purposes
of effluent disposal. This condition is binding for the 20-year design life
of the project."
Additional Measures to Prevent Groundwater Seepage
The northwest corner of the proposed reservoir may contain a fractured zone
from a fault trace known to exist in the vicinity. If present, this would pro-
vide a zone of permeability potentially allowing communication of the impounded
fluid with the groundwater of the immediate area. (Further analysis is provided
in Chapter 4.)
Should the fracture pattern be encountered under the dike area or on
the reservoir side of the excavation, there are two possible remedies: 1) move
the reservoir south of the zone, or 2) design a sealing method. Additional
sealing methods could include a combination of a partial membrane seal and com-
paction of a mixture of the local clays and proper additives to increase the
plasticity in order to combine with the fractured zone material.
During the subsurface investigation of the reservoir site, many shallow
holes were drilled. These penetrations in the pond area range from 23 to
60 feet below the final level of the reservoir. There are three deep well
penetrations (600 to 1,500 feet) in the area of the reservoir. Two are USGS
cased holes which exist near the northwest corner. The third hole, drilled by
Chen and Associates, has been plugged with cement from the surface, EPA recom-
mends that the two unsealed bore holes at these locations be sealed from about
the 500 feet level to the surface.
Northglenn proposes to use on-site clay material, at least 6 inches thick,
compacted to 951 density. EPA considers that a 6-inch liner may not be suf-
ficient to insure a compacted permeability of less than 10-6 cm/sec which is the
design criteria.
Where the liner is in contact with natural clays, a one foot liner would
be a probable sufficient minimum. In areas where sand lenses are present, the
liner should be at least two feet thick. Any open cracks or fractures which are
in bedrock should be covered with a mixture of coheslonless sand and gravel to
insure liner integrity after installation.
EPA proposes to require the following construction requirements: "During
construction of the cut-off key for the reservoir dike, a trench will be made
along the northwest boundary that will penetrate down to a competent zone in
the Arapahoe formation. An examination of the exposed units will be made to
-92-
-------
determine if any fault traces cut across this portion of the reservoir. If a
fault trace is located within the proposed reservoir area, either the dam will
be relocated to exclude the trace, or the trace will be sealed with an imper-
meable liner before implacement of the clay liner. The results of these inves-
tigations and any mitigative measures must be inspected and approved by the
Corps of Engineers, who will report the results to EPA.
All shallow test holes within the reservoir site that have a
depth greater than 30 feet below the pond base must be plugged with
concrete. Any test holes that have a depth of less than 30 feet must
be back filled and compacted. The cased USGS test wells (BW-77-15B
and BW-77-17B) must be pressure plugged with concrete from the bottom
up to insure proper abandonment. EPA will be notified when the plugging
is to take place so that a staff member can observe the plugging operation.
The thickness of the clay liner will be increased over the proposed
6" compacted seal for areas where the seal will be in direct contact with
sand or sandstone, Clean claystone material must be used. In all cases
the inplace claystone that will be used for a seal must be ripped up to
the required depth before compacting to the six inch thick seal. In areas
where claystone is not present, a supply of claystone (from stockpile)
must be spread in the area and a compacted seal of at least one foot
thick provided."
Additional Monitoring Requirements
Northglenn has agreed to monitor the agricultural exchange program
for the design life of the project. Northglenn will collect data that
relates to the potential for surface water quality degradation caused
by agricultural tailwater, groundwater contamination from reservoir
seepage, agricultural lands or irrigation ditches, and contamination of
water and subsequently crops by heavy metals or persistent organics.
EPA proposes the following grant condition; "A monitoring program will
be developed to include locations and depths of groundwater monitoring wells,
locations of surface water monitoring, and procedures for monitoring crops.
Pollutant parameters and monitoring frequencies must be given. Domestic ground-
water supplies in the area that could be affected by the project must be identi-
fied and periodically monitored. The monitoring program shall be modified as
information is developed on Items such as the potential for crop contamination
by toxic substances.
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to
regulations published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act.
Northglenn will be required to retain all records and information resulting
from the monitoring activities required by this grant condition including
all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instru-
mentation for the design life of the project.
Northglenn must provide annual public reporting on the findings of
the monitoring program. Northglenn must also identify any nonconformance
with regulations concerning the level of contaminants in crops set by FDA,
USDA, State agriculture and health departments and other government agencies.
93
-------
In addition, EPA will provide the Larimer-Weld 208 and Weld County
copies of the draft program for their review, A minimum of a 90-day review
period will be given. EPA will review the Larimer-Weld 208 and Weld County
comments before the monitoring program is approved. EPA shall pay no more
than 50% of the federal share of the Step 3 project until the draft monitorine
report is submitted to EPA. EPA shall pay no more than 80% of the federal share
of the Step 3 project until the monitoring program is approved by EPA."
DESIGNATION OF MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE NORTHGLENN PROJECT
The 208 Clean Water Program includes a process to identify needed
treatment works, specify financial arrangements to develop these works
and set construction priorities. Each 208 area must also regulate all*
discharging facilities and develop policies and regulations to control
all other point and nonpoint sources of pollution, identify which
agencies are to implement the plan, and assess the impact of the plan.
Section 208 also calls for annual recertification of water implementa-
tion controls, such as the withholding of Federal grants for constructing
publicly-owned treatment plants unless there is compliance with the
plan.
It has been found that capital-intensive and structural measures
alone such as the construction of wastewater treatment facilities,
cannot economically solve water pollution problems. Other non-
structural solutions must be developed, such as the implementation of
land use controls to direct population growth to areas where waste-
water treatment capacity already exiets or can be provided.
The Clean Water Act requires that a management system be established
in each 208 plan that assigns responsibilities to specific agencies.
The system must not only assure implementation of the original plan but
also must allow for updating and annual recertification of the plan.
The Act further requires that responsibilities within the system
be assigned according to the following four broad functions: continuing
planning; management; operations; and regulation. EPA has determined
that these functions are properly managed when: a) local governments
and organizations control implementation of the plan wherever possible;
b) general-purpose local governments are in charge wherever possible,
because they are best able to integrate water quality programs with
other local programs, and normally have the powers needed to deliver
results; c) general-purpose local governments delegate certain powers,
functions, and responsibilities through to appropriate existing
agencies, so that disruptions are minimal and valuable expertise is
put to use; and d) cities and counties coordinate wastewater management
in the urban fringe areas where jurisdictions meet.
MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
As specified in the regulations developed for the Clean Water
Program, 208 plans shall identify a specific Management Agency to
Implement each of the plan's programs. Each Identified Management
-94-
-------
Agency shall have adequate authority as specified under Section 208(c)
of the Act to establish the agency's legal, administrative and financial
authority; appropriate reporting procedures; methods for coordination
with the planning agency; and a description of the specific implemen-
tation responsibilities of the agency. The Governor shall assure
that each Management Agency which has regulatory responsibilities has
sufficient autonomy and regulatory authority to carry out its responsi-
bilities effectively and on time. EPA may withdraw acceptance of a
Management Agency designation and request the Governor to designate
a new agency, or take other corrective action, if it is determined that
the effectiveness of the Management Agency is inhibited by lack of
sufficient autonomy.
Management Agencies can set up contracts that delegate operational
responsibility to the operators of wastewater treatment facilities.
The operating agency is responsible for day-to-day operation of the
facility. For example, a sanitation district could enter into an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) as an operating agency with a
Management Agency (such as a city or county) that would define its
specific responsibilities for implementing the facility. The sanitation
district would most likely hold the effluent discharge permit for
operation, be eligible to receive Federal grants to construct waste-
water facilities, set its own rates, and have complete control over
the operation and maintenance of the facility. The city or county,
as Management Agency, would review and approve facility expansion,
set construction priorities, cooperate with the sanitation district
to carry out the 208 plan, and be responsible for broad areas of land
use planning and nonpoint source pollution control beyond the scope of
the sanitation district.
MANAGEMENT AGENCY-WELD COUNTY OR NORTHGLENN?
The City of Northglenn is located within the 208 Areawide
Planning jurisdiction of the Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) and has been designated as a Management Agency under the DRCOG
Plan. As such, Northglenn is eligible to receive EPA Section 201
Construction Grants funds. Northglenn will have responsiblity for
any facility they construct, for issuance of bonds, and grant admini-
stration, and operation and maintenance of the facility.
In accordance with the approved Larimer-Weld 208 Plan, the
continuing planning functions in Weld County are the responsibility
of the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments. Weld County
has been designated as a Management Agency under the Larimer-Weld 208
Plan for all unincorporated areas of the county. As a Management
Agency, Weld County has a vital interest in the planning, operation
and management of all wastewater treatment facilities constructed within
their boundaries.
-95-
-------
The proposed Northglenn wastewater treatment and reuse facility
will service only the city limits within Northglenn with an eight mile
interceptor through Adams County. The plant, however, will be located
in Southern Weld County, within the jurisdiction of the Larimer-Weld
Regional Council of Governments' 208 Areawide Planning Region. This
situation is unique in Colorado and there have not been any precedents
established for designation of the Management Agency under these circum-
stances. There are four alternative methods of designation:
1) Weld County would be the Management Agency and grant recipient.
Northglenn is the operating sgency under the Larimer-Weld 208 Plan:
2) Weld County would be the Management Agency. Northglenn would be
the operating agency and grant recipient;
3) Both Northglenn and Weld County would share Management Agency
responsibility with Northglenn as operating agency and grant recipient:
4) Northglenn would be the sole Management Agency and grant recipient.
These alternatives are further identified:
1) Weld County would be identified as a Management Agency with
Northglenn as an Operating Agency. Weld County would receive the
grant and would pass through the funds and operating responsibili-
ties to Northglenn as defined in an agreed upon intergovernmental
agreement (IGA). Thus, Northglenn would be eligible to set its
own rates and have control over the daily operation of the facility.
Weld County would have the power to review and approve or deny
facility expansion, set construction priorities, cooperate with
Northglenn to carry out the respective 208 plane, and be responsible
for broad areas of land use planning and nonpoint source pollution
control beyond the scope of Northglenn;
2) Same as above except Northglenn would be the direct recipient
of all Federal construction grants for their wastewater treatment
facility;
3) Both Northglenn and Weld County would act as Management
Agencies as they have been so designated under their respective
208 planning agencies. Northglenn would also be identified as
the Operating Agency under the Larimer-Weld 208. The sharing
of Management Agency responsibility and the designation of
Northglenn as the Operating Agency would have to be specifically
defined in an IGA. Under this arrangement, Northglenn would be
identified as the grant recipient and would be responsible for
operating and maintaining the wastewater facility in accordance
with provision in the IGA:
4) Northglenn would be identified as sole Management Agency and
thus would directly receive any Federal construction grant
funds. Northglenn has been identified as a management agency
-96-
-------
under the Denver Regional 208 Plan because the service area
is located in Adams County which is under the jurisdiction
of DRCOG. If this alternative were chosen there would be no
need for an IGA as Northglenn would be solely responsible for
plant operation, expansion or land use changes.
EPA concludes that the requirements of both 208 plans (which have
received State certification and EPA approval) must be met, preferably
through a formal Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). Management
Agency certification for both Northglenn and Weld County and execution
of a bilateral IGA between Northglenn and Weld County will serve to
notify the responsible areavide agencies, State agencies, and EPA
of conformance with the 208 Plans. Therefore, EPA prefers alternative
3 which establishes the sharing of Management Agency responsibility.
Consequently, EPA proposes to require the development of the IGA as a
condition before receiving the final payment of the grant.
The Statewide 208 Executive Committee, with the assistance of
the Attorney General's office, is investigating the consequences and
legal implications of the various options of the Management Agency
issue. The Committee has taken a lead role in the past in developing
management systems in 208 Plans, and is now assisting in the resolution
of this issue.
CONDITIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
The following issues are recommended by EPA as items to be
included in an IGA between Weld County and Northglenn:
1. Fecal Coliform Limit
Development of a desirable level of disinfection to reduce
public health risks associated with direct contact with
the effluent. EPA will require, as a grant condition, that
the effluent not exceed 200 fecal colonies per 100 ml and
prefers that this limit also be specified in the IGA.
2. Sale and Distribution of Raw Edible Crops
Require that plans be developed to prevent the sale and/or
distribution of raw edible vegetables grown with Northglenn
effluent. This items would establish that Northglenn bears
full responsibility foz any losses Incurred.
3. Advisory for Agricultural Reuse
Develop detailed agricultural reuse manual and educational
plan to advise farmers on the use of the effluent for all
crops or private gardens using the Bull Canal system.
-97-
-------
4. Replacement or Disinfection of Dacono Nonpotable Water System
Specify the method of complete disinfection to provide a residual
chlorine level or replacement of the nonpotable water system for
the Town of Dacono. Advise that Dacono is properly represented and
advised on the solution to this problem.
5. Tailwater Control
Development of physical measures to prevent the flow of
tailwaters from adjacent agricultural land into the Towns
of Firestone and Frederick, or any other residential area.
Assurance that Weld County and the communities of Firestone
and Frederick are properly represented and advised on the
solutions to this problem.
6. Land Use Authority
The IGA should establish: a) Weld County's authority for
zoning and land use planning in the area surrounding the
treatment/reuse facility; b) Northglenn's authority for
tapB into the project interceptor; and c) Northglenn's
authority for plant expansion. (Northglenn would not
require Weld County approval for expansion within the
boundaries of Northglenn.)
7. Sludge Disposal
Northglenn would be creating sludge waste for disposal within
the LWRCOG 208 plan area and therefore must comply with appro-
priate regulatory requirements in the disposition of such wastes.
Northglenn plans to dispose of sludge on agricultural land in
Weld County and Adams County.
8. Additional Monitoring Requirements
EPA proposes to require, as a grant condition, a monitoring plan of
the agricultural exchange program for the design life of the
project. Northglenn will collect data that relates to the poten-
tial for surface water quality degradation caused by agricultural
tailwater, groundwater contamination from effluent seepage, agri-
cultural lands or irrigation ditches, and contamination of water
and subsequently crops from materials such as heavy metals or
persistent organics.
The monitoring program would be developed by Northglenn.
EPA would provide the Larimer-Weld 208 and Weld County copies
-98-
-------
of the draft program for their review. A 90-day review
period could be established and EPA would review the Larimer-
Weld 208 and Weld County comments before the monitoring
program is approved.
Korthglenn should provide annual public reporting on the
findings of the monitoring program. Korthglenn must identify
any nonconformance with regulations of the level of contaminants
in crops set by FDA, USDA, State agricultural and health
departments and other governmental agencies.
The IGA Bhould consider the possibility of the Weld County
Health Department processing some of these samples as a maethod
of independent review. Korthglenn should then reimburse Weld
County for such expenses. Finally, assurances should be pro-
vided for the long-term financial liability of Northglenn
for this water quality monitoring program.
9. Protection of Groundwater Quality
Plans would need to be established to deal with possible ground-
water pollution. Such plans should consider the groundwater
monitoring program and a contingency plan to replace, at
Northglenn's expense, the supply of water to residents pres-
ently dependent upon groundwater, if contamination is caused
by this facility.
1C. Limits on Hew Interceptors
A tap restriction prohibiting Northglenn from building any
interceptors to the facility without prior Weld County approval
should be Included.
EPA proposes the following grant condition: "The City of
Northglenn and Weld County shall share responsibilities as
Management Agencies under their respective 208 Water Quality Plans.
Designation of said responsibilities shall be incorporated into
an Intergovernmental Agreement following as a minimum EPA recommenda-
tion as outlined above. EPA shall pay no more than 50% of the federal
share of the Step 3 project until the draft Intergovernmental Agree-
ment is submitted to EPA. EPA shall pay no more than 80% of the
federal share of the Step 3 project until the Intergovernmental
Agreement is signed by the two parties and approved by EPA and the
State."
PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED MITIGATING MEASURES
When EPA issued its initial environmental assessment on the Northglenn
facility in September, 1978, several measures designed to reduce adverse
impacts were identified. All Denver area communities which request EPA
sewage funds must comply with EPA previsions as developed in the Denver
Overview EIS. (See Final Action on the Denver Regional Environmental
Impact Statement for Wastewater Facilities and the Clean Water Program,
August, 1978). For the City of Northglenn these conditions include:
-99-
-------
Urban Runoff Controls
Compliance with the State Air Quality Implementation Plan, including:
a. Limiting sewer taps, and
b. Limiting development to within the urban service area and con-
tiguous to existing development.
Erosion Controls
Energy Conservation
Water Conservation Efforts
Radiological Emergency Response Plan
Archaeological/Cultural Resources
With certain limited exceptions, EPA has accepted Northglenn's efforts to
fulfill these conditions. The current status of these efforts is:
Urban Runoff Controls
The Denver Regional Council of Governments recommended in the Clean Water
Plan that urban runoff pollution be controlled by nonstructural controls such
as pollution control ordinances (see Denver Overview Final EIS, Volume 1, page
33). The use of structural pollution controls to collect and treat urban runoff
was believed to be too expensive to justify at this time. Accordingly, EPA
determined that prior to granting funds for construction or expansion of waste-
water facilities, the general-purpose governments within the proposed service
area must show progress, in the form of ordinances adopted or recent efforts
taken, towards implementing the nonpoint source controls recommended by the
Clan Water Plan. Northglenn has met this requirement with respect to urban
runoff control by adopting a new ordinance to their municipal code entitled
"City Urban Runoff Drainage Ordinance".
Specific water quality purposes of this ordinance (Section 16-13 of the
Municipal Code of Northglenn) include:
a) A coordinated program of creating upstream ponding for temporary deten-
tion of storm runoff waters;
b) Encouragement and facilitation of urban water resources management
techniques, including detention of storm runoff, minimization of the need to
construct storm sewers, reduction of pollution, and the enhancement of the
environment.
The Urban Runoff Management Plan, based on engineering studies, indicates
the location of all drainage facilities in the City, including those facilities
which presently exist and those which are determined to be needed in the future.
-100-
-------
The facilities Bhown on the plan include all major drainage ways which directly
or indirectly affect drainage within the City, and all conduits, channels,
natural drainage courses, retention reservoirs, easements, culverts, bridges
and other facilities which are required to provide for the drainage and con-
trol of surface waters within the basins of the drainage ways and to carry such
waters to designated points of outflow or discharge.
Maximum citizen participation during all phases of the implementation of the
storm drainage and flood control regulations is encouraged.
To insure citizen participation on actual construction projects, any time
a project is proposed by the City to implement the Urban Runoff Management Plan,
the City administration will hold a public hearing in the neighborhood where the
project is to be constructed. The Planning Board and City Council shall hold
public hearings prior to construction of the project.
EPA accepts this ordinance as written as suitable to meet the requirements
of an urban runoff control plan. Accordingly, EPA proposes the following grant
condition:
"Northglenn shall maintain for the design life of the project
an urban runoff control plan similar to the provision contained
in Ordinance No. 531 entitled "Urban Runoff Management Plan."
Air Quality
The funding of wastewater treatment and collection facilities that involve
the addition of capacity to serve future population growth should be done in
a manner encouraging the implementation of measures to reduce the existing
air pollution problem. Population growth will occur In the Denver metropolitan
area. Unless strategies to reduce air pollution (principally from automobiles)
are implemented, air quality will not significantly improve. Funding of addi-
tional wastewater facilities does not cause air pollution, but it does support
growth, both economically and locationally, by providing readily available
services for sewage treatment and reducing development costs. Therefore, EPA
believes that funds should be made available only where reasonable actions
are being taken to deal with the air quality impacts of growth.
Accordingly, EPA requires:
1. A commitment from the elected officials of the local governments
which are to be served by the proposed wastewater treatment facility
to:
a. Implement air pollution control measures considered reasonable
for their area from the general list of measures outlined in
Appendix C of the Colorado State Air Quality Implementation
Plan.
b. Participate in the process established by the State of Colorado
and the Denver Regional Council of Governments to revise the
Denver element of the State Air Quality Implementation Plan.
-101-
-------
c. Support the implementation of the Denver element of the State
Air Quality Implementation Plan as approved by EPA,
2. Design wastewater facilities.based on DRCOG population projections
(or as revised during the State Air Quality Implementation Process)
with capacity increases staged in accordance with the April 25, 1978
regulations.
3. The grant applicant (in conjunction with local jurisdictions) must
develop and implement a sewer tap program which determines annually
the number of taps available for new residential development and
is consistent with the DRCOG population forecasts for 1980, 1990,
and 2000,
4. Development which will be served by the additional capacity must
be within the adopted regional urban service area boundaries
and contiguous to existing development as stated in DRCOG's
Regional Plan Policies. EPA requires evidence that local govern-
ments within the service area are promoting contiguous development
through zoning actions, building permit approvals and tap allocations.
Northglenn will meet these requirements through the following provisions:
a. A resolution adopted by the City Council indicating compliance with
all measures developed in the Denver element of the State Air Quality
Implementation Flan.
b. An ordinance limiting the number of taps available on an annual basis.
c. Ordinances prohibiting new taps along the proposed new inter-
ceptor.
These provisions are further explained:
On November 16, 1978, Northglenn adopted Resolution No. 78-92 which
states in part that:
"The City shall develop, implement and strictly enforce
a comprehensive set of ordinances, policies and programs designed
to produce and maintain ambient air quality standards;
The City shall actively participate in the planning, research,
and development of the Denver element of the State Air Quality
Implementation Flan;
The City shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with
the Denver Regional Council of Governments in the development of
such a plan; and
The City shall upon approval of such plan by the Environmental
Protection Agency, enact and enforce an air quality ordinance for
the purpose of ensuring compliance with the plan and with the goals
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977."
-102-
-------
The City of Northglenn adopted, on December 21, 1978, an ordinance
(Number 529) providing for a sewer tap program which annually determines
the number of taps available for new residential development. The ordi-
nance also provides a penalty for violation.
The ordinance specifies that it is unlawful for any person to make
any connection to the City's sanitary sewer system without first obtaining
the City Manager's approval of such connection. The ordinance indicates that
the City Manager shall grant approval of applications for residential connec-
tions to the City's sanitary sewer system consistent with and not to exceed
the following schedule:
MAXIMUM ANNUAL
CUMULATIVE
YEAR
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
1978
430
430
1979
430
860
1960
431
1291
1981
431
1722
1982
431
2153
1983
431
2584
1984
431
3015
1985
431
3446
Any connections not used in any one year may be added to the next
succeeding year's allowable number of connections, except that In no
year shall the total of all connections permitted exceed the cumulative
total allowable for that year.
Any person violating the terms of this ordinance shall, upon con-
viction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine not to
exceed Three Hundred ($300.00) dollars, or imprisonment in the City or
County jail not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both such fine and
imprisonment.
In order that the proposed new interceptor will not unduly interfere
with the adopted land use policies of Thornton and Adams County, and in
order to provide for contiguous development, Northglenn has agreed to an
EPA condition that prevents connections to the Northglenn interceptor. By
City Ordinance adopted December 21, 1978, Northglenn amended its munici-
pal code to include:
-103-
-------
"Section 16-11-5. Prohibition Against Connections to The
Northglenn Interceptor. It is unlawful for any person
to directly or indirectly connect any collection system,
interceptor, pump station, or other means of conveying
sewage, to the Northglenn Interceptor as set forth on the
map filed in the office of the Director of Public Works,
for that section of the interceptor which is located outside
of the City's corporate boundaries, and running from the cor-
porate boundaries to the sewage treatment facility, except
the area between 120th Avenue and 136th Avenue, which excep-
tions are subject to approval by both the City and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency."
Any person violating the terms of this ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and subject, upon conviction, to a fine not to exceed Three
Hundred ($300.00) Dollars, or by imprisonment in the City or County jail
not to exceed ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
EPA accepts these actions of the City of Northglenn to be in compliance
with agency policy to minimize air quality impacts within the Denver urban
area. Accordingly, EPA proposes the following grant condition:
"Northglenn shall execute those items specified in City Resolution
Number 78-94 regarding its intention to implement and enforce compliance
with the provisions of the Denver element of the State Air Quality Imple-
mentation Plan. Northglenn shall maintain an ordinance providing for
sewer tap limits as defined in Ordinance Number 529 adopted December 21,
1978. The City shall maintain a prohibition against connections to the
Northglenn interceptor as specified in Section 16-11-5 of the municipal
code for the design life of the project. In addition, the Regional Adminis-
trator may withhold, condition, or restrict the Step 3 grant in the event
that he determines that the provisions of Section 316(b) of the Clean Air
Act of 1977 have been met."
Erosion Control
Northglenn had agreed to implement erosion control measures by passing
City Resolution Number 78-102, adopted December 21, 1978. The resolution
called for adoption of an erosion control ordinance by June, 1979. Northglenn
has failed to implement this provision to date. Accordingly, EPA will require
Northglenn to adopt measures to limit erosion and to control sediment prior
to grant award. Northglenn is hereby notified to prepare an ordinance speci-
fying erosion controls and to follow: Guide for Erosion and Sediment Control
in Prbanizing Areas of Colorado: Interim Guidance, prepared by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Denver, Colorado, 1977.
EPA will not award a Step 3 grant until the grantee has adopted appropriate
ordinances or requirements to implement the erosion and sediment control
requirements included in the DRCOG 208 Clean Water Plan.
-104-
-------
Energy Conservation
EPA requires that during the planning or design of any wastewater treat-
ment works, the consideration of solar energy technology and energy conser-
vation techniques must be demonstrated by showing that energy requirements,
particularly for natural gas, have been reduced as much as possible.
Northglenn has fulfilled this requirement primarily by selecting aerated
lagoons which are an energy efficient method of treatment. The agriculture
reuse system reduces energy requirements by continuing to produce agri-
cultural products near the Denver area which will reduce transportation
costs and by providing nutrient recycling which will reduce the use of in-
organic fertilizers produced with natural gas.
The Northglenn project includes a control building at the aerated
lagoon treatment plant. The building design has incorporated passive solar
design features including window positioning and partial burying to con-
serve heat. The building design also has included a heat recovery system
that will heat the building with heat recovered from aeration blowers, by
utilizing a heat pump.
Therefore, EPA concludes no further measures are necessary regarding
energy conservation.
Water Conservation
EPA regulations for cost effective analyses specify that fair con-
sideration be made for recjuclng wastewater flow (generally called water
conservation) for communities over 10,000 population discharging waste-
water greater than 70 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), (For the purpose
of calculating average per capita use, Industrial flow and groundwater
infiltration are excluded.) Under these circumstances, the grantee must
use the estimated future reduction in flows for wastewater facility design.
The current average potable water use in Northglenn haB been measured
at 144 gpcd with an average of 91 gpcd returning as wastewater flow. Of
the total wastewater flow, 18 gpcd are attributed to either industrial
sources or groundwater infiltration, leaving an estimated 73 gpcd of resi-
dential wastewater flow. Because Northglenn's current use is so close to
the 70 gpcd criteria, EPA determined the formal cost-effective analysis
of wastewater flow to be unnecessary, especially since Northglennfs plan
includes several methods for reducing water use. The proposed methods
include mandatory water saving devices for new construction and remodeling,
outdoor irrigation reduction measures, and economic incentives for new taps
to minimize water use.
Northglenn has adopted Ordinance Number 555 establishing fees and
charges for connections to the water and sever utility system which
bases charges on estimated use. The graduated fee schedule establishes
additional costs for each 5,000 square feet of Irrigated lawn with lower
-105-
-------
fees established if a resident installs drip irrigation or automatically timed
spray irrigation.
In addition, Northglenn is also in the process of adopting a city
ordinance to specifically promote water conservation. This recommended
ordinance, entitled "Water Conservation and Plumbing Code of 1979," speci-
fies that:
"The Director of Natural Resources shall develop within
120 days of passage of this ordinance, an inventory list of
commercially available fixtures designed to achieve conservation
of water in an economically feasible manner. The inventory list
shall include, but not be limited to the following:
A. Indoor Criteria - Construction and Remodeling
1. Low flow toilets using less than 3.5 gallons per flush.
2. Air pressure toilets.
3. Shallow drip toilets.
4. Pressure reducing showerheads or water pressure
reducing valves.
5. Instant mixing thermostatic valve or similar device
reducing time for tap outflow to reach desired hot
water temperature.
6. Faucet aerators.
7. Self-regulating automatic shutoff faucets.
8. Dye table testing for toilet tank leaks.
9. Water conserving dishwashers.
10. Water conserving clothes washing machines.
11. Use of air cooled air conditioners.
B. Outdoor Criteria - Construction, Remodeling and Landscaping
1. Landscaping - For grassy areas, exclusive use of buffalo
grass, western wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, blue
gramma, a mix of these or other grasses, or a comparable
grass which will have the effect of minimizing the con-
sumptive use of water applied to such grass or grasses
for irrigation.
-106-
-------
For non-grassy, non-food producing areas, use of plants
native to Colorado or states bordering Colorado,
2, Irrigation - In all cases in which the economic charac-
ter of the development proposal is such that non-indigenous
species of grasses, shrubs and trees are to be utilized in
the landscaping plan, provision shall be made in the
development proposal for an irrigating system which
incorporates only equipment of the most water conserving
type commercially available at the time the proposal is
submitted for approval. At a minimum, irrigation systems
shall:
a) be equipped with a time activated automatic shutoff,
b) be equipped with sprinkler heads of a type which
provide the most uniform coverage feasible, and
maximum feasible droplet size to reduce evaporation
and wind disturbance of coverage,
c) where slope of the proposed development so requires,
irrigation systems shall be designed to control flow
for the purpose of reducing runoff and increasing
ground absorption.
3. Drainage Management - All development proposals shall
include a drainage management plant incorporating at a
minimum:
a) collection of runoff from roofs, patios, sidewalks,
driveways, streets and alleys.
b) application or diversion of the water collected
through 3(a) to the irrigation of landscaping vege-
tation within the development or adjoining developed
land.
c) the design, construction and operation of detention
facilities shall conform to the requirements of the
Division Engineer in accordance with the statutes of
the State.
4. Swimming Pools - All swimming pools, both new and existing,
shall be equipped with blanket pool covers which shall be
employed whenever the pool is not in use."
Accordingly, EPA proposes to impose a grant condition which states:
"Northglenn shall develop a water conservation policy similar to their
proposed ordinance entitled "Water Conservation and Plumbing Code of 1979,"
-107-
-------
which encourages further reductions in wastewater flows. Said ordinance
with amendments shall remain in effect for the design life of the project."
Radiological Emergency Response Plan
The City of Northglenn is located just beyond the area known as the
Category II area (10 miles radius) of the Rocky Flats Plant. The pro-
posed water supply system, however, includes Standley Lake and Woman Creek
which are inside the Category I area (5 mile radius). Accordingly, EPA
has determined Northglenn must comply with the provisions of the proposed
Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Rocky Flats.
State officials have been waiting for several months to distribute
this pamphlet telling those who live within 10 miles of the Rocky Flats
nuclear weapons plant what to do in case of an emergency there. Its
distribution, however, has been stalled by two obstacles. First, state
and federal officials can't agree on what might be the worstcase accident
that could happen at the plant, or what precautions should be taken. Second
a test of the state's Disaster Emergency Services Agency revealed that the '
state would find it difficult to carry out the emergency response outlined
in the plan. The current draft is now in the Governor's office while
officials attempt to improve the state's emergency response plan.
Providing these steps are completed, Northglenn can implement the recom~
mendations of this plan that are applicable to their area. EPA recognizes It
cannot currently impose a condition on Northglenn which is dependent upon
other agency actions outside the city's control. Therefore, with respect
to this plan, EPA proposes to apply as a grant condition: "The grantee
shall develop a notification procedure consisting of distributing and
redistributing annually, a notice yet to be developed, approved, and fur-
nished by the State, for notifying existing homeowners within the Category
II area as defined by the State Radiological Emergency Response Plan. The
grantee shall provide EPA with a copy of the procedures, as adopted prior
to receiving a Step 3 grant from EPA, provided the State and the Department
of Energy have completed this plan at that time. If and when the plan is
formally approved at a later date, Northglenn shall then adopt and maintain
for the project design life, those procedures necessary for the City of
Northglenn as specified in the Plan."
Archaeological/Historical Resources
As noted in Appendix A, the survey of archaeological/historical
resources conducted of the proposed interceptor route and reservoir site
identified a possible area of interest consisting of a tura-of-the-century
dump along the interceptor route. No other significant historical resources
were identified. Northglenn discussed the situation with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and has agreed to modify the interceptor
route to avoid this area. EPA proposes to apply the following grant
condition: "Xf archaeological or cultural artifacts are unearthed, con-
struction will be halted and the State Historic Preservation Officer
will he consulted Immediately. Accommodations will then be made as nec-
essary for excavation and/or assessment of uncovered archaeological re-
sources."
-108-
-------
CHAPTER 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
-------
"The open society, the unAes&Ucted
access to knowledge., the unplanned and
uninhibited association men ^ok Its
{untherumce--these cme what may make
a vast, complex, even, glowing, even
changing, eveA mcfie specialized and
expert technological would, neverthe-
less a wohld o& human community."
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Science and the Common Understanding (1953)
-------
CHAPTER 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
During preparation of this document several meetings have been
held to inform the public and solicit public comment. These meet-
ings have involved the public at large, vested interest groups, and
local and regional governmental entities. At the outset of the
project a discussion panel was established. The panel met offi-
cially in two public meetings and other informational meetings.
Participants on the advisory panel are listed below in Table 6-1.
The first public meeting was held August 30, 1979 and concentrated
on public health risks and direct impacts of the facilities. The
second public meeting on September 13, 1979, discussed the flow
augmentation plan and impacts on agriculture.
The following is a chronology of the public meetings held, and
a summary of the issues discussed during these meetings.
July 19, 1979 - EPA and Weld County citizens met in Frederick,
Colorado. EPA staff were shown problem areas in-
cluding Dacono's reservoir tailwater flow near
Frederick and asked to protect canal water quality
for drinking water use. EPA has determined that
it is necessary to require chlorination of Dacono's
nonpotable water supply, however, the canal need
not be protected as a drinking water supply source
(see EPA's proposed decision in Chapter 1).
August 15, 1979-EPA and Consolidated Ditch met in Brighton, Colo-
rado. The meeting centered around Northglenn's
preliminary flow augmentation plan, how it may
effect South Platte water right and South Platte
agriculture. Key issues discussed included: tri-
butary ground water reductions; nitrogen concen-
trations; effects on sugar beets, barley, and
livestock; noxious weeds; and impacts to the
South Platte. These issues are discussed under
"Agricultural Issues" in Chapter 3.
August 28, 1979-EPA, State Health Department and Northglenn met
in Denver, Colorado. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss grant eligibility» proposed permit
requirements and Northglenn's commitment to agri-
culture reuse. Key conclusion of this meeting
was that Northglenn owns sufficient land to ensure
an agricultural commitment. The issue of meeting
a 200/100 ml fecal coliform limit was discussed
and Northglenn has now agreed to meet this cri-
terion(see Chapter 5 on Steps to Minimize Adverse
Impacts).
Ill
-------
August 30, 1979-Citizens Discussion Panel met in Frederick,
Colorado. Discussion at this meeting focused on
public health and direct impacts of the facili-
ties. It was concluded that significant public
health risks are associated with the plan as pro-
posed. A permit requirement of 200/100 ml fecal
coHform could reduce health risks and provide a
better degree of protection. Panel members dis-
cussed the following issues before the session was
opened to questions and answers from the floor:
Issue: Northglenn expressed a fear of setting precedent which
will impact all waters of the State.
Response: There are similar circumstances in the State where
secondary treated effluent is used for irrigated agri-
culture especially when low stream conditions exist.
However, under the Northglenn plan discharge of treated
effluent without any dilution from another source is
part of the day-to-day operational plan. EPA concludes
that additional measures are necessary for this unique
situation. Both EPA and the State of Colorado are
considering establishing uniform permit requirements for
uncontrolled agricultural reuse.
Issue:
There is a lack of downstream monitoring to insure
compliance.
Response: Additional monitoring will be done by Northglenn in
order to understand the effects of the plant operation
(See Chapter 5 on "Additional Monitoring Requirements").
Issue: Treatment process will not be able to control pathogens.
Response: Die-off of pathogens in lagoon systems is excellent.
(See Literature Review of Public Health Risks in Appendix
B).
Issue: Hazards associated with a treatment plant upset during
peak irrigation season.
Response: Northglenn*s operational plan must provide for this con-
tingency.
Issue: Effect of nutrients on fertilizer requirements and
ground water.
Response: (See both the Agricultural Reuse Manual requirement and
Additional Monitoring Requirements in Chapter 5).
Issue: Panel members expressed concern over lack of advanced
information.
112
-------
Response: EPA has tried to accomodate all requests for informa-
tion as the information becomes available. EPA has
placed all public materials concerning the Northglenn
Project on reserve in EPA's library (See the Index
and Reference section).
Issue: The plan degrades Bull Canal water quality thus elimina-
ting it as a future water supply source.
Response: This is correct, see analysis on this issue in Chapter 3.
Issue: Complaint issued that treatment process operation has
not been evaluated.
Response: EPA intends to complete further analysis of the treatment
process during preparation of the final EIS.
Issue: Public health risks of Bull Canal tailwater in Frederick
and Firestone.
Response: A tailwater control plan is required (See the proposed
EPA decision in Chapter 1).
Issue: Stability and lining of Bull Canal reservoir.
Response: EPA will require additional construction measures to
reduce seepage (See Chapter 5).
Questions from the floor addressed the following topics:
Issue: Does the treatment process have the ability to meet the
BOD and suspended solids limit of 30-30 (BOD-SS)?
Response: Northglenn must comply with provisions under the State
issued NPDES permit to meet these limits. The proposed
treatment method is unique in using controls on alkali-
nity to meet these standards. EPA will conduct further
analysis of the treatment process and report on that
analysis for the final EIS.
Issue: Can FRICO farmers be restricted in the crops they choose
to grow and were cropping practices studied?
Response; Cropping practices were studied (See Agriculture in
the Study Area in Appendix A). Farmers are not restricted
in crop selection, however, Northglenn must prevent the
distribution of raw edible crops grown with their effluent.
(See Public Health Measures in Chapter 5.)
Issue: Why are there no EPA or State studies to develop viral
correlations to coliform counts ?
Response: Studies on the relationships of viral concentrations
to coliform bacteria have been conducted. However, pre-
sent data are inconclusive to establish any meaningful
correlations.
113
-------
Issue: What effect will industrial wastes have on water quality
and treatment processes.
Response: See discussion on Heavy Metals and Industrial Pretreatment
Requirements in Chapter 3.
Issue: Is there an effect from nitrates on Ft. Lupton's future
water supply?
Response: No, see Use of Canal Water for Drinking Water Supply.
Issue: Will storage eliminate virus?
Response: No, but pathogens do die-off during storage, see Appendix B.>
Issue: Will quality of water restrict farmers in irrigation prac-
tices?
Response: Changes in some irrigation practices will be necessary
See outline of Agricultural Reuse Manual in Chapter 5.
Issue: Northglenn will have to develop physical measures for
tailwater in Frederick and Firestone and irrigation water
in Dacono.
Response: Yes, see EPA's proposed decision in Chapter 1.
Issue: Odor will create a problem in the surrounding area.
Response: Possibly, see analysis of odor problems in Chapter 4.
Issue: Treatment facility will not work as designed.
Response: See previous answer on this issue.
Issue: The potential for cross-contamination of vegetables.
Response: EPA believes the potential for cross-contamination of
vegetables does not create a health risk. Vegetables
irrigated with effluent are not to be sold commercially
and Northglenn's operational plans require a mode for edu-
cating farmers of appropriate precautionary measures
for private use.
Issue: Can Denver Metro handle Northglenn until 1985?
Response: Denver Metro must expand its facilities by 1985, see
EPA funding criteria in Chapter 4.
Issue: Who is responsible for enforcement of standards?
Response: The Colorado State Health Department.
114
-------
Issue:
Who controls stopping discharge if water quality is
not suited for agriculture?
Response: EPA and Colorado State Health Department.
Issue: Is there going to be ground water pollution under
canals?
Response: The Bull Canal will be lined by FRICO, see section on
"Indirect Effects" in Chapter 4.
Issue: Will EPA address potential for canals to be used as
potable water supplies?
Response: EPA has determined such protection is unwarranted.
Issue: If Frederick were using the water as a domestic source
would there be a different determination as to protecting
this supply.
Response: Yes, if a water source is currently used for any purpose
EPA is required to protect water quality for that use.
Issue: FRICO shareholders have not approved plan by a majority.
Response: The Board of FRICO has approved this plan.
Issue: The plan results in a loss of taxable income to Counties,
will impact local communities and is not consistent with
Weld County Land Use Plan.
Response: Tax loss is quantified in Chapter 4. The Weld County
Planning Commission has approved the treatment plant site.
Issue: The plan is not consistent with 208 plans, and conflict
in designating a Management Agency.
Response: See discussion on Management Agency designation in
Chapter 5.
Issue: Water lost from South Platte is a concern which may be
prevented if alternative water supplies besides Standley
Lake are evaluated. Project should be held up until
Water Court decision is made.
Response: EPA believes Water Court approval is likely with changes,
see Proposed EPA Decision.
Issue: Frederick's future water supply was discussed as to how
they intend to meet their requirement.
Response: EPA advises Frederick to seek an alternative water supply
other than the Bull Canal.
115
-------
Issue: Status of Grand Jury investigation - what is it?
Response: See Section on Summary of Filed Litigation, Appendix D-5.
Issue: What happens if Water Court requires more augmentation
water to implement plan'
Response: Then Northglenn must secure such water flows.
Issue: What water supply alternatives were evaluated?
Response: See Water Supply Alternatives in Chapter 4.
Issue: Can the concept of the augmentation plan be approved
by the Water Court?
Response: This must be resolved by the Water Court.
Issue: If ground water is contaminated in wells near the reservoir
will Northglenn provide a new water supply?
Response: If such contamination is a result of Northglenn's
facility then presumably Northglenn would have to replace
these wells. EPA plans to require additional construction
requirements to further assure such a situation does not
occur, see Additional Measures to prevent ground water
seepages in Chapter 5.
September 7, 1979 - EPA and Citizens Discussion Panel meeting in
Denver, Colorado. The purpose of this meeting was to
discuss with the panel issues of the plan and provide
additional information to the panel members.
September 11, 1979 - EPA and State coordinator 208 meet in Loveland,
Colorado. Primary discussion related to Management
Agency designation, See Chapter 5.
September 13, 1979 - Citizens Discussion Panel met in Northglenn,
Colorado. Discussion during this meeting focused on
the flow augmentation plan and agricultural impacts.
Several of the issues discussed during this meeting were
identified in the first Panel meeting. The new issues
and comments of this meeting are summarized below.
Issue: The flow augmentation plan appears to be viable but this
determination will be made in the Water Court.
Response: Correct, see EPA proposed decision regarding protection
of vested water rights in Chapter 1.
Issue: There will not be any Impact to sugar beets or barley
in FRICO.
Response: Proper management can prevent any problem, see discussion
on agriculture in Chapter 3.
116
-------
Issue: Concern was expressed about basing water supply oti deep
wells. Can they be used only In dry years?
Response: See alternative water supply options in Chapter b.
Issue: The plan protects agriculture, does not impact ground
water in the South Platte valley, Northglenn will
develop plans to protect public health.
Response: No response necessary.
Issue: Green corn with high nitrate concentration will be toxic
to cattle. How will they be protected?
Response: Proper drying of silage corn prevents this problem. See
discussion on water quality in Chapter 4.
Issue: Energy may be saved by using fertilizer benefit of
wastewater to reduce purchase of chemical fertilizer.
Response: Some energy costs will be reduced by recycling nutrients.
Issue: Industry will require pretreatment prior to treatment at
facility.
Response: Correct, see discsusion on this issue in Chapter 3.
Issue: Advisory Panel is supposed to have technical advisory
group.
Response: Not necessarily, EPA believes the Panel provided valuable
recommendations which are reflected in EPA's decision.
Issue: Federal money should help provide additional storage
of Colorado water.
Response: Not related to EPA mission.
Issue: Big Thompson water for Frederick is too expensive.
Response: Frederick needs to find the least cost solution to their
needs.
Issue: Agricultural impacts are - shifting agricultural water,
drying up agricultural land, creating salt problem in
soil, dust bowl effect, shallow wells not protected,
not consistent with Governor's wishes to protect farms,
noxious weeds, tax losses, nitrogen on crops, livestock
and ground water.
Response: See analysis in Chapter 3 regarding these issues.
117
-------
Issue: Need another meeting to address Interagency agreements
and input to consultants.
Response: EPA will require Northglenn and Weld County to execute
an Intergovernmental agreement prior to grant award,
See Chapter 5.
October 2, 1979 - EPA met with opponents of Plan in Loveland,
Colorado. A list of requirements for the Intergovern-
mental agreement was presented and is discussed under
the Management Agency Designation section in Chapter 5,
October 12, 1979 - EPA tours project area and meets with citizens
near Frederick. Tailwater control, chlorination at
Dacono and ground water contamination were discussed.
A new issue raised was whether a proposed coal strip
mine by Coors would create potential for ground water
contamination. This issue will be addressed by the
Office of Surface Mining, Department of Interior should
Coors submit a mining plan.
118
-------
TABLE 6-1
NORTHGLENN DISCUSSION PANEL
NAME
Weston Wilson
Dick Lundahl
Frank Culkins
Bill Schuler
Adolph Bolander
Elton Miller
Ray McNeil (Dick Johnson)
John Hall
John Kemp
Bob Doyle
John Rutstein
Tess McNulty
Michael Richen (John Bern
Jerry Armstrong
REPRESENTING
EPA, Panel Moderator
City of Northglenn
Weisner Subdivision
Town of Frederick
Farmers Reservoir and
Irrigation Company
Consolidated Ditch Company
Denver Metro
Weld County Health Department
Adams County
Denver Regional Council
of Governments
Larimer-Weld Council of
Governments
Colorado League of Women
Voters
Colorado Open Space
Council
Rocky Mountain Fuel Company
119
-------
CHAPTER 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
"WfwteveA. an author puuU between the £vo
coveJU 0& hit, book aj> pubZLc pAoposuty; whmtevvi
o& himi>eZ{> he dcu not put thene -U hC& private
pKopojvty, cu> much ai ke had neve* written a
VOOKd."
Gail Hamilton
Country Living and Country Thinking (1862)
-------
CHAPTER 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
Environmental Protection Agency
Weston W. Wilson - Project Officer - Environmental Engineer
B.S. in Geological Engineering and M.S. in Water Resources
Administration from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Five years experience with EPA as project officer for environ-
mental impact statements for wastewater treatment facilities
including Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and Jackson Hole,
Wyoming. Special emphasis has been on land application of
effluent, investigation of water rights, protection of environ-
mentally sensitive areas and federal-state-local government
agreements. Preparation of numerous EPA reports including water
quality analyses, mined land reclamation reviews, power plant
sitings and dredge and fill permits. Worked as EPA's consul-
tant for the preparation of the President's National Water
Policy.
William Rothenmeyer - Sanitary Engineer
B.S. in Civil Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Troy, New York. Graduate level study at University of
Colorado at Denver in Civil Engineering. Three and one half
years experience with EPA in Regions II and VIII involved with
permits and construction grants for municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
Engineering Science
Paul N. Seeley - Environmental Scientist
B.A. in environmental biology, University of Colorado. Six years
experience in water quality monitoring, water resource planning
environmental assessment, aquatic and terrestrial ecology,
evaluation of land application, and impact analysis for a
variety of wastewater treatment and disposal projects.
Allan L. Udin - Sanitary Engineer
B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from Montana State University.
Fourteen years experience in water and wastewater treatment
facility planning, design, and operation. Projects have in-
cluded water treatment and storage facilites, water transmission
lines, water master plans, wastewater facilities plans, design
of conventional and advanced wastewater treatment facilities,
and plant operations consulting.
123
-------
Bahman Sheikh-01-Eslatni, Ph.D. - Agricultural Scientist
Ph.D. in Soil Science, University of California at Davis. Fourteen
years experience in water management system planning, pollution
control, and related environmental planning and design.
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements on wastewater
projects, land application, and area-wide sewage plans. Analy-
sis of the impacts to agriculture of irrigation with reclaimed
wastewater.
Tipton and Kalmbach
Harold F. Bishop - Vice President
B.S. Civil Engineering University of Utah. Responsible for inves-
tigation and design of water resource projects, including de-
tailed investigations of water rights, irrigation requirements,
design of drainage facilities and hydraulic structures, feasi-
bility reports and flood studies. He has served 36 Project
Engineer on numerous water rights studies and has testified
as an expert witness on water matters in various water courts
in Colorado and in Jefferson County District Court. Over 50
percent of his work has been with water rights and consulting
services to irrigation ditch companies.
124
-------
APPENDIX
-------
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
THE STUDY AREA
The proposed Northglenn plan affects a large geographical area
north of the Denver metropolitan area. Included are the facilities
for water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, urban storm-
water collection, and augmentation elements of the various options.
The key hydrologic features and political jurisdictions of concern
in the Study Area are illustrated in Figure A-l.
Illustrated in Figure A-2 are the significant physical and land
use features pertinent to this document (oversized - back of report).
COLORADO WATER RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATION (1)
Colorado has a complex system of water administration and use.
The system evolved from a mining and agriculturally based economy
in which the demand for water often exceeded the supply. Because a
major portion of the state's water is derived from melting snow high
in the mountains, it is not distributed equally in either time or
place.
In Colorado, the use of surface water, including underground
water tributary to the surface system, is administered by the State
under the Appropriation Doctrine. The State Constitution protects
the right of water users to appropriate the waters of natural streams
according to a "first in time, first in right" doctrine, limited only
by the amount of water physically available to those able to put it
to beneficial use without waste. Colorado was admitted to the Union
in 1876, and at that time officially declared the Appropriation
Doctrine to be the sole basis for the allocation of state waters.
Administration
The responsibility for water administration and control in Colorado
is divided between the State Engineer, under the Division of Water
Resources of the State Department of Natural Resources, and the Water
Court. The State Engineer has jurisdiction to administer, distribute,
and regulate the waters of the State. The Water Court has jurisdiction
over matters which are specified by statute to be heard by the water
judges in the state district courts within their respective divisions.
Matters decided by the Water Court include determination of amounts
and priorities on applications for new water rights, and findings of
diligence in the perfection of conditional water rights. Also, the
responsibility of the Water Court is the determination of rights with
respect to proposed changes of water rights and plans for augmentation.
Diversions are regulated on the basis of priorities decreed by
the Courts, generally in the order in which the water was first appro-
priated and put to beneficial use. A water right with an early appro-
priation date takes precedence over rights with later dates. Court
127
-------
FIGURE A -1
NORTHGLENN STUDY AREA
2 I 0
L__J I
MILES
Firestone
Dacono
Treatment
COUNTY
COUNTY
/
NORTHGLENN
t(MN£
Stand ley
C t«
boulder county
JEFFERSON COUNTY
-------
decrees also specify the permitted magnitude of diversion in terms
of rate of flow for direct diversions and by volume for storage
rights. A senior appropriator (i.e. one with an early date, whose
right is not satisfied by the flow at his headgate) may call for
water that is being diverted by a junior right upstream. This
system of appropriation and administration thus determines the legal
availability of water at a given location on a stream.
There are two categories of water rights which are defined by
the time lag between divession and use. Direct flow rights are
for water diverted from the stream to a ditch and put to use more
or less immediately. Storage rights are for water diverted from
the flow of the stream and stored in a reservoir. This water is to
be released for use at some later time, within the same year or in
a subsequent year. Diversion for a storage right may be either for
a reservoir off the stream channel from which it was diverted, or it
may be for an on-channel reservoir.
The consumptive use of a crop is defined as the sum of two things;
1) transpiration, which is water entering crop roots and used to
build tissue or is passed through the leaves of the crop into the
atmosphere, or 2) evaporation, which is water evaporating from ad-
jacent soil, water surfaces or from the surfaces of leaves of the
crop (2.).' Because there is not enough rainfall to meet the water
requirements of most crops in the Denver area, irrigation water
from surface or groundwater supplies is needed to promote full crop
growth and development.
Not all the water diverted is actually consumed in use, and
the portion which returns to the stream and is available to downstream
appropriators is known as return flow. The amount of consumptive use
varies with the type of use and method of application. For irrigation,
consumptive use ranges from AO to 60 percent of diversions. Domestic
and municipal consumptive use ranges from 5 to 40 percent while power
generation and placer mining result in virtually no consumptive use.
Shallow ground water that is hydraulically connected to the surface
system is defined as "tributary" water, and is also administered
under the priority system. To protect the right of tributary wells
to pump, it is necessary to adjudicate their priorities in the same
manner as a surface appropriation.
Changes and Transfers
In Colorado, water rights are treated as real property and may
be purchased or sold separately from the land to which they may be
appurtenant. Water rights may be transferred from one location to
another and the use to which the water is put in some cases may be
changed. The principles governing such transfers and changes have
been stated by the courts in Colorado, subject to certain conditions
which relate primarily to protection of other appropriators from
injury due to the change. Junior appropriators have vested rights
in the continuation of stream conditions as they existed at the time
of their respective appropriation. Here ownership of a water right,
however, does not mean that it is valuable and can be transferred
or its use changed.
129
-------
Augmentation Plans
The Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969
provides a means whereby complex water use projects and proposals
can be reviewed by the court and a decree of approval granted.
The technique is called a Plan for Augmentation and provides for
legal recognition of total water supply systems. This proposal
requires the application of the augmentation plan procedures in
order to develop a reliable water supply for Northglenn's municipal
use. In using water rights that have historically been used for
irrigation to provide a municipal or industrial supply, special
problems are sometimes encountered. These problems derive from
the requirement that when a water right is changed there must be
no injury to junior appropriators, and the fact that a municipal
water supply is a year round use and must be highly dependable.
To protect other appropriators on a stream, it is generally neces-
sary to limit a change in use of a direct flow irrigation water
right to the period of time that it was historically used beneficially.
This means that it can provide water only during the irrigation season
and not during the winter months. Water for winter use generally
must be provided from reservoir storage by obtaining a new appro-
priation or by exchange. Storing a portion of the historic irri-
gation consumptive use during the time when it is legally available
for later release to the stream to cover winter depletions is one
method of exchange.
MEASUREMENT OF WATER
There are two types of units commonly used in this report to
define water measurement. These are units of volume and units of
discharge. The unit of volume commonly employed in irrigation
practice is the acre-foot. An acre-foot is defined as the quantity
of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot,
or 43,560 cubic feet (3). There are 325,900 gallons in one acre-foot.
Discharge, or the rate of flow, is defined as the volume of
water that passes a particular reference section in a unit of time.
The units of discharge commonly used are gallons per minute (gpm)
and cubic feet per second (cfs). One cfs is equivalent to 449 gpm.
The miners inch, or inch, was originally used in hydraulic
mining and irrigation in the Western United States and is still commonly
used in many areas. The use of this unit leads to confusion because
the definition varies between states. In Colorado, one inch is the
quantity of water which will flow through an orifice one inch square
under a head of 5 inches. One Colorado inch is equal to about 12 gpm
and 38.4 inches equals one cubic foot per second. Many ditch companies
use the term "inch" to define the proportionate share of water in the
ditch to which users are entitled. In this case the value of an inch
varies with the amount of water actually in the ditch.
130
-------
WATER RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA
Historically, the major use of water in the South Platte River
Basin was by agriculture. While this is still the case, urbanization
of the metro-Denver area and other areas throughout the region have
taken lands out of crop production/agricultural use. As urbaniza-
tion continues, additional lands will be taken out of production
due to development pressures and the economic difficulties facing
farmers in an urbanizing environment.
The South Platte River and its tributaries in the Denver area
are fully appropriated. Water is available to junior appropriators
only during periods of flood runoff. A new direct flow water right
would not be a dependable or reliable source. Because the Denver
metropolitan area continues to grow and water needs increase, it is
necessary to look to various means to meet these new demands.
Storage is one method of increasing water availability through
more efficient use of existing water supplies. Any new storage
appropriation in the South Platte Basin will be junior to the pro-
posed Narrows Project on the South Platte River in eastern Colorado,
and the amount and frequency of water availability to the new
facility would have to be carefully analyzed. In addition, there
are many public and environmental concerns relating to storage which
currently make other alternatives more desirable in terms of economic
feasibility.
Transbasin water is another source of new water. This is an
expensive means of water development, both in terms of facility con-
struction and potential environmental impact on the basin of origin.
Any new transbasin water project can be expected to take many years
to develop.
A third water source is nontributary groundwater. Under current
state administration policy, the amount of such water available for
use depends upon the amount of land owned or controlled by the appli-
cant. This concept is now being tested in court with the argument
that nontributary ground water should be subject to the Appropriation
Doctrine. Complete dependence on a nontributary ground water supply
for a municipality is questionable, given the potential for limited
useful life of the ground water aquifer.
The final source of water for municipal development is through
acquisition of existing water rights and changing them to the new
use. At the present time this is generally the easiest and most
economical way to develop a water supply. Since agriculture uses
about 95 percent of the water available in Colorado, it is a prime
source for water acquisition. When agricultural water is acquired
for a municipal system, the lands historically served are usually
taken permanently out of production.
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES FOR NORTHGLENN
While the Northglenn plan incorporates some water from all of
131
-------
the sources mentioned previously, the biggest potential impact
is on agriculture in the South Platte River Basin as it provides
the most convenient and economical source of water for a municipal
development. The significant feature of Northglenn's plan, however,
is that a portion of the water used will be borrowed from agriculture,
treated, and returned for agricultural use, thus mitigating at
least some of the adverse impact to agriculture.
Northglenn's Water Sources
Northglenn's proposed raw water supply is based upon the yield
from ownership or share ownership of water rights in the following:
a. The Standley Lake division of FRICO through direct owner-
ship of shares;
b. The Standley Lake division of FRICO through the exchange
proposal;
c. The Berthoud Pass Ditch, a transmountain ditch historically
uBed as an irrigation supplement by FRICO;
d. Nontributary ground water beneath the City of Northglenn;
e. The Farmers Highline Canal historically used for agricul-
tural irrigation in the area north of Clear Creek through
share ownership in the Farmers Highline Canal and Reservoir
Company; and
f. The Church Ditch also historically used for agricultural
irrigation north of Clear Creek through share ownership
in the Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch Company.
A key feature of Northglenn's plan is the agreement with FRICO
allowing Northglenn to borrow from Standley Lake the difference
between their municipal water requirement and the amount of water
Northglenn can provide under their own ownership. Any water so
borrowed is returned with a 10 percent bonus to the Bull Canal users
under the Standley Lake system for agricultural use. Northglenn has
expressed their intention to continue irrigating those lands in FRICO
they have purchased for water acquisition purposes subject to the
availability of water. In a dry year, for example, all water would
be needed by the City and there would be no excess water.
A description of the various raw water sources follows:
Standlev Lake: The Standley Lake division is one of four main
divisions of FRICO. The system serves a total area of slightly more
than 15,000 acres and there are currently 2,373 outstanding shares
of stock (2). As of August 1979 the cities of Westminster, Thornton
and Northglenn owned or controlled 923 shares or 39 percent of the
stock (A). The total capacity of Standley Lake is 42,000 acre-feet;
however, FRICO has the use of only 20,000 acre-feet and, after the
132
-------
cities' share ownership is claimed as stipulated in the four-way
agreement, there are only 12,220 acre-feet available for other
shareholders. Due to the water acquisition policy of these cities,
the shares owned by the cities are constantly increasing. The
water rights associated with Standley Lake are listed below (5):
a. The Standley Reservoir in former Water District No. 2, for
940.36 acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes from
Woman Creek with an appropriation date of September 1, 1869,
decreed on August 2, 1918.
b. The Kinnear Ditch in former Water District No. 2, for 40.47
cubic feet of water per second for irrigation purposes
from Woman Creek with an appropriation date of September 1,
1869, decreed on August 2, 1918.
c. The Kinnear Reservoir 1st Enlargement in former Water District
No. 6, for 49,488 acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes
from Coal Creek with an appropriation date of March 4, 1902,
decreed on June 21, 1926.
d. The Croke Canal in former Water District No. 7, for 1056.00
cubic feet of water per second (conditional) for irriga-
tion and domestic purposes from Clear Creek with an appro-
priation date of March 4, 1902, decreed on May 13, 1936.
e. The Croke Canal in former Water District No. 7, for 944.00
cubic feet of water per second for irrigation and domestic
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation date of
March 4, 1902, decreed on May 13, 1936.
f. The Standley Lake Reservoir in former Water District No. 7,
for 32,361 acre-feet of water for irrigation and domestic
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation date of
March 4, 1902, decreed on May 13, 1936.
g. The Standley Lake Reservoir in former Water District No. 7,
for 16,699 acre-feet of water (conditional) for irrigation
and domestic purposes from Clear Creek with an appro-
priation date of March 4, 1902, decreed on May 13, 1936.
h. The Standley Reservoir Ditch in former Water District No. 6,
for 26.47 cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Coal Creek with an appropriation date of
May 20, 1872, decreed on June 2, 1882.
i. The Standley Reservoir in former Water District No. 6,
for 940.00 acre-feet of water for irrigation purposes from
Coal Creek with an appropriation date of September 1, 1869,
decreed on December 19, 1900.
j. The Standley Lake Enlargement in former Water District No. 6,
for 18,000 acre-feet of water (conditional-abandoned) for
irrigation purposes from Coal Creek with an appropriation
date of December 31, 1929, decreed on September 28, 1953.
133
-------
k. The Berthoud Canal Tunnel in former Water District
No. 51 (Division 5), for 53.40 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation purposes from the Fraser River with
an appropriation date of June 30, 1902, decreed on August 3,
1911. The ditch generally operates between May and September.
Church Ditch: The Church Ditch (Golden Ralston Creek and Church
Ditch Company) is a carrier ditch company whose physical facilities
and water rights are primarily owned by FRICO (6), There are a
total of 5,710.64 inches in the ditch of which Northglenn owns the
right to purchase 415.205 inches of water. The source of supply is
Clear Creek and the water rights are detailed in a copy of the
Change of Water Rights Application in Appendix D. FRICO owns 29
percent of the total inches in the ditch and has in the past diverted
water to Standley Lake when not required for operational purposes (6).
Farmers Highline Canal: The Farmers Highline Canal diverts from
the north bank of Clear Creek. In addition, the ditch has rights in Big
Dry Creek, Ralston Creek and Leyden Creek. The water rights are
listed in a copy of a Change of Water Rights Application in Appendix
D. Northglenn owns 7.7125 shares out of 1094 shares in the ditch.
Northglenn can take the water into Standley Lake or can take it
directly to the city for park irrigation.
Nontributary Ground Water; Northglenn has filed applications
to construct deep wells for a total of 2300 acre-feet of nontribu-
tary ground water from the Laramie-Fox Hills and Arapahoe aquifers
underlying the City. With the exception of Arapahoe Well No. 7,
the State Engineer denied the permits. Under current water admin-
istration policy, the amount of water available from nontributary
sources is based on surface land ownership, and Northglenn currently
claims ownership or control of sufficient land to yield 650 acre-
feet of water per year. It is Northglenn's position that it is
not practical or economically feasible for any individual or group
of individuals within the City to develop his own deep well supply
and the full 2300 acre-feet per year underlying the City should be
available to the City for development. The matter is currently
pending with the Water Court.
REPLACEMENT WATER
Under terms of the agreement with FRICO, Northglenn must return
the total amount of water borrowed for use of the City plus a 10
percent bonus. In addition, evaporation from the reservoir con-
structed to hold the water until released to the Bull Canal Bystem
must be included in the total replacement water requirement. The
primary replacement water source will be treated wastewater from
Northglenn. Included in the Northglenn replacement program is
wastewater from an enclave of Thornton and all sewer line infil-
tration from the collection system. .
A second source of replacement water is urban storm runoff in
Grange Hall Creek which will be captured and diverted for treatment
134
-------
at the sewage plant. Northglerm has junior (1971) water rights
for storm runoff from the city (7). The diversion will occur at a
planned 30 acre-foot detention pond on Grange Hall Creek near the
eastern edge of the City.
The third source of replacement water which may be required
under certain dry year conditions is a planned well field located
near the South Platte River, which will pump tributary water from
the South Platte to a pumping station located near the Grange
Hall Creek detention pond and to the Bull Canal Reservoir site.
Northglenn plans a total of five wells to provide supplementary
water for replacement purposes, but a specific site for the tribu-
tary well field has not yet been specified.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Criteria
The proposed Colorado stream water quality criteria (8) were
used to assess the existing water quality. Criteria for water
supply, recreation, and agriculture were used. The pertinent
criteria for these uses are presented in Table A-l.
Surface waters suitable for a water supply are defined as
follows:
"Waters which after receiving approved disinfec-
tion such as simple chlorination or its equivalent
or which after receiving standard treatment (defined
as coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, fil-
tration and disinfection or its equivalent) will
meet Colorado drinking water regulations and any
revisions amendments, or supplements thereto." (8)
Recreational water is separated into Class I and Class XI by
the State of Colorado. These are defined as follows:
Class I - "These surface waters are suitable or
intended to become suitable for prolonged and inti-
mate contact with the body or for recreational
activities when the ingestion of small quantities
of water is likely to occur. Such waters include
but are not limited to those used for swimming." (8)
Class II - "These surface waters are suitable for
recreational uses on or about the water which are
not included in the Class I category."
Agricultural waters are defined as:
"These waters are suitable or intended to become
suitable for irrigation of crops usually grown
in Colorado and which are not hazardous as drinking
water for livestock."
135
-------
TABLE A-l
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND CRITERIA
Category
Physical
Nutrients/
Organics
Inorganic
Minerals
Parameter
Water Supply
Biological
ToxIcb
Metals
Temperature, C
pH, units 5.0 - 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen,
mg/1 aerobic
Alkalinity, mg/1-
CaC03
Color free from
Turbidity, TU
TDS, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
TVS, mg/1
Settleable solids, mg/1
Hardness
Conductivity, mmhos
Phosphate, mg/1
Phosphorus
Ortho-phosphate, mg/1
Nitrate-N, mg/1 10
Nitrite-N, mg/1 1.0
COD, mg/1
BOD, og/1
Organic Nitrogen, mg/1
TKN
Total Coliform, #/100 ml -
Fecal Coliform, #/100 ml 2000
Ammonia-N, mg/1 0.5
Fluoride, mg/1*
Cyanide, mg/1 0.2
Aluminum, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1 0.05
Cadmium, mg/1 0.01
Chromium, mg/1 0.05
Copper, mg/1 1.0
Iron, mg/1 (dissolved) 0.3
Lead, mg/1 0.05
Magnesium, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
(dissolved) 0.05
Molybdenum, mg/1
Selenium, mg/1 0.01
Zinc, mg/1 5.0
Chloride, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
250
250
Use
Recreation
Class I
6.5 - 9.0
aerobic
free from
Class II
aerobic
free from
200
2000
Aflricultutg
aerobic
free from
100
10
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.02
2.0
0.75
~Fluoride levels vary based on annual average of the maximum daily air temperature.
136
-------
Existing Water Quality
Water quality and quantity underlie the major issues of the
Northglenn plan. The quality of water can effect both agricultural
productivity and public health. Within the Northglenn-FRICO area
quality data exist on several bodies of water. To facilitate the
evaluation of these data the various waters have been segregated
into two hydrologic systems. The Clear Greek system includes
Clear Creek, the Church Canal, the Croke Canal, the Farmers
Highline Canal, Allen Ditch, and Standley Lake. The Big Dry
Creek system includes Big Dry Creek and the Bull Canal (see
Figure A-3).
In order to effectively present the existing water quality
data of the two systems stream profiles are used. A profile is a
graphic representation of a system with river miles as the hori-
zontal axis and parameter concentration as the vertical axis. The
principal rivers and canals are illustrated on each profile map.
The profile maps are used to display mean and maximum/minimum
values of each parameter at each station. The number of events
comprising each sample set is also presented. Water quality pro-
files for nitrate and fecal coliform concentrations for the Clear
Creek and Big Dry Creek systems are presented in Figures A-4 through
A-7.
The utility of water quality data is dependent, in part, upon
the number and frequency of samples that are collected. The data on
Clear Creek are the most comprehensive, while the Bull Canal data
are of questionable value since only one sample set is available
for analysis.
The existing water quality data base is a compilation of in-situ
parameter concentrations for 40 constituents measured at 22 stations.
The existing water quality data base is summarized in Table A-2.
Physical Parameters
Water quality criteria are proposed for three of the twelve
physical parameters/constituents that have been monitored. Of the
three only pH has numeric criteria, 5.0-9.0 and 6.5-9.0 for water
supply and Class 1, recreation, respectively. The mean pH values
reported in the Clear Creek system and the Big Dry Creek system
range from 7.7 to 8.3, well within the criterion range.
Concentrations of color, turbidity, suspended solids, volatile
solids, settleable solids, hardness, and conductivity in Clear
Creek and Big Dry Creek appear to be influenced by wastewater dis-
charges into these waters and possibly by seasonal variations.
Nutrients/Organics
A total of nine parameters in this category have been monitored.
The water supply and agricultural criteria for nitrate are 10 mg/1 and
100 mg/1, respectively. The nitrite criteria for water supply and
137
-------
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA RANGE OF MEAN VALUES REPORTED
Parameter
US
Rec I
Rec 11
*e
Clear Cr.
Croke Cnl
Church Dtch
Farmers Hghln
Allen Dtch
Standley Lake
Big Dry Cr
Bui J Canal
Temperature, °C
_
_
_
_
8.1-12.9
10.6-14.9
8.1
10.9
18.4
10.8-14.3
7.4-9.9
N.D.1
pR, Units
5-9
6.5-9.0
-
-
7.8-8.2
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.9-B.3
7.8-8.1
7.8-8.0
DO, mg/1
aerobic——
10.7-10.9
7.2
7.9
7.4
6.7
5.3-6.3
7.5-8.0
N.D.1
Alkalinity, mg/1
-
-
-
-
36.0-174.5
68.6-114.7
47.6
51.2
51.5
79.1-84.3
177.0-218.9
N.D.
Color, units
-
-
-
-
N.D.
30.5-52.2
37.1
43.4
35
6.3-38.2
17.0-64.0
N.D.
Turbidity, TO
-
-
-
-
12.0-31.4
11.6-20.1
8.7
25.3
28.9
3-9-44.4
7.0-41.1
3.0-62.0
TDS, mg/1
-
-
-
-
22.2-47.2
263-368
163
187
169
203-327
300-843
290-340
TSS, mg/1
-
-
-
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
39-800
64-520
TVS, mg/l
-
-
-
-
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
11-23
N.D.
Set Solids, mg/1
-
-
-
-
0.12-1.0
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.1-0.26
N.D.
Hardness
-
-
-
-
96-199
128-134
83.5
89.4
74.8
111-119
253-365
N.D.
Conduc tivity,
ml»»
-
-
-
-
0.2-0.7
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Phosphate, ng/1
-
-
-
-
0.14-2.96
0.52-1.32
0.22
0.49
0.03
0.08-0.12
0.18-3.64
N.D.
Phosphorus, ng/1
-
-
-
-
0.09-1.02
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Ortho-Phosphate,
¦g/1
-
-
-
-
N.D.
0.29-1.00
0.01
N.D.
0.08
0.08
0.05-3.34
N.D.
Nitrate* mg/1
10
-
-
100
0.47-1.78
0.27-0.41
0.24
0.32
0.2
0.04
0.07-3.35
0.4-0.9
Nitrite, mg/1
x.o
-
-
10
0.007-0.14
0.006-0.01
0.01
0.002
0.0
0.005-0.01
0.02-0.56
0.1
COD, mg/1
-
-
-
-
40.0
22.0-76,9
16.8
26.9
14.0
17.4-27.0
35.5-55.1
N.D.
WD, mg/1
-
-
-
-
2.2-7.8
K.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
2.5-10.1
1.9-4.5
TKH, mg/1
-
-
-
-
3.5-5.8
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.7
1.7-4.8
Total Coliform,
f/100 ml
-
-
-
-
1149-63,000
591-13,000
91
412
1710
14-28
441-8644
N.D.
Fecal Coliform,
#/100 ml
2000
200
2000
-
424-21,000
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
K.D.
30-133
10-110
Ammonia, mg/1
0.5
-
-
0.22-2,46
0.21-0.35
0.28
0.17
0.09
0.11-0.22
0.19-5.41
0.1
Fluoride, mg/1^
0.69-0.79
0.87-0.97
0.69
0.90
0.54
0.69-0.76
0.7-1.39
0.77-0.9
Cyanide, mg/1
0.2
-
-
0.2
0.0-0.0009
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Aluminum* mg/1
-
-
-
-
0.0-0.0024
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Arsenic, mg/1
0.05
-
-
0.1
0.0-0.0007
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Cadmium, mg/1
0.01
-
-
0.01
0.0001-0.0005
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
Chromium, mg/1
0.05
-
-
0.1
0.0-0.0038
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Copper, mg/1
1.0
-
-
0.2
0.009-0.046
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Iron, mg/1 (diss)
0.3
-
-
-
0.71-0.91
0.87-1.2
1.3
1.8
2.6
0.18-2.08
0.05-1.68
0.05-0.11
Lead, mg/1
0.05
-
-
0.1
0.007-0.019
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.03-0.02
0.01-0.02
Magnesium, mg/1
-
-
-
-
8.5-12.4
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Kangenese, mg/1
0.05
-
-
0.2
0.31-0.68
0.55-0.65
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.12-0.55
0.05-7.0
0.1-0.31
dissolved
Halybdemum, mg/1
-
-
-
0.032-0.13
0.20
0.4
0,39
0.02
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Selenium, mg/1
0.01
-
-
0.02
0.0001-0.0013
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Zinc, mg/1
5.0
-
-
2.0
0.08-0.55
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.04-0.09
0.04-0-09
Chloride, mg/1
250
-
-
-
10.0-49.9
8.8-29.6
3.8
3.7
5.4
8.9-10.2
11-47,5
9.0-13.0
Sodium, mg/1
-
-
-
-
15.2-74.4
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
33-240
36-44
Sulfate
250
-
-
-
68.0-143.0
N.D.
76.0
N.D.
N. D
N.D.
75-435.2
75-100
Calcium, mg/1
-
-
-
-
67.6-147.9
32.8-42.7
21.5
23.1
21.4
37.2-38.6
N.D.
N.D.
Boron, mg/1
-
-
-
0.75
0.03-0.17
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
K.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
*N.B. - No Data
2
Criteria based
on annual average
of the naxiaua daily air temperature.
-------
w
F IGURE A-3
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
STATIONS
# Station Locations
•<—Sewage Treatment Plant
2
t_
MILES
0
_J
Firestone
(¦redericKO /""*
Dacone '
Treatment
Site
WELD COUNTY
ADAMS COUNTY
Broom f it Id; ^
Westminster
NORTHGLENN
BOULDER COUNTY
Stand l»y
Crestview
Arvada
Clear Creeh
Valley
•Denver Metro
Wheatridge
N.W. lakewood-
139
-------
agriculture are 1.0 mg/1 and 10 mg/1, respectively. The agricul-
ture and water supply nitrate criteria have not been violated in
either the Clear Creek system or the Big Dry Creek system. Ni-
trate and nitrite mean concentrations increase below wastewater
treatment plants but do not exceed criteria.
The remaining parameters exhibit similar trends of increasing
concentrations below treatment plants.
Biological Parameters
Coliform bacteria are organisms that indicate the possible
presence of disease causing organisms such as pathogenic bacteria,
virus, worms, and protozoas. The use of total coliform as an
indicator of pathogenic organisms has a long history. However,
there is variable correlation of total coliform content with con-
tamination by excreta. Fecal coliform is a more specific indicator
of warm-blooded animal contamination. This is substantiated through
examination of the excrement from other warm-blooded animals which
indicates that fecal coliformscontribute to 93 percent of the total
coliform populations. Fecal coliform criteria for a raw water
supply and for Class I and Class II recreation are 2000/100 ml,
200/100 ml, and 2000/100 ml, respectively.
Total coliform concentrations in Clear Creek increase down-
stream. Mean total coliform concentrations range from 1149/100 ml,
above Golden, to 62,939/100 ml near its mouth. Increases in the
lower stream segment are believed to be, in part, a result of
wastewater discharges. Canals taking water out of Clear Creek
have mean total coliform densities at their headgates that range
from 91/100 ml to 12,992/100 ml. Standley Lake has mean concen-
trations below 30/100 ml throughout its profile.
Mean concentrations of total coliform in Big Dry Creek range
from 441/100 ml to 8644/100 ml. The Broomfield wastewater treat-
ment plant discharge appears to increase concentrations.
Mean concentrations of fecal coliform in Clear Creek increase
significantly as the stream passes through Denver. Mean con-
centrations increase from above Golden (424/100 ml) to the mouth
(21,000/100 ml). These values exceed all criteria. No fecal
coliform data are currently available for the canals or Standley
Lake. (See Figure A-6.)
Mean fecal coliform concentrations in Big Dry Creek above
and below the Broomfield treatment plant are about 50/100 ml. Con-
centrations below the Westminster treatment plant indicate con-
centrations decrease downstream. Mean concentrations in the Big
Dry Creek and Bull Canal are below the Class I recreation criterion
of 200/100 ml. (See Figure A-7.)
140
-------
Toxic Parameters
The water supply criterion for ammonia is 0.5 mg/1. Viola-
tions of this value are noted in the lower segments of Clear Creek.
This is partly the result of wastewater treatment plant discharges.
Ammonia concentrations in Big Dry Creek below the Broomfield
treatment plant violate the criterion but values in the Bull Canal
do not.
The water supply and agricultural criterion for cyanide is
0.2 mg/1. This value is exceeded near the mouth of Clear Creek,
No other, toxic contaminants are present in toxic concentrations
in the system.
Metals
Data for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, and selenium
are currently only available in Clear Creek. Data for zinc and
lead are available for both the Clear Creek and Big Dry Creek
systems. Mean concentrations of all of these parameters are below
their respective criterion.
Water supply criterion (0.05 mg/1) for manganese are for
dissolved, while the agriculture criterion (0.2 mg/1) is for total.
Data are for concentrations of total manganese. The agriculture
criterion is violated at all monitoring stations in the Clear
Creek system. Only one station in the Bull Canal exceeded the
agriculture criteria.
Inorganic Minerals
Inorganic minerals for which data are currently available
include: chloride, sodium, sulfate, calcium, and boron. Water
supply criteria have been recommended for chloride (250 mg/1) and
sulfate (250 mg/1) while agriculture criterion are recommended
only for boron (0.75 mg/1).
Chloride concentrations in both the Clear Creek system and
the Big Dry Creek system are well below criterion limits.
Sulfate criterion is exceeded in Big Dry Creek at five
stations. Mean concentrations at these stations range from 273 mg/1
to 435 mg/1.
Boron data are currently only available In Clear Creek. Mean
concentrations are below the agriculture criterion of 0.75 mg/1.
Radionuclides
Radionuclides have been monitored in Standley Lake sediment
to determine if contamination by emissions from Rocky Flats Plu-
tonium Plant has occurred (19). The primary parameter of concern
to the study was plutonlum 239.
141
-------
The Colorado water quality standards (8) state that, "the
radioactivity of surface waters shall be maintained at the lowest
practicable level and shall, in no case, except when due to
natural causes, exceed the latest federal drinking water standard."
Taken collectively, the plutonium-239 results for sediment
samples collected from Standley Lake did not indicate any discern-
ible contamination.
Standley Lake is within the"Area of Concern" as defined by
the Colorado Department of Health. Areas of concern are downwind
of the Rocky Flats Plant where exposure risks would be the greatest
during a radiation emergency. EPA requires the development of a
notification mechanism for existing and prospective residences who
would be effected by an emergency condition at Rocky Flats, based
on the State Radiological Emergency Response Plan including the
grantees role in carrying out prescribed protective actions. (See
Chapter 5).
Conclusion
The existing water quality data for the Clear Creek and Big
Dry Creek systems has been evaluated in terms of compliance with
water quality criteria for water supply, recreation and agriculture.
The quality of water in irrigation canals seems to remain rela-
tively constant throughout their reaches. Conversely, maintenance
streams such as Clear Creek and Big Dry Creek have fluctuating water
quality. This situation is a result, in part, of wastewater treat-
ment facilities discharging into the main streams, while irrigation
canals receive limited pollutant contributions from urban areas.
Data on the Bull Canal are limited to one sample. Supplemental
monitoring has occurred but these data were not available at the
time of this report. From the limited data, water quality in the
Bull Canal is of a relatively good quality.
Manganese and BOD are parameters of interest in this analysis
because the concentrations in the Bull Canal appear to be related
to the Broomfield wastewater treatment plant. The differences in
concentration in the Bull Canal and Big Dry Creek are probably a
result of different monitoring periods. It is thought that
additional monitoring of the two streams would correlate water
quality in the headwaters of the Bull Canal more closely to the Big
Dry Creek water quality and influence from Broomfield.
Two parameters are of special concern to this assessment, fecal
coliform and nitrates. Fecal coliform is an indicator of possible
health risks. Nitrates can create problems for water supplies
and nitrogen sensitive crops. Existing water quality data in the
Bull Canal indicates these parameters are below their criterion
limits. However, fecal coliform concentrations in Big Dry Creek
and in Clear Creek increase below wastewater treatment plants.
Similarly, nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
increase below wastewater discharges.
142
-------
WATER QUALITY PROFILE
Nitrate Nitrogen la mg/1
CLEAR CREEK
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
WATER SUPPLY 10 ™g/l aS N
irrigation 100 mg/1 as N
100 mg/1 as N
VotoM Raprwmt Mad— PanntoM*
CnenMeM teiH At NriMI
LEGEND
• MEAN VALUE
MAXIMUM
»{ NUMBER Or SAMPLES
UNNAMCO
DITCH
minimum
^Direction of flow
T# Bi# Dry Cr««*^
MIDDLE
FARMERS H18HLINE
Distance from Clear Creek Headgate In Miles
BOTTOM
M.LEN
ditch
STANOLEY LAKE
CANAL
CROKE
CHURCH CANAL
Distance from Clear Creek Headgate in Miles
no
CLEAR CREEK
Distance from above confluence with South Platte in miles
-------
FIGURE A-5
WATER QUALITY PROFILE
BIG DRY CREEK
WATER SUPPLY 10 Og/1 38 N
IRRIGATION 100 mg/1 as N
100 rag/1 as N
after discharge from proposed
proposed facility nitrate concentratij
TREATMEMTwlll be 12-14 mg/1
SITE
LIVESTOCK
VoIum Rvpretcnl Moiimum PermitiiWa
Concentration* E«c«pt A* Noltd
Headgate in miles
BROOMFIELD
W.W.T.R
LEGEHO
MEAN VALUE
MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
=> ffilSnee of flow
10.0
BIG ORY GREEK
Distance {rem Statvdle"} Uke to «t\ca
wtninwaiu
SB.H.t.*.
-------
CLEAR CREEK
Fecal Collform (f/100 ml)
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
legend
» MS AM VALUE
MAXIMUM
DITCH
imteji supply 2000/100 ml
mmvATtoM
LIVESTOCK
To Bis Dry Creek
wORCVinVvnNI UMn HI nvibi
HIOHLME
BOTTOM
allen
stanoley lake
No data
croke cahal
-i-iv** Distance from Clear Creek Headgate
in miles
KM)
CLEM CREEK
Distance from South Platte River in miles.
-------
FIGURE A-7
.'.A; clr< GUAi_iTY PROFILE
3.G DRY CREEK
Fecal Coliform (#7100 ml)
V.ATcR OUALiTY CRITERIA
PROPOSED
V.'AYLR supply
iKHIOATION
LIVtSTOCK
20007100 ml
after discharge from proposed ^
• treatmentfacility concentration
site will be 200 fecal
colonies/100 ml —^
Represent Maximum Perrms&iblt
Concentrations Except At Noted
LEGEND
4>
On
5 *
1
WtAN VALUE
MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
MINIMUM
Distance from Big Dry Headgate in miles
BROOMFIELO
W.W.T.R
10.0
BIG ORY CREEK
OiBtance iton Statidlcf iti mtVea
" -ft
25-0
iVfEVtWUUlSTt*
-------
AGRICULTURE IN THE STUDY AREA
Agriculture is an extremely important industry in. the State
of Colorado, along the front range, and in the FRICO and lower
South Platte portions of the Study Area. Through urban encroach-
ment, land erosion, land policies, or land development, Colorado
has lost six percent of its productive land in the last two
decades (9). Along the Front Range irrigated crop land has de-
creased from 700,000 acres to 660,000 acres from 1959 to 1978 (9).
In view of the potentially critical impact nationwide of the reduc-
tion in agricultural land, the current EPA policy is . .to
protect. . . . the Nation's environmentally significant agricul-
tural land from irreversible conversion to uses which result in its
loss as an environmental or essential food production resource." (10)
To understand the implications of the proposed exchange of
reclaimed water for irrigation water, it is necessary to first define
the soils, irrigation practices, crops, and current productivity
of the agricultural lands in the Study Area.
Soils and Soil Productivity
The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has conducted
detailed soil surveys for the region. The soils survey for Southern
Weld County is, at present, unpublished (11, 12). The major soils
within the Study Area have a textural range from sandy loans to clay
loams, with minor areas identified as clays and sands. Soils of the
region generally reflect the tertiary and pleistocene sediments
at the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountain system, with minor
sediments derived from the Denver and Arapahoe Arkose formation.
Recent alluvium deposits occur along major stream valleys. Soils
can generally be grouped into the high terrace and alluvial fan
soils, old terrace and plains soils, ridgecrest and slope soils,
upland soils, floodplain soils, and the sandhill area soils.
Soil fertility is naturally low within the survey area.
Nitrogen, and to a lesser degree phosphorus are needed for best
crop production in the irrigated areas. Zinc and Iron are the only
nutrients known to be deficient in many of the soils (H» 12). Host
irrigation water contains enough of the minor elements to meet the
annual requirements of commonly grown crops.
Soil capability classifications used by the SCS are inter-
pretive groupings made primarily for agricultural purposes. In
this classification the arable soils are grouped according to their
potentialities and limitations for sustained production of the common
cultivated crops. Thus, the most productive soils under irrigation,
have Class I capability ratings whereas those with limitations are
rated with higher romas numerals. Class I soils have few, if any,
limitations that restrict their use. Class II soils have some
limitations and Class III soils have moderate limitations which
reduce the choice of crops or require moderate conservation
practices. Class IV, Class V, and Class VI soils have limitations,
147
-------
which make them generally unsuited for cultivation and limit their
use largely to pasture or range. Potential flooding, uneven topog-
raphy, excessive rock or tree cover, seasonal high water tables,
drainage problems, inadequate depth to bedrock, excessive slope,
and clay subhorizons are the reasons for poor ratings. The major
irrigated soils within the Study Area are identified as Class II
and Class III soils with minor areas rated as Class I, Class IV
and Class VI.
Irrigation Practices in the Study Area
All methods of irrigation are suited for the soils within
the Study Area, except where slope is a limiting factor. Furrow
irrigation is most common.
Furrow irrigation is accomplished by gravity flow of water in
narrow channels fed by a head ditch. Water seeps into the soils
from the sides and bottom of the furrows. Water is introduced
into each furrow by a siphon tube from the head ditch. Crops
commonly irrigated in the area are alfalfa, corn, sugar beets,
barley, and field beans.
Where slope is a limiting factor, contour ditches, corru-
gations, contour furrows, cross-slope furrows, and sprinklers are
used. Rotating boom-type sprinklers are used in the Study Area
on limited acreages. According to the Weld County Extension
Service (13) there is a trend to replace furrow irrigation with
sprinklers. The two major reasons for this trend are to increase
water application efficiencies and to decrease labor cost.
Cropping Patterns
The irrigated farmland within the Study Area produces a wide
variety of crops. The main crops are corn for grain and silage,
alfalfa, sugar beets, and field beans. A common cropping system
is a 3 to 4 year rotation of alfalfa followed by corn for grain, corn
for silage, sugar beets, small grains or field beans. This type
of rotation allows maximum use of available soil nutrients. Malt
barley is also grown on limited acreage within the Study Area.
Host of the corn grown in the area is used for feed at
commercial feedlots, farm feedlots, and dairies. Significant
numbers of sheep and turkey are raised on the feed crops grown
in the area (11). Sugar beets and malt barley crops are commonly
contracted by Great Western Sugar Corporation and Coors Brewery,
respectively.
A rotation of small grain and summer fallow is the main type
of farming on the non-irrigated acreage. Wheat is the principal
dry-farm crop, but barley and sorghum are also grown.
In the 27 year period from 1950 to 1977, Colorado Agricultural
statistics (14) show an increase in the acreage planted in corn
and wheat. Barley, field beans, sugar beets, and sorghum have
gradually declined since 1950. However, during the same period of
148
-------
time yields per acre for all crops have increased. This may be
attributed to more efficient farm management practices and advanced
technology in agricultural practices.
Present Production and Yield
Production and yields for FRICO lands and lands along the
South Platte that might be removed from production due to the project
have been developed. Presented in Table A-3 are the estimated 1979
crop irrigated and nonirrigated acres in the FRICO Standley Lake
Division. Listed in Table A-4 are the estimated crop yields and
crop values for FRICO lands in 1979. The estimated value of crops
produced from irrigated lands within the FRICO Standley Lake Division
in 1979 is $2,164,000. According to recent information from FRICO,
Standley Lake releases for 1979 will be approximately 14,425 acre-
feet. Based on current farm headgate yields of approximately 60
percent of the release, the 1979 farm deliveries will be 8655
acre-feet. Therefore, the FRICO farmers gross productivity based on
water deliveries is estimated at $250 per acre-foot of water
delivered at the farm headgate.
Some of the options evaluated may result in the transfer of
some water rights from land near the South Platte River to the
FRICO Standley Lake Division to satisfy part of Northglenn's
requirement to return 110 percent of the water borrowed from FRICO.
Therefore, farm productivity along the South Platte lands that could
be affected has been determined. Presented in Table A-5 is a summary
of the crop values. The farm headgate delivery to these South Platte
lands is 3,192 acre-feet. The estimated value of crops produced
from irrigated lands near the South Platte in 1979 is $349,500. The
gross productivity of those specific lands along the South Platte
is therefore $109/acre-foot of water delivered to the farm headgate.
CLIMATE
The Front Range area around Denver is a transition area from
plains climate to the climate of the foothills. This area is
characterized as a high elevation continental, semi-arid climate.
Temperatures are typically moderate, with a mean monthly
temperature of 10.1°C (50.2°F). Ranges in extremes have been
recorded from -35.58°C <-30°F) to 40°C (104°F).
Annual average precipitation for the region is 37 centimeters
(14.5 inches) with a large proportion of the rain falling from April
to September. Thunderstorm activity accounts for much of this
precipitation. Heavy thunderstorms in the foothills and plains areas
occasionally cause damaging floods. The area has a low relative
humidity which is a major factor in the areal potential evapo-
transpiration rate of 611 millimeters (24 inches). This amount is
nearly twice the average precipitation and is an indication of the
arid nature of the area. Periods of drought one to two years in
length are common in portions of Adams County (12).
149
-------
TABLE A-3
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF IRRIGATED
AND NON-IRRIGATED AREAS WITHIN
FARMERS RESERVIOR AND IRRIGATION CO., STANDLEY LAKE DIVISION IN 1979
AREA (ACRES)* PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL AREA
CROP IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATED TOTAL IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATED TOTAL
Corn (Grain/Silage) 4,850 0 4,850 32 0 32
Alfalfa 1,970 0 1,970 13 0 13
Spring Wheat 0 1,033 1,033 0 7 7
Winter Wheat 0 834 834 0 5 5
Barley 767 700 1,467 5 5 10
Sugar Beets 606 0 606 4 0 4
Field Beans 152 0 152 10 1
Fallow 0 3,031 3,031 0 20 20
Dairy 0 62 62 0 1 1
Non-Agricultural 0 1,151 1,151 0 7 7
TOTAL 8,345 6,811 15,156 55 45 100
~Estimated from planimetering maps of cropping pattern in 1979 within Farmers Reservoir
and Irrigation Co., Standley Lake Division.
-------
TABLE A-4
ESTIMATED 1979 CROP VALUE
IN FRICO STANDLEY LAKE DIVISION
Crop
Yield Per Acre''"
1979 Market Value^
Crop Acres
Crop
Irrigated
Value
Non-Irriga
Alfalfa
4 ton
$ 49.50/ton
1970
$ 390,000
$
Corn (grain)
100 bu
2.74/bu
33953
930,000
Corn (silage)
16 ton
18.31/ton
14553
426,000
Sugar Beets
16.6 ton
29.00/ton
606
290,000
Field Beans
27.5 bu
10.00/bu
152
42,000
Barley (irrigated)
42.5 bu
2.64/bu
767
86,000
Barley (non-irrigated)
16.5 bu
2.11/bu
700
24,000
Wheat (non-irrigated)
16.5 bu
3.76/bu
1867
116,000
10,912
$2,164,000
$140,000
"Hteld County County Extension Service.
2
From Northern Feed and Bean, Western Alfalfa Corp, Farmers Marketing Association, Monfort Farms,
Coors Brewery, Great Western Sugar Co.
3
Assume 70 percent of corn to be harvested as grain and 30 percent as silage.
-------
Crop
Alfalfa
Corn (grain)
Corn (silage)
Sugar Beets
Field Beans
Barley (irrigated)
TABLE A-5
ESTIMATED CROP VALUE-SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
IN 1979 DOLLARS
Yield Per Acre
4.2 tons
140 bu
13.8 tons
18.6 tons
23.6 bu
43.6 bu
1979 Market Values'1
49.50/ton
2.74/bu
18.31/ton
29.00/ton
10.00/bu
2.64/bu
Crop Acres"
456
303
129
15"?
65
48
Crop Value
Irrigated
95,500
116,200
32,500
84,500
15,340
5,500
349,540
Estimated historic yields based on current market value of crops and information provided by Colorado
Agricultural statistician, Lance Fretwell.
2
Northern Feed and Bean, Western Alfalfa Corp, Farmers Market Association, Monfort Farms, Coors Brewery,
Great Western Sugar Company.
3
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Depletion Studies on the Fulton Ditch, Lupton-Bottom Ditch, and
Burlington Ditch-Wellington Reservoir System.
-------
Snowfall is generally not heavy, with most snow occurring
between November and April. The growing season, or frost-free
period is between April and September.
Wind data are summarized on the Annual Wind Rose (Figure A-8).
Generally, the winds are out of the south. Occasionally upslope
conditions prevail which follow the South Platte River drainage
from the northeast (15). Downslope conditions are more complex
but generally are from the northwest with some winds out of the
southwest. Local wind patterns will vary seasonally and diurnally.
GEOLOGY
Subsurface and geologic conditions are identified at the proposed
wastewater treatment facility and storage reservoir. Investi-
gations have been conducted at the proposed site (16, 17) and re.-
viewed. The existing subsurface and geologic conditions are sum-
marized below:
Northern Adams County and southern Weld County are located
at the northwest edge of the Denver Basin. This region of the
basin is separated from the rest of the basin by the South Platte
River. The Denver Basin is a large north-south trending asym-
metrical, structured downwarp (18). The west side of the Basin
has been folded and faulted by the uplifting of the Front Range.
The bedrock geology of the reservoir site area consists of
the Dawson Group (Arapahoe Formation), the Laramie Formation, and
the Fox Hills Sandstone.
The Late Cretaceous, Arapahoe Formation has been eroded away
in this area with about 50 feet of the basal Arapahoe remaining (16).
Some locations in the area are void of the Arapahoe as a result of
faulting and erosion. This formation consists of interbedded sand-
stones and clay shales with occasional lenses of conglomerate.
The non-marine Laramie Formation (Late Cretaceous) underlies
the Arapahoe and is about 600 feet thick. This formation consists
of interbedded shales, siltstone, occasional sandstones and a few
localized coal beds. The top of the Laramie is an eroslonal sur-
face and is unconformably overlain by the Arapahoe Formation (16).
The Fox Hills Sandstone is the oldest of the three formations.
It is a Late Cretaceous marine deposit of sandstones and shales.
The top of the Fox Hills Formation is at a depth of about 650 feet.
Faults and Earthquakes
The historic seismlcity and geologic and tectonic history of
the area has been reviewed to evaluate earthquake susceptibility
(17). Faults in the area were formed with the deposition of the
153
-------
8 Over 24-mph
13-24- mph
8-12 mph
3-7 mph
Calms
0-2
mph
LEGEND
FIGURE A-8
ANNUAL WIND ROSE
STAPLETON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
DENVER, COLORADO
Ptrconrtagt frequency of wind direction
botod on 10 ytart of 3-hourly data.
(1963 -1972)
0.1 1.1 0.9
) 3.1 1.7 6.9
«.os
-------
Laramie and Arapahoe Formations its Late Cretaceous time (16).
These faults are classified as not potentially active and are not
believed to present any danger of movement (16, 18).
However, the area is within the Denver Seismic Zone and is
therefore subject to influence by seismic activity in the zone. The
Denver Seismic Zone does not coincide with a major fault zone and
surface fault ruptures have not been associated with historic earth-
quakes (17). This has resulted in the following conclusion (17):
"The Denver Seismic Zone is a potential source of
future earthquakes, however, judging from the lack
of major faults in the ar;ea, it is unlikely that
future earthquakes would exceed magnitudes greater
than 5.5 to 6.0 (Richter Scale)."
Because there is a potential for future earthquakes, design
features of any structure must account for earthquake stress. It
has been recommended that facilities related to the Northglenn plan
be designed for a maximum design earthquake that corresponds to a
Modified Mercalli Intensity of VIII (17), which corresponds to a
magnitude of between 6.1 to 6.7 on the Richter scale near the
epicenter. This earthquake is based on what is considered to be
a reasonable credible earthquake in the Denver earthquake zone.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES
From February 28 to March 1, 1978, Dr. Dean Arnold, Department
of Sociology-Anthropology, Wheaton College, Illinois, conducted an
"Archeological Survey for the Area Affected by the Northglexm Water
Management Program," At the conclusion of this survey, he deter-
mined that there were "no known significant archeological sites nor
cultural resources that would be destroyed or adversely affected
by the proposed project."
The only area of interest identified in this survey was an
"historic dump of recent period probably 1900-1940 A.D.," which
site was referred to as "5AM66." This site was located on the east
side of the right-of-way of York Road, approximately 50 meters
from the crest of the hill, in the general vicinity of the proposed
site for the Northglenn force main. To avoid any interference with
or impact on the 5AM66 site, the City of Northglenn has agreed to
locate the force main on the west side of York Road, well away from
that site.
In addition, Northglenn agrees to include in all construction
contracts a provision requiring the contractor to halt construction
should any archeological artifact be discovered, and to notify the
City immediately. The City, in turn, will notify the State
Archeologist's office prior to authorizing the recommencement of
construction at the site. Should the State Archeologist's office
request time to examine the site prior to recommencement of con-
struction, Northglenn will provide this opportunity.
155
-------
To summarize, the Archeological Survey has disclosed no
areas of significance in the vicinity of the Northglenn sewage
treatment facility. With respect to site 5AM66, the City will
relocate its force main to avoid any impact on that site. Finally,
the City will include in all construction contracts, a provision
to halt construction to permit evaluation and protection of any
artifacts with archeologlcal or cultural significance.
156
-------
APPENDIX B
LITERATURE REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
Shuval has recently reviewed general wastewater reuse consi-
derations (1). He reported results of recent unpublished studies
in Israel indicating that poliovirus inocculated in sewage could be
detected in the soil and on cucumbers seven days after irrigation.
These results, as well as others such as the cholera outbreak in
Jerusalem in 1970 (2), were attributed to irrigation with sewage
receiving only primary treatment without any disinfection. Aerosal
dispersion studies of microorganisms (3) also indicate the impor-
tance of treatment process and controls in order to reduce health
risks of water reclamation for irrigation.
The World Health Organization (4) suggests treatment processes
for various reuse options. These options are summarized in Table
B-l. Reuse of reclaimed water for irrigation of food crops, with
the indicated processes and proper disinfection, are felt to be
essentially free of health hazards. The key requirement is proper
disinfection which is defined as: "the art of killing the larger
portion of microorganisms. . .with the probability that all patho-
genic bacteria are killed" (5). Chlorination of ordinary waste-
water usually does not kill all pathogenic organisms, especially
viruses. However, recent work at the University of California at
Berkeley (6) and at Pomona, California (7) indicates that virus
inactivation is possible through in-depth filtration (to remove
micro-particulates) and maintenance of a chlorine residual in the
effluent for at least two hours.
Based on the experience cited, it is clearly important to note
the conditions involved before relating them to the proposed North-
glenn project.
Waterborne Diseases and Outbreaks
Many surveys on waterborne disease causing organisms have been
published (8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). A summary list of diseases that
are potentially transmitted by food contaminated with wastewater and/
or fecal material is presented in Table B-2, Parasites that cause
hookworm, schistosomiasis and leptospirosis, which are transmitted
from human wastes and are capable of penetrating human skin, are a
potential health problem to farm workers (8).
Viruses. A report by Taylor provides an overview of the virus
problems stating the types of viruses found In water and the diseases
they cause (13). Viral diseases that have been linked to sewage
include polio, menengitis and infectious hepatitis (11). The infec-
tious hepatitis virus has not yet been isolated from any source media.
Information concerning infectious hepatitus is inferred from epidem-
iological data and other tests on human subjects (14).
157
-------
TABLE B—1
SUGGESTED TREATMENT PROCESSES TO MEET THE GIVEN HEALTH
CRITERIA FOR WASTEWATER REUSE*
Irrigation Recreation Municipal Reuse
Crops Not Crops Eaten
for Direct Cooked;
Human Fish Culture Crops Eaten No Industrial Non-
, Consumption (B + F Raw Contact Contact Reuse Potable Potable
Health Criteria (A + F) or D + F) (D + F) (B) (D + G) (C or D) (C) (E)
Primary Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Sand Filtration or
Equivalent Polish
ing Methods
Nitrification
Denitrification
Chemical Clarifica-
tion
Carbon Adsorption
Ion Exchange or
Other Means of
Removing Ions
Disinfection
a Reproduced with the permission of the World Health Organization from Reuse of Effluents: Methods of Waste-
water Treatment and Health Safeguards. WHO Technical Report Series No. 517, Geneva, 1973.
b Health criteria: A Freedom from gross solids; significant removal of parasite eggs. B as A, plus sig-
nificant removal of bacteria. C as A, plus more effective removal of bacteria, plus some removal of
viruses. D Not more than 100 coliform organisms per 100 ml in 80% of samples. E No fecal coliform
organisms in 100 ml, plus no virus particles in 1,000 ml, plus no toxic effects on man, and other drink-
ing-water criteria. F No chemicals that lead to undesirable residues in crops or fish. G No chemicals
that lead to irritation of mucous membranes and skin. In order to meet the given health criteria, proc-
esses marked 000 will be essential. In addition, one or more processes marked 0« will also be essential,
and further processes marked D may sometimes be required,
c Free chlorine after 1 hour.
•oo ooo ooo ooo ooo OOO 000 ooo
OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO 000
O O OOO O OOO 00
O ooo
O o
O O o
o o o
o ooo o ooo o ooo ooo^
-------
TABLE . B-2
DISEASES AND CAUSATIVE AGENTS TRANSMISSIBLE BY FOOD THAT HAS BEEN
CONTAMINATED BY WASTEWATER OR BY SOIL THAT CONTAINS FECAL MATERIAL (8)
Disease
Agent
Bacteriaa
Arizona infection
Bacillus
cereus gastroenteritis
Cholera^
Clostridium perfrlngens
gastroenteritis
Enteropathogenic Escherichia
coli infection
Paratyphoid fever
Pseudotuberculosis
Salmonellosis^
Shigellosis^
Typhoid fever*5
Yersinia gastroenteritis
Viruses
Adenovirus infection
Coxsackie infection
ECHO virus infection
Poliomyelitis
Reovirus infection
Viral hepatitis**
Winter vomiting disease
Helminths
Ascariasis*5
Trichiniasis
Protozoa
Amebiasis**
Balantidiasis
Coccidiosis (Isospora infection)
Dientamoeba infection
Giardiasis
Arizona hinshawii
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
Clostridium perfringens
Escherichia coli
(certain serotypes)
Salmonella paratyphi A
Salmonella paratyphi B
Salmonella paratyphi C
Salmonella sendai
Pasteurella pseudotuberculosis
Salmonella (over 1,500 serotypes)
Shigella sonnei
Shigella flexneri
Shigella dysenteriae
Shigella boydii
Salmonella typhi
Yersinia enterocolitica
Adenoviruses
Coxsackie viruses
ECHO viruses
Polioviruses
Reoviruses
Hepatitis virus A
Norwalk agent
Ascaris lumbricoides
Trichuris trichiura
Entamoeba histoyltica
Balantidium coli
Isospora belli. I. hominis
Dientamoeba fragilis
Giardia Iambiia
a Other enteric bacteria which could conceivably be transmitted by foods
but proof is inconclusive: Streptococcus faecalis, s. faecium. Proteus
spp., Proyidencia spp., Citrobacter freuhdii» EnTerobacter spp.,
Edwardsiella spp«, Aeromonas spp.. Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
b Reported outbreaks,
159
-------
Inactivation of the infectious hepatitis virus depends on the
level of water treatment and disinfection. Work by Young (15) shows
that out of 28 cases reported by Mosely, only four occurred where
complete treatment was available. Of those, one occurred after treat-
ment was by-passed, one lacked the evidence to implicate conclusively
the water supply, another resulted when a concentration of 0.8 mg/1
of chlorine was being applied to the water with no record of a 30-
minute residual, and the last happened where chloramines were used
for disinfection and plant records were inadequate to allow analysis.
McDermott reports virus in 5 out of 32 samples in the finished
water of one community and in 2 out of 32 samples in another community
(12). The infectious dose required to cause disease in humans by
viruses is unknown but is recognized as significantly less than
that dose required for bacterial infectious diseases.
Aerosol Transmission of Pathogens. One concern at sewage treat-
ment plants is the health hazard posed by aerosols from the waste-
water. In a survey by Hickey and Reist (16) the increase in likelihood
of contracting a respiratory disease because of working at a waste-
water treatment plant was reported to be insignificant. The number of
Klebsiella inhaled at a treatment plant are about one-eighth that
needed to produce infectious disease. Although inconclusive, the
incidence of pneumonia in workers at both water and wastewater treat-
ment plants was reported to be the same. Data concerning influenza
and colds were not conclusive.
Sorber (17, 18) has shown in pilot plant studies that aerosols
can disperse pathogens found in domestic sewage. A decrease in the
number of inhaled infectious viral units occurred with a corresponding
decrease in infectious viral units in the sewage. The viricidal
effect of sunlight and higher temperatures was found to be definite,
although the effect of relative humidity varied with different types
of virus. In aerosols, the majority of bacteria die off in the first
three seconds of exposure while some persist.
A review by Stanford and others (19) analyzed the morbidity risk
factors associated with spray irrigation of wastewater. The authors
state that a literature search has not revealed any incidence of
disease from irrigation with properly treated sewage (e.g., chlori-
nated secondary effluent). They also state that the formation of
droplets smaller than 500 microns in diameter should be prevented.
Katzenelson (3) presented data on aerosol hazards due to spray
irrigation with contaminated river water and aerated lagoon effluent.
Coliform bacteria and Salmonella were found 350 meters and 60 meters
(1,150 and 200 ft), respectively, from the sprinklers when contami-
nated river water was used. Only coliform bacteria were found in
tests on aerosols from an aerated lagoon, and these were at a
maximum distance of 30 meters (100 ft) from the sprinkler sites.
Irrigation with Wastewater Effluent. A committee organized by
the Sanitary Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil
Engineers stated that no outbreaks of disease due to crop irrigation
160
-------
with secondary effluent had been reported with the systems in use
up to 1970 (20). However, a number of outbreaks have been associa-
ted with various types of foods contaminated with wastewater, some
as a result of irrigation. One outbreak resulting from contaminated
vegetables occurred with the use of unchlorinated secondary effluent.
All other outbreaks were connected with water treated to a lesser
extent (8).
Katzenelson (21) demonstrated the hazards of using partially
treated nondisinfected oxidation pond effluent for irrigation. A
survey of the incidence of shingellosis, salmonellosis, typhoid fever
and infectious hepatitis showed that these diseases were two to four
times more prevalent in communities where spray irrigation was
practiced than in others. Unconfirmed cases of influenza also
occurred twice as often where spray irrigation with oxidation pond
effluent was used. However, no sigifnicant difference in disease
incidence was noted during the winter nonirrigation season.
One of the main hazards of irrigating crops with poorly treated
sewage is the possible spread of infectious hepatitis. Neefe and
Stokes demonstrated that the infectious hepatitis virus is trans-
mitted in the feces of humans. In another article by the same
author (14), the effects of the infectious hepatitis virus were shown
to be much less severe after exposure of effluent to high concen-
trations of chlorine, but only partially diminished after treatment
by aluminum sulfate or activated carbon.
Survival of Pathogenic Organisms in the Environment
Bacteria. A review by Sepp (23) includes discussion of the sur-
vival time of many organisms where wastewater is used for irrigation.
Extremely long survival times of such agents as Ascaris eggs and
Salmonella necessitate their elimination during wastewater treatment.
The major factors that influence bacterial survival in soil
are soil type, moisture, pH, sunlight, and temperature (24). pH values
between 2.9 and 4.5 inactivate most bacteria, whereas less inacti-
vation occurs with pH values between 5.8 and 7.8. Sunlight tends
to inhibit bacterial growth, while (within the ranges normally en-
countered) bacterial survival increases with Increasing moisture
and temperature. Bacterial die off however can be reduced with
colder temperatures. Monitoring data from lagoon systems in North
Dakota indicate the highest levels of fecal coliform occur during
the winter.
The summary provided by Gerba et al (24), describes several
experiments on the movement of coliform bacteria through soil. In
all cases the die-off of the coliform bacteria from secondary effluent
was substantial after movement of the effluent through 6 meters to
10 meters (20 to 30 ft.) of soil.
Virus~ Fujioka and Loh (25) indicate the poliovirus can survive
for 32 days in soil irrigated with secondary effluent. Experiments
161
-------
by Leffler and Kott (26) demonstrated longer survival times for
bacteriophage f2 than for poliovirus. In sand saturated with both
tap water and oxidation pond effluent, f2 was detected after 175
days, whereas poliovirus was not detected after 91 days. Bitton
(27) reviewed studies on virus movement through soil.
Duboise et al (28) demonstrated differences in the penetration
rates of viruses through soils resulting from the use of intermittent
instead of continuous flows. Young and Burbank's work with Hawaiian
soils showed that poliovirus passed through columns in which coliphage
T4 was trapped (29). Using coliphage T2 and poliovirus, Bitton (30)
presented evidence that secondary effluent caused desorption of vi-
ruses from soils particles. Interference by the organic matter
present in the secondary effluent was suggested as the reason for
desorption.
Most of the cases of viral and pathogen contamination of food
crops have occurred with irrigated crops (8). Studies by Bag-
dasaryan (31) indicated that survival of enterovirus on vegetables
is dependent on temperature. A 99.6 percent die-off in ten days was
noted with tomatoes at a temperature of 18° to 21°C (64° - g9°F),
compared with a 90 percent loss when kept for ten days at 4 to 10°C
(39 - 50°F).
Larkin et al (32) grew vegetables in plastic-lined wooden
boxes, spraying them with virus-laden sludge and effluent. The
vegetables were allowed to weather extensive periods of direct sun-
light, high temperatures and periodic rainfall. Though 99 percent
of the seeded polio was inactivated during the first five to six
days, virus still could be detected on the lettuce and radishes
after 36 days in one test and after 14 days in another. Other tests
using oxidation pond effluent were conducted by Kott and Fishelson
(33). Under conditions of greater than minimal sunlight, no virus
could be detected on the vegetable surface after 28 hours.
Drewry and Eliassen (34) concluded that virus movement through
soils under saturated conditions should present no real health
hazard to ground water supplies. However, studies by Wellings, et
al (35, 36) show that virus can remain infective after aeration,
sunlight and percolation through 20 feet of sandy soil. Wellings
also demonstrated vertical and lateral movement of virus, as well
as survival in sandy soil for 28 days during a period of heavy
rains. Due primarily to analytical difficulties, data concerning
the mobility and survival rates of infectious hepatitis is limited.
Removal of Pathogens by Treatment Processes
Different levels of pathogen removal by various treatment pro-
cesses should be considered when using reclaimed water. Bryan (8)
discussed the removal of a wide variety of bacteria and virus by
processes in sewage treatment plants. Malina (37) analyzed more
specifically virus removal by processes in both water and wastewater
treatment plants.
162
-------
Primary Sedimentation. Primary sedimentation normally removes
less than 50 percent of the pathogenic bacteria from sewage (8). The
wide variation in virus removals documented is probably due to varia-
tions in the concentrations of incoming suspended solids (37).
Viruses are known to adsorb to suspended solids and, hence, be
much less detectable in an analysis of the liquid phase. This does
not necessarily imply that their ability to infect is altered (38).
Biological Treatment. Biological treatment normally removes
about 90 percent of the pathogenic bacteria (8). The different
types of biological treatments vary somewhat in their ability to
remove virus. Activated sludge and aerated lagoon systems are the
two most effective. Both can remove more than 90 percent of the
incoming viruses. Careful operation can achieve removals of greater
than 98 percent (37).
In another study by Malina (39), the sensitivity of virus
removal to changes in different parameters of the activated sludge
process was examined. Virus inactivation was found to be indepen-
dent of 1) organic loading 2) hydraulic detention times and mixed
liquor suspended solids concentrations, and 3) whether oxygen or
air was used in the process. Virus adsorption to sludge was found
to be almost immediate. It was determined also that inactivation
in the process occurs in a time-stable sludge-virus complex. Fur-
ther information concerning virus inactivation in activated sludge
can be found in several other publications (19, 25, 40, 41).
Disinfection. Various disinfecting agents have received atten-
tion (21, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27), but chlorine
remains the most widely used. Several factors influence the effec-
tiveness of chlorine in deactivating pathogens.. These are discussed
in an article by Culp (47) and are: 1) pH and the concentration of
hypochlorous acid present; 2) detention time; 3) turbidity or solids
content (the lower the concentration of particulate matter, the
more effective is disinfection); 4) presence of oxides of iron,
ammonia, manganese and hydrogen sulfide; 5) presence of organic
compounds; 6) temperature; and, 7) mixing.
Effective disinfection of wastewater with chlorine generally
requires a good quality effluent, (e.g. 30/30 BOD and suspended
solids) good mixing, adequate contact time and chlorination to the
breakpoint to obtain a free chlorine residual.
The use of ozone as a disinfectant has recently been given in-
creased consideration. In a comparison of ozone with chlorine (46),
It was noted that ozone oxidizes phenols, cyanides and pesticides
more completely than does chlorine. It also is unaffected by the
presence of ammonium. Disadvantages of Its use are lack of residual,
cost and high sensitivity of bactericidal effectiveness to method
of application.
Coagulation. Various studies with coagulation-flocculation
processes have concluded that this is the most effective method of
virus inactivation In water treatment plants besides disinfection (43).
163
-------
Removals of greater than 99 percent have been recorded often (30,
31, 32, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52).
Chudhuri (53) concluded that coagulation-flocculation could
not be expected to operate with high virus removal efficiency in
wastewater because of the presence of organic matter. This conclusion
contradicts the findings of Sobsey et al (54), who showed that
99.95 percent of seeded influent virus were removed from raw sewage
by a packaged wastewater treatment system using alum flocculation.
Sobsey et al concluded that alum flocculation and activated carbon
adsorption with subsequent removal by diatomaceous earth filtration
were functionally more important than chlorine in removing virus
when raw sewage was processed. Later tests on secondary effluents
by Wolf et al (52) showed greater than 99.7 percent removals ob-
tained in a large-scale pilot study.
Sand Filtration. Rapid sand filtration in conjunction with
flocculation is an effective means of removing virus. Sand filtra-
tion is used in wastewater treatment to remove cysts and Ascaris
eggs (8).
Carbon Adsorption. Carbon adsorption has been considered an
effective means of removing virus from water. Tests show that over
90 percent removal is possible. However, one conclusion about this
process may preclude dependence on carbon adsorption for virus re-
duction. Gerba et al (43), found that when the capacity of the
carbon column to adsorb virus is reached, desorption may occur with
the replacement of virus by organic substances. Such an occurrence
could cause a surge of viruses to enter the distribution system,
resulting in a highly virus-laden effluent.
164
-------
APPENDIX C - DETAILS OF EPA
FUNDING ANALYSIS
COSTS FOR TREATMENT AT DENVER METRO
DISCUSSION
Metro Effluent Limitations
The level of treatment for Denver Metro which will be used in the
analysis is based upon the effluent limitations that are given in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
Denver Metro as "Future Effluent Limitations." These limits are:
Parameter
BOD - mg/1
Total Suspended Solids-mg/1
Fecal Coliforms-0rganisms/100 ml
Ammonia Nitrogen-mg/1
Total Residual Chlorine-mg/1
Oil and Grease-mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen
pH units between 6.0 and 9.0
30 Consecutive
Day Period
20
20
1,000
1.5
7 Consecutive
Day Period
30
30
2,000
1.5
Instantaneous
0.05
10
6.4(min)
The NPDES permit effluent limitations were based upon the wasteload
allocation which was part of the South Platte River 303(e) Water Quality
Management Plan. The wasteload allocation set the effluent requirements
at a level necessary to protect water quality in order to maintain the
South Platte River's B2, warm water fishery classification.
At present, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is in
the process of reclassifying all water bodies in Colorado. The South
Platte River will be assigned use classifications. Potential use clas-
sifications which could be applied to the South Platte River at the
Denver Metro Plant include secondary contact recreation, agriculture,
warm water aquatic life class 1, warm water aquatic life class 2 and
domestic wat£r supply class 2. Effluent limitations for dischargers will
be set at a level to protect the uses for which the River will be classi-
fied.
Since at this time there is uncertainty as to the use classifica-
tions that will be placed upon the South Platte River and therefore the
effluent requirements, it was decided by EPA that the effluent limits in
the NPDES permit for the Denver Metro facility shall be used in the
determination of the necessary level of treatment at Denver Metro.
These limitations are taken from the most recent approved wasteload
allocation based upon existing classifications.
Operation and Maintenance (Q&M) Costs. Denver Metro
EPA Region VIII was instructed by EPA Headquarters to use the
prorated costs of Northglenn's share of the 0&M costs at Denver Metro.
165
-------
The present worth of the O&M costs for the 20-year project will be
determined using the mid-period year (1990) operation and maintenance
expenses as the annual cost. Therefore, the share of the cost that
will be attirbuted to Northglenn shall be 4.45/165 times the present
worth of the O&H costs. 4.45 mgd is the 1990 projected flow for the
Northglenn facility and 165 mgd is the 1990 projected flow for the
Denver Metro facility.
The annual O&M cost was determined using information from the
1980 Denver Metro Budget (1), the "Phase 1 Report, Central Plant
Facility Plan" (Denver Metro Facility Plan) (2), and the plan for the
proposed Metro Denver Central Plant, Adams Co. Sludge Recycling
Facilities. The annual O&M cost for secondary treatment was taken
from the 1980 Denver Metro Budget and was prorated and projected to
show the cost for treating Denver Metro's flows in 1990. The costs
for bond retirement and the costs of the existing solids disposal
system were subtracted out.
Expansion and Upgrade at Denver Metro. Capital Cost Breakdown
The Denver Metro Facility Plan concluded that there is sufficient
primary treatment capacity to treat flows at Denver Metro until the
year 2004. This conclusion had been qualified; additional studies were
recommended on the peaking flow conditions for the primary facilities.
For the Northglenn cost analysis, it has been assumed that additional
primary treatment capacity will not be required, therefore no capital
expense will be used for this item.
The facility plan rated the capacity of the ex'isting "secondary
facilities" to be at 132 mgd. At this capacity, the facility plan
states that the plant could meet the effluent limits of 20 mg/1 BOD,
and TSS. 3
The facility plan specified a number of recommendations to bring
the flow capacity up to 185 mgd for the design year 2004.
Several of the recommendations represented changes in the Denver Me-
tro plant that related to improvements in the operability of existing
facilities and were not related to increasing the flow capacity of the
plant. These costs were therefore not included as costs of treating
Northglenn's flows at Denver Metro. These items and costs were:
Immediate pilot work and investigations
Cost $350,000
Additional automation of North Complex activated sludge
Cost $150,000
Provide an improved aeration basin dewatering system
Cost $20,000
Install South Complex standby waste sludge pumps
Cost $50,000
166
-------
Modification of South Complex secondary clarifiers and flow
distribution system
Cost $500,000
Addition of rapid mixing chambers for chlorination system
Cost $100,000
Modification of existing North Complex chlorine contact basin to
reduce short circuiting
Cost $100,000
A group of items in the list of recommended improvements for the
Denver Metro plant were determined to be related to an increase of the
flow capacity but their costs could not be broken down in order to
show the incremental costs for the additional capacity which would
be necessary to accomodate the Northglenn flows. These capital costs
were therefore split out using a pro rata basis. The Northglenn share
was determined to be the ratio of Northglenn's design flow divided
by the total flow increase of the upgrade, 4.64 mgd/53 mgd. The items
and their total capital costs are given:
Upgrade or replace the aeration system in the North Complex
Cost $2,500,000
Upgrading of the North Complex secondary clarifiers
Cost $2,000,000
Upgrading of the anaerobic digester mixing system to a mechanical
mixing system
Cost $1,500,000
Conversion of the existing anaerobic digestion system to a dual
digestion system
Cost $4,000,000
An item that was listed was the modification of the anaerobic
digester gas collection system and increasing the capacity of the
waste gas flare system. One half of this cost was attributed to the
increase of capacity of the digesters. Therefore, one half of the cost
was multiplied by the pro rata ratio 4.64/53. The total cost of this
item is $200,000.
The addition of a final effluent reaeration and foam control basin
was recommended. This item would be used to handle the total plant flow.
The Northglenn cost of this item was therefore taken out as the incre-
mental cost of the Northglenn flow to the total wastewater treatment
flow. The total cost of this item is $1,100,000.
The Denver Metro Facility Plan included a cost estimate for
upgrading the plant to meet advanced secondary treatment requirements
through nitrification, breakpoint chlorination, and dechlorination.
The nitrification process would be performed using two different
types of units. In the North Complex of the plant, combined stage
167
-------
nitrification would be done using a modification of the existing aera-
tion basins. Separate nitrification units would be added to the secon-
dary facilities in the South Complex. The capital cost of modifying
the North Complex aeration basin to perform both secondary treatment
and nitrification is considerably less than the capital cost of the
separate stage nitrification that will be added to the South Complex.
The incremental cost of the addition of the capacity for Northglenn's
flows will be the cost of the addition of 4.64 mgd to the 65 mgd
separate stage nitrification units.
The level of treatment that the Denver Metro Facility Plan pro-
vided for was less stringent than the level required by the NPDES permit
for Denver Metro. Since it can be expected that operation of the pro-
posed breakpoint chlorination system can be performed to attain this
higher level of treatment, the Facility Plan costs were considered
adequate.
EXPANSION AND UPGRADE AT DENVER METRO
Costs Determined on Pro rata Basis
Upgrade North Complex aeration system $ 2,500,000
Upgrade North Complex secondary clarifiers 2,000,000
Upgrade anaerobic digester mixing system 1,500,000
Modification of anaerobic digester gas collection
system and increase' capacity of waste gas flare
system 100,000
Conversion of existing anaerobic digestion system
to dual digestion system 4,000.000
Total Cost $10,100,000
Pro Rata Cost
536mgd*d <10>100'000) - 884,226
*884,226 x 1.07 - 946,122
946,000
*The factor 1.07 is included to correct the cost estimate for inflation
All costs equipment 20 year life no salvage value.
Costs Determined on Incremental Coat Basis
Reaeration
Cost equation taken from Figure 6-17, "Construction Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants 1973-1977" (3).
168
-------
C = 2.27 x 105 Q0,87
n 1.j Cx 2.27 x 105 1650'87
2.27 x 1(P 169.64u'87 = ,9762
2
Capital Cost » 1,100,000
.0238 (1,100,000) - 26,224
Salvage Value - Assume 50 year life for basin
Assume basin cost 1/2 capital cost 13,112
Present Worth (PW) salvage (.6)(13,112)(.2645) - 2,081
26,224 - 2,081 - $24,143
24,143 x 1.07 » 25,883 OR $26,000
Nitrification Facility
Cost equation from EPA 1973 Report "Cost Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems" (4)
Equation C ¦ 210,055 + 59204.6Q
Ratio CX 210.055 + 59.204.6 (65) - .936
7T- " 210,055 + 59,204.6 (69.64)
c2
(1 - .936) - 0.634
Capital Cost ¦ 12,000,000
.0634 (12,000,000) - 760,800
Salvage Value - Assume 50 year life of basins
Assume basins 50% of costs
PW - .6 (760,800) (.5)(.2645) - 60,369
760,800 - 60,369 - 700,431
700,431 x 1.07 - 749.461
or 749,000
Breakpoint Chlorinatlon
Cost equation from EPA 1973 Report "Cost Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems"
Equation C - 136,587 Q0,52
C 185*"*2
C1 _ „ - .9872
C2 189.64
1 - .9872 - .01280 8,959 x 1.07 -
.01280 (700,000) - 8959 r *i0'000
No-Salvage Value
169
-------
Dechlorination
Use same cost equation as for Breakpoint Chlorination
C-i 1 fi s *
J, 165 ® .9872
°2 169.64
1 - .9872 ¦ .01432
.01432 (500,000) = 7,160
7,160 x 1.07 = 7,661
or $8,000
Total Capital Costs Present Worth 1984 Construction Date
Construction Costs
(calculation pro-rata basis) $ 946,000
Reaeration Facility 26,000
Nitrification Facility 749,000
Breakpoint Chlorination 10,000
Dechlorination 8,000
Total $1,739,000
Adjust to 1980 present worth
1,739,000 (.76647) 1,332,891
Total Costs
Annual O&M STP $ 307,689
Annual O&M Sludge 75.700
Total $ 383,389
PW - 10.6976 x 550.00 $4,101,342
PW O&M $4,101,342
PW Capital 1,332,891
Total Treatment Cost $5,434,233
Rounded $5,434,000
Costs of Conveyance of Wastewater to Denver Metro
Discussion
The existing interceptor system that conveys wastewater from
Northglenn and surrounding areas is shown in Figure C-l. Using DRCOG
population estimates, the projected wastewater flows for the "Agricul-
tural Reuse Service Area", shown in Figure C-l are given.
170
-------
WELD COUNTY
WESTMINSTER
BIG DRY
TREATMENT
PLANT
(
•WASHINGTON
SQUARE
,-EASTLAKE
k J****'
Lr*i—rf-,
L H
L rti r1
!'
THORNTON
A
{-•GRANGE
CREEK
0
L
•000
10000
1.
THORNTON
NORTH
WASHINGTON* Jf/
or
CLEAR CREEK INTERCEPTOR *
IK
DENVER METRO CENTRAL,
TREATMENT PLANT-*-'
f ft T
FIGURE C-l
LEGEND
Agricultural Reus* Sorvic# Area
——— Norfhgltnn City Limit
—— Thornton City Limit
A Pump Station
• • •• Fore* Main
HHIBIIIIIIW Gravity lnt«rc«ptor
¦ Wast«wat«r Trtatmant Plant
171
-------
1980
1990
2000
Total flow (million gallons
per day) 4.74 6.24 7.00
Flows proposed for treatment
with Northglenn System 3.59 4.45 4.65
Flows remaining for treatment
at Denver Metro 1.15 1.79 2.35
Using flow estimates for the existing service areas, it has been
projected that the Thornton-North Washington pump station would have
its capacity exceeded by 1985 (5). It also has been projected that
the capacity of the Thornton-North Washington interceptor which ex-
tends from 100th Avenue to the Thornton-North Washington pump station
will be exceeded by 1985. The Thornton-North Washington force main,
which conveys flow from the Thornton-North Washington pump station,
is expected to have sufficient capacity until the year 2000. The
flows are conveyed from the Thornton-North Washington force main to
the Denver Metro sewage treatment through the Clear Creek Inverted
Siphon. The Clear Creek Siphon will have to be enlarged during the
planning period due to increased flows from the Clear Creek basin
regardless of Northglenn's plan.
If Northglenn's flows are to be treated at Denver Metro for the
planning period, changes would be required in the existing system
to handle the projected flow increases. The interceptor system shown
in Figure C-2 is the system used in the cost comparison as the facili-
ties which would be necessary for the conveyance of the flows from
Northglenn and the surrounding area. Using the system, .90 mgd of
Northglenn's flow would be conveyed through the existing Thornton-North
Washington Pump Station and Force Main. The remainder of 3.74 mgd of
Northglenn's flow would be conveyed using the South Platte Interceptor
and the Henderson Pump Station and Force Main. Along with Northglenn's
flow, wastewater from parts of Thornton would also be conveyed in the
system. These flow quantities are 1.31 mgd in the South Platte
Interceptor and 2.36 mgd in the Henderson Pump Station and Force Main.
The cost of the construction of the conveyance system which was
assigned to Northglenn in the cost analysis is the ratio of the
Northglenn flow over the total flow multiplied by the total construc-
tion cost. The operation and maintenance costs were also determined
on a pro-rata basis using flow quantities.
Wastewater Conveyance Costs Treatment at Denver Metro
South Platte Interceptor 15" gravity sewer
^8* 905,100 (Total Cost)
Construction Cost
Contingencies (25%)
Salvage Value (6) (.2645) 837,890
O&M 17,800 x 10.6976
Engineering Design & Construction Inspection
Administration & Overhead 3,600 x 10.6976
or 1,018,000
$ 670,312
670,312
167,578
(132,973)
190,400
83,800
38.500
1,017,617
172
-------
N-
Scole
10,000 F»«)
I Milt
NORTHGLENN
¦Thornton Was tewater
Service Area To Be
Served By Northglenn
Henderson —v
Pump Station |
¦Northglenn Area
To Be Served
By Thornton /
•Thornton Wastewater —'
Service Area To Be
Served By Northglenn
Thornton-North Washington
Pump Station & Force Main
Thornton
Outfoll
Aetro Denver
Central Plant
FI9V3S C-8
M5TR9 PENYSn ftlTS^T'YE
New Pump Station
Existing Pump Station
— New Gravity Sewer
Existing Gravity Sewer
•••• New Fores Main
••••Existing Force Main
SOURCE ; _
slcAffER & roIancI, ire.
173
-------
Henderson Pump Station
Construction 1,413,600 <3.74
6.10)
Contingencies (25%)
Salvage Value (Assume 50% of item 50-year life
50% of item 20-year life)
(.6)(.5) 1,083,375 (.2645)
0&M 4,600 x 10.6976
Engineering & Construction Inspection
Administration & Overhead 4,600 (10.6926)
or
Henderson 27" Force Main
5,800 LF
Construction 3,013,100 3.74
6.10
Contingencies (25%)
Salvage Value (.6) 2,309,220 (.2645)
O&M 8,200 (10.6976)
Engineering 230,900
Administration & Overhead 9,900 (10,6976)
Existing System Costs
North Washington Pump Station
O&M
North Washington Force Main
1981-2000 O&M 300 x 10.6976
TOTAL
Costs for Northglenn Multiple-Purpose Project
Discussion
or
866,700
216,675
-(85,966)
498,500
108,300
49,200
1,653,409
1,653,000
1,847,376
461,844
-(366,473)
87,700
230,900
105,800
2,367,147
2,367,000
53,500
3,200
or
56,700
57,000
5,095,000
The costs for the Northglenn wastewater treatment, agricultural
reuse project are given (6). Two Items in the cost estimate need
to be explained. They are the collection system costs and the land
for the contingency plan costs.
Collection System Costs
Northglenn has purchased its wastewater collection system from
the City of Thornton. Work is required on sewer system lines in order
to sever the Northglenn collection system from the Thornton system.
Additional construction is necessary for Northglenn to implement the
multi-purpose project; all flows within Northglenn must be conveyed
174
-------
to Pump Station A so they can be pumped to the treatment facility in
Weld County.
Two alternative costs were determined for the severance of the
Northglenn collection, the cost of severing the system and having flows
leave Northglenn at two different drainages to be conveyed to the
Denver Metro wastewater treatment plant, and the cost of severing
the system with all Northglenn flows being conveyed to Pump Station A.
The present worth of each alternative cost consists of the cost of
operation and maintenance of the entire collection system as well as
the capital cost of the construction necessary to sever the systems.
The cost of the multi-purpose project collection system improve-
ments is then determined as the cost of severance under the alternative
where the flows will be conveyed to Denver Metro subtracted from the
cost of severance if the flows will be conveyed to Pump Station A.
The work necessary to sever the Northglenn and Thornton collection
systems shall not be eligible for EPA funding since presently a waste-
water collection system exists and the construction is required due to
a transfer of existing facilities between municipalities.
Costs of the Contingency Plan
EPA has required that in order for Northglenn to be given funding
as an alternative technology project* the City would have to provide
assurance that effluent would be put to agricultural use for the entire
project life of 20 years. Northglenn has informed EPA that it has
developed a contingency plan. At present, Northglenn owns 1,065 acres
which could be irrigated using the Bull Canal system. This land was
purchased by Northglenn when the City was obtaining water rights. The
acquisition of the land was incidental to the purchase of water. It
was determined by Northglenn and EPA concurs, that 1,065 acres would
be sufficient to allow all of the treated wastewater from Northglenn
to be applied to land. Northglenn has also obtained the right of first
refusal from FRICO shareholders so that it can obtain the water rights
necessary to implement the contingency plan. Northglenn has agreed to
accept a grant condition which would require that they retain a commit-
ment so that if farmers under the exchange agreement would no longer
accept FRICO water, Northglenn, through land ownership, lease, or
irrigation easement would be able to apply its treated wastewater to
land. Under this plan, Northglenn will be able to sell existing land
as long as it is replaced by a commitment to an equivalent amount of
land.
For the cost effective analysis, it was decided to use the price
of the land as a cost of the project. The land purchase will not be
eligible for Federal construction grant funding since It is not an
integral part of the treatment process and since the purchase was
made before a grant was given.
175
-------
NORTHGLENN MULTI-PURPOSE COSTS
Lagoons & Storage
Earthwork, structures, piping
Asphalt liners & Roads
Landscaping
Site Buildings
Contingencies 10%
30
Salvage Value (50-year life) » .6
P.W. (salvage value) - 7,190,920 (.6)(.2645)
Mechanical Equipment
Electrical Instrumentation, telemetry
Fencing
Contingencies 10%
Step 3 Engineering
Construction Management
O&M Cost 321,900 (10.6976)
Administration & General Overhead 38,800 (10.6976)
Total (Lagoons & Storage)
Land (Northglenn Treatment Plant Site)
Land Cost
Salvage Value
27" Force Main
1980 Construction & Contingencies
1980 - 2000 O&M 7,800 (10.6976)
Salvage Value (59-year life) (.6) (2,139,500) (.2645)
Administration & General Overhead 9,160 (10.6976)
Step 3 Engineering
Construction Management
$ 3,402,200
2,591,800
124,700
418.500
6,537,200
653.720
$ 7,190,920
-1,141.199
6,049,721
1,161,300
488,000
54.700
1,704,000
170.400
1,874,400
403,600
342,900
3,443,600
415,000
12,529,221
12,529,000
179,600
-(86.000)
93,600
94,000
2,139,500
83,400
-(339,539)
98,000
90,900
77.300
2,646,839
2,647,000
176
-------
Pump Station A
1980 Construction & Contingencies
1981 - 2000 O&M 34,800 (10.6976)
Salvage Value 50-year life for 50% of item
20-year life for other 50%
712,600 (.5) (.6) (.2645)
Administration & Overhead 3,050 (10.6976)
Step 3 Engineering
Construction Management
Field Monitoring Program
1980 Construction & Contingencies
1981 O&M 35,100 (10.6976)
712,600
372,300
-(56,545)
32,600
30,300
25.700
1,116,955
1,117,000
77,500
375.500
453,000
Dacono Disinfection
1980 Construction & Contingencies
1981 - 2000 O&M
32,500
17.100
49,600
50,000
Firestone & Frederick Tailwater Control
Construction & Contingencies
Salvage Value of Land
O&M (1,500) (10.6976)
163,700
-(7,200)
16.046
172,546
173,000
Land for Contingency Plan
Cost of Land
Salvage Value
Present Worth
221,900
•(106.300)
115,600
116,000
Collection System Costs
Multi-Purpose Project
Construction
10% Contingencies
Salvage
Assume 75% 50-year life
25% 20-year life
.75 (1,275,670) (.6) (.2645)
O&M 92,700 (10.6976)
Step 3 Engineering
Construction Management
Administration & General Overhead 5,460 (10.6976)
1,159,700
115,970
-(151,836)
991,700
54,200
46,100
58.400
2,274,234
177
-------
Single Purpose Project
Construction
10% Contingencies
1981 - 2000 O&M 70,100 (10.6976)
Salvage
546,800
54,680
749,900
Assume 75% 50-year life
25% 20-year life
Salvage Value .75 (601,500) .2645 (.6)
Step 3 Engineering
Construction Management
Administration & Overhead
Engineering Design
-(71,594)
26,400
22,400
27,800
29.600
1,385,986
Difference - Multi-purpose/Single Purpose
Collection System Costs
2,274,234
1,385.986
888,248
888,000
Northglenn - Total Cost
18,067,000
*In accordance with EPA regulations the value of land was appreciated
at the compound rate of 3% annually.
SUM OF THE COSTS RULE
In order for EPA to participate in the funding of a multiple-
purpose project, it must be shown that the cost of the multiple-purpose
project must not exceed the sunt of the costs of the most cost-effective
single purpose options which accomplish the same purposes.
Sheaffer and Roland has developed costs for a single purpose
agricultural water supply project which would deliver water from the
South Platte River to a storage reservoir located at the proposed
Northglenn wastewater treatment plant site. The project would require
the construction of a Platte River diversion structure, a pump station
and force main to the reservoir site and a 4,000 acre-foot storage
reservoir.
The following present worth cost developed for this alternative:
Capital Costs
Pipeline and storage reservoir
11,532,900
salvage value
Assume 50 year life
Land salvage value
Operation and Maintenance
-(1,401,900)
-(47,900)
1.246.300
11,329,400
178
-------
This cost is then added to the costs of the single-purpose waste-
water treatment project.
Agricultural water supply 11,327,400
Treatment at Denver Metro 5,095,000
Conveyance to Denver Metro 5,343,000
21,765,400
This cost is greater than the present-worth cost of the proposed
Northglenn multi-purpose project, $18,067,000. Therefore, the
Northglenn project complies with the sum of the cost rule.
179
-------
D-l
mnuuii
10 Kf I. CMdta, City Clerk al tfet City »f Itomw, Calttaio,
4» t»Hfey tMtify tin Mm otcackei Brnammm* to • In* mt
c«fy «C Um Hut % >|rmiM lnwn !*• City mt tfc* City
•C lMrtl|lMt, cl* City «f VMialwtw «M faraen iMcrwir «<
tnl|Ml* 4
H I (vrtlwr certify that tfc» wa tattlM by «11 p*rtl*s
00
H M May 4, )l» Ml «Im wl|tMl IkwM to m tlw •fltcto)
Cmcll fcui—I rtlt 9t Iki City «f Biwiw,
«*m ay VaaJ m. *(futol ml tkto 17tb dmr #f Ntoy, »».
cm «r HMUIW, CWflMBft
S)_. ss cu...
IMif 1 OUlii Oty O^k
ACBECMEMT
FAMI£*S R£S£KVOlR AIIO XAftlCATJOK COKPAH*
CITY or THORNTON
city or noatTMCiXKH
CITY or HCSTHIMSTCR
My 4, »?»
(rMt-tfay Isrccatnlj
-------
THIS MKCNQrr made «Ml nttr«4 Into this 4tk <«f of
»ty. »)t, by amd Between tM FAMCB KESCftVOIB MID
mMMTiw ctwrim, tenitMiitr ttftmd to n *nuco#, tte
City OP WOXKW, m omelet pel eorponriM of Ut tut« of
Co)«ta«P| actioy Uf and Urnffh its OtUltlf* Board, and
City Coomcil, k*r«l»«(ter referred to mm ^Thornton", ilw
cm or wmwUVH, * nooleipal corporation of Um lukf of
Oolwado Nr«U«(Ur referred to as *portbgl«m«»", and the
cm or VC$TftmSTe«( a coa»oretlon of the State of
Colorado tertU«fut referred to a* "tttvtakMter",
!i)
WCRCllS, the parties desir* to nacU a scttlefu-nt
rendering It unnecessary to proceed with r~«i}cting to
-------
tke aioraye of certain r«nwn Rifii Mm Caul Naur In
SlNtflvy lake# Mrf
ttOTASt rUCO tea tlocafc available la ttaadlay Lake
kMrwlr which cowld be made available to Thoratoa, a«4
thoratoa la 1» laaedlata «m4 of mtrvotr storage capacity
foe Its Clear Creek systea, aad
UEMU. raxco tea 4tlirafw4 that by Haio» of the
¦all Cwal Mrt lateral* thereto, it will atlll be able to
kllvtr to Ifca HofeMaMm the «o»Utl«s of water ttef
have historically enjoyed aad that the ditch liaiog 1* h<«
l«aittto by tha aoeiee to ho racelaad from Thoratoa poraoaat
to the ceavayaaca of too thooaaad acre-feet of
atotap edacity to Steadley Mka Reservoir to Thoratoa* and
WBKM, Heateiwttr haa filed sppllcatioms tot
tramlat and chef of «Ur rights aal eachaa*a la cases
IM7U aad MH4, Hater blvialoa Ho. 1 Md certaia partita
H
CO beret• have filed atatooeota of oppoaltloa to thooe
W ,
appllcatloaai aad
«KKIS, the pacttH to thU Agreement tow determined
that it la la tholr mo teal latcraat to eater lata aa
agreement wbereby each of the parties oaoda a*y be
accommodated aad aatiafiod ia the spirit of compromlae aod
oottleoeat without the mecasaity of oaotloolof le^al
pcocaodimgs aad have eatarod lata a cooperative arrangement
aharthy all pertlee ofctaia certain beneficial raaolta aod to
eater iota aa era of cooperatioa between the oomlclpal aad
carta I a egricalterej interests la the Clear Creek aad Dry
Creek Bralaaga tatlaat
vnl. UUtfOHEi far aad la cooaideratftoo of the
premisea# aad the following ceveaaata* terms aad comditloaa,
aad la foil settlemeat aod satisfaction of those cartalo
eminent dooola proceeding* last! tated by Thoratoa aad
Veetminater against nttCD aad cartalo Standley 01 vie ion
-J-
abereholders, parties defendant, being Civil Action Ho.
4M41 and Civil Action Mo. DOii la Ibf District Court in
aad for Jefferson County, State of Colorado which compromise
coastltates aa involuntary coaveraloa of tbe property ot
rnco withia the provisions of 21 O.S.C., f 1033# the
Internal aevenue Code of 1954« aa amended. at«s in full
coaslderation of certain other conditions as hereinafter set
forth* it 1a hereby agreed by aad between tbe parties as
follows:
1. fftJCO, cm its awa bebalf and on behalf of its
atockholdera, aad Vestal aater« hotth^lenn. and each
ahareholder ratifying this Agreeaeat, do bereby convey, quit
cUls« aad reeiise to tbe City of Thornton, all ot each
party* a right, title aad iatereat In and to ten thousand
(10,000| acre-feet of storage capacity ia Standley l.ake
Reservoir situate la Jefferaoa County, Colorado, reserving
to r 111 CO aod its shareholders, twenty thousand (70.000)
acre-feat of storage capacity ia Standley lak«. Reservoir
facta the thivty tbooaaad <30,09b) acre-feet of ttorage
capacity in Standley Lake Reservoir, all as provided in that
certain Agreement between FklCO aod tbe City of He»tsinsttr
dated January 24, 11(3. aa amended.
Of the tea thousaad (10*000) acre-feet of stoiage
capacity la Staadley take Reservoir conveyed by this
Agreement to Thorotoa, Thornton shall be entitled u> the
fossessioa of five thousand (S,000J acre-feet of stotaqe
capacity oa June IS# 1911, and abali be entitled to
possess ion of the remalaiag five thousand 15,000) acre-fact
of storage capacity ia Standley Lake Reservoir one (II year
froa the date of tbls Agreement.
2. rMCO aad its shareholders further do hereby
ratify aod confirm* convey and quit claio the rtaht* title
aad interest to the City of Westminster in and to the twelve
-------
UrhnwiI «cr«-fMt of storage capacity at BuMl«y
Uk« teMCfolv ttat IfMtaiMttr obtnlfttd frn tfet forty-two
UMttMl (42,IM| Mrt-fWt of tsU! itOf»9C M
cMwtrnctcd st 8u«41«y M* Rmmir pnrsnent to tkt
kfCMimt between rwco Ml tk» City of HotsiMtn 4*U«
3»»wry )l, IMS, m >n«ni»l.
4. ThantM >kall f«y t» nUCO the cm of Thirteen
ftUUmi toiUci |tll(WllIN)i peyabls so (o)lonti
*• Bpec ii» effective date of ttli Mreeneat,
ItontOR akatl pay the mi et TtoM MIUlo* Dollar*
Which «MMt shaft tic osed by TtOCO to
ooMcnt* flaw the hull Cecal Mnntoers I, IS* Mrf III* and all
laterals fro* the head works of the hell Canal on Dry Creek
ontU their te<«lnatloa.
h» The MfaU helence shall he paid on a
decile!»9 payneat s chads Is cf one-teeth |l/lSth> of the
cape 14 principal, fl«a acctwil Interest* at a|« perfect («)
Interest, par annan cc the Mfell he lance en Jnnnary $ of
each ewbseqnent year ts this hff »aant for a period of ten
Ol) years bediming Jannary S« 1M9.
c. Thornton umi to pledge the foil faith sod
credit «f the City of Thorn tan by ordinance Ally adopted for
the performance of Its obligations and peywent of the
anooMo provided In this hysa cant to miCD.
4* Mttaiaaur aad Thereto* agree tp hoetbglewn*e
lifht of first use of certain we tar stored It Standley bake
heservolr, esclodinf the pro-rata there of voter as
represented fey shaves of Stoodley Lake hi vision stock
preoeotly ownd or hereafter cc^elced by Neotolnster and
Thornton aa prorUM lo Paragraph S.a. hereof* sebject to
afraooects between Martbyleoo end Jodfefdwol stockholders of
raxco and nhich are referred te ood a part of that certain
Hftstwnt between fWCD and Horthyleon dated September 2,
im.
k heyarding the twenty* thousand <20,0001 acre-feet
of storage capacity at Ktan41ey Lake Reservoir reserved to
PR]CD* the following shall Sfplyi
a. hestnlnster* Thornton acid Hotth^Hnn, a*
shareholders of fRIQD, whose stock It; allocated Zor water
delivery purposes ta the St. aad ley Lake Division of l'RICO,
a hall each have the Independent* free and *tnn-strlctfd use
of its pro-rata shareholder Interest in the twenty thousand
acre-feet of storage capacity In standley Late
lleservotr reserved to PMCO end each party*i pro-rata yield
fro* water diverted npon the decrees of ml CO I a the
Staadley lake Division aa delivered into Standley Lake
beearvoir. The pro-rata share of each city's interest in
the yield Iron the fllCO water rights and each city's
pro-rata share of ridCO's twenty thousand <20,030) acre-leet
of storage capacity in Staadley Lake Reservoir shall be
detemlned by dividing the neaber of shares held k-y each
city, free tine to tloe« as allocated for vatet delivery
perposes to the Staadley l«ake Division of ruico# i>y two
thonsaod. three hundred seventy-three (7,373) unarms-
nUPU; If the city of Thornton owns
«a the dste of this HgrftRont, two
hondred thirty-seven |231) shares of
stock allocsted for water delivety
pot pons a to the Standley Lake Division
of rtaco, the City of TAomtott is
eotltied to the Independent* Jtoc and
. worestrleted cse of two thousand (2,008)
acre-feet off storage capacity in
Standley Lake hes»r*oir Iron the twenty
thousand |2S,e0S) acre-test of stome
capacity allocated to FK1CO and tvn
percent (l0t| of the yield o£ tht vatrr
-------
tlfkti of rnco In the ftUa01«y tain
BitltlM as MM* Mt«t clftlt l«
«vt!Ukl« *t Um laltka to ItuMity
lilt. Back otter city wall it«itac]|
I* ««t!Uti «• its v»-m« «fc«* of
yltll ml aleraf* capacity pKttm* to
tit MM tllMBtlN fKWla M Mt ftrtk
for tlw City of HontM.
ncrnltn, for OMflt* if IM
City of noratM itovM aefMin m
additional too handred thirty >«m
|»?», tan fKent (IN), of the iIwvm
of »tt»ck (or MUr lolintf
to tuo itHttar Mt »uui«,
audi oMittoftal MNtft, mrltat *ith
tlw pravloaa tat percoot (till Mwnklf
si*r, and
¦orthglinn ayee to equally contribute to and pay for all
eapaaooo of operation and naiotenance and all capital
iaproveaaeata of whatever nature necessary or appropriate for
the operation of Standley take Reservoir to a stoiaqe
capacity of forty-two tkooand 142,000) acr«"feet» as
hereinafter oet forth, this obligation shall not apply in
caao of total dan failere.
-------
b« ftnilcf ialt Kntrvolt ilull not be opertttd
by *a«eatt«g storage Mpwftf by
-------
It, PHI CO, as «ptxit«r «l Um Croke Canal Mad Ut
iNMiy tbowuRd ()««NI| wre-foH of »tmr«fa aptea at
KtaadHy kakt tooervolr, itak! matt lor avfravti a
iropoNi projraie of easts to be mpcnM tor opcratloii,
ilmtiww tad tor all Mttars or mnoprUli foe
Ot oycrattM of tto Crofce ChmI mI Itandley Late to
Wcataiaatcr, fhetnto«« Mi VBrtkflaMi.
1( m objection to ttt acM«l« of operation and
MlatMunc* Mfnaw stall fee onde vithla tMrtf ISO) days,
soch frofraa for sftntlan iM aiiUtwiart «ba)l ho <
to to iwiwi asd U« cittca akaU niiburaa FSICO foe Its
•xptM«a iaeavtfli porsoant to the peograo for opatatioa sad
ailatcMac* vitkit thirty (W days frao the lata of neaipt
o( a atattMut for aaowta Am to FftlCO.
lo oo vnal akaU PMGO I* prtvtattd froo «v)ariaklii|
Mgr act loo »
-------
IS. mi CO «tcm tbet «U miM viut of a quality
•ectptabl* to rauco Cor agricultural parposc* twin) tetarMl
to mi CO fitanllty Uk« slMirtkoldeta purtNnt to lt« ttm
•fntNMt vttb Nortk9lMM vttl cmUmm to be ueed inter
»H» tor 4iitrlbetlon for aftleaUvrtl purposes purtuMt to
Um Article* of iMPifOCttiM of rftICO for a •(•law of
tveaty~oa« |21| yeers froo tta date hereof.
II, miCD ayrm to the tcanfccabtllty of wy
of stock of the Stood ley lake Mvlaton pr««l
-------
rraalalni parties than the of tht pn}«ct In
yraportlM to tM fiaaactal co«triMi«i of each. My of
il* rnaoltcee Mfbtn cm 4k14« to start l«ples«atatloai of
• capital «xpii4it«c*i toimr, ««ck ptr^r btccto shall ha«*
the cffcrtwilty to financially participate la ««ek
ctUrfHtai ap to a* eqaal percentage fay oaeh party. If a ay
party itclAvt to participate, It aball be entitled to Sta
pro-rota aaosat oC the «larH npadty of Staadley Lake
fMtmlr or of tkt Croke Canal.
«. Mas Carina ter* Thoratoa and! Vorthgleaa* and not
rftlCD, shall each ba liable for urf shall pay one-tklti
(1/99 of the operatloo end Maintenance aapaaaee aa defined
|o V tltk raptl feo ooly the Croke Caaal# Staadley
Nwwai* and >:y»rt»a»H faclllttna tiwrito, bat M*t aa to
aay facilities kelw Ua oatlat wrict of fttaodley Laka
H
g ftaaarvoir which reawla Um> responsibility of WOO.
f. Nothing la Uli Agreement shall preclude any
of tha parties fr«a iaatitatloi legal procaediags to ooNptl
perforoaace hereoadet or to reqaire or prohibit enpenditares
of maij for nparatlon oof ¦alotaoaoco If tha Qperatlooa
CotalitM has fceeo aaeble to ap»« Ha «mm for aay soch
legal llapnta shall ha tha District Coart la sod for tha
Coaoty of Jef feraoa, Stat* of Colorado.
f. bellvery of voter to Vocthflcia porsoaat to
ita September 2, 1|» >pnni with M1CO aball ha Bade
tbroogh PftICD*s tiHtliaaw to tha aaa of tho oatlat
capacity froo Staadley lAt iMarnif* ao long aa Portbgleoa
aad Thoratoa atoll not Interfere with tha tifhit preserved
to riUTCO a ad BettaiMUr pars oast to that hyraeweat of
feptssfcer 23, 1974* hay plaao by HBrthflcMi or Thoratoa to
attach to tha oatlat works ahall ha firat saboltted to ItlCO
•ad Meatalnster Cor thair approval which approval ahall aot
he aaroaaooahly withheld.
-15-
h. Should any city which Is a party hereto
install aay telemetering or other stailai device 10
effectuate tha delivery of water to which H is entitled,
tha operation of aay such deviee shall be coordinated with
PWCO and the Coaaittee hereunder.
It. Thornton and Weetainster a^rrfe to neve to withdraw
the Coaplalate and to nova to disaiss with prejudice those
previously-instituted legal proceedings la Civil fiction Ho.
t»-or-U»7 and Civil Action fto. 7i-CV-lH« in the District
Coart fa and for Jefferson Comty on behalf ot themselves
. and The Maadalay irrigatloa Coopaay in consideration (or
three hundred twenty-five 1325) acre-feet of storage in
•tendley Laka fteservoir* deducted frcn* Northg1enn*s pio-rata
ownership aad allocated to Westminster to Lecoae a part of
Itc atoeapt space purscsat to the tern* of Paragraph Ma).
19. Westminster ahall disaiss its previously
Instituted proceeding la eminent domain teinq Civil Action
Ho. 43056 la the Olstriet Coart of Jefferson County, State
of Colorado.
20< thoratoo will disaiss Civil Action Mo. 43041 in
eminent dooala aa against FNCO and «acb individual
shareholder that tatifies this Jujteeoent.
21. Westminster* FMCO and Its Sbaretold?ca do agree
to cancel aad do hereby cancel all provisions of that
specific Agreement dated January 24, 19*3, as of the
effective data of this Agreement.
22* Westminster and Thornton vill not contest the
validity of that Agreement between fRICO and WorthgJenn
dated September 2, 1»7«.
21. Worthglenn will recognise the ovtieuhip ot the
annual right to purchase Church Ditch water pursiwnt to the
iaches of water owned or to he acquired by Thornton cr
Westminster opon the following basis:
-Id-
-------
a, For nnwrsfclp of lMh«» represented by a
clala of title supported by abstract oc title lnsucmoc*, tin
annual to pordiaw water ihtll be confirmed »ub)ect to
tM rMM)«*bl« roles of Nortkflcmi w operator relating to
the carriage of w«t«r.
fc* for MMtcblp of ladie* reptemted by a
clala of title pot supported by abstract or title Insurance,
the annual rlfkt to ptftdtaM water shall be omfirMl
a abject to the raaaoaabla rules of Racth)l«m relating to
the carriage of water and the eaecutlon of an agreement to
•ave and hold ttocthglsnn borates* for delivery ot said
water..
c. Delivery of water to HnteiMUr« ftorntM or
Maadslay My« a~ Unit discretion, ha *ade at the Katner
rluae.
24. Thia Agreement shall be enforceable by apeclfic
H
g pertomnct Instituted by any party, against any other party
or individual. It feeing specifically auderatood that the
intent to enter into this Agreeaent is for each particular
party to perfora pursuant to the term hereof, that a breach
thereof and any damages resulting therefroa in not and shall
not cant* a termination of any ot the obligations wider this
ijrccKnt, the venue for any dispute hereunder is to be the
district Court In and for the County of Jefferson. State of
Colorado.
15. NUCD hereby agrees that it wilt use its best
efforts to work oat an agreeaent with the Cities of
Westalnster sad Thornton to ispleaent a re-use plan upon
alallsr teras and conditions as that agreeaent entared
between NUC0, its shareholders and Vorthgleaa.
2f. This Agreeaent is binding upon the parties hereto
«»pon wwtion, and shall toecooe effective upon approval at
a netting of the atockhnldere ot FfilCO to «eprov* this
-17-
Agreeaent by st least elsty-seven percent ( souths froa the
date hereof, this Agreeaent shall he null and void.
21. This Agreeaent Shall be placed cf record j« the
office of the Clerk and Recorder ot Manr, and Jefferson
Counties.
21. The parties hereto have entered intu stipulations
attached hereto as trblbit *A* and *£"• lncotpotated herein
by this reference, specifically aa to Cases W-8743 and
¥-1741, Water Division 1.
39. Thornton, Northglenn, and Westminster shall be
entitled to take delivery of any water tiiey now or hereafter
own or control through the Croke Canal tec delivery into
Btandley take heservoir, if at any tiae there shall be
capacity In said canal not being utilized by FjtJCO. Any
such unused capacity as asy exist fro* tine to time shall be
shared equally by Thornton, lforU«glcnn, sn»1 Westminster if
the occasion warrants. The use by Thornton, Morthglenn, and
Westainstec of any unused capacity sh^ll be cc-oidin*tcd with
MI CO as opera toi of said canal so nr. to not interfere with
MQCO'ii ability to deliver its water.
30. The parties hereto pledge their cooperation and
shall vigorously defend any action ot any kii.l attacking the
validity of this Agrneaeut and any term;, and conditions
herein contai«>ed, each to pay Its own costs.
This Agteeaent, Its teras and conditions, shall be
binding upon and inure to tk* Wnsflt ot the heirs,
executors, successors and assigns of the faitiM hereto.
-------
lutH tills ltd 4ay of Niy, It?!.
%o
M
rMMCKS KCSEKVOIt AMI
smicATioM covm (mco)
»r —
imovtD as 10 romi
Seen
Ue£&.
;rtiyy
JpecTiTCouwii"
civr or nomiTON
^mcsri
\ ^ C,a AS TO FOIMs
~y
£_M«*ctor ol OtUitica,
City of Ttornton
eitjr Attorney
CX« OP WESTMHSTB*
A»ROVC» AS 10 font
C -iv^fcpUg—„
City MaMfec, I
City of Wes twins:
City Attorney -
-II-
CIT* Of WOWIH^LKMN
ATTtbrl * *
I TO rORM:
/£JL
APPAOVCO AS TO rORM:
V1THESSED W:
CTty Kans4
City of Hbrihglenn
ril UL&
City Htotwy / /
\
t\ •.
ftlcfcard D. iae»r
Covetftot of itte State of Colovado
-------
f o
icittNen
rMWRS RESEIWII WD IttlSWIQi CMTAW
cm or xowiiom
^ cm or mmcuw
so cm or MBSTMiism
to
m*r 4, uii
IMdcadM to romr-ttay Mtmwt)
APPEHPOH TO ACRtEHCHT
tllS AG*E£H£NT Md« and enters) into this 4th day of
May, 1»7>, by mid between the FAW.lHS HtsFkVoilt and
IRRIGATION COMPANY* hereinafter referred to sr. VRJCO', th«
CtTf OP tMOmONi a ounielpal cocporatlcn of the State of
Colorado* acting by m4 through Its Utilities Board, and
City Council, hereinafter r«(«crd to a a •U>otnton", the
cm or NOKTMGICMN, a Municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado, hereinafter referred to as *Morthglenn*, and the
C1TT OT WSTHIK5TU, a Municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado, hereinafter referred to as *Uestminstet
•iiiiiiiiis
WftexEAS, Thornton and Nortbglenn have ptt-vioo5ly
approved the Agreement cowaonly referred to as tt'e *i out-Way
AgteeMM* o« April If and 19. 1979, respectively, and
VHEKEA3, mi CO and Westminster have epptoved the
co—only referred to Toor-May Agreement*, and
MEKA5, since the approval of the Four-Kay Agreement
by Thornton and Northglenn, several additional iteas have
been negotiated among the parties and to which the parties
feel should he reflected In Uw Poor-Way Agreement
originally approved by Thornton and Nortbglenn;
MM| tflCXCFOfiC, (or and in cons Idecalic-s, of the
premises, and the following covenants* terms ami conditions,
end in fell consideration of certain other conditions as
hereinafter set forth* It is hereby «*greeJ by en»i between
the parties as follow*:
A. Paragraph 4 of the Four-Way Agreement in hereby
•Mended by the addition of the following sentence which is
to be added thereto at the end of said paragraph. «»od which
language Is as follows;
-------
*taltial »• m aark «ni< Manga f ca a*
ntmrwml aa akuat, akall aaa mcM lit
¦piUnl^ at Mtm t* la tar alaa akata »|nHy
«. lib) a* aaM raac-Mf to tmtf
¦¦¦¦in U tote ta raa*'aa fcliaxat •
KaOaf laka IimiwH atell aat ka wiM tf
•llMttla) »mm mulif tor 'Iwn' aa* U tka
«Mnii af Mar la wailar (w taaandt la
nudtul ta a minHf Iw Hal hnr-M
Unainl Kl.aaal acro-taai kr aay Iwbl artac at
¦UintH. «H at tka fartlaa t» tkla miiiaat
a Mil km fta fllocata* aaacaaa nwa at ttarilqr
Ma Hii.ihH ami If », nn««lo»am>
titan*. aklck la aa tattaaai
ma M/Ma«a laaalt
all) alallatir akaaaa
a calactiaa by virtm
a* It* akantaUai
auiw to nucol.
WaafLaata*
Ilaiaua W*M>>
c. ma|ii|> 17|b) af tka taat >at >int» la katakf
iiiii lil tf tka aHUIaa aC a aianana ta ka allil to tka aa*
a* aaM |ii»nifk >A1A la aa tallaaaa
"All artlaaa *f tka Cuialttaa akall ka aaaalaim.*
Ml Hilanai ipnaiw. Its tacaa aa* CfladtcloM, atall
ka Madia* area aa* tarn ta tka kaaaftt a< tka aactaaaaaa
aa* aaataaa at tka pattlw karafea.
Data* tkla *tk *ay a* Hay, IIM.
«o
U
nn
SMicmo cmmi «mcot
¦{Mf
mmu ii *> fMi
ip^irsssa—^
-2-
V
ctn or nKNwrw
\ \ r
y!/v. a. I I --
'•Jerk \
h
v. rrrr.- -_J
vr«rt ^ " rMir">;.t- -i.n« »«
*pr.;» w rowi
ClTf uf fcr;<» atJfcSTT*
taTr-itfl
*»??£>' 9 AS TO
w •^¦02^-*'^ I*1
CUjf"r^^vec, * I
City r>t Vc^vainiiwr
a.... /?
Cpty Attorney
—-
tmtfl CIST or WOWUGLEMH .
«C Korth^l«na
irriom as to row:
CUf
City oC krtl»sl«M
-------
D-2
ctf IlJtlc
H*
KO
J>
1* few| K, Caalta, City Clcik ef the City of Iwnntttt, Co!or»Aa,
4a MitVy eettlfy tMt the mikM tocvaMt im * tnc »•! acmtte
ctiff ®t th* Mmm th* City o( Itomon wrf the City of
I farther certify that (he HrtewM w*c utlflc< m Hay *» 1979,
Mi *fre orJtia*] |K«mt is cMUtne^ 1* tke Cornell Pocnseot
File «f (k« C«ty o! Thotaln, C*)ora4«.
CivM my ImI Mat »wl tM( I7Ui M»r» 2979.
cirr or room os, colokabo
ilia. City cifrtk
ACBEEK£*T
C2TT or TKOKHTOW
cm or HORTHGLU --:
fUy 4, 1979
-------
HCHEEHW
TW1S mtrwmT, Mteirf Into tltt* Ilk day of Nay, 19?9#
by.aad liclwem the CITT OF TIIOIMTON. • aMlciptl corporation
of the Stale of Colorado, acting by amd Utrwiffc its
Otilities iMtd and City ComcU, hereinafter referred to aa
•Thornton*, and the CIT* OT MUfKUM. a municipal
corporatloa of U* State of Colorado, acting by and throng
Itc City CeuurU, hareinafter referred to as *Mortbglean*.
lilliiillE1
Mtnilf TtotBtM presently owns and operate* a
Moicipa) stillty ayttca consisting of certain raw water
collection m* storage facilities, dear water storage
tanks. water treatment plants. distribution facilities and a
.amy collection and traiiMissiM network designed to
fartldk potable water and aawer service for tbe present and
anticipated cwatoawra of its utility system located within
or wltbomt rbe political boundaries of Thornton. and
WHEtttf* Thornton presently provides water and sewer
•tility service to overs residing within tbe present
political boandaries of Nortbglenn. pursuant to individual
contract wltb each user, and
WIUUS, parsoant to f 299 of tbe Federal Clean Water
Act. 33 0.5.C. t 1211, Wortbglenn bns been designated a
wastewater management agency by tbe Denver Regional Council
of Governments tor tbose areas within its political
boandaries. Its status being certified by tbe Governor of
tbe State of Colorado to tbe Baited States Environmental
Protection Agency, and
WBiEUf Hortbglenn intends to establish# own and
nperate Its own sewage collection, treatment and water
distribution system, and In furtherance of that intention to
acgolre fron Thornton certain water and sewer utility lines
located within the political boundaries of Horihttlcnri and
certain other appurtenant and related facilities located
ostslde the political boandaries of Horthglenn, uik)
HIICRCAS, by contemporaneous agreement bei«r«n Thornton,
Hortbglenn. the Parsers Reservoir and Irrigation Company and
certain individual shareholders of the Standley Division of
Parsers Reservoir and Irrigation Company an-1 the city of
Westminster. Thornton la to acquire storage tin* PPiro in
Standley Lake Reservoir and Morthglenn is, by the within
Agreement* to acquire all severable water and uti\ity
lines* storage tanks, punps and aptwrlerant facilities as
described in 'Exhibit A* which is attached hereto.
Incorporated tarein, and nade a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, in the future construction and operation of
its own water and sewage utility system, tfcuttiqlcnn nay
construct certain facilities in which Thornton nay vi&h to
participate, and
NflCltCAS, this agreement is intended to effectuate
severance of certain portions of Thr*rnton*s utility system
commencing apon the effective date of this agreement, and
nCKUS, by individual contracts with asc«s within the
political boundaries. of Worthglenn, Thornton has eonaiitacnts
to serve said users into ))|l. and has agreed to sever these
users from the Thornton system, which vill remit in the
loss of water and sewer income to Thornton, to which they
would have been entitled, b«:d Morihglc-nn not decided to
implement Its own utility system and which source would have
partially defrayed the cost of opc;*tin
-------
that Thornton's uttltty aysint rtwwiti will be MlnUlntd
J» at food • condition M tbe iaen »MlMd on
llw ItentM aystc* ttooaqb tbe period of contractual
AlifHtioK, end
MOOAS, "phytic*! dittoMHtctlw* ftM Uw Thornton
MUlty ayitM by tht awn «ttU« U» political bonndatitt
el Nertb|hM will create ecrUlt operational problems
MCM«it»Un9 «UUiwfel *ipe«ditHM of monies by Thornton
to bolldinf certain ptiytical facilities in order to
effect aat* m orderly and complete i«*trancc «( tint
IbrtAflcM etllity neiri (toa tbe tfcewtwi utility system,
and It ia tbe Intention of tbe parties hereto that
Vortbflenm sball relaburse Thornton foe u44 monies
necessary to be expended, and
WJttHS, the Method and coat of physical dlMomectimi
ui contract teraiiwtlon was determined on behalf of parties
pursuant to a three-volume report prepared by W8 Company,
and
WdfiMa It to to the mtMl benefit of both Thornton
Md Morthflenn to effectuate on agreement which viU tiate
the burdea of severance coats which mifht otherwise be borne
by Thornton end which will resolve all present differences
between tba two cities in erder to avoid tba wasteful
duplication which could resolt If the ntillty lines and
appurtenances presently located within tbe City of
bortbglenn were not ac^nleod by Morthglenn, or if any
physical severance were to be In strict adherence to
political boondarlea of tbe variooa cities* and
WUCAS, in the aplrlt of mnnicipel cooperation, it is
to tbe notoal advantage of both parties to eater into soch
an appropriate agreement* *a hereinafter set forth*
(KM, itPtCFORC, In consideration of the above premises
and the following covenanter tram and conditions, it ia
3« Cost oi Contract Termination. T*» orilcr to provide
that revenues to the Thornton utility eyii'-R shall nnt l>c
materially different than what vb«)J have been the rasi.* It
Nortb9lenn utility users under contract tc> Thornton wtc to
renain on the Thornton utility cystta through April 1, 13«8,
Hortliglenn shall* at tbe time of partial or total physical
disconnection of either water or sewer service to its
residents fro* the Thornton otillty systcn, cfwsw«ce paying
on a monthly basis to the City of Thornton through March 31,
IHtf certain suns of noney to be computed aa follows:
(a) Total Disconnection. Cowhcntlnq at the date of
actoal total physical disconnection by Korthglenn from the
Thornton Utility System, Mortbglenn shall pay to Tlrornton,
tbe sum of One Million Savon Hundred rjfty Thousand Dollars
(fl|15Q«DM) at the rate of One Hundred forty-Five Thousand
.Eight Hundred thirty-Three Dollars and Tliivty-Tbrcc Cvnt&
($115,S3).33| per month, due in advance on the first day of
•neb month, through the Vtarcb 1« 1918 payment.
(b) Partial Disconnection* If Korthglenn shall
disconnect from the Thornton Utility System in stn^s, then
In that event* Worthglenn sball pay to Thornton twenty-five
percent (25ft) of tbe {annual payment, due pursuant to (at
above upon the same terms and conditions if the severed
service is sewer service and seventy-five percent (?St) of
the annual payment doe pereoant to fa} abm«. upon the same
terms and conditions If tbe severed service 1*. water
service* all in addition to the continuing p«yn*nt by
Mortbgienn to Thornton tor tbe non-severed service, as
provided elsewhere herein, until total disconnection of bf/t>i
services at which time the full terms and conditions of (a)
above shall commence.
fc| Prom and after tbe efJcctivc-
-------
Vtllity SxlewiM Policy Contracts ma to ptopaetiaa )octti4
within ItortkyJMi il»U bt Ite okliftttwt o( N»l)t yiviaf first prXcccKt to Thornton
ami ottor atiUly Mcrt metivl«| Mtvln Cm its tyvtM as
of tto dsto this Agrecaont amt Hfimd prtttrttm for
available sopplies mad ctptdty to Marth«lean ui«r>.
tram tto tot® ot Ui* hyrtctMal, Mortttflna shall Mw
tto |«|2«irla| rights, dotie* end responsibilitl as*
•• It shell teto Policy
.Contracts |«»C) by which ttocStw Ms screed to
provide water and sewer service and tap connections to
tto residents atrf *s«rs within Morth9l*nu shall# upon
tto dst# hereof, twrooa tto property of Korthglenn and
Rortbqlenn aliall ossnoe all rights* duties,
responsibilities and obll^tloM thereunder. Thornton
Shall transfer tto originals thereof to Von^lcw
within thirty !*•) days of tto date hereof.
«, nsrtbglenn shall negotiate all new contracts
for water and sever service within tto political
boundaries of Vorthglena and Thornton shall provide
service ttotefor,
f. The Master Meter for tto purpose of tlii*
contract shall exist at tto wator oetet for «-#ch tap
located within Itortl^lean shall v«-bd ail
Mtert tofttMy and shall Monthly sutoit to Thwmwi the
.total «jna«tity of water oeaaored by each water *etc?r.
h veil as elites of oil aieter readings* Thornton will
bill to Northglenn tto total anoant doe for tracer and
sewer services based upon tto seisurc»cM.
Mortbgleno shall hill foe and collect all crhaiocs for
water and cctier services. Sever rtnT^es shall o to
cooputed on tto sane tosis as to Thornton users, until
-------
•ctMl physical severance occurs, Thwntow wt»i«w tM
right to tfolcheck Individual Meter readings.
%. MttU *vdi t(M M wtified in writing fcjr
ttortli9lc««> or Noveater 1. 19*0, whichever occurs
lirati TkOKiitM. with Its own per»oanel, shall eoAtlnm
to provide *11 operation and Maintenance fuMtioM and
#k«l) cmtlMM to do tN actual physical reading ot all
voter and tewtr mUi» within itorthglenn and vlll also
cMtlnw to do tin billing the nana as Is the
case. tortl^lew shall pay to Thornton Monthly In
advance tin mm of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000)
far such acrvleo coMMc.net09 and pro-rated to the date
of this Agreement
S. WorthQlenn Sewer Serrlw to Certain Thornton
lnhabt tants. Horthglenn afiall accept, treat mJ dispose ot
Mtfay effluent (ran those certain customers In the areas of
Thornton as Mt forth on "exhibit S*« which is attached
hereto and nade a part hereof, at no cost to those cuitowti
of Thornton nod shall be responsible for the operation and
Maintenance of the appropriste trot* lines thereto as ate
located witbin the political boundaries of - Horthglenn.
Horthfltnn shall be entitled to clal* credit fer end keep
all effluent collected from this service area. Horthglenn
Shell heve no enthori ty ontc nor determination of who or how
nany sewage tape n»y be connected to said trunk lines within
the political boundaries of Thornton, bat Thornton shell be
required to pass an ordinance similar to the o*ie set forth
in "Exhibit C", attached hereto end nade a part hereof by
this reference* eo as to prevent any discbarge into the
a ewer lines ot Material that would s»k» treatment by
Horthglenn uulewful or unreasonably wvecmcaic*}. Thornton
•hall have no objection to the right of Hortbglenn to the
ese and total consumption of this sewage effluent that
Horthglenn night he able to Mcocpllr>h or obtain through ll»e
appropriate Mater Court of the State ot Colorado end will
Support an application by Horthglenn to the Water Court for
the right to the uae of said effluent in the same manner as
would be ellowed to Thornton*
a. Thornton will provide all necessary
operation. Maintenance and capital expanses associated
with the sewage collection and distritution system to
be served by Horthglenn, from the point of collection
froM the individual discharge points to the political
boundaries of Thornton* In the event repair or
Maintenance expenditures ar« required by either
Thornton or Horthglenn to those lines located within
dither City necessary to sect the service requirement;;
Of the customers located within those areas set forth
en "exhibit •% either city May, at its tole
election after ten (10) days* notice to the other,
within which said other city oust cogence the work
necessary to correct the protien* expeud such wnits as
•re necessary to provide proper service and bill the
cost of such repaira to the oiher. 11 any capital
expenditures are deemed necessary to lines within
Thornton, as determined by Ttornton, these shall he the
sole obligation of Thornton.
b. In providing services to Thornton customers
set forth on 'Exhibit »¦, ttorlhilenn shall indemnify
Thornton against any suits brought on Account of any
property damage or injury of any parties resulting (toa
such provision of service within the aica set forth on
"Exhibit B" and arising fron acts oL negligence or
intentional Misconduct fay Horthglenn, its agents,
contractors or employee*.
-g-
-------
f, nun-Btoo Swfr Service to Ctrt»l» McTtNhiw
Inhabitants. TfeorntM stall Mwft« lent a«4 of
««M9e Ivcm tlm* cutOMrt in the m»m of
Nortbtlem as set focth on 'Exhibit 0* irhlcii Is
Iwreto snd Mfc a part hereof, at no coat to thw* cmimcki
of Npnb|}tM( *Md stall bo rttpomltili Cor the optcitiM
and MinteMace of tlie approprinte ttwk lines located
within I be political bosndsries of Thornton* Thornton stall
be entitled to claia credit for ast keep all affluent
collected fron tills Mrtfcc *rca« AorntM stall tavs no
authority over nor determination of who or bow saaf swage
tape iay be connected to nU trmk lines within the
political boundaries of Morthglenn bet Morthglenn altal] bo
required to pons on ordinance siuilar to the one attached
H hereto as 'Exhibit t* so ns to prevent any discharge Into
\0
\p .the snwr lines of naterial that wwld aakt treatnent by
Thornton unlawful or amrsasooably uoecononlcsl. »ortbglenn
stall tave no object ion to tbe right of Thornton to the »«t
and total consnaptioo of this m*fa effluent to the extent
that Thornton sifht be able to eccoopllsh or obtain through
the appropriate Water Court of the State of Colorado* end
will support en application by Thornton to the appropriate
Muter Conrt of Colorado for the right to the nse of aeld
effluent In the asnc sonnet ns vonld be allovrd to
Morthglenn.
a. Morthglenn vlll provide nil necessary
operation* Maintenance and capital expenses associated
with the savage collection and distrlbotlon systen to
be nerved by Thorn too Iron the point of collection ftoa
the Individual discharge points to the political
boundaries of Morthgleon. In the event repair or
Maintenance expenditures ere required by either
Morthglenn or Thornton to those line* located «ithin
-1*-
eithcr city necessary to seet the service requiieucnts
of the custosctsr located within those mcas &«t fotth
on "Erhibit D*, either city'nay, at its sole election,
after ten (1ft) days* notice to the ottu >, witnin which
said other city nust coausence' the vor>. occessary to
correct the pcoblen, expend such nonies as are
necessary to provide proper service and will bill the
cost of such repairs to the other. If any capital
•expenditures are deened necessary to lines within
Morthglenn* as detcra^ned by Morthglenn, \hc« «>hall be
the sole obligation of Morthglenn.
b. fn providing service to Horl^lcnn c-ustosert
set forth on ^Exhibit 0", Thornton shall indemnity
Morthglenn against any suits brought on recount of any
property danage o„* injury of any parties- resulting fro*
such provision of service within th« area forth on
'Exhibit B* and arising froa acts of negligence or
Intentional niscondoct by Ttornton, its agents,
contractors or employees*
lodeantf icatlon. For any and ell contracts
relating to utility service to property and users located
within the political boundaries of Morthglenn identified on
•exhibit E" attached hereto and incorporated l.*r<*Jn by this
reference Horthglcnn, froe the effective date of this
agreement, shall be entitled and shall succeed to all
rights* duties, and obligations, vhclfter won«*taTy or
otherwise, and nil responsibilities of Thornton jmtsuant to
the sane and Morthglenn shall Indemnify Thornton fro* and
against any and all claim*, suits, de-Kand-,, actions, and
liabilities of any nature whatsoever, including all cos»ts
and attorney's fees incurred by Thornton, whiih iray arise by
reason of any failure by Korthglcno to |crfo»*>, in full, tht*
obligations assumed under said contracts, and further o
-------
V
to defend wy action and pay any )«4«mkU a««iMt TtocittM
artetof oat of aucb « failure to perform umter
»cM contract* or BUlUy Cit'ciulM rolicy Contracts.
Thornton to cooperate to suit* filed by or against
Thornton prior to the e»«ctiw data of this a«iwMHt Hid
KiliNf out Of th* CMtrtCtf aet forth on 'Exhibit l*. I*
particalar, ftortbylenn to ol»U»»lt4 to pay *11 retatM »«d
tenor *11 tree prrpeid tap* m Ht forth la those
coittwta. Thorn too shall transfer to Nortbglenn all
previously deposited Roaiw (or ail Mividaat oa*r service
contracts. Thornton ahall remsin liable (or all bonded
indettedaesa (Ktvioaily tacwrrnd by It, prising oat of tbe
parchm by It of that part of the Thornton system acquired
by Northglcan hertin sad set forth la "exhibit A*. Thornton
•hall also remain liable for the pnyment of any 4aaa«e» as
fat forth W 3tlr4 Claim for belief, that nay be awarded the
rlalntiffs la the pending 1 await of bollins ». Thornton
fC.A. Ko. 3»H| la the Adam County District court.
9, Condition of utility Un»»-E»clwlcw of
Warranty. St is hereby that the purchase of any
facilities as described ia *Ohfbft A* by ftortbylenn is on
aa *as is* basis* there being no aspreaa or implied warranty
af fitness, condition* tutorials or worfcmsasblp of nay bind
by Thorntorn however* Thornton shall cooperate to the astent
of furnishing drawings* li*yrM» and other Material which It
nay have ia its poeseseton that relate to said facilities
ufeicb may be • benefit to borthglema in operating and
maintaining secb facilities. further, ontil actaal physical
pooaeesion is nllufvliMd to Borthglean, or nntil
Vorik9)eM electa to arsome operation and maintenance of
•aid lines within Vtortbglenn, whichever occwre first#
Thornton shall contlnse to operate and skaintaln said
faeilJtJea ia a nanncr coaalatent with reasonable standards
-li-
ef tbe utility industry for so long as individual urers
within tbe fiolitfcal boundaries of Morth9lenn are continuing
to receive utility service fron Thornton.
~. PtlHtv States.
a. Fron and after tbe effective date hereof,
ttortbglenn shall not seek any state or federal water or
newer management states or other utility status which
wonld In any way involve control over or decision
mating aathority with regard to any of the present or
future customers to be served by tbe City of Thorn to«
•r of any areas located within the political boundaries
•f Thornton, a* it now or may exist in the future or
areas reasonably anticipated to be served by Thornton
as determined by it, end except as set forth below will
farther limit itself to mtility service and management
decisions with regard to only those customers as
located within the political boundaries of the City of
Horthglenn.
b. Except as provided la Patagraph *C" below,
Horthglenn agrees that it will not* after tlw date upon
which this instrument becomes operative, directly or
Indirectly* sell* lease or otherwise di&pabe of any raw
or treated water or provide sewage services for
domestic or municipal man* or provide domestic or
municipal water service* outside its present municipal
boundaries to any person or entity for *ny area not
currently receiving smcb - water or watet service or
aawer service unless application thrtefot shall have
first been made to Thornton, ia writing, and unless:
i. Thornton finds that it is not able to
provide water, water service, or *ev.oge service
for such area within a r«*«smle tiw after
receipt of the application, with the rtsult that
•13-
-------
\
ItoratM ItctiRef to accept, in witlwj. the
or
II. Ttocaton H«la that it la able to
ycewtde swell otter, Mtct «r«i«, or »««f
tciflct, Nt tor otter re*MM *cllnts to MMpfc(
to writlny, tho i(f!Ic«tIo«.
ill. ItottHiCM My eiflMBl
to tk« p«r«ets RmrMr «od irrigation Caapaay
poriMtt to that certain 4«t«4
Scptnber 2, 297C, aal ***11 focnlsh miaga
Mitict to ccrtilt Tborwto* mldntt ptmaat to
U» tocos and conditions hereio.
e, novikflmo will not interfere with ThmmiM't
fcttnlut ioo of vostoooUr urvicn wtt««»ty for
Ttonitoi or Its etllity inyi, nor ooofc ta exercise soy
vMtcMtcv —fy»m ificy Mkterl^f ovor tin ««•
irftli* tin lMorper*t«d liolta of 9tomtoo u ft mow or
My eiiit In tlm ooi os tewrlM as tk* Unwv
tlonto* Svrvlcc Area dncrlM 1* the Mortal en* 201
tervict r)Mf neepl as sot forth btlowi
S, Thornton Md Vortliflooo My aottoelly
agree to wnlve tb« condition sot forth I« this
pauyiil II ft appears to fee I* the MtMl best
iatccrn of both parties, ite principal pvtposc
of sock ml«cr «ooll be to pro*14ft protection to
IteratM for its om oastewoter plan io tht mal
sobi use st tnanogenent agency 4eci«Mti«i is aanled
to Itianito*.
11. hctosl Physical Smrf^o. tetoa) pbyslctl
AitcOMectiM «ka)t occor dor log a tine to be tfrted «pon by
flon»toa end Kartt^lcmi oocb physical mtraam sboll sot
feQMOMt sot it Worthglenn bos cenpleted Its voter wpply and
rense storage treatwent system, If physical seweronce Is
-li-
able to occor with regard to either tbe water or the tewtqe
part of tbe etility systen prior to simultaneous teveunce,
tbe rates ckar^ed by Thornton shall reflect »uvb partial
severance, and Monthly paynents as to tbe ccrvice p.>rtla]ly
severed, sbell coon see immediately pnrsaant to Pir^t^^h *
hereof.
H« haw Hater lt»»e. Froo and after the date of
octool physical severance of tbe otlllty systems, W.rthglenn
noy lease rev water (roa Thorntoi, and Thornton shall lease
opoo written rcqoest, raw veter to Rorth^lenn on »*\ *as
available* basis. Tbe decision as to whether said um water
is actually available for lease shall br as determined by
tbe Otilltles board of Thornton. Tb* base rental tale for
ooy raw water leased fros Thornton to Northglenn sh«ll be at
vbat the beaver Water loard would lease raw water tor during
tbe sane period.
12. Treated Water Service. Thornton shall be entitled
to receive treated wster for raw water which it sa; vlc-ct to
deliver st Its cost to tbe ttortbglcnn Mater Tteataent
Plant. Tbe treatnent costs for raw water delivered to
ftortbglenn by Thornton shall be at tbe eost according to the
following schedule*
«• for the period April tbrocjh October,
WortbgIcon shall treat not to exceed a feaxinua of three
alllion (9,000,000} gallons per day of Thornton rsv
water at a rat* of Seventy-Floe t?5f) fur one
thousand (1,000} gallons, with the base year t-vjual to
1901, subject to anneal ad^ostoents by the ch.-irwje in
the CdMMer Prlee index.
b« For the period November tht 0*19(1 Harch,
Horthglenn shall treat not to exceed a x.»ximu* of «? i
-------
thHiund (1.INI s«UoMi vim the base year equal to
ig$l, f«b]«ct to MMMl ug the change ii
tte Ccaftwei *rlce l»de«.
It ic specifically agreed fay and Ulww kte parties
hereto that tt* quantities of woter set forth In Paragraph
Dm, •».• and *b." above are the Muiwi treataent
capacities available based ope* present popolatioa of
Horthglenn. Morthglenn say the reduction of U»e
levels of treated water capacities available to Thornton and
by tvbMqwflt a^ecaint, the parties hereto will sore
specifically define the aaoMt of treatsent capacity that
stay be available to Thornton wit hoot fiaiMtlm. It it
understood that Northmen* ia sot obligated to furnish any
such treatment capacity iudefinltely naleas agreed to
otherwise*
13. Other Services.
a. Northglenn is betiding a raw water supply
line froa Standley Lake Reservoir to tta water
treatment plant ia which Thornton nay wish to
participate. Within two weeks after the effective date
of this hgreenent, Thornton shall wtUj horthgleiw of
the extent to which It wishes to participate in said
pipeline* Thornton*s participation shall be fro* the
Standley Lake Reservoir outlet works a Ion? the line of
ssid pipeline to a point awtnally agreed upon between
Morthglenn and Thornton. Each city can nae the enosed
capacity of the other at any tine on an *« available*
basis. The cost to Thornton Cor participation in the
Mortbgleon pipeline as evers<*ed shall be shared
pro-rata based epon each city's capacity in said
pipeline. Costs shall be defined as those expend!tares
by Morthglenn for pre-design, design, nonetary easenent
acquisition and actual construction.
rlt~
b. At certain potnta to be agreed uj»on between
the engineering departnents of both cities, there sl.aU
be certain Metered interconnections between the treated
water system of each city, the cost thereof to he
jointly shared by the citiea. The purpose of caid
Interconnections Is to provide for cn-erge»»ights-of-w*y. Korthglenn, at its expense, shall
provide Thornton such rights-of-way across public Jar»ds a*
•ay be required by Thornton for the installation of lines
«nd facilitiea vlthin the boundaries of the City of
Morthglenn as a result of Thornton's loss of acceus to the
water and sever utility lines located within Nutthglenn.
Thornton, at its.expeose, shall also provide Horttiglrnn with
any rights-of-way across public lands necessary for the
installation of lines and facilities that are required to
provide water and sewer services to Morthglenn's customers.
-------
M. ancillary tutlew. NorO^leiw intends to build
dhat Is ewMily Imm m Ike •Soil Caiul Nwr^it*. fin
reMvvoIr eoaM be twltryd to provide w
capacity .of ipproiiMtcly two thiwuirf (2tM0) acre-feet,
tiitll Herat 1$. 1979, ltionito« itMll have a first right of
ttfwftl to participate In m enlargement of the reservoir to
tie «uwt out by Rorttt9}eM on* to pay the pro-rata
cost of the construction oC mM reservoir «nl«r9tw»t, It
Thornton elect* to pay for the cost of owfireetihi of the
•Mltim*! capecity# Northglenn shell be entitled to the
cost of designing end constructing said enlargement.
17. C«p*toft«, The captioM for the numbered pararaphs
herds ore sot to be we< to very the MMinf of the
paragraphs end ore Cor identification purposes only*
II, pecordatlon. Jk copy of this agreesent ehull be
^ placed of record Is the office of the Mm Coonty Clerk and
Hecorder.
M, Tire hydrants. IhtU actual physical severance as
referred to above «ccsct, fire hydrants located within U»
political boundaries of WorthgJenn shall not be need tot
anything other than fir* fighting pvtpwn unless the wter
as need therefrom is aetered and if so, copies of said meter
readings shall be submitted promptly to Thornton so that
ftorthglenn shall he billed for the amount of water so used
pursuant to Paragraph 4
-------
\
(tap* 14 teUwt iImII kt i«K4i«Ul| dec and payable*
lirtbir, north?leu* ih«U iadeanify TtontM a^latt
a a? and All claim mA lndfwnta which nifhi «U« out
of any »t*d» Mcccctlhl
21. jpcltlc Performance—Venue. This hgrnwitt shall
It e«locceAl« by specific perCotMnc* by
ptttjr, AfalMt any other party or ImIIvIAmI, It. being
specifically wtfcnlaol that the intent to enter Into ifcie
agreement It for each partScaler party to perfora pursuant
to the ttrac hereof, that a breech thereof and any damages
resetting thereCroo io not and shall not oaaee o temi nation
a| any of the obligation* wader this Tbe Venue
tor nay dispute fcereeader In to he the District court In and
fear the Comty of Men, State of Colorado.
M. hpprwml. nil agreeaeat ahall bscooa binding
*apaa approval fey ordinance of the parties pledging tbe fall
faith and credit of each city to the falfiilaea-t of the
fs>
q teres hereof.
JS
IMS MMtEOtCMT shall he blading apoa the parties hereto
and their luccekcon or aaaigas.
City of MOrthgleaa
snuM—
~20-
Si
SU2Q^-
fcierk Otaivnau.^t ill tits Boai
tinr ^
CI TV Of TlK>l»NTOli
C«
/' r»'i- 1 LtlZ&tVA^'
ltayot4 xity ot Thotfttwn
approved .fiS to forh*
/ i /%r
director of Utilities,
City of Thornton
~£3*-6£l
fry Attorney
wmssEo >Yi *r>
rs.
Mchau D. U»i
Cove rnor of the* State ot Colorado
-21-
-------
'PMIIIT A*
Jkll rt«kk« t(U«« tiiUmti 4«t| and oUftfciiotit
oC ykuwlm In and to tte fellovtayt
Tltc «*(M tirf MN«r utility U«esf mIm,
choos*i-lB*acti««( Md any and all
yimiefe) plptUn* (MltlttHi Manholes, pwpt,
iKiaini the tM nillioa |2,NI,H0) pee day
or* heedred tvc»ky-(iv« (1*5) horsepower piwpim
•UtiM at fptoil—ttly IHtk «rf dierokMi cImr
wtSi tr«|» or awch otktr pattfl Umr«t« as coMtltate
the Mitv Mid awn attUty 11m dlttclbut ton tfiin
«M enwrnm h4 * ifhtt-ofiMy itottlM* aa m
located within tk« incorporated lialti of tlw city of
Morthglenn »n4 wa«J fey aad control led by Thornton*
Dm, the two |29 t« aillion (2.MI.H9) gallon
ateel cleat Mater storage taafca located at 112th fcwtmt
aad Cfctrflfcce wiUda the incorporated Halt* of
VoftbySfM# m4 « perpetual cateMit tor tlia ground
mdatlyiag said caaaa aa wall m a perpetual fifteen
foot (IS* I Miawat for Ingres* aad tfr«u» to aald
Unk* for nain*.enaoee and repair tMr«!orft» aald
easenent to bo anthod fey Iteratoa.
Specifically excluded lica tfee eoBwyanct Mrtlii
»4n tfee IvMty-Sack (Wat vatertin* tl«a« the vest aid*
of interstate 25 troa the storage tanks at 113th Iwmm
aad Cherokee to ISftfe aad tlw lack (19*1
aatcrliae raaalag east Croa that poiat at approxjaetely
l*4lfe ivcaM aad lateratate IS to Noctk tfashingtoa
Street. Salcoded alao to tlN ti#t-lack (l'| Mterllat
¦loaf lS4th iron Mashing ton to Inaa bri»« aa vail aa
tfee tatlw-ladi (19") Md eight-inch ft*) waterlines
•loo# lMtk Ikveaaa bctMca lateratate 21 aad Sylvia
ferlwe. CwlaM also on tfee tea-inch lit*} and
alatMff'iadi Ula) oc.tar 1 ia«i on inlet aldo of ttoroo
pep station fro* opproaiawtoly rcloa Drive aad frtd
Moo re tfee Koroa ttattaii tfee tnelee-iacfe (12*)
wnterliae running aoatk froa tfee Macon atatiia (inlet
•M*| aloof Reran Street to epproslnately Mtfe Aeeaaei
taa-lkck |1»") aaUvliM « tfee dlachatye side of tfee
ftaroa station Irca tfee fearaa Stattoo along Maree to
Apprexiaately Mtfe Avenoej eigfet-incfe (SM and six-inch
|S*) waterlinea aloag Ccoto orioe (r« Nth riMt to
Mtttfe Avenue* tiffet-iacli ft*) waterliae aloag lltth
froo Crete Drift to Ivcoa Street.
Alao, specifically oxclodad feerefroa i* tfee
booster poap station located aear Nth Arcane aad Huron
Street*
Specifically eaeloded therefra* la the foor
laflllon (4»MI«9M) galloa clear water iterate tank
located at llltfe iwwit aad Cherokee wit hi a the
incorporated limits of Northglenn aad adjacent to tua
toe O) two Million gallon clear water
•torofe tanks referred to above*
Also* atteelflcally aaclaM therefroo la the
fifteen-Inch (IS*) and oigfetern-lncb (SB") sewerline
rasning north iron lMth feecnoe to ita Intersection
with tfee twenty-seweo-Inch |2t") lenerllae east of
opprorioately ISStfe Avenue and Iraa Priv* am) the
twenty-sewen-inch <27*1 cnerllnc running north aod
eaat froa that point to Narthgleaa'a eastern eity
Holts.
•EXHlblT h*
Set forth bcicM are the rcsid"'K-cs and areas
located within Thornton to k provided sewage cervices
by Uorth^leim at. set iorth in Far^c*^* S heteuf (see
attached m^s vhicfi are incorporated fccicin);
1« Washington Square Krea. which fuducks the
Ml ire tast 1/2 Section 34, I'cwnship 1 South,
I«n9» hi Vest* 4th Principal Meridian, as
delineated in figure 1, attached.
1. NiValdt Area, which is describe** ae the
Northgwest "1/4 Section It, Tomhip 7 Soathj
Range il West, (th Principal Meridian, as
delineated in figure 2.
). Sill crest Area, described as a portion
-------
WASHINGTON SQUARE AREA
llClWt-l
irnaiB
ME (AS1 tn SCCTIM 14, IBMSMir 1 MOTH. «MB It
KM. tu MtMCIFftl KUMM. U KIM.
35
»ll5
M
A?'**.. t.
neurit-2
I hew it
PARKS/OS Af\£A
IHl MKlHUfSJ l/« S£CJ1W U. TttiHSWP 2 SOUTH,
una « vtst. 6th nokuiai ficim/at, as mumauo
tctai.
-fc>
o
til
"Y» t
Htt* t(MI
IMI. kw Mmt*
T.cS^ K.oVW., 6 r"f>M
-------
to
©
fiGtint
incat
HlLCRESr MCA
« ratio* or m i«i »« mctiih >*. iouismp t
SWW. MIKE W MSI. Mk PtlKIPM ICItMMI. AS
ttiwan bcton .
res.fMiy, f'/tu
-------
D-3
-27-
*55 815262 815066 IIJBtfi 33SM# 0SI*
| «• m Q,Jffl hduaw XHU*tt
22 2 ACHECMCWT " M1
* this ikCjicotEarr, mJ* e«ur«d into tfcli Z- day
«c tStfft m by and bftww tlw r«tMTt
gs feMirvoii m4 Irrigation CuiT"r« MwlMftw reten«4 to ••
J riuco. and |M City of Owt»n]«wi, * municipal corporation
lng mwIif tU 1ms «l tkt Stat* of Colorado, kttciMftx referred
to u Nortbgleaa* HltMlMUt
the parties recognise that iwlntmnct of oat-
w < ar
.T • i istlng iwAl-ttkM ll»lkHf« 1« cucnUftl to M»UiiO»f a
S*' * able quality of !i(« to both tne mil mI wb« sector* i m4 9
2^5 —
• 2 ** WCIUS the parties M
-------
17 M3
S3D1 245
M4 tta lUitttloM oC th* parties win thm coitnet A«U bm
WMllWtl*
t, raco stell twatii Cm fro* oay ehUfatiow to
llftil wicr u WorthfUw «ntU s«cfc tta w Narl^lcM to*
wvUtd the eM«inet!«a» of bll htcnut| u4 n&iiti collection,
itwai*, tfe*tae«t« ami tnnMlMlw l«eUtti«s» eod kM wral b
Imim Ism » co«n «( cwyttMt JwdMictlm for wflieUnt direct
flow. aoderyrovod, aM ntor«f« Jrl»*t» to setiafy tfct oblfjaUou
vlOdi i% ioevri wader tkit >§ww»l, «al Iwtter lwi secured frai
tbe tatcf cwrt» Hitu Otviiiat Mo. i« epprowal of thli voter e*»
cheats XffUMMt. hirUfeiMmt WCO rwuiM »m*nccd eondmutlM
notions afaiMt fMCO and itt stockholdera* describing stundloy
l*kc a ad the voter tl$hts which ir* rclcrffd to le tUf *gre«-
aenti which actions ere now putdUq it» the District Court la aad
for 4cSfum County, Colorado. Korti>9lcan acVnovledyes that it
bake* this A^reenent with fell knovU^A of the liait-ations aad
XMtrictions inposed qjkm riUCO by Soch pending condemnation
actfoo*.
19* All adniAiatrative and 1*9*1 exptaees incurred
porsoaot to satisfying tbe lent and conditions of this Agreement
shall be borne by Horthfl«M and in addition, Horth^lcna agrees
to p«r vithia tfclrtf (»| days after billing trom 71UCP all
adaioistrstivc eed lefal expenses op to 1'anioun of $3*000 ie-
cvtred by FftlCA io tbe M)QtUtS«ti and prcptt ttion of thil ;.gte«-
ooot and related •9/MMnts. Northglenn further agrees# If re- -
qvested io writing by FAX CO to do to* to asatne the defease of any
UtiyttioD against FR2C0 a* a consequence of tta entering Into this
Afreeoeot and to bear all coats directly associated with any socb
litigation holding rtlCO hamlest for the S*r»t». However* io any
litigation comarnced ayklvct WCO ss a CMSe^venct of its enter-
i»f lote this A$reeoe»t# counsel representing both FK.XCO «ni
Pprtbglenn ehall have tbr right to participate,
11* At oo tie*, as a reselt of this A^rccvent* does
hortbgleno aegoire any appropriative rights to the water provided
by DUCO porrwant to this Ageeeatent. It is expressly recognized
sod enderstood* however* that io ordef to *((mt»te the intent of
the pertiea to this the sHatehold^ta of the Standley
lake dlvlsloo of miCO aay desire to eaust the creation of m
interest io their vator rights ia favor of the City of Aorth^lena.
My oyrveoont vhleh May be entered into between t-hc shareholders
aod the City of Korthgla^m ahall be consistent wiLb the terns
aod condition^ «af this Agreeswat aod *vU.(^«ciit addemhtat thereto.
11. It is expressly rcc*9*i»*d and ui-iersiocd that this
Agrecnent shall la oo toy operate or he cons true 4 •* a conveyance
2301 24G
17 en
-------
XI ej5 - 31-
2301 247
or of toy water rl^ti t* itortKfleMi] rather
UprtliytffM* «frwrt to mitaet ttlUk rUCO shareholders
|0T tl« (WtpOM Of Hrulll9 Um fltfhC M «« *y*tC* Mfftcon
plated iai deceriUd io tUi
IS. Sf by Mtrdi 1, 1977. H»tKfl««v tali* to provide
riOfO vrittM cvUcm* of lti ctptbUity to construct
or Mfalu thv wttu np^)y and ill iw««mr]p to I*-
plenent tU< HrHMMt «4 the of w*ter cmtMplatad,
till* Ay«*wt tlikH a^eutleaUr tiniMtt end b« of na fore*
•mi affect t«eepll«t only m to ttew obligation* of the pcrtln
lucwrei vnder the tern hereof |vi«r Co Ksrcb 2« JI7), vHleli prior
«Ml|atloni itMlt imik blodioy open iN respective pirties.
|l. KsrtkfUmi •frttt to ccaniH.1 acquisition tod con-
lUMtlM of tk fadtitivi i<9«ir«4 to hatisly the ttnt and pro-
visions kr«o( by 2, 1#7J ««i the of Aortl^kM
to iWLirT constroctlon of facilities at herein provided shell
ooteeeatteally terminate *1) of Northelen*'* tigbtt and pclviltfu
fcoreonder.
|l. < She t*» of tbl* A^rteaent ahaU comcnct on ka^traber
t, mi, m4 shall be In offset aod binding upon tba parties for
«v lMf an HMTihyteM stw)) be lo cofltonct with each of tba itrM
bod conditions bevoot.
Id. It wortbgSeoa nqaett* tod a^recf to boar all enpenaee
Incident thoro*o, tba partlo abalt lnaMatnly be9l« preparing
oo nddkndw to thin bqreoocnt setting forth io oil necvtcary detail
the otroetoral aod operational principles of the proposed water
oacbanye
2301 24?
37 9lS
17 BIG
ZB 01 21S
If# If* at a r**eit of mlCO Mktftf and altering into
thle Afreemrat* any cfea«$c io FWCD's tax st atus pursuant to
Article X« Section 9, of tba Colorado Constitution oecara.to
rniCO'a dftAdvantays* then bortfaplenn agrees to assune all fmco
obligation* arising directly (na tba change io it* tax status*
provided, however, that cbooid this provision be found to be
void a* contrary ta law or as outside tba scope of Horthglenn's
Booe-ftttl* Authority# tba llltfaUty thereof shall net. affect soy
ether provision of tbl* hflrveneat. Provided further that FRI CO
•ball be released froo any obligation under this Agreement U
tba event that ftortbflraa 1* prohibited by lav froo essuoiag
FX!CO's tan obligations as cooteoplated by this provision.
1$. The parties Wll wprjc in epopcr'tion with cn« «noth«r
aod their respective supportive staffs to injure the drslgA. con-
strnotleo, and operation of a systeo t^at will be mutually acc o~
lodatinf and will preserve the -intent of the parties a* evidenced
by tfcia Afreeoeot.
tt WITRCSi WSnor« the perties have rtecoted the fere-*
poiof AfrttMPl io duplicate original counterpart* on tbe day
first above written.
Ittcttt
3A.1
Secretory
ths tf-jv.zss iirs£iR*oiR kho irrigation
coufwrr
Auviphrun,-,icr-oci, Pxe^xoenc.
t
Attectt
O \~r*Jhz
^ I Clerk
-• * :
ciTt or KoirorcLom
9*t V~' r~- /^,
Alvin n. Thnnltt ' "
JaVin's. Ifioftat, M^yoc
¦t C . .
barold. T. i-od^es, ttayor Pio
cj* u cciscijrr
caa.!tB.etj/
<• _ .. .uif .:V»sr:jc»»
t-it tr, r_: '
L Uftn Vt A ]
13$*;
•i{3 |2
7«vA1
4<1 H4C
-------
WPOLCO ~ 7AR6ZT ARCA
« HKUCM Of m MK1N 1/2 MM1MHS1 1/4 SKIiOR U M*
m N0RWIAS1 |/< fiWlNlASI 1/4 SU1IM IS, ttUNSNlt
2 soma, rami a mi. tu miwirnt wrioim, as
rniHtui* Hifti.
sr
V
(III
r.ZS^ r»PJA
*enii»T c"
COUUCIUtAN
COUNCILMAN'S BILL ORDINANCE NO.
MO. __
Series of Seties of
All ORDINANCE rod THK PNOrtCTION or THt NORTIKiLENN
fttUC SCMCHS B* tSTABLt SUING RL'5TR] CT 2 CMS ON THEIR
OSB* B* SETTING STANDARDS FOR CONNECTIONS, AND BY
BCSOLATINC THE D1SC8AKC AND PRETRf AmENT OP INDUSTRIAL
HASTES;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Ot THE CITY OF
NOKTNGLENN, COLORADO
-------
iKTEtiT us nmrost
Section 1. luteal jwI htrrotf
(•| It is tin intent Md tmrpotr of tkc City of Konhglcixi lilw *City")
in protect the pcblic. healtb, wlety, abd welfare of its citizens by
IKovMinf a muck s|«tm tint is adcfotely Maintained and pre|wciy
Ntilliod.
tb> It is the Intent of tlw-Clty to ImIM, operate and Maintain #
public sanitary sewer systaa for tin kw«fit of its citizens.
(c| Provision has been Mode in tin dosijn, construction and operation
of such facilities to aceonaodate certain types and quantities of
industrial vastes in addition to normal wtsKutteti ln4 tin City believe*
ft is the obligation of the producers of industrial waste to defray tin
coats of the wastewater treatment services rendered fay tin City of
Mortbglcnn is a* ©qoltable mwnsr and* insofar as it is practicable,
in proportion to benefits derived.
In addition, protection of tin qoality of tin effluent and proper
operation of tin wastewater collection and treatiaent facilities and
quality of effloent my refdr* either the •xclntios, pratrestscnt.
or controlled diacbtfr^e at' paint of ocisia of certain types or ^ueatities
oi industrial waste*.
fd| tt is the desire of tbn city to partially finance tin public
sanitary sever system vitb • construction grant Iron, tbe United Stater
Environmental Protection l^feney (tbe "&?**)» and whereas tbe CPA requires
a sewer use and pretreatneat ordinance as a condition of the constitution
Vmti it is tlaerefore tbe intent of tbe City to coxply vlth that
condition, end with all other provisions of tbe clean Mater Act.
I» B-S.C. tfini .let scg.l
>1
iwrisurJiRS
Unless the contest cpc-clC>«.il)y indicates otherwise. Hit- »c.t:iinnic
mttci unr.c-r standard laboratory procedure i» (ivc (S> days
at 21 ds^rctt Centigrade, expressed in sllligt^cis per liter.
2. "building drain' shall man that part of the lot.-sst horiz.»r.t«i
piping of & drftir^e cyst era which receiver th;? di-^ciiaryc frou
soil, waste* and other d?aiiui£tt piper insiOc the- trolls of the
building ar.:2 conveys it to the building s«*«?r, to-winning five
IS) feet (l.S actcrs) outside the inner face of the building
Mil,
•S. "building sever" rhall aca» the cxtenr.iui froai the building
drain to the pub):; sever or other place o£ «iLi»>»sl, also
called houses lateral and house connect:ion.
4. "City* shnl 1 asan the City of ^orth^enn, Colorado, or any
authocixed person acting in its telull.
i. "C.O.D." (Chc-aticnl 0»:y«jcn necand) shell ncen the Ksfcrgcs
in th« public sever.
9. "Director' rhall c.ean the Director 02' fublj'- l.'crk of the
City of Xortb^lcnn or bis duly aoihorited rcf res?»t^tivfc.
It. "Easeaortt" shall Peer, an acquired legul tierJv pr;> -
trcated end the wastewater cocs not it.:.erfo«t- mth t.!>e ch'jk
systcn.
-------
U.
*«.
is.
it.
M
H4
ui
1*.
M.
».
21.
'C-irb:^-* r.(wM I»w Miml aa< rew,--4'l«r
menu: of M«trir, iumIkuiIm. trade at huliien, tron the
lenlifou of niuul Ktano. « .-.ay Mixture of Unas
axta vita mtcar « m»l K»to««.
•|tay* ti (cnlittw taoa '«taU/ toe. »l.
>utvi< ootlot" dull MM aoy lKlattui »wt» «Mm
Mi eufclwsd sever mtllm, into « wtticMrK, pond,
tltck. lake. or olhci Mr «¦' "«'»« »* jrooodwtar.
'Overload* l.
iodntrial pl«at». and lnatitutioaa toother xith aim
faantitiM ot jrooad. cton. aad aarfaca iaat«a u»l era not
adaitted iateatleoally.
•time* |a the apeat wttt of a ceemeity. fke preferred
tor* Is "mitwter,' Vectioo 14.
•hw ahall sea* a pipe or coadalt that carrioa ««»<(«
ar draiaa$e Mater.
"Sliair urt.itofy |tc« "wy," . ! ''
steili M-4K 9n« dl&cHartje tC u«u «»f dwtftio#/ Jut'tr »J*a» i}JUt»
|l!») ttihulru vote tW fitfi 45| liout lu* ftvsriw.o twn-v out
tKt imir* rtmccetrfttfton or !}ot». <3uri.:i m»« «l opef^tion unt!
fMl ^dvrrstfly affect the cnHcctjtm ky^Uu aivJ/ov prcCor^nc-
of the v«ste>iati!( ttcaincnt votkc,
25. IfCthoOs" shall refer to the J-*tint edition of
'StMdard MiMe lor th% Csastinaiicn t»? end W«tlr VTati-
pbMi&hcrf by tbt JtfKtieaik Public M^-dith s'tSsociation,
H. "Star* drain" (*o»ell*c« termed "stor* shall e*"&o »
drain or *ct.-er for convetrifl^ water, ^mn'iwAter, cuf»scrf*ec
water, <*r unpolluted v»ti»x fros* a«y mute:, nr»4 into vhirh
dObctUc wastewater or industrial vdstet. are not intentionalJ*
pksccd.
ST. *S«cpef.j«) solids" shall ntaa t£>t<*2 susr^rfod z*attct the*
either floats on the surface of, or is in si>&p1 these acts or u^s»io.is.
U. "Trap" toaans a device designed to skiq, settle, or ett.cr'.'iac
s ewove creese oil* sand, ftausatSc wast tit oi ottet tuuaiul
fnluurie«a.
)•. 'fapoUtttcd water" Is vater of qunUty et»ua! to or better
th«» the effloent exitaris in effect or "Ate:: that voulg not
cause viuhtlon of receiving water qua J Hj- ct^rd^rd* zr.J tou)
not be benefited by discharge to the unitat; scvots va&»
water treetnent facilities provided.
««. "Waste* stnll Mean selected, tt»u*iiited or sunerflwMsv sv>l>-
staiiccs ia lipoid, ^esloes, or solid for*, resulting ftca
aoskcstic, agricvltutil, or Industrial activities.
1?« "HistcViter* £halJ bean t!w apeftt *w*ter of s eerwaunll*'- Frc*a
the standpoint of aoarce, it ewsy be a co»l>irarcial tulldv::r
industrial plants, and institut£oraf.« tojctacr with any cjro»:r.c
*ater, car Seer water, end stotrv^ve* th«>t nay be i»rctent „
-I-
-------
jj. •t'.wlciMiw .clllHcti* shall mtm th* tr. 'jfttt, «|it||«iisnt(
awl imnx-wncN rwjulrwl to tolk-ct, e.irry awl tr«»l
AMMlic mh! industrial v-iistes «.j din|4>&o of lha cCllttcnt.
94. •K*#lwtcr treatuent worfcn* sfe.1) «eM an Arr**x*c»c»t ©|
dwifcs# awl structures for kreatii^ uMlcwuter* Amloasrial
wtter., and slwloc. Sonetiecs tird m i/MtiiKMi with "tact*
trcabieiit plant" or "wastewater tiMtwflt pla:.i* or 'wtet
polUliM control plant."
35. 'watercourse" chaU mm • Mtural or artificial channel for
tk passage of water dttu contimxrocly or inter isit Lent ly.
J6. 'A.S.T.H.* shall «e*» the American Society Testing tutorials.
37. "tr.r.c.r." shall wan theUater Foliation Control Federation.
AHTJCU. 122
u.«: oi* tUBLtc s:»-xr. hcguiitt.
KocticM l. y.>r.tc ^
fa) It shall k*e wnlawfwl for any person to pl.irc, vr
to he 4e(ioiiite4 in wy vnvanitary nanner on public oi puvate property
within tho City of Northglcnn (the "City*) or In any orca uuJor the
jurisdiction of said City, any hunan oc aniia&l excrement, garbage, or
other objectionable waste.
fb) Unless exception is granted by the Director, or unless otherwise
controlled by state or federal, lav, all djschargos oi vastewalcr, ind-
ustrial uat.te, or other polluted liquids shall txs tu the public sanitcry
sewer rysten.
(c) The Birec.9t shall verify prior to'discharge th««t wastes authorized
to be discharged will receive suitable treatnent within the provisions
of laws* regulations, ordinances* rules and order* of federal, st^tc
and local governments.
Section 2. Unlawful Discharge.
It shall be unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet, water course,
or stcrsi sewer within the City or in any area within the jurisdiction of
the City, any wastewater, industrial waste, or other polluted liquids,
except where suit-Ms trestneat has been provided in actcrdance with
subsequent provisions of this ordinance, end state and federal law.
Section J. Prohibitions CactM Severs.
Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful to construct or
isjintain any privy, privy vault, septic tank, tcss)«K>l, or other facility
intended or used for the disposal of wastewater.
-------
Section 1- ,» Snty,
«Mier« of »U Jwwm, Iwilci^s, or properties used for hum*n
occHfMRCf rmmtiMi, or other related purpose*, situated
tf|(Mir (ke City afcottlwf on nay *t*rct, alley, or rl*fc*-of~w»y in
tAidi (bete is mm located or Nf In the fotnre be locate * pab)Jc
Mwiury ei cMIwd «ci«r of the City, i* terriy tetpiitH to
toilet facilities therein. lit addition, the ownu Mit ctso
cQAMcet soch tMUUiM directly %ith the pt«pc» public twlt«y sever
i* accordance tfc* provision* of Mil* ordinance tMl with Iforthqlenn
Hanic.vaUj-fel:.
».1>crc * public sanitary or combined set*** is not h-allabl«. unJui tl«:
provisions of Article 1)1, Section 4# the b-illdiny M-wcr shall 'nc. con-
nected'to * private %s»utcw»Vcr disposal xysters ccx^ilylng with the ptovis.it:..
of tMc article.
Section 2. Pctctt for rrlvate Sxtta.
Hetare co«a«t*:c*c:\t cf ean^tiuction of a private vaste*at«t di&posal
tyilen the cxncf shall first obtain a wiUtn» permit signed by the
director of *he Department of Public tiorfcs Ithe "Director*). the app-
lication for *»eb per mi t shall be sutde on a io*m ivrnished fey the City,
vfeich the applicant c>w)l supplenant by any plan*. cp-citrjiaticn^,
other information as are dtcaed necessary hy the Director. A pefir.it
and inspection tec of f shall be paid to the City at the tis»c
tie application is filed.
$ectlon 3. final Inspection fry director.
> pcrnit for a private wastewater dicpo&al r,ys-tt* shall not become,
effective until the installation is co«?ieteJ to the satisfaction ci
the Wrc-ctor- The director shell be allowed to inspect the uark at
tm* *t*se of coKstractitf.'j, a«f, in any ev«.nt, the applicant lot the
permit Shall notiry the Director when the vork 1 c ie*Cy for finaj
inspection, and before* «ny underground pot-iu.is arc coveted.
*Uer notification, the Director m>*S1 inspect lb, sy*tea within
days.
-P-
-------
4. f4nf.it tcatitws.
*1 f typo* c^wclUes« miIm, ant) l*yowt o{ « ' ,wale w-tc««ilcr
disposal cyKtcM cki)l comply with all rocoyacmSntiona end ro^alntions el
the Colorado tfe-partuunt o( Health and Mms County. Ho permit stall bo
issued fox any private wastewater disposal ijrctoi employing subsurface
Mil absorption facilities where the area of the lot is less then _____
iqmrr feet. Mo septic tmmk or ccu)wt>l shall tie permitted to discharge
to Mf Mtsral outlet.
Section >• Hawdatory Connections.
At such time as a pidiUc sanitary sever becomes available to a property
eerved by a private wastewater disposal system, sc provided in Article
JH, section 4, a direct connection shall be made to the fwblic sever
Within 129 day* in compliance with this ordinance. Any septic tanks,
cesspools, and similar private wastewater disposal facilities shall.be
cleaned of sl.wdse and filled with suitable material.
Section i. Private Maintenance.
Ihe owner shall operate and maintain the private wastewater disposal
facilities in • sanitary Snrer at ell tines* at no expense to the City.
Section 1. Additional IwirtSHiSS.
Bo statement contained in this article shall be construed to interfere
with sny additional requirements that amy be imposed by the Oireetor or
local.' coeaty* and state health officiate.
fctavicu: V
SAffiTAnv stt.tas, wiiuuuc* ^ i->:« co:;jcctio.;
Section 1. I>»mmbancf of r»Mic s^-'ert.
Wo wAttthDiiird perron itu)1 unrovc:. ry|:o any ton'icctJwis with or
opening into* use* alter* or disturb any j..blic never or «ua-.liuzrj s,tvf. w
wrienaeffr! thereof without first oM_o;ning ? jr>ttc» permit from the
Director.
Section 2. Se»«cr fcrwits.
fhere shall be too (7| classes of b^iicinr, sv'.vr pcrolt-s-. <«) {«n
residential and nonsefciel service* tml (b) {or service io c*t*M*f.h.v
producing industrial vast.es. In eit)i>i Koitiple Severs.
k separate and independent building ?-e« er rhalj be provided for every
ballding; except where one builcing stands at the tear of another on u
interior lot and no private sewer is avai}ah>L- or c*rj be constructed t
the rear bnildin$ through an adjoining alley. court, yard, or drive.-sj-
In that, case, the building sewer fror.i the /xojil building r.»ay he exter.tf
-10-
-------
to the «ear mm* Hn «ho)e cpMidctcd as f t*»i Jdi*9 nt-wcr.
DM cUy «k*cs wt a»4 vlSi vol tewac any obU^atlwi or rcs|»ntilblUiy
fw jam*90 by or icMilUaf fiui My tvch single connection.
twtiM 5. OH Sever*.
Oil NiMinf eesterm my bo scci In MuwctiM with new tailAlnfs only
mIm tkey are toml, on cxani nation «ri test hy tte BJrector, to meat
aU re^alccawntt o( this ahUMMW.
ficefciM ft. ft»wlflcatlon»»
lit i1m( slope* «Ufmmt end Mterlali of construction of ell sanitary
Mwr* iaclttdl** beildinj •weri, and the vitbods to be vied in ttcavf UIMIih .; t*, puMic 5. ¦*-»»
Tffc® w«w»*xlitin o( the building sewer intii t!i<* .'.mitf.ry h«.>vr s?»..ll
croofom to Lhe requirements uf tho UiilUir.g iinO plumbing Kwtk« t.t ntlsur
npplicablo mice and refutations of Urn City, or the procedures. tot
forth in appropriate specifications oi the VS.T.H. am! tlic K.P.C.r.
ol Practice Ko. J. ail soch connections shall be awicte gastighi
ond watertight and verified by proper testify. Any deviation {ton thfe
prescribed procedures and Materials mist be approved by the Director
before installation.
Section 10. infMfrctlon Prior to Connection.
The applicant for the building sever permit shall notify the biruttos- vht-
thc building sever is reedy for in&pection krJ connection to the In-
sanitary sewer. The connection and testing shall be nadc under the?
supervision cf the Director or his tcpcescr.tativc.
Section II. Protection sr.
-------
ARTICLE VI
use cm* me rtmuc sakitaky socw
Section 1. fr<»hjt»j I irm of Storauatcr Discharge to Sanitary Severs.
Ho pcison shall discharge or cmsc to bo discharged any unpolluted
water* sue* as storiMter, »»rfaca Mter, groundwater, tool runotf,
«nbs«!«c« drainage, or cooling water to any public sanitary 6 person shall discharge at cause to be discharged any of the £ol-
lowing described liquids or wastes to any public sanitary sewers:
(1) Any gasoline, benaene, naphtha, fuel oil, or other (laattable
or explosive liquid* solid, or gas.
fl) Any waters containing toxic or poisonous.solids* liquids, or
gases in sufficient quantity* either singly or by interaction with
other wastes, to injure or interfere with any sewage treatment
process, constitute a hasard to hunann or aniaals. create a public
nuisance, or create any hasard in the receiving waters of the vesta;
treatment plant.
-M-
(31 Any w "viUv lt.iv 11»| .« p|| lf*,.vr ;1 •» f-.i «-r a
I'M hlijhci lluu 9.5; or biiviwi any otho corrosive ol
tfataagc or IrtSArtl to btruclurcs, t*iui|*uciil, ainJ ;^rfior.r.?l of lha ^
vastevsler work*:.
Ml Any waters uactf for the* purpose <>( diluting wsb'-cs wtuih would
exceed applicable KAxinuK concentrations limitations.
(5) Wastes, other than concstic hc-wagc, fror* any k'spital,
Mercantile, Manufacturing cr industrial establishment, or eny st.c.a,
hot gaaes or vapors, grease fats, oils, acids, carbon, iron, or
Mineral wastes, ox nny other wastes which would tend to ohstiuct
the public sewer, to be injurious to the public health, crente odors
be d«tet*ar»tal to the aewnrage works, or which *>oulc! interfere
with the proper repair or Mintcnenco of the seb'c(«;c *.yf,tca, the
operation and Maintenance of the disposal works or the proper treat-
ment of doacstic sewage, or which results after trcat.zo.it in an
effluent which is detrixental to life or health.
U) Objectionable or toxic substances, exerting an excessive
chlorine requirement or to such degree that any such Material re-
ceived in the ccMposite wastewater at the wastewater treatment %-orka
exceeds any imitations established by the Director lot such rthteriaJ
Ol Wastewater fro* industrial plants contalnios float-Able oiJs.
IS} Any radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-lite or cup-
centration as oay exceed licit* established by the Ujtocioi or
other proper authorities in coapliance with applicable &ti»te of
federal regulations.
-1<-
-------
19} v*u>N»il-ica c Dow, ccmceDtratieM, or *th whieU cbnuliiwte
a "«>ug* «* deOMiI in Aciiclo 1I# Section 24.
{!•) tillers or wstcs amtaliinf substances which are not wxMblc
to tti*»i«cot or reduction |y tint wastewater treatment processes
esploytdf or are amenable to tiMtae»t only to such degree thit the
wslewicr treatment plant effluent cannot neat the requireswnts
of oilier agencies having juiidictim over discharge to the
receiving voters* Any water or wastes which, by interaction with
other wator or wastes ia the public sanitary sewer system, release
obnoxious gases, fore suspended solids which interfere with the
collection system, or create a condition deleterious to structures
and treatment processes.
(11) All waste, wastewater, or other substances containing phenols,
hydrogen sulfide, or other taste-and-odor producing substances, whicr.
S3
H do not conforo to concentration limits as to be established by the
VO
director, after treatment of the coeposite wastewater, concentratier.
limits nay not exceed the requirements established by state, fed-
eral, or other agencies with Jurisdiction over discharges to re-
ceiving waters.
{12) tio person nay discharge garbage into public sewers unless it
is shredded to a degree that all particles can be carried freely
under the flow conditions normally prevailing in public severs,
rartlcles greater than one-half (1/2) inch in any dimension are
prohibited. Tfee Director is entitled to review and approve the
installation and operation of any garbage grinder equipped with a
notor of three-fourths ()/<) horsepower (O.K bp metric) or gre&ter.
-15-
(b) c.irb.i«j«; grimU-t :- cbnnccUil u> '/ •" rr. l:tn ikiii-j,
hotels* institutions, irsllvalu. cii . J«l»l *
or sisltiir |>)aces where garbage originates £:©;* the prr|';u.»tior. cf food
In kitchens for the purpose of ccmsca^lion or the jutniytD oi vhen
served by caterers.
Section 4. l*iohibluJ l>isch.tr«ics - Specific.
|a) The following described substances, nalrrial: , wjtcrs, ci waste
shall be limitod in discharges to the public unitary frcwcr to concc-ntra
tlens or quantities listed below. 7$tO Director soy set limitations love
than the limitations established In the regulations below if in his cpirs
more -severe limitations are necessary for the prevention of ham to
either the severs, wastewater treatsaat process or etjuipm-nt, tc prevent
an adverse effect cm rhe receiving stream, o> to not otherwise endengsr
lives, liabi or public property, or constitute a nuisance. In foruinn
his opinion as to the acceptability, the Director vll' oive consitV-rrtii.
to such factors as the quantity of subject waste in relation to flo.ss
and velocities in the sewers, materials of construction of the stwrij
the wastewater treatment process exployed, capacity of the wastew.it« *
treatment plant, and ether pertinent factors. The limitations oz
restrictions on auterials or characteristics of vasto or vastrwaters
discharged to the public sanitary sewer which shall net lie violated
without approval of the Director nre as follovs:
|1) fcastevatcr having a temperature higher Ihen ISO* rahrenbeit
(6S* Celsius), or any substance which causes the tcnpciature o» th.
total wastewater treatment plant influent to incrwic «t a rate of
ten (19) decrees Fahrenheit or icore par hour, or <• coraMned tote)
increase of plant inflcnnt temperature to one liuu^rr.! ten (110)
degrees Fahrenheit.
-------
f-"" ' i '11 • « • « «..n, ^ fj/J ;
l1' ' "" 1 'I »' !*¦•.»• I )»."'! I l:ft" ' •! i»» lift* l f|
t'Mi-- I,-, cnit. it«.;. •jM-.ilr.-t lt»*« 219 «**)/};
t!'J &ul«- • » t_ >u:in; (» tKri .-.tlwt C)>rnlc."i) Dsj-jtn Dnumt
(!•> Tt-rj-r n 11or pli^iinj or cunccitlrati'd j»t • *
-i .-ih.-j nfutra) ixr>d or not;
(?J If'U. or oils, ubcUier eMulslfied or in t $
e*cc;r of i<;.o hunOnd (10*) iaj/1 or coiiliioir.g fmbntn" **
nay or ti.-co^c vlncovs *st tc^U't ltutrs fn»;v ¦ ¦ M t
<3?| a*J tr. •• hti^iexl fifty l*S©> £* m* ¦¦-* rahwn? -5* f> „,l ,,
CentJcrari-I;
ft) Wa^tr v.iicr rrntoinjntt ,or* !W r* ¦>'* Uig - ,. ;
.pr.lrojcu* rcf firj pM::, -r j>
mineivt ci) origin.
19) The i .illek'ahlf concentre*v <*f »»• v,» t-it-
h> in turn, r-f nil JS-jr®.* f~r Die, |mg.'ft, r>„ : i.j t-
N
© ot in<| |n accorcwe St*ndaMl v»,'-5
_•*:/) i
»9/l:
?
_og/li
_»g/l?
•9/1/
*9/1}
joq/l»
_«g/l}
17-
()d) Ad«1lt«i>ti.i| f»rf/ »ilnl he.v/y nji.tls >/r.d I* t* fHnly.;.
tfUl nrc not HmKii} to:
An tJaony*
fcsryl Miwi,
BiiMith,
Cobalt*
Ho) yfcjonwtt,
Viitnyl ion.
MmnitM,
StRMltiutt,
Tel J'jriun,
HetbiciiK'S.
Ftm^lcidcsi and
Pesticides.
-------
o» BkCCii&ive diwolwation but nut ) tailed to
(A| djx* iMStccj amI
IK} veytUble tanning solutions* or
<41 BOD, C00« or chlorine deumd in eKcess of noruai plant capacity.
(e| Ho person nay discharge into public, severs any substance that
fit deposit grease or oil In the sewer linen in such n Manner
•« to clog the sevnrs>
111 overload skiming end grease handling equipment»
()) pass to the receiving waters without being effectively treated
fey noreal wastewater ttratwent processes dee to the honancnability
of the to bacterial action; or
(4) deleteriously affect the treatment process due to excessive
quantities.
|s) |d) Mo person My discharge any sutmtance into public severs which:
H «1| is not aueaable to trutMtnt or reduction by the processes end
facilities enployedj or
|2| is MeMble to treetsasait only to such a degree that the
treatment plant effluent cannot cwet the requirements of other
agencies having jurisdiction over discharge to the receiving waters,
(el the Director shall regulete the flow and concentration of slugs
when they nay
(1) Inpeir the treatment processs
Ol cause dawagc to collection facilities}
(HI incur treatment costs exceeding thoee for nornal wastewater; or
Wl render the waste unfit for streaa disposal agricultural or
industrial use.
-19-
jlj Mi) jiccumi 'wy tli»rcjt* inlf» stw ru J'
-------
(I-) c«»nr.»«!,-» Jw l*c .ill vrn.it iv.J. in m»I» . • «»l. »l« t#i».ti«»r
i4m1) cojiIicl of c . ~h uliurnittivo cm
tfcc dit-•*j: J - Ml *r. shall* at his own expense and as required
-f »».« .¦
i
;'| . .lc and safely located control manhole;
• U i.. i other appurtenances to facilitate observation
i »: t of the wastoj and
f ;| f. . i > , I r,. • juipw.:-,' ! il '••••II it irs.
IV.« ion » Discharges •«»'»« » • r »j.
fa) Discharges requiring a trap Inrluda: ..rcat... or waste containing
grease in excessive amounts; oil} s*«J; fJamcuble uastes; and other ham'
ful ingredients, as determined by thf director.
fb) Any person responsible for discharges requiring a trap shall at his
own expense and as required and approved by the Directors
11) provide eqeips?nt and facilities of a type and capacity appr&vei
by the- Director; and
(31 lfu:*«tf I he trap In a tli.it j»:ov:i!cs umiIj* .mil y
necessJbility ffo. cleaning and mr.prctioi;; .<1
(1) maintain the tray In effective aerating cucdltioi).
|c) In the tuinteMiiet of these tr«ips, tin* ownor shall be
responsible for ths proper rcnov&l and dj1 by appropriate meanc of
the captivated material and shall maintain rcconU oi the dates, and
a^ans of disposal which are subject to review by the Director. Any
removal and havling of the collected nau.ri«ls i'Ot performed by ot.ner
personnel must be performed by currently licensed vastn disposal liin.s.
Section 9. Information Requirements.
(a) -The Director may require a user o* public Lsnitary sever &urvic«u
to provide information needed to fietcrcinc co^nJisnce with this ordinance
(b) These requirements amy inclvdc, but are rv.»t limited to. the follcn.i:.
(1) wastewaters discharge peak rete and volume over a specified
tiae period;
|2) chemical analyses of wastewater!.;
(3) Information on rw materials, processc*,, and products alfcctj.is
wastewater vol\n«e and quality;
|4) quantity and disposition of specific liquid, r:lo<2gc:# oil, «.<-lver.
or other materials 1 important to sev»r use crntrol;
(SI e plot plan of severs of the user's property ^howjrig &ev»r ttud
pxctreatment facility location;
ft) details o 1 wastewater pretrcatr.ent facilities; and
if) details of systems to prevent end conitol the losses of
materials through spills to the municipal si-wer.
Section 1C. Standard* for Analysis.
(a) All uatai««snts( tests? and analysts of Uio characteristics of
waters and wastes to which reference is i^-ade in this otuinancc shall bs
determined in accordance with the latest edition of "Standard iletho'Js
-------
for tke I': ot tfcttcr and published by the A*ci ic«n
M>)lc N.y1th *;. c iHiOR.
(b) •••¦* >lr.( location. tlMt« duration*, and frequencies are
ti> tie dLluhiti I «<.i an iikdiv/diM} bad* Mbject to approval try the
f»irrct
-------
AKTJCIX VII1
KNaNS MID MrrlKUHTV Of 1IBMXTWS
Section 1. Bight of Entry.
fa) Hie Director and other My Mttwrliwi employees of the City beafic
projwr credentials and identification shall be permitted to enter all
properties for the purposes of inspection* observation, aeiMrcaeiit,
moling, and testis pertinent to discharge to the* public sanitary sewer
system In accordance vith the provisions of this ordinance.
-------
•Ml IA
ri^u.i.Tirs mju vur&Xi&iun
fcctitfd 1. {totite.
Mty person found to be in violation of nty provision of this ordinance
shall be Mrvcd Ly the City Mith written notice stating the future
Of Ik violation nod provided a reasonable tiw liadt for the
satisfactory correction thereof. The offender itaU, within the period
Of tiMO frtitld in Such Motico, permanent)/ cease *11 violations.
Metion 2. Penalties.
My pWM»n who shall tftukiMM M| violifcioa beyoiid the tin* Unit
provided for in Article XX* Section 1, shell bo fvilly of a Rtlsdeswaaer,
end on conviction thereof shall ho fined in the oaoont not exceeding
1MH ttend&ed toUut for each violation, or by ieprisonoent
Jft tha City or County Jail not to exceed ninety (99) days, or by both
fit* end isprisoniaent. Each day In which any violation shell
ctntiwe shall be deetaed n separate offense.
Section J. toes to Citv.
Juy person Violating uqr &f thn provisions of this ordinance shall becoce
1 labia to the City for hny expense, loss or damage occasioned the city
by mmm ot ftttdi violation,
taction I. bestructlon of Property.
tin person shall UlieiMftly a willfully, or neslifmtly break, daasge,
destroy, uteov-cr, deface, or tanper with any structure, appurtenance or
cqttlpoent vhich is S part pi the public sanitary sower or related vaste-
stat facilities. Juiy person violating this provision shall bo subject
to infctdlate arrest under charge of disorderly coquet.
lU'Cilon !>. of SjTvias
|a) TIio City fc-iy U't»S»»ate Mlci ami vajtwatfr ewvj»v ,l(Kj
disconnect any evfilOMcr fro* the system wher. »ny ol the iol?owln«j cceut r.:
(II eciJs or chmitaU (tsaagl^ to tt-.»cr lines or trcat>v.*nc |>toc
are rrleacod to the scucr causir.t) rauid dtlc/owJion oi these
structures or interfering with proper conveyance and frefttno.t ©f
wastewaters
fil a governmental agency inforoo the City th.it the rffluc.it trar.
the wastewater treatnant plant is no longer >if a quality pomittci
foe discharcrs to a valcrcflursc, and it is 1wr>C! that the custoucr
if delivering wastewater to the City's sy*:.< ? that cannot k-
sufficiently treated or requires trtiitjjent thfit is r>ot provided 1y
the City as iiorMl domestic treatment.
(b| The City shell continue disconnection until &vch tire as. the.
industrial customer provides additions) prcUe»i"-.»t or other (facilities
design d to remove the objectionable charicttrir-i ics trots the industrial
wastes•
Sectim I. Other Keectirs.
|el )i» additon to proceeding under authority of this article, the city
is entitled to pursue a)i other ctisdivil and civil readies to which
it is-entitled under authority of statutes, or c'.h-:r ordnances 8«iUi* t
9 person continuing prohibited discharges.
|h! la addition to sanctions provl«!ud for by *.b5r oxsSiuer.ce, the City
is entitled to cserc'se sanctions provided for «•; tfco oUer or<5ina.»ce5
of the City for failure* to pay the bill lor va**.»r ;ntl 6ar:it
-------
VM4MTI
I^IIm 1< OmfUctlox OrJkiwcca.
All wy of - « 1W .
XIVJiTb.' "TImus"" jUyoF '
tv>
ATTEST:
O*
Utciey MRItlM',Ticy Cieirk
Aitnrai as to rotm*
duties L. Slurp, Jf.. ci%y jktterMi
•EXHIBIT 0"
S*t forth beJotf «re the midcnccs «i^ erecs in
Morthglcnn to be provide*) with t.f w»9c ser«ic«^ by
Thornt cm *i *et forth in PatagraH1 5 be*c«>f. (Sie
attached sup which ta incorporated herein.)
1, Tolwfn SubldlWslon
}Ioc*te)
Block 2, lots 5 through 1ft
Mock 3, lots 4 through 17 and J7 through 23
Deck 4, Lot* f through il
Block 7, loti 1 through 37
Block $, tots 1 through 34
Block 10* Lota 2, 3, a«d 4
Block 22* Lot 1
Block 23, Lot 17
2. Pen Estate*
Block t. Lot 35
-------
NORTH-UOR AREA
• nuimor m somen 1/4, sectionnn«
raniim m >m mimni i/«, sicjim h. iouskif
t seum. mm u hsi. mi> mikihi kiimm
to
K>
Hi
M*U « Ki t
T.es^x.cew,
"EXHIBIT E*
PillltY E»tent to Third Addendum, dated
•0/33/71 (Book 1737, pp. 172-175)
I. fourth Addendum, dated 02/11/74 (Book.
1914, pp. 996-940), as avended.
2. Tramswestern Investment Co.
a. UO»C, dated 03/12/56
b. Asclfweatt dated 07/10/61
c* Mendwnt, dated 09/19/6)
A. Assignment, dated 04/01/63 (Bool; 1191,
pp. 404-407)
*• Stipulation and Agreement, dated 06/05/10
(Book 1605, pp. 192-20?)
(« Assignment, dated 03/15/73 (Book 2013,
pp. 264-260)
f, UCPC, dated 06/30/50
3. Tol-Win Corp.
a. UEFC, dated 07/20/56 (Boo* 1)91, pp.
473-474)
-------
s.
to
CO
4.
7.
ft.
b. Addenda*. dtt«d 01/20/00
C. harndMent to AddeodUM, dated 05/21/7©
d« Second Mdcndua, dated - 02/15/74 (Book
1920, pp. 170-170)
Berg t »o>Hi>>
«. VEPC, d«te4 •)/}l raM s
These consist of all water and srvtr ^jvlre
agreements between the Cily of Thorns-- and
Horthwcst Utilities users within . thu HotihoJcnn
City limits.
-------
D-4
1M HIE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR' '-'L-tRK
HATES DIVISION MO. I
STATE OF COLORADO
Case Ho. 79-CV- J3S
IN HIE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF
NORTHGl.ENH
IN THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
IN JEFFERSON, ADAMS AND HELD
COUNTIES.
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE
OF WATER RICHTS
1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
City of Korthgltm
iHusick, Williamson, Schwartz. Leavenworth & Cope, P.C
P.O. Bo* 4579
Boulder, CO 80306
Telephone: 499-3990
2. DESCRIPTION OF HATER RICHTS AFFECTED:
(a) Applicant is the owner of shares In tbe following mutual
ditch companies:
III Farmers llighllne Canal and Reservoir Company. Applicant
owns 7.71Z5 ouE ot 1094 shares, or U./T. ot the company. Tbe
company owns the following decreed water rights with a prt»ent
point of diversion out of Clear Creek. The headgate thereof is
located on the north bank of Clear Creek in K. 1/2 of the S.W.
1/4 of Section 27, In Township 3 South, Range 70 West in
Jefferson County, Colorado, about eight hundred sixty IB60) feet
South 7 JO' east (Magnetic bearing) from the N.E. corner of the
W. if2 of said section 27, in Bush and Fisher's Addition to
Golden, four hundred forty seven 1447) feet vest of the east line
of said Addition and four hundred fifty (450) feet south of
Platte St. in Hater District *o. 7.
a. The Uadsworth Ditch, priority no. 1 in
former water district no. 7, for 0.276 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation purpose;
fro* Clear Creek with an appropriation date
of February 25, I860, decreed on October
4, 1884, transferred to Farmers llighl ine
Canal by decree dated June 6, 1907.
Tbe South Side ML eh, prixjrfcy no. 3
In former water district no. 7, for l.oo
cubic feet of water per second Lor trri^aLinn
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of Hay 16, I860, decreed on October
4, 1884, transferred to Farmers lti[;hliuL-
Canal by decree dated April 70, 1109.
c. Tbe Onelette Ditch, priority no. 5 in
former water district no. 7, tor 3.281 tunic
feet of water per second for Irrigation purposes
from Clear Creek with an appropriation 'tal-e
of May 31, 1860, decreed on October 4. IB34,
transferred to Farmers Highline Canal \>y
decree doted January 22, 1913.
d. The Farmers Hlghline Canal, priority
no. 9 in former water district no. 7, [or
39.80 cubic feet of w.iter per second foi
irrigation purposes from Clear Creek with
an appropriation date of July 1, 1860, decreetl
on October 4, 1884.
e. The Farmers lligbline Canal, priority
no. 30 in former water district no. 7, tor
1.61 cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of May 28, 1863, decreed on Octot^.v
4, 1H84, transferred to Farmers Hlghlifie
Canal by decree dated February 1, 1910.
f. The Slater and Moody Dltcb, priority
no. 32 in former water district no. 7, for
0.75 cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of June 20, 1863, decreed on October
4, 1884, transferred to Farmers Highline
Canal by decree dated June 28, 1909.
g. Tbe Slater and Moody Ditch, priority
no. 32 In former water district no. 7, for
2.0 cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of June 20, 1863, decreed on October
4, 1884.
h. The Juchem and Ouelette Ditch, priority
no. 42 in former water district no. 7, for
2.89 cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appioptiatian
date of April 23, 186S, decreed on October
4, 1884, transferred to Farmers Highline
Canal by decree dated February 10, 1910.
I. The Madsworth Ditch, priority no. 4H
in former water district no. 7 for 0.S0H
cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of November 2, 1865, decreed on October
4, 1884.
j. The Keno and Juchem Ditch, priority no.
54 In former water district no. 7, for 0.33
cubic feet of water per second for irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appi oprfation
date of Hay 24, 1870, decreed on October
4, 1884, transferred to Farmers Highline
Canal by decree dated Hay 2, 1904.
-2-
-------
k. The Farmers Hlghllne Canal, priority
no. 1 In former water district no. 7, £or
193.80 cubic feet of water per second for
Irrigation purposes from Little Dry Creek
with an appropriation date of April 1, 1172,
decreed on Hay 13, 1936.
1. The Farmers Highline Canal, priority
no. 21 in fonaer water district no. 7 for
60.00 cubic feet of water per second for
irrigation purposes from Ralston Creek with
an appropriation date of April 1. 1872, decreed
on Hay 13, 1936.
m. The Farmers Hlghline Canal, priority
no. A In (otKT water district no. 1, lor
465.00 cubic feet of water per second for
irrigation purposes from Leyden Creek with
an appropriation date of July 1Z, 1905, decreed
on Hay 13, 1936.
n- The Farmers Highline Canal Enlargement,
priority no. 57 in former water district
no. 7, for 154.00 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation purposes from Clear
Creek with an appropriation date of April
1, 1872, decreed on October ~, 1884.
0. The Farmers Highline Canal, 3rd Enlargement,
priority no. 68 in former water district
no. 7, for 191.00 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation purposes from Clear
Creek with an appropriation date of April
1, 1886, decreed on October 9, 1895.
p. The Farmers Highline Canal, 4th Enlargement,
priority no. 69 in former water district
no. 7, for 335.86 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation purposes from Clear
Creek with an appropriation date of April
23, 1895, decreed on October 9, 1895.
(21 Eastlake Hater Company. Applicant owns 117 out of 1441
shares, or 8.1ZZ of the company. The company owns the following
decreed water rights with a present point of diversion out of
Clear Creek at the Farmers Highline Canal 8 Reservoir Company, set
forth above:
a. The Eastlake Reservoir f 1, priority
no. 33 in former water district no. 7, for
125 acre feet of water for irrigation and
domestic purposes from Clear Creek with an
appropriation date of September 1, 1887,
decreed on Hay 13, 1936.
b. The Eastlake Reservoir ( 2, priority
no. 33 in former water district no. 7, for
800 acre feet of water for domestic and irrigation
purposes from Clear Creek with an appropriation
date of October 1, 1887, decreed on Hay 13 j
c. The Eastlake Reservoir f 3, priority
no. 49 in former water district no. 7, for
197.95 acre feet of water for domestic and
irrigation purposes from Clear Creek with
an appropriation date of October t, 1889,
decreed on Hay 13, 1936.
d. 41 shares in the Farmers Highline Lina)
and Reservoir Company, suprj.
(b) Applicant is the owner of tha following carrier rights:
<1> The Golden City and Ralston fireeli Ditch. Applicant owns
the right To purchaie~£T5.295 out oF~57j(K nil tncR.-s of water I totr
the Church Ditch, a carrier ditch, or 77, of the company's
carrier rights. The Golden City and Ralston Creek DiCt.lt holds the
fallowing decreed water rights with a present point ot diversion
oat of Clear Creek and Ralston Creek at a osi the northeast
quarter (WE^l of Section 32, Township 3 South, Range 70 W*«c,
Jefferson County* Colofadot 1^50 feet South 09° 10* wofit from the
northeast corner of said section. It*, heatifaic on Ralston Creek
is located on the north bank of Ralston Creek in Section 2,
Township 3 feange 10 Vest, Jefferson County, Colorado, at a
point 445 feet South 69 west from the renter of s<-»id section.
Said Church Ditch extends in a general uorLherly and easteily
direction crossing and diverting water front Ralr.con Creek and
rpassing through the following Seel.ion.; 3?, J3, ?8, 27, 22, 23,
14, 11, 12, 2 and 1, Township 3 South, 70 West; Sections
36, 35 and 25 Township 2 South, Range 70 Ucsl; and Sections 30,
.29, 32, 33, 34, 2B, 29, 30, J9, 18, 17, lb, 9 aui 8, Township 2
South, flange 69 West.
a. The Swadley Ditch, priority no. 21 in
former water district no. 7, for 0.90 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation purposes
frow Clear Creek with an appropriation dale
of June 1, 1862, decreed on October 4, J 884,
transferred to the Coldcn City aui ttaiaton
Creek Ditch by decree dated September ?lr
1912.
b. The Go Wen City and Hals ton Cr.»»ic
feet of water per second £t iou purposes
from Clear Creek with an apprrpri.K ion ri*te
of Hay 16, 1865, decreed on October 4. lrt£4,
transferred to the Golden City an 1 Rtilsron
Creek Ditch by decree dated Eiepto-mber 23.
1912.
d. The Golden City and ftalston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 62 in former water district
no. 7, for 18,26 cubic-feet of wat'T p
-------
f. The Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 66 in former water district
no. 7, for 32.34 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation purposes from Clear
Creek with an appropriation date of November
20, lilt, decreed on October 4, 1884.
g. The Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 22 in foraer water district
no. 7, for 185.0 cubic feet of water per
second for irrigation.purposes troa Ralston
Creek with an appropriation date of November
18, 1177, decreed on May 13, 1936.
h. The Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 74 in foraer water district
no. 7, for 100.1Z cubic feet of water per
second for Irrigation purposes froa Clear
Creek with an appropriation date of March
16, 1886, decreed on May 13, 1936.
1. The Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 74a in foraer water district
no. 7, for 88.27 cubic feet of water per
second (conditional! for irrigation purposes
froa Clear Creek with an appropriation date
of March 16, 1886, decreed on May 13, 1936.
J. The Golden City and Ralston Creek Ditch,
priority no. 23a In foraer water district
no. 7, for 315.0 cubic feet of water per
second (conditional) for Irrigation purposes
N froa Ralston Creek with an appropriation
U date of December J, 1892, decreed on May
M 13, 1936.
(c) Applicant owns the following decreed water rights with
a present point of diversion out of Current Creeks and the Fraser
River with the initial point or headgate of said ditch Canal
situated at a point on the right bank of said First Creek whence
a aonuaent on Jaaes Peak bears North 71 69* west. East, a
aonuaent on Sugarloaf Mountain bears South 25 52* east and a
peak through a gap in the range bears South 74 52' east; thence
said Canal follows a natural contour of the Mountains in a
general southerly direction, crossing and taking the waters of
Second Creek and its tributaries to a point on Current Creek. The
headgate for the waters of Current Creek being located at a point
whence the aonuaent of Sugarloaf Mountain bears South 49 25*
east a peak through a gap In the range bears North 69 58* east
and a peak west of Jaaes Peak bears North 66 53' east, froa
thence the Berthoud Canal follows a natural slope of the
aountains crossing tributaries of the Fraser River to the Western
portal of the Berthoud Tunnel.
(II The Berthoud Ditch and Tunnel, priority No. 223A for
53.40 cubic feet per second froa the First, Second and Current
Creeks and the Fraser River for Irrigation purposes with an
appropriation date of June 30, 1902, decreed on August 3, 1911.
3. PROPOSED CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS:
(a) Applicant requests a change In purpose of use of the
above described water rights to alt beneficial uses including but
not by lialtation Municipal, doaestic, industrial, coaaercial,
irrigation, augaentatlon and exchange.
-5-
4b) Applicant requests 9 cfuinfte In ;>lacr of u»c or clie
4Dow MCer rights in the attern&tive to Nori hglenn * s raw wncer
intake structure located at Standfcy lake Rtfservofr ouciec i/orks
located approximately 1000 feet north of the quarter corner on
the section line between sections 21 and 22, Township 2 South,
Range 59 West, 6th Principal Meridian or tro all lands capable of
being served by said water including the Bull Canal Reservoir
Number 8 applied for decree in B-8445.
Dated this 31st day of August, 1979.
HIJS1CK, WIU IAHS0N, SCHWARTZ,
LEAVENWORTH A COPE, P.C.
*) JLa-X/xUII k
s i cv., Jr. ( 3«
Cope (74J3J
Post Office Box 4579
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(303) 499-3990
Special Counsel to Applicant
The City of Hort.hglenn, Colorado
STATE OF COLORADO I
1 ss.
COUNTY OF ADAMS )
Richard P. Lundahl, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes
and says that he Is the Director of Natural Resources for the City
of Northglenn, that he has read the foregoing Application for Change
of Nater Rights, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are
true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before mc this 31st day. of August, 1979
My commission expires: if /?P)
-------
r. ".:h)rt
D-5 . f-
• i • c.
.!? ''< • 31 Ph 5 : GB
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR
WATER DIVISION NO. I -
state or Colorado \.'ATLi* CLERK
Case No. 79-CW- J.3&
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE CITV OF
NORTHGLENN
IN THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
IN JEFFERSON, ADAMS AND WELD
COUNTIES.
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION
INCLUDING EXCHANGE
1. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:
City of Northglenn
IMusick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth & Cope, P.C.
P.O. Box 4579
Boulder, CO 80306
Telephone: 499-3990
K)
U> 2. WATER R1CHTS TO BE AUGHEHTED:
N>
(a) Northglenn Reservoir, decreed In Case No. W-113, Water
Division No. 1 on October 29, 1971, for 330 acre feet for irrigation,
domestic, Municipal and all benef purposes, from Grange Hall
Creek, with a priority date of August 25, 1970.
(hi Northglenn Reservoir Enlargement, decree applied for In Case
No. W-8445, Water Division No. 1 for 1700 acre feet for irrigation,
domestic, municipal and all beneficial purposes, from Grange Hall
Creek, with a priority date of May 6, 1976.
(c) Bull Canal Reservoir No. 8, decree applied for in Case No.
W-8445, Water Division No. 1, for 5950 acre feet for irrigation,
domestic, municipal and all beneficial purposes, from Big Dry Creek,
with a priority date of May 6, 1976.
(d) Northglenn South Platte Wells Number 1-5, decree applied for
contemporaneous herewith in an application filed in Water Division *to.
1, for a total of 8 cubic feet per second for irrigation, domestic,
municipal and all beneficial purposes.
(e) Northglenn Irma Drive Diversion Structure, decree applied
for contemporaneous herewith in an application filed in Water Division
No. 1, for 15 cubic feet per second, direct flow and 30 acre feet,
storage, for irrigation, domestic, municipal and all beneficial
purposes.
3. WATER RIGHTS TO BE USED FOR AUGMENTATION:
(a) Mutual Ditch Companies:
tl) Lower Clear Creek Ditch Company. Applicant
owns 8 out ot 3IO shares, ami also «U out ot 306 Inches
of carrier rights, which amounts to A .Jit ot this company's
water supply. The company owns the tallowing decreed
water lights:
a. The Clear Creek and Platte Hiver Ditch,
priority no. 18 in former water di strict
no. 7, for 49.50 cubic feet of water per
second lor Irrigation purposes I rom Clear
Creek with an appropriation date
-------
c. The BurlIngCon Ditch, priority no. I
in Corner water district no. 2, for 250 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation,
domestic and storage purposes fro* Sand Creek
with an appropriation date of December
1885, decreed on July 8, 1893.
d. The Burlington Ditch, priority no. 1
in former water district no. 2, for 50 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation,
donesttc and storage purposes iron First
Creek with an appropriation date of Septeaiker
1, 1886, decreed on July 8, 1893.
e. The Burlington Ditch, priority no. 1
in former water district no. Z, for 250 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation,
domestic and storage purposes fro* Second
Creek with an appropriation date of November
15, 1BB6, decreed on July 8, 1893.
f. The Burlington Ditch, priority no. 1
in former water district no. 2, for 250 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation purposes
from Third Creek with an appropriation date
of September 15, 1887, decreed on July 8,
1891.
g. The Altura Reservoir, (a/k/a Duck Lake),
priority no. 403 in former water district
no. 23, for 750 acre feet of water for irrigation
purposes fro* Geneva Creek with an appropriation
date of September 15, 1904, decreed on May
18, 1918.
(4) Fulton Irrigating Ditch Company. Applicant
owns 143 out ol 7185 shares, or 1.991 ot this company.
The company owns the following decreed water rights:
a. The Fulton Ditch, priority no. 8 in former
water district no. 2, for 79.70 cubic feet
of water per second for irrigation purposes
from the South Platte river with an appropriation
date of Hay 1, 1865, decreed on April 28,
• DO)
b. The Fulton Ditch, 1st Enlargement, priority
no. 43 in former water district no. 2, for
74.25 cubic feet of water per second for
irrigation purposes fro* the South Platte
River with an appropriation date of July
8, 1876, decreed on April 28, 1883.
c. The Fulton Ditch, 2nd Enlargement, priority
no. 51 in former water district no. 2, for
50.23 cubic feet of water per second for
irrigation purposes from the South Platte
River with an appropriation date of November
5, 1879, decreed on April 28, 1883.
(SI Hew Brantncr Extension Ditch Company. Applicant
owns or has contracted to purchase 1 out or 300 shares,
or 1.0% of the company, plus the right to receive water
for the irrigation of 50 acres of land from this company's
"Old Brant«ier" water rights. The company owns the following
decreed water rights:
m. The Brantner Ditch, priority iu>. l i„
iarmer water district no. 2, for 29.77 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation purposes
from the South Platte River with an appropriation
date of April 1, i860, decreed on Aprf i 28,
1883.
b. The Brantner Ditch, 1st Enlargemrnl,
priority no. 4 in former water district no.
2, for 5.93 cubic feet of water per second
for irrigation purposes from the South Platte
River with an appropriation'date of May I,
1863, decreed on April 28, 1883.
c. The Brantner Ditch, 2nd Enlargement,
priority no. 27 In former water district
no. 2 for 12.18 cubic feet of water per second
for irrigation purposes from the South Platte
River with an appropriation date of July
I, 1872, decreed on April 28, 1883.
d. The Brantner Ditch, 3rd F.nlargement,
priority no. 52 In former water district
no. 2, for 63.30 cubic feet ol water per
second for irrigation purposes frem tin? South
Platte River with an appropriation date oi
January 15, 1881, decreed on April 28, 1883.
(6) The t.upton Bottom Ditch Company. Applicant
owns 7 out ot 84 shares, or lt.J3Z ot the company.
The company owns the following decreed water rights:
a. The Lupton Bottom Ditch , priority no.
5 in former water district no. Z, for 47.70
cubic feet of water per second lor irrigation
purposes from the South Placte River with
an appropriation date of May 15, 1863, decreed
on April 28, 1883.
b. The Ellwood Ditch, priority no. 20 In
former water distlct no. 2, for 10.00 cubic
feet of water per second for irrigation purposes
from the South Platte River with an appropriation
date of March 10, 1871, decreed on April
28, 1883, transferred to the lupton Bottom
Ditch by decree dated April 16, 1927.
c. The Lupton Bottom Ditch, 1st Enlargement,
priority no. 31 in fotmer water district
no. 2, for 92.87 cubic feet oi water par
second for irrigation purposes from the South
Platte River with an appropriation d.iLe ol
September 15, 1873, decreed on April 28,
1883.
(bl Decreed water rights:
(H Relthmann Ditch, 3.0 cubic fet-t p*r «;ecoci
-------
(2) Northglenn Arapahoe Aquifer Wells Mo. 1-10, decree applied
for In Case No. W-84457-WateT Division No. H Ri" » total of 2.22
cubic feet per second for irrigation domestic, municipal and all
beneficial purposes.
<31 Northglenn Laramle-Fox Hills Aquifer Wells Mo.1-10, decree
applied for In Case Mo. B-M45, Water IHvision No. 1, for( total of
3.33 cubic feet per second for Irrigation, domestic, municipal and all
beneficial purposes.
(4) Northglenn Shopping. Center Runoff. decreed in Case Mo. W-231
Hater Division Mo. ( on March 3, 1971, for 290 cubic feet per second
for Irrigation, domestic, Municipal and all beneficial purposes, ftom
Crange Hall Creek, with priority date of Hay 13, 1970.
(51 Tbede Ditch. Priority Ho. 3 In former water districtMo. 2,
for 0.26 cubic teet per second from Crange Hall Creek, a/k/a Brewers
Culch, for irrigation purposes with an appropriation date of April 1,
IMS, decreed Hay 20, 1914.
(6) Grlebllng Ditch. Priority Ho. 4 in foraier water district no.
2 for 1.0 cubic teet per second from Crange Hall Creek, a/k/a Brewers
Culch, for irrigation purposes vith an appropriation date of July 4,
1885, decreed May 20, 1914.
Ic) Storage reservoirs:
(1) Lutz Reservoir. Applicant has contracted to purchase this
reservoir. The reservoir is located in the Southeast Quarter of Section
20, Township 2 South, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Adams County,
and is filled by the Burlington Ditch.
12) Webster Lake. Applicant Is the owner of this reservoir by
U conveyance from the Rorthglenn Metropolitan Recreation District. The
reservoir Is located In the HWJt and NEl, Section 3, Township 2 South,
Range 6» West of the 6th P.M., Adams County, and Is filled by the
Farmers Highline Canal.
13) Huron Lake. Applicant is the owner of this reservoir by_
conveyance from the Northglenn Metropolitan Recreation District. The
reservoir is located In the NW%, Section 10, Township 2 South, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., Adams County, and is filled by the Farmers
HighIine Canal.
4. COMPLETE STATEMENT OF PLAM FOR AUGMENTATION. INCLUDING TESS4S
AND CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD PREVENT INJURY TO OWNERS OF OR PERSONS
ENTITLED TO USE WATER UNDER VESTED WATER RIGHTS OR DECREED CONDITIONAL
WATER RIGHTS:
<¦) Description of Project.
Applicant Is engaged in a multi-million dollar project to
provide the City of Northglenn with its own water and wastewater
utility systems. Since its incorporation In 1969, Northglenn has
received utility services from the neighboring cities of Thornton and,
to a lesser degree, Westminster. Under the Northglenn Water Management
Plan, Northglenn will commence operation of its systems and Thornton
will cease supplying water and providing wastewater treatment to
Northglenn. No injury will result to the owners or persons entitled to
use water under vested water rights or decreed conditional water
rights as a result of this discontinuation of service by Thornton,
because both water and wastewater service to Northglenn will be
terminated at the same time, thereby reducing the demand of the
Thornton utility systems on the South Platte River system.
A central element of the Northglenn project is this Plan for
Augmentation. *y contract dated September 2, V)?b, Northglenn and the
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FK1C0) have agreed that
Northglenn shall have the ripht to make use oi up to 7,785 acre fret
of water per year owned by FKICO and stored in Stjndley Lake
Reservoir. Under this contract, Northglenn will deliver this water by
pipeline to a newly constructed water treatment plant, treat and
distribute the water to all municipal customers located within Che
city. Wastewater from all of the customers will remain under North-
glenn** control, and wilt be collect id and conveyed t.» a central
location from which it will be pumped to a wastewater treatment plant
to be constructed in Meld County. In order to comply with the Federal
Clean Water Act, Northglenn will also maintain dominion and control
over Irrigation return flows and urban storm runoff emanating from the
city, and pump them to the same wastewnLer treatment pldnt. The
treated wastewater will be stored In a reservoir lo be constructed at
the treatment plant site in Weld County, and eventually discharged
into the Bull Canal, from which it will be distributed by FRIC0 for
use in irrigation of the lands historically irrigated under the
Standley Lake Division of FR1C0.
By the terms of the contract, Northglenn is obligated to provide
to FRIC0, by discharge from the wastewater reservoir, 110% of the
water diverted by Northglenn from St and ley Lake pursuant to said
agreement. The water to be so provided to FRJCO will be supplied from
municipal wastewater, Clear Creek, groundwater tributary to the South
Platte River, municipal irrigation return flows and urban runoff
tributary to the South Platte River, and groundwater from the
non-tributary Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox llllls Aquifers.
tbl Out-of-priority 01versions.
in order for the Project to operate as de&it'ibed above, Applicant
will divert up to 2,006 acre feet of water out of the South Platte
River in a dry year through one or more of the facilities r.et forLh
in paragraph 2. Approximately 1,400 acre feet fur year may come out
from Grange Hall Creek at the lrma Drive Diversion Structiire, and
Up to 1,500 acre feet per year may come ftora the South Platte alluvium
at the South Platte Wells No. 1-5, lor use in t It Northglenn water
and sewer utility systems. Sonic- of these diversions will be made when
these structures arc not in priority.
In wet to average years Northglenn will nut need to divert the
entire 2,C06 acre feet quantity of water. At such times and ro the
quantity not needed by Northglenn, the City win, in cumpliar.ce vith
contractual obligations and municipal regulations, dispose of this
water on an as available basis.
Northglenn has applied for 2,300 acre feel of water from non-
tributary deep wells in case number W--8445. Northglenn will drill,
equip and pump those wells to the extent of water drtreed in that
case. For each acre foot of water pumped from rhose deep wells Kcrt'hgleii
can reduce its out-of-priority diversions from the water rights set
forth in paragraph 2 supra for its own uses within the Plan. In vuch
event the augmented out-iif-priority diversions (mm the water rifhi.s
set forth in paragraph 2, supra, will ho used hy Hnrt ii^ltnn purs.v.mt
to contractual and municipal obligations it>r irrigation, municipal,
domestic and all other beneficial uses at such plac»s as the Citv
elects. J
-------
(c) Replacement of Out-of-Priority Diversions.
Applicant will replace water In the South Platte River fro* the
Augmentton Hater Rights set forth in paragraph 3, supra, at the proper
tine, place and rate, to replace that portion of the 2,006 acre feet
of water diverted out-of-priority, thereby preventing Injury to other
water rights.
Preliminary engineering studies indicate that the City's present
ownership of augmenting water rights will yield the following amounts
of.-water, on a consumptive use basis, in the dry year:
Fulton Ditch 19$ acre feet
Lupton Bottom Ditch 466
Brantner Ditch 110
Burlington-Wellington 951
Lower Clear Creek 169
Itlttaaim Bitch 111
77X505
(d) Operation of Plan
Applicant will divert Che 2,006 acre feet of water at the
facilities set forth in paragraph 2, supra, only when the augmentation
water (paragraph 3) Is available In priority at the original point of
diversion and to the extent that the water would then be applied to a
beneficial consumptive use under the historic conditions and water
would in fact be consuated.
To determine these factors Applicant proposes to install
K Augmentation stations for each Augmentation water right set forth In
Ui paragraph 3 hereof, the Augmentation station will consist of: (1) a
method acceptable to the Division Engineer for carriage of the
consumptive use occurring upon the original tract of land back to the
South Platte River and (2> a method acceptable to the Division
Engineer for determining the actual consumption then occurring on the
original tract under the historic practices.
By this practice Applicant will maintain the historic
patterns of return flow, as well as its pro rata share of historic
ditch losses. In addition, because Applicant will only be diverting at
its structures set forth In paragraph 3, supra, that amount of water
that would have historically been consumed under the historic use
practices no other water users will be Injured.
After such sufficient period of operation as to Applicant or
the Division Engineer evidences the appropriate river gage Index to
govern the operation of this plan, Applicant will petition this Court
pursuant to its continuing Jurisdiction to modify this decree consis-
tent with such additional operational evidence.
WHEREFORE, Applicant prays the Court enter its decree:
1. Finding that no injury will occur to other water uses and
approving the Plan for Augmentation set forth herein.
2. Finding that unappropriated water is available for withdrawal
by Applicant's South Platte Wells Mos. l-S and that their operation
will not cause material injury to vested water rights or decreed
conditional water rights If said wells are operated in accordance with
this Plan for Augmentation.
-7-
3. Permitting Applicant to divert water under the water rights
listed- in paragraph 2, supra, when said rlghrs are out-oC-prtorlty, la
accordance with this Plan tor Augmentation.
4. Permitting the use of the water rights listed in paragraph 3,
supra, for all beneficial purposes including domestic, municipal,
industrial, commercial, irrigation, augmentation and exchange, at any
location and manner set forth In this plan tor augmentation, as
alternate points and purposes of use.
5. Permitting Applicant to use the augmentation water set forth
in paragraph 3, supra for all beneficial purposes at any place capable
of being served by the facilities set forth in paragraph 2 supra, lo
the extent that the water is not needed within Horthglcnn of the water
decreed as non-tributary in W-8445 is used within Northglenn for the
purposes of its Project.
6. Affording such other relief as the Court deems proper.
Dated this 3lst day of August, 1979.
KUSICK, WILLIAMSON, SCHWARTZ,
LEAVENWORTH & COVE, P.C.
Post Office Box 4579v
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(3031 499-3990
Special Counsel to Applicant
The City oi Northglenn, Colorado
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF ADAHS
)
) ss.
)
Richard P. Lundahl, being first duly s.wor« upon oath, deposes aisl
says that he is the Director of Natural Resources for the City of
Northglenn, that he has read the foregoing Application for Approval i-.f
Plan for Augmentation, knows the contents thereof, and that the sasie
are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
'2.2
Subscribed and sworn to before w this 3ls
-------
APPENDIX D-6
Pending Litigation Concerning the City of Northglenn's Water
Management Project, (as of September 13, 1979):
Water Supply - Deep Well
Colorado law requires a permit from the State Engineer to
construct wells and withdraw ground water, and the Colorado State
Engineer has denied permits for the deep wells proposed by the
Northglenn Plan. The City is presently appealing this denial,
and seeking permission of the Water Court to withdraw this water.
A hearing in the case was held in December, 1978, and the Water
Referee's decision is expected shortly. Unrelated litigation
(generally referred to as the "Houston Case") is pending before
a special Colorado water judge questioning the validity of legis-
lation governing the withdrawal of deep well water and may be of
interest. This litigation may not affect the outcome of the City's
deep well applications, because the challengers are seeking to have
declared invalid limitations which the city has voluntarily adhered
to.
236
-------
Water Rights Acquisition.
The cities of Thornton, Westminster, Golden and Broomfield
filed legal actions against the City of Northglenn and FRICO con-
cerning the purchase of the Church Ditch and Berthoud Pass water
rights by the City from FRICO. The dismissal of the Westminster
and Thornton proceedings has been obtained as a condition of the
acquisition of the Thornton systems by the City. The Broomfield
case has been dismissed twice by the court, and further proceedings
are being held in abeyance during discussions between Northglenn
and Broomfield. The Golden case is also being held in abeyance
at the present time by agreement of the parties.
Water Court Approval.
Under Colorado law, existing water rights may be used in
a different manner than has been the historical case, with prior
permission of the Water Court to ensure that replacement water
is adequate to protect other water users. The replacement water
supplies, including deep wells and purchased water rights, have
been identified, and the application for court approval was filed
on August 31, 1979. Discussions with the potential objectors
have commenced.
Miscellaneous Water Court Matters.
The City is a party in numerous Colorado Water Court proceedings
concerning the manner, purpose and place of use, as well as the
magnitude and priority, of water rights of the city and other water
users. These matters should not present a significant threat to the
City's water rights as those matters now stand.
FRICO Agreements.
The City, together with Thornton and Westminster, has intervened
in an action brought by a FRICO shareholder, Rocky Mountain Fuel
Company, against FRICO challenging the 1976 Northglenn-FRICO Agree-
ment, the "A-way" Agreement among FRICO and the three cities, and a
sale of the Church Ditch water rights to the city. The case questions
the power of the FRICO Board of Directors to approve these agreements
without the approval of specified majorities of the shareholders. The
plaintiff has been denied a temporary restraining order and has now
moved to further amend the complaint in this case.
237
-------
Weld County Zoning Authority
Under Colorado law, counties are responsible for zoning of
unincorporated land, which includes the wastewater treatment plant
site in southern Weld County. Weld County has zoned the site for
uses which do not include wastewater treatment plants unless a
special use permit has been issued. Concern has been expressed
that the denial of a permit by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, and a related lawsuit, will impair the city's ability
to implement the plan in the maimer or at the time desired. The
City of Northglenn is of the opinion that county zoning such as is
involved in this case does not apply to a public agency under
Colorado law and that the city has fully complied with all appli-
cable requirements for location of the plant at the Weld County
site. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss the case has been filed
by the City. Irrespective of the resolution of this case, EPA
requires these two parties to execute an Intergovernmental Agree-
ment to specify their respective responsibilities in this matter.
Water Quality Control Commission
The City of Northglenn has been joined as a defendant in two
separate actions filed against the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission concerning the commission's approval of the city's waste-
water treatment plant site, plans and specifications, and federal
construction grant. These actions have been filed by residents of
the vicinity of the site, the Towns of Frederick and Fort Lupton,
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, and an organiza-
tion representing several irrigation ditches. A motion to dismiss
one of the cases heard on October 16, 1979.
Grand Jury Investigation
In August 1979, the State Grand Jury's Office of the Special
Organized Crime Task Force subpoened certain records of the City
of Northglenn regarding the Water Resources Management Flan. This
is a secret investigation consequently the Intent, interests, or
areas of investigation of the Grand Jury are not publicly disclosed.
238
-------
INDEX AND REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1
1. Sheaffer and Roland, Northglenn Water Management Plan,
Wastewater Facility Plan.
CHAPTER 2
1. CH2M Hill, Water Diversion and Treatment Reconnaissance Study.
2. City of Thornton. Ptilities Department Annual Report. 1978.
3. Personal communication, Cary Palmer, Director of Utilities.
Thornton, Colorado, October 5, 1979.
4. FRICO - Northglenn Agreement, September 2, 1976.
CHAPTER 3
1. Sheaffer and Roland, Wastewater Facilities Northglenn, Colorado.
Volume 3, April 25, 1977.
2. Sheaffer and Roland, 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan, Volume 4,.
August 24, 1977.
3. Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission,
Regulations Establishing Basin Standards and an Antidegradation
Standard and Establishing a System for Classifying State Waters.
for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications.
Adopted May 22, 1979, Effective July 10, 1979.
4. National Academy of Science, Water Quality Criteria, 1972,
Washington, D.C. 1972.
5. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Report of the
Committee on Water Quality Criteria, April 1968.
6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater.
7. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Policy on Land Treat-
ment of Municipal Wastewater, October 3, 1977.
8. Colorado Department of Health. Memorandum on Interim Division
Guidance on Planning and Design Review for Land Application
Systems, March 18, 1977.
9. Northglenn - Thornton Agreement, May 4, 1979.
10. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Policy to Protect
Environmentally Significant Agricultural Land, September 8, 1978.
241
-------
11. Wright McLaughlin, Northglenn Water Management Program, Volumes 1
and 2. April 20, 1977.
12. Personal communication. Cheryl Signs, City of Westminster.
August 1979.
13. Hydro Triad Ltd. Engineers, Review of Northglenn/FRICO Land
and Water Resource, Management Report, April, 1977.
14. Wright-Water Engineers, Interim Report on Seepage Studies.
September 5, 1978.
15. Personal communication, Robert McGregor, Sheaffer and Roland,
August 1979.
16. Wright Water Engineers, Report on Operation of Standley Lake,
September 1979.
17. Personal communication, Wright Water Engineers, August 1979.
18. Personal communications, FRICO, October 16, 1979.
CHAPTER 4
1. 1977 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean
Water Act.
2. Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth, & Cope. Memorandum: North-
glenn Analysis of Alternative Water Supply Systems Prior to Reuse
Agreement with FRICO. No date.
3. City of Northglenn, Water Quality Control Commission, Applications for
Site Approval, Northglenn/FRICO Return Flow Facility, March, 1979.
4. California Water Quality Board, Water Quality Criteria, The
Resources Agency of California, Publication No. 3-A, 1963.
5. Water Quality for Agirculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 29.
6. U. S. EPA, Funding Policy for Design and Construction-Multiple-
Purpose Projects, PRM 77-4.
7. D. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Strategies for Funding of
Millttplfe—Purpose Projects. Office of Water and Waste Management,
June 1979.
8. Black and Veatch, Central Plant Facility Plan, Phase 1 Report,
June, 1979.
9. CH2M Hill, Lower South Platte Facilities Plan, Volume 1, August
1977.
242
-------
10. Personal communication.
11. Personal communication.
12. Personal communication.
13. Personal communication.
14. Chen and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Engineering Geology and
Soils Investigation for a Proposed Reservoir. Sections 26 and
36, T.IN., R.68W. Weld County, Denver, Colorado, March, 1968.
15. Chen and Associates, Inc. Subsurface and Geological Investigations
for a Proposed Reservoir Site Weld County, Colorado, Denver,
Colorado, September, 1978.
16. Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Commission,
Regulation 2, Odor Emission Regulations, 5CCR 1001-4 Adopted,
March 11, 1971, Effective: April 20, 1971.
17. Turner, D. B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
1970.
18. Personal communication, Ralph Mock, Chen and Associates, October 29,
1979.
19. Davis, C. V., and K. E. Sorensen. Handbook of Applied Hydrau-
lics, Third Edition, 1969.
20. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, Second Edition*
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1974.
21. Mostertam, L. J. Waves of Long and Short Period in Selected
Aspects of Hydraulic Engineering, Technological University
of Delft, The Netherlands.
22. Personal communication, Don Bressler, Chen and Associates,
October 12, 1979.
23. Ugo, Coty. The Challenge of Wind Energy, Lockheed-Cal Company,
Burbank, California.
24. Personal communication, Climatological Center, Colorado State
University, August 1979.
25. Four-way Agreement, May 9, 1979.
26. Wright Water Engineers, Interim Letter Report on Seepage Losses
September 5, 1978.
27. Personal communication, Ron Halley, Hydro-Triad, August, 1979.
28. Personal communication, Wright Water Engineers, August 1979.
243
-------
Whittlesey, Norman K., Irrigation Development Potential in
Colorado. Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State
University, May 1977.
244
-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
1. Leonard Rice, Consulting Water Engineers, Water Engineering
in Colorado, January 1975.
2. Israelson and Hanson, Irrigation Principals and Practices,
Third Edition, Wiley International Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York 1962.
3. U. S. Department of the Interior, Water Measurement Manual.
Bureau of Reclamation, Second Edition, 1967.
4. Personal communication, Sheaffer and Roland, August 1979.
5. Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth, and Cope, P.C.,
Draft Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentationi 1979.
6. Hydro-Triad, Ltd. Engineers, Review of Northglenn/FRICO Land
and Water Resources Management Project, April, 1977.
7. Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Inc., Northglenn Water Management
Plan, Volumes 1 and 2, Water Resources and Faciliites, April,
1977.
8. Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission,
Regulations Establishing Basin Standards and an Antidegradatlon
Standard and Establishing a System for Classifying State Waters.
for Assigning Standards, and for Granting Temporary Modifications.
Adopted May 22, 1979, Effective July 10, 1979.
9. Denver Business World, September 17, 1979.
10. EPA Agriculture Policy Memorandum from the Administrator to
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators, Office
Directors dated September 8, 1978.
11. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice. Soil Survey of Southern Weld County, Unpublished.
12. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Soil Survey of Adams County, 1974.
13. Personal communication. Stan Bayes, Weld County Extension
Service. August 23, 1979.
14. Colorado Agricultural Statistics Bulletin, January 1978.
15. Personal communication, National Weather Service, Stapleton
International Airport, September 25, 1979.
245
-------
16. Chen & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Engineering Geology and
Soils Investigation for a Proposed Reservoir Sections 26 and
36, T. IN., R. 68W. Weld County, Denver, Colorado. March, 1968.
17. Chen and Associates, Inc., Subsurface and Geological Investi-
gations for a Proposed Reservoir Site Weld County, Colorado.
Denver, Colorado. September, 1978.
18. Shaeffer and Roland, Inc., Northglenn Water Management Plan,
Volume 3 Wastewater and Return Flow Faclliites Plan. Prepared
for the City of Northglenn, Colorado. April, 1977.
19. U. S. EPA, Plutonium Levels in the Sediment of Area Impoundments
Environ of the Rocky Flats Plutonium Plant Colorado, SA/TIB-29,
February, 1975.
246
-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX B
1. Shuval, H.I., Water Renovation and Reuse, Academic Press, 1977.
2. Cohen, J., et al., Epidemiological Aspects of Cholera El Tor
Outbreak in a Non-Endemic Area, Lancet, II, 1971.
3. Katzenelson, E. and Teltch, B., Dispersion of Enteric Bacteria
in the Air as a Result of Sewage Spray Irrigation and Treatment
Process, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48, 1976.
4. World Health Organization, RauBe of Effluents: Methods of Waste-
water Treatment and Health Safeguards, WHO Technical Report
Series No. 517, Geneva, 1973.
5. Ingram, W. T., Gerber, R. A., et al., Glossary Water and Waste-
water Control Engineering, American Public Health Association,
1969.
6. Pearson, E.A., Personal Communication (Notes on Health Risks/
Virus in the Use of Reclaimed M&I Wastewater in Irrigation),
16 July 1977.
7. Parkhurst, J. D., et al., Pomona Virus Study Final Report, Sani-
tation Districts of Los Angeles County, 230 pp, February 1977.
8. Bryan, F. L., Disease Transmitted by Foods Contaminated by Waste-
water, in: Environmental Protection Agency Document No. 660/Z-74-
041, pp. 16-45, June 1974.
9. Clark, C. Scott, et al., Disease Risks of Occupational Exposure
to Sewage, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 102, No. EE2, Proceedings Paper 12038, pp. 375-388,
April 1976.
10. Cooper, Robert C., Potler, J.L., and Leong, C., Virus Survival
in Solid Waste Leachates. Water Research, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 734-
739.
11. Long, William N., and Bell, Frank A., Health Factors and Reused
Water, Journal of the American Water Works Association, pp. 220-
225, April 1972.
12. McDermott, James H., Virus Problems in Water Supplies, (Parts I
and II), Water and Sewage Works, May 1975.
13. Taylor, Floyd B., Viruses - What is Their Significance in Water
Supplies?, Journal of the American Water Works Association, pp.
306-311, May 1974.
14. Neefe, John R., Stokes, Joseph, et al., Disinfection of Water
Containing Causative Agents of Infectious (Epidemic) Hepatitis.
Journal of the American Medical Association, August 11, 1944.
247
-------
15. Clark, C. Scott, Notice of Research Project: Health Risks of
Human Exposure to Wastewaters, Starting Date, April 7, 1975.
16. Hickey, John L. S., and Reist, Parker C., Health Significance
of Airborne Microorganisms from Wastewater Treatment Processes
Part I and II, Summary of Investigations, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol, 47, No. 12, December 1975.
17. Sorber, C.A., Schaub, S.A., and Bausum, H.T., An Assessment of
a Potential Virus Hazard Associated with Spray Irrigation of
Domestic Wastewaters, in: Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater
Systems (Malina & Sagik, Editors) Center for Research in Water
Resources, University of Texas at Austin, pp. 241-252, 1974.
18. Sorber, Charles A., and Guter, Kurt J., Health and Hygiene As-
pects of Spray Irrigation, American Journal of Public Health,
Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 47-52, January 1975.
19. Stanford, G.B., and Turburan, R., Morbidity Risk Factors from
Spray Irrigation with Treated Wastewaters, United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency Document No. 660/2-74-041, June 1974.
20. Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, Engineering Evaluation of Virus Hazard in
Water, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, SA1,
pp. 111-150, Feb. 1970.
21. Katzenelson, E., Buium, I., and Shuval, H.I., Risk of Communi-
cable Disease, Infection Associated with Wastewater Irrigation
in Agricultural Settlements, Science, Vol 194, pp. 944-946,
November, 1976.
22. Neefe, John R., and Stokes, Joseph, An Epidemic of Infectious
Hepatitis Apparently Due to a Water Borne Agent, Journal of the
American Medical Association, pp. 1063-1075, August 11» 1944.
23. Sepp, Endel, The Use of Sewage for Irrigation, A Literature
Review, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California State Depart-
ment of Public Health, Revised 1971.
24. Gerba, Charles, P., Wallis, Craig, and Melnick, Joseph L., Fate
of Wastewater Bacteria and Viruses in Soil. Irrigation and
Drainage Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. 1R3, pp. 157-175, Septem-
ber 1975.
25. Fujioka, R., and Loh, P.C., Recycling of Sewage for Irrigation:
A Vlrological Assessment. Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Microbiology, E25, p. 5, 1974.
26. Lefler, E.t and Kott, Y., Virus Retention and Survival in Sand
in: Virus Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems, (Malina and
Sagik, Editors), Center for Research in Water Resources, Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin, pp. 84-91, 1974.
248
-------
27. Bitton, Gabriel, Adsorption of Viruses onto Surfaces in Soli and
Water, Water Research, Vol, 9, pp. 473-484, 1975.
28. Duboise, S. F., Sagik, B. P., Moore, B. E. D., and Malina, J. F.,
Virus Migration through Soils, in Virus Survival in Water and
Wastewater Systems, Maline J., and Sagik, B., Editors, Center
for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin,
pp. 233-240, 1974.
29. Young, R. H. F., and Burbank, N. C., Virus Removal in Hawaiian
Soils, Journal of the Water Works Association, pp. 598-604,
September 1973.
30. Bitton, G., Masterson, M., and Gifford, G.E., Effect of a
Secondary Treated Effluent of the Movement of Viruses through
a Cypress Dome Soil, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 5,
No. 4, pp. 370-375, 1976.
31. Bagdasaryan, G. A., Survival of Viruses of the Enterovirus Group
(Poliomyelitis, Echocoxsackie) in Soli and on Vegetables, Journal
of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology, VIII,
pp. 497-505, 1964.
32. Larkin, Edward P., Tierney, John T., and Sullivan, Robert,
Persistence of Virus on Sewage Irrigated Vegetables, Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 102,
No. EE1, February 1976.
33. Kott, Hanna, and Fishelson, Lea, Survival of Enteroviruses on
Vegetables Irrigated with Chlorinated Pond Effluents, Israeli
Journal of Technology, Vol, 12, pp. 290-297, 1974.
34. Drewry, W. A., and Eliassen, R., Virus Movement in Ground Water.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol, 40, No. 8.
Part 2, pp. 257-271, August 1968.
35. Wellings, F. M., Lewis, A. L., and Mountain, C. W,, Virus Survival
Following Wastewater Spray Irrigation of Sandy Soils, in: Virus
Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems, (Malina & Sagik, Editors),
Center for Research in Water Resources, The University of Texas
at Austin, 1974.
36. Wellings, F. M., Lewis, A. L., Mountain, C. W., and Pierce, L. V.,
Demonstration of Virus In Ground Water after Effluent Discharge
onto Soil, Applied Microbiology, Vol, 29, No. 6, pp. 751-757,
June 1975.
37. Malina, J. F., Ranganathan, K. R., Moore, B. E. D., and Sagik,
B. P., Poliovirus Inactivation by Activated Sludge. In: Virus
Survival in Water and Wastewater Systems, (Malina and Sagik,
Editors), Center for Research in Water Resources, University of
Texas at Austin, pp. 95-106, 1974.
249
-------
38. Schaub, S. A., and Sagik, B. P., Association of Enteroviruses with
Natural and Artificially Introduced Colloidal Solids in Water and
Infectivlty of Solids-Associated Viruses, Applied Microbiology,
Vol 30, No. 2, p. 212, 1975.
39. Malina, J. F., Viral Pathogens Inactivation During Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater, University of Texas at Austin, 15 pages.
40. Cooper, Robert C., Health Considerations in Use of Tertiary
Effluents, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, No. EE1, Proceedings Paper 12726, pp. 37-47,
February 1977.
41. Lund, Ebba, Report on a Working Group on Bacteriological and
Virological Examination of Water, Water Research, Votl, 10,
pp. 177-178, 1976.
*
42. Cramer, W. N., Kawata, K., and Kruse, C. W., Chlorination and
Iodination of Poliovirus and f2, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol, 48, No. 1, pp. 61-76, 1976.
43. Gerba, Charles, P., Wallis, Craig, and Melnick, Joseph L., Viruses
in Water: The Problem, Some Solutions, Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 13, pp. 1121-1126, December 1975.
44. Mijumdar, S. B., Ceckler, W. B., and Sproul, 0. J., Inactivation
of Poliovirus in Water by Ozonation, Journal of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, Vol. 46, No, 8, pp. 2048-2053, 1974.
45. Parkhurst, John D., The Market for "Used" Water, The American
City, March 1968, pp. 78-80.
46. Selleck, R. E., and Collins, H. F., Disinfection in Wastewater
Reuse, in: Wastewater Reclamation and Resue Workshop. . .Pro-
ceedings, University of California-Berkeley, p. 286.
47. Culp, Russell L., Breakpoint Chlorination for Virus Inactivation
8 pages.
48. Subsey, Mark D., Wallis, C., Hobbs, M. F., Green, A. C., and
Melnick, J. L., Virus Removal and Inactivation by Physical-Chemical
Waste Treatment, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol, 99, No. EE3, pp. 245-252, June 1973.
49. Chaudhuri, M., and Englebrecht, R. S., Virus Removal in Wastewater
Renovation by Chemical Coagulation and Flocculation, Fifth Inter-
national Water Pollution Research Conference, Vol, II, No. 20,
pp* 1-21, July-August 1970.
50. Manwaring, J. F., Removal of Viruses by Coagulation and Floccu-
lation, Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol., 63,
p. 298, 1971.
250
-------
51. York, D. W., and Drewry, W. A., Virus Removal by Chemical Coagula-
tion, Journal of the American Water Works Association, pp. 711-716,
December 1974.
52. Wolf, H. W., Safferman, R. S., Mixson, A. R., and Stringer, C. E.,
Virus Inactivation During Tertiary Treatment, Journal of the
American Water Works Association, pp. 526-631, September 1974.
53. Chaudhuri, M., Amirhor, P. E., and Engelbrecht, R. S., Virus
Removal by Diatomaceous Earth Filtration, Journal of the Envi-
ronmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. EE4, pp.
937-953, August 1974.
54. Sobsey, Mark D., Wallis, C., Henderson, M., and Melnick, J, L.,
Concentration of Enteroviruses from Large Volumes of Water.
Applied Microbiology, Vol 26, No. 4, pp. 529-534, October 1973.
251
-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX C
1. Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1, 1980 Budget,
June 30, 1979.
2. Black and Veatch. Central Plant Facilities Plan Phase 1 Report,
June 1979.
3. CH2M Hill, Metro Denver District Sludge Management Volume II.
Alternative Systems for MDSDD #1, 1975.
A. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Construction Cost for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 1973-1977, Office of Water
Program Operations. January 1978.
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems, 1973.
6. CH2M Hill, Lower South Platte Facility Plan, Volume 1, August
1977.
7. Sheaffer and Roland, Northglenn Cost Estimates, August 1, 1979
through October 1, 1979.
252
-------
NORTHGLENN SPECIAL RESERVE FILE
The following material has been placed on reserve in the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII Library located at 1860
Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado. It is available to the public for
use in the library from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Commercial copying facilities are not available.
List of Publications
I 1 ¦ 1 11 | " ¦ 1 ¦
ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING NATIONAL WATER QUALITY
GOALS IN LARIMER & WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO, Water Quality Management
Plan
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments, Loveland,
Colorado and Toups Corporation, Loveland, Colorado,
January 1978
COLORADO WATER RESOURCES, Basic-Data Release No. 37, Water-Level
Records for Colorado, 1971-75
Compiled by U.S. Geological Survey for Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Denver, CO 1975
COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN, South Platte River Basin,
Colorado
For Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department
of Health by Engineering Consultants, Inc., Toups Corpo-
ration, Denver, Colorado
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS: 1973-
1977. (EPA-4 30/9-77-013)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D. C.,
January 1978
COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY LAND APPLICATION. (EPA-430/9-75-003)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D. C.,
June 1976
DENVER REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WASTEWATER FACI-
LITIES AND THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (Volume 1: Issues and Actions).
(EPA-908/5-77-001A)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII,
Denver, CO
DENVER REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR WASTEWATER FACI-
LITIES AND THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (Volume 2: Analyses, Comments and
Responses). (EPA-908/5-77-001B)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver,
CO
EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS (EPA-430/9-75-001)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D. C.,
March 1975
-------
FINAL ACTION ON THE DENVER REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII,
Denver, August 1978
HUMAN VIRUSES IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT: A STATUS REPORT WITH
EMPHASIS ON THE EPA RESEARCH PROGRAM, Report to Congress (EPA-570/
9-78-006)
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH, December 1978
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT MANUAL, Draft
(EPA-430/9-78-009)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C. 1978
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM FOR WASTE TREATMENT LAGOONS (2ND) HELD IN
KANSAS CITY, MO, 23-25 JUN 70. (PB-215-600)
Ross E. McKinney, Kansas University, Lawrence, 1970.
LAGOON PERFORMANCE AND THE STATE OF LAGOON TECHNOLOGY (EPA-R2-73-144)
Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D. C.,
June 1973
LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE EFFLUENTS AND SLUDGES: SELECTED ABSTRACTS.
(EPA-660/2-74-042)
National Environmental Research Center, CorvalliB, OR,
June 1974
LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER UNDER HIGH ALTITUDE CONDITIONS (EPA-
600/2-78-139)
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK, July 1978
MANAGING THE HEAVY METALS ON THE LAND
G. W. Leeper, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, 1978
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, Citizen's Guide to Facility Planning.
(EPA-430/9-79-006)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D. C.,
February 1979
NORTHGLENN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT NO. CO80416,
Supplemental Environmental Report
City of Northglenn, Colorado, May 1979
NORTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Volumes 1 and 2-Water Resources
and Facilities
Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, CO for City of North-
glenn, CO, April 1977
NORTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Volume 3-Wastewater Facilities
Sheaffer & Roland, Inc. for Northglenn, CO, April 1977
NORTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Volume 4-Final 201 Wastewater
Facilities Plan
Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Chicago, IL for the City of
Northglenn, CO, November 1977
254
-------
NOJRTHGLENN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, Volume 5-Air Quality Effects
Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., Chicago & Denver for the City
of Northglenn, CO, April 1978
PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY OF
WATER TRANSFER TO CITIES
Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, October 1976
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND SOILS INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED
RESERVOIR SECTIONS 26 and 36, T. 7N., R. 68W.
Chen and Associates, Inc., Weld County, CO, March 1978
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON LAND TREATMENT OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
Environmental Resources Center, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, November 1973
PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL FOR LAND TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Office of Water Program Operations, October 1977
PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL FOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
By Bums and Roe, Inc., Oradell, N3 for EPA Technology
Transfer, October 1971
PROGRESS IN WASTEWATER DISINFECTION TECHNOLOGY, Proceedings of the
National Symposium Cincinnati, Ohio September 18-20, 1978 (EPA-600/9-
79-018)
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH, June 1979
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
July 1976
RECYCLING MUNICIPAL SLUDGES AND EFFLUENTS ON LAND, Proceedings of
the Joint Conference
The Environmental Protection Agency, The United StateB
Department of Agriculture, The National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, July 9-13,
1973, Champaign, IL
REGIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DENVER REGION
Denver Regional Council of Governments, June 1, 1978
REGIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SPECIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY
SIGNIFICANT AREAS IN THE DENVER REGION
Denver Regional Council of Governments, October 1977
RISK ASSESSMENT AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER AND SLUDGES, Proceedings of the Conference
Center for Applied Research and Tbchnology, San Antonio,
TX, December 12-14, 1977
255
-------
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ON AGRICULTURAL SOILS: Chemical and Microbiological
Implications, Volume 1, Chemical Implications, (EPA-600/2-78~131a)
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK,
June 1978
SUBSURFACE AND GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR A PROPOSED RESERVOIR
SITE, Weld County, CO
Chen and Associates, September 1978
SURVEY OF FACILITIES USING LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER, (EPA-430/
9-73-006)
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.,
July 1973
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE BY LAND APPLICATION - VOLUME 1 -
SUMMARY. (EPA-660/2-73-006a)
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C.,
August 1973
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE BY LAND APPLICATION - VOLUME II
(EPA-660/2-73~006b)
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C.»
August 1973
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following are folders of additional information in the form
of correspondence, policies, court records, etc.
EPA POLICY ON LAND APPLICATION
FLOW AUGMENTATION PLAN
LITIGATION
NEWS ARTICLES
NORTHGLENN CORRESPONDENCE
NORTHGLENN'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OTHER STATES POLICY ON LAND APPLICATION
STATE POLICY ON LAND APPLICATION
WATERBORNE DISEASES - "Effects on Local Agriculture"
256
-------
INDEX
Em
ADAMS COUNTY 9, 48, 65, 74, 83, 97-98, 103, 119, 128, 149, 153
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL EFFECTS 10, 41, 73-74, 76-77
AIR QUALITY 88, 100-102, 104
ALLEN DITCH 137, 143, 145
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY iii, 6, 10-11, 59-61, 63, 105, 175
ARAPAHOE FORMATION 26-27, 94, 134, 147, 153
ARCHAEOLOGY 88, 100, 108, 155-156
AUGMENTATION PLAN iv, 6, 9, 16, 29-30, 32-34, 52-53, 84, 89, 112, 117, 127,
130
BACTERIA 7, 21, 23, 113, 140, 157-163
BACTERIOPHAGE 162
BARLEY 8, 27, 36, 55-56, 111, 116, 148
BERTHOUD CANAL (BERTHOUD PASS DITCH) 29, 31, 132, 134
BIG DRY CREEK 27-28, 48, 50-51, 69, 82, 128, 134, 137-142, 144
BOX ELDER CREEK 45
BULL CANAL 5-10, 19-21, 26-34, 39-41, 48-50, 54-55, 66, 69, 74-75, 82,
87-91, 97, 113, 115, 128, 132, 135, 137-140, 142, 144, 175
BURLINGTON DITCH 29, 45-46
CHLORINATION 5, 7, 22-23, 40, 88-89, 98, 111, 118, 135, 157, 160-161,
163-165, 167-170.
CHURCH DITCH 29, 31, 128, 132, 134, 137, 143, 145
CLEAR CREEK 28-29, 32, 52, 132-134, 137-145, 172
COAL RIDGE DITCH 40-41
257
-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 22, 51, 87-88, 93, 99, 111, 114-115, 142
CONSOLIDATED DITCHES (i.e. Lower South Platte Ditches) 111, 119
CONSUMPTIVE USE 30, 33, 39, 46, 106, 129-130
CORN AND SILAGE 56, 117, 148
CROKE CANAL 28, 33, 128, 133, 137-139, 143, 145
DACONO 7, 19, 48, 51, 64, 87, 89, 98, 111, 114, 118, 128, 177
DENVER 15, 46, 83, 97, 99, 101-102, 104-105, 111, 116, 127, 129, 131,
139-140, 149, 153
DENVER METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1 (DENVER METRO) 4, 5, 11, 16, 30-31.
35-37, 39, 46, 50-52, 54, 62, 64, 114, 119, 139, 165-168, 172-173,
175, 179
DENVER WATER BOARD 45-45
DISEASE 7, 140, 157, 159, 160
DISINFECTION 7, 40, 51, 64, 87-89, 97-98, 135, 157-158, 163, 177
EARTHQUAKE 47, 72-73, 153, 155
EDIBLE FOOD CROPS 7, 19, 22, 54, 88-91, 93, 97-99, 113, 129, 157-158, 160-152
ENERGY CONSERVATION 51, 59, 74, 88, 100, 105, 117
ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC. iii, 123, 124
FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY (FRICO) iv, 3-5, 7-9, 15, 16, 19,
23, 26-37, 39, 40, 45-46, 49, 51-54, 82, 89-92, 113, 115-116, 119,
132, 134, 137, 147
FARMERS HIGHLINE CANAL 29, 31, 128, 132, 134, 137, 143, 145
FAULTS 9, 50, 66-67, 92, 93, 153, 155
FECAL COLIFORM 7, 20-23, 88-89, 97, 111-112, 137, 138, 140, 142, 145-146,
158, 160
FIRESTONE 7, 19, 64, 89, 98, 113-114, 128, 177
FORT LUPTON 10, 39-40, 114
258
-------
FREDERICK 7, 10, 19, 39-40, 48, 64, 89, 98, 111-115, 117-119, 128, 177
GRANGE HALL CREEK 29, 31-32, 52-53, 134-135
GRANT CONDITIONS 7, 23, 51, 87, 89-93, 97-104, 107-108, 171
HEALTH RISKS (HEALTH HAZARDS) iii, 19, 21-24, 54, 87-89, 97, 111-114, 142,
157, 160
HEAVY METALS 20, 23-24, 56, 58-67, 93, 98, 114, 141-142, 147
cadmium selenium zinc vanadium manganese chromium
lead plutonium copper mercury molybdenum
HEPATITIS 157, 159-161
HYDRO-TRIAD INC. 82
IRRIGATION 5, 7, 11, 16, 19, 21-23, 26, 31-33, 35, 37, 39-41, 45-46, 53-55,
65, 82-83, 88-93, 98, 105-107, 112, 114, 129, 130, 132-135,
147-150, 152, 157-158, 160-162, 175
LARAMIE-FOX HILLS FORMATION 26-27, 134, 153, 155
MANAGEMENT AGENCY 88, 94-97, 115-116, 118
NITRATES 3, 6, 9-10, 15, 20, 26, 39-41, 54-56, 58, 62, 67, 72, 90,
111-112, 114, 117, 118, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142-144
nitrogen
nitrate
nitrification
ODOR 6, 10, 41, 67-70, 72, 114
PATHOGENS 21, 23, 112, 114, 140, 157, 160, 162-163
PERMITS iii, 8, 11, 51, 87-88, 95, 102-103, 111-113, 134, 165
POLIOVIRUS 157, 159, 162
RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 88, 100, 108, 142
ROCKY FLATS PLANT 108,141-142
SAFETY 47, 50, 72
SAND HILL LAKE 10, 40-41
259
-------
SCHAEFFER AND ROLAND, INC. 178
SEEPAGE 30, 33, 41, 47, 50, 65-67, 72, 82, 88, 92-93, 98, 113, 116
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS 66, 147
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER iii-iv, 3-5, 8-9, 26-34, 36-37, 39-40, 45-46, 50, 52,
54, 68, 82-83, 111, 115, 117, 128, 131-132, 135, 143.
145, 149, 152-153, 165, 171, 178
STANDLEY LAKE iv, 4, 7, 9, 15-16, 19, 26-29, 31-37, 39, 45-46, 52, 54,
82, 89-92, 108, 115, 128, 132-134, 138-139, 142, 144, 146,
149-151
STATE ENGINEER iii, 3, 8-10, 27, 30, 33, 53, 67, 127, 134
TAILWATER 7, 19, 41, 51, 64, 88-89, 93, 98, 111, 113-114, 118, 177
TAXES 9, 65, 83, 115, 117
TIPTON AND KALMBACH, INC. iii, 124
THORNTON 3-4, 15-16, 23-25, 28, 30-32, 45-46, 50-51, 53, 62, 82, 103,
132, 134, 171-175
URBAN RUNOFF iii-iv, 3-7, 31, 88, 100-101, 107, 127, 134-135
VIRUS 113-114, 140, 157-164
WATER CONSERVATION 6, 47, 49, 88, 100, 105-107
WATER COURT 4, 6, 9, 16, 29, 32, 33, 53, 89, 115-116, 127-134
WATER RIGHTS 4, 6, 9, 29-30, 32-33, 42, 52-54, 64, 82, 89, 92, 111, 116, 127.
129-131, 134-135, 175
WEEDS 82-83, 111, 118
WEISNER SUBDIVISION 69, 71-72, 74, 76, 78-79, 119
WELD COUNTY iv, 4-5, 9, 11, 48-50, 65, 74, 80-81, 83, 94-99, 111, 115,
118-119, 128, 147-148, 151, 171
WESTMINSTER 15-16, 28, 50-51, 82, 132, 139
WOMAN CREEK 108, 133
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS 27, 82
260
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
Cubic feet per second x 498.831 ¦ Gallons per minute
Cubic feet per second x 0.646317 ¦ Million gallons per day
Acre-feet x 43,560 ¦ cubic feet
Acre-feet x 325,851 ¦ Gallons
Cubic feet x 7.48052 ¦ Gallons
Feet x 30.48 ¦ Centimeters
Feet x 0.3048 ¦ Meters
Gallons x 0.1337 « Cubic feet
-3
Gallons per minute x 2.228 x 10 » Cubic feet per second
Hectares x 2.471 * Acres
Liters x 0.03531 « Cubic feet
Liters x 0.2642 * Gallons
261
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. j2-
EPA-908/5-5-79-002A !
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Northglenn Water Management Program
City of Northglenn, Colorado
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8W-EE
7. AUTHOFMS)
Weston W. Wilson and William Rothenmeyer, EPA
A1 Udin and Paul Seeley, Engineering Science, Inc.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering Science, Inc.
2785 North Speer Blvd., Suite 140
Denver, Colorado 80211
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEh/iem I ARY NOTES
Environmental Appraisal and Negative Declaration dated September 29, 1978» also
issued by EPA.
~6. ABSTRACT , '
This is a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed construction of
facilities to provide water supply, wastewater treatment and agriculture reuse of
sewage effluent for the City of Northglenn, Colorado. Under an exchange agreement
with the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, approximately 5,000 acre-feet
annually will be diverted forNorthglenn's municipal use, treated, augmented from
other sources, stored, and then returned for irrigation purposes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII, Denver, under the
authority of Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of_
1972s is authorized to grant 75 and up to 85 percent matching funds for construction
costs of designated wastewater treatment facilities.
The recommended action is to construct an 8 mile interceptor, aerated lagoon and
a storage reservoir. Implementation of the exchange program negates the pending
water condemnation actions that were in progress.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Wastewater Reclamation
Sewage Irrigation
Agricultural Reuse
Water Pollution
Flow Augmentation Plan
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Technology
Environmental Impact Statement
Denver Regional EIS for
wastewater facilities
and the Clean Water
Program
Denver Metro Sewage
Farmers Reservoir and
Irrigation Company
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. security CLASS (This Report/
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
22. PRICE
EPA farm 2220-1 (R«v. 4.77) previous edition is obsolete
------- |