HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-1998spDATE: October 21, 1998
TO: PR 616 File
FROM: Dennis Dowdy, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement 2 Partners Meeting - Meeting Summary
The following is a summary of a meeting held between the IA2 partners on Tuesday,
September 29, 1998, 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Aubum City Hall. This
summary is a staff recollection of items presented and discussed at this meeting.
In Attendance:
City of Auburn: Mayor Charles Booth, Public Works Committee Chairman Rich
Wagner, Committeemembers Fred Poe and Gene Cerino, Public Works Director
Cbxistine Engler, City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, Project Engineer Carl Every, Water
Utility Engineer Lara McKinnon, Project Engineer Les Brattain, Contracts Administrator
Caroline Bergt, Grant Accountant Joe Guinnasso. Consultants: Project Coordinators
from Hammond, Collier, Livingston & Wade, Bruce Livingston and Tracy Wentz, Mark
Utting of Pacific Groundwater Group, Water Right Attomey Thomas Mortimer, and
Cathy Carr of CCA.
Covington Water District: General Manager Judy Nelson, Commissioners Lys Hornsby,
David Knight, George (Dennis) Holden, Thomas deLaat, Jan Stafford, and Covington
Water District Engineer Duane Husky.
King County Water District No. 111: General Manager Larry Bradbury, Commissioners
Gary Cline, Dutch Randall and Charles Wilson, and District Engineer Greg Hill from the
consulting firm of Roth and Hill.
Others: Don Wright, Director of the South King County Regional Water Association.
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. and all members were welcomed by Lara
McKinnon.
Bruce Livingston, Project Coordinator, made opening remarks, introduced the agenda,
and gave an overview of the meeting.
Interlocal Agreement 2 Partners Meeting
gepternBer 29, 19911
Page 2 of 4
Introductions of all followed.
Brattain presented Construction Update slides (copies attached). He stated conveyance
lines are complete with the exception of the two ends - tying the river crossing into the
system that is completed at both sides of the river. Discussed status of pump stations.
Every presented Well 6 and Manganese Issue slides (copies attached).
Brattain presented Cost Update slides (copies attached). Costs up only 3-4% from last
update. May go to the 9% increase as shown on the slide if Well 6A requires extensive
redrilling and depending on the bids for the Green River Pump Station (costs now
estimated at $960K).
McKinnon presented Water Resources Program and Prospects slides (copies attached).
She opened up the session for questions and reintroduced the City Consultants, seated at
the front, to reply to questions.
Wagner asked if we are doing anything to insure we are doing the correct things with
DOE to insure water rights. Utting responded that both DOE and MIT responses are
positive; the DOE feeling is that we are doing everything right. He has followed-up on
comments from DOE and MIT consultants.
Cline said he had heard that the White feeds the Green River and asked how this affects
water rights. Utting responded that there is some connection, but it's too early to tell the
extent of this continuity since our aquifer study is not yet complete. Work is ongoing to
determine the impact of continuity and additional work may be required to mitigate this
impact. It is certain that we will have to do something for continuity, but we will know
more with the detailed model.
Cathy Cart arrived and was introduced at this point.
Homsby asked about the level of certainty for mid-May completion date - will we meet
it? Brattain responded that it looks good with our very tight and aggressive schedule -
nothing certain, but we are optimistic that we can achieve that target date.
Bradbury asked Utting if the modeling and primary water rights are going forward in
1999. Utting replied that it looks good. He has worked closely with DOE and expects no
surprises as DOE has been kept appraised as they have gone along. Mortimer followed-
up Utting's comments by stating he feels that all applications will most likely be delayed
due to ESA concerns. October/November is the NMFS deadline for permitting, per the
director, but not likely. Mortimer feels there will be a listing decision probably in March
and does not think any decisions will be made on Primary Water Rights until ESA
Interlocal Agreement 2 Partners Meeting
September 29, 1998
Page 3 of 4
concerns are addressed and guidelines in place for all. In regard to the 4D rule, a decision
will be made in January or February of 2000 that will set up the process and other items
needed at that time. Then applications will move forward.
Engler asked Mortimer if he perceives an oppommity for well organized elected officials
to participate in trying to move the issues along. Mortimer replied that water rights can
be taken out of the regular priority status if it is a demonstrated benefit to the
environment, or a regional benefit. Might get some action that way. As to elected
officials, it would be good to push around the end of 1999 when modeling is all done,
MIT issues completed, and the report(s) completed. MIT not only tolerates this work, but
would be a proponant of the issue and that will help greatly. The ESA response plan
must come first. ESA is trying to get local agencies within basins to plan remedies
themselves in an effort to be prepared and use resources efficiently.
Wilson asked if there is a drop-dead date for Well 6 being online. Mortimer responded
that June 30th was the last deadline and it expired after several extensions. The City
requested and received an extension until June 2000. Well 7 is going so well that it has
been a plus in asking and being granted the extension. Can locate the well anywhere
within the City and call it Well 6 - permit says must have well drilled, pump house in,
and water online to be complete. After showing proof of project completion, the City
will work on the primary rights. The application for primary water rights was filed in
1996.
Wagner inquired as to the pumping ability of Well 7. Utting responded that it is 5MGD.
It cannot exceed instantaneous and annual rights given by DOE.
Wilson asked if the City was having any problems with the district. Mayor Booth replied
no, that the partners are working well. Wagner commented that we are all disappointed
with the escalating costs.
Bradbury asked what happens if Well 6 doesn't go and had questions about timing - how
long? Every responded that it takes 3 to 4 months from the bid invitation date to
drill/test. Each redfill of 12-inch wells could go 2 to 3 months. 12 tested production
wells - 3 are good, 9 have elevated manganese. Odds discussed of getting a good well.
Covington asked why drill new wells - why not just supply the other districts from an
existing well? Every stated those wells are for the future of Auburn and new sources
must be developed for the other districts as what is being supplied now is interim only.
City will need additional water after the conclusion of the current planning period for its
own customers. Can allow the other districts interruptible water for this period of time
while other sources are being developed. With new rights, all partners can be a part of
those rights.
Interlocal Agreement 2 Partners Meeting
September 29, 1998
Page 4 of 4
Engler asked if the question was, "are we building new wells to solve our own manganese
problems?" Discussion centered around the issue that if we don't get new water rights,
we will not be able to move forward in supply for growth.
Covington wanted to know what has to be done to perfect what's needed to move forward
to secure primary water rights by 2000? Mortimer stated that supplemental rights are
different from primary rights. Permit is for both wells 6 and 7.
Poe asked if you can't get a water right certificate unless you can prove - show that you
can pump it. Mortimer responded that the Court says you must show annual quantity, as
well as instantaneous. Aubum takes the well field approach. Supplemental rights vs.
primary rights discussed.
Carr of CCA distributed copies of Exhibit D, new cost revision (copy attached).
Homsby asked what were the original cost estimates. Brattain said original IA2 costs
were $5.4K. Discussion was held about the spreadsheet and interest accrued on original
deposits. Engler pointed out that Intertie Pump Station and Well 6A call out worse case
scenarios, and may come out better.
Engler asked Every to summarize where the manganese comes from. He said that our
best understanding of this process is that it was deposited from Mt. Rainier flows, carded
by the rivers, and deposited relatively in the channels; less being deposited in flood
plains. Manganese is in historic river channels. With new drilling, layers of deposited
manganese may or may not be hit. Water flows from zones - we are siting the new well
close and upstream to the depth of well 2, as to be in the same water capture zone. This
gives the City some level of confidence that this will be a good well with acceptable
levels of manganese.
The question was raised as to the bilateral compliance agreement with corrosion control
on Well #2 and how that will affect the new well. Everyone responded that a plan is
being worked on. Well 6 and 7 were not in that agreement and that corrosion control is
not part of IA2.
Closing remarks and thanks from McKinnon were made. The meeting ended at 7:55 p.m.
DRD/PM/bd
REF. H:NPROJNPR616-33XE98-1190