Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1976 iY■ Lin r j J 1 1 0.rit W~~ ,~TX. 3 j dallos water utilities j 500 S. Ervay • DOW, Texas 75277 (214) 748.9711 30 March 1976 t Y Mr. John C. Ball Chief, Planning Branch Fort Worth District ` Corps of Engineers ! P. 0. Box 17300 E Fort Worth, Texas 76102 / Dear Mr. Balls This responds to your letter of 9 February 1976 requesting comments on the draft Master Plan for the development and management of the Aubrey Lake project. Major comments are listed below and minor comments on the attachment. t It Is desired to reaffirm the position of the City of Dallas stated in our comments Y" i dated 10 October 1973 on the draft of General Design Memorandum No. 2, quoted in k t pertinent part for ready reference, as follows: "...we suggest reductions In the project scope by elimination of the features listed below... y 'A. Purchase of 41,6 acres of additional iar„i and construction of additional recreational facilities at Lewisville Lake. Moreover, we do not feel that the City of Dallas should be expected to pay for capital costs of development of any addl- Clonal recreational facilities at Lewisville. If these are needed, we believe that the federal government should provide them as It did the existing recreational facilities. "B. Purchase of 203 acres for Culp Branch Park at Aubrey Lake. This is an untlmbered area and the price of land Is high. If comparable recreational facilities are required, they should be provided In area where land Is not so expensive and where there are some rative trees. "C. Purchase of the two proposed five acre tracts for Elm Fork I access areas 01 and 02. It is believed that the stream bed ,:j; In this area is likely to be nearly dry most of th3 time. Releases from the conservation pool will be made based on i water supply needs which will probably not coinelde with recreation needs." 3 i I .1 ANtyut}IHypravidingUlmswithwaterpurificationanddisIftution,wastawatercollectionandtreatment p, I " I 3 Mr. John C. 8all 30 March 1976 - page 2 1 { With respect to the above recommendations, we note the following: I ~ A. Lewisville lake is not covered in this Master Plan, but we understand that E the purchase of an additional 41.6 acres of land and tha Imposition of E I~ cost-sharing of recreation at Lewisville are still contemplated. i 8. Rather than eliminate the purchase of 203 acres for Culp Park, the land to be acquired specifically for recreation has been Increased to 251 acres. Culp Branch site has little natural recreation potential and Its selection appears to be predicated on a desire to have a park at the west end of the ' dam. The site Is treeless and will require the dredging of an expensive channel to make boating practicable. Trees would have to be planted to make It a desirable picnic site. i C. Our re:onmendation to eliminate the purchase of two 5-acre tracts.for Elm Fork Park appears to have been adopted, but It is apparently proposed to locate recreation facilities at this site on land otherwise acquired for 1 the project. 1 The best potential park on the lake, Isle du Bois, has been committed to the State. 1 As it is the prime park site, It would lend itself to a commercial developme.it and j { its dedication to State use removes this alternative. While assumption of the :urden of a portion of the recreational requirements by the State will reduce the I burden on the local cooperating sponsors, this must be off-set by the potential diminution of attractiveness to potential commercial sponsors. r h Section XVII Cost'Estlmates I The detail provided Is excellent, yet the cost of additional recreational facilities proposed at Lewisville lake but attributed to Aubrey lake are not Included. Your Mr. Sam Garrett advised cur consultant, Mr. 0. L. Gardner, by telephone on March 8, 1976, that these facilities are still considered to be necessary. 'j Section XIV Fish and Wlldllfe Management Plan I The releases requested by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not likely to coin- cide with a need for releases for water supply purposes. Psrhaps flood control storage could be retalnod in the Aubrey flood control pool in sufficient quantity to comply with this request, although It is appreciated that this may cause operatlrig problems. 1 The request for three access areas below the dam and your response thereto Is of concern to the City of Dallas because of the implication of reservoir releases at the expense of operating the reservoir to optimize water supply benefits. These areas will be adjacent to a dry stream bed most of the time unless releases are being made from Aubrey lake. If arrangements are made for the requested releases so the requested areas could become useful, then the cost should be assigned to the entity being servod, rather than the water supply sponsors. I ,f i ♦ rMi4 YMI~ 7 ' Mr. John C. Bell - 30 March 1976 - page 3 In view of the Interest shown in Aubrey lake by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Com- mission, as evidenced by their agreement to contract for the Isle du Bois site, It I is recommended that consideration be given to requesting that agency to assume responsibility for managing the entire recreation plan for Aubrey take. Texas Parks and Wildlife have much more expertise In designing, constructing and man- aging lake-related recreational facilities in a non-urban area than does the City of Dallas as a local sponsor. We intend to pursue this possibility with the Texas Parks and Wildlife. Section XI Administration and Management i E It would be most helpful If those paragraphs of this section which bear on Operating, Maintenance b Replacement (OMbk) by t%e cities were elaborated upcn or supplemented in some way so as to provide the cities with the benefit of the Corps; wide experience f in OMSR of recreational facilities, Insofar as It Is reasonable and practIcal. f The credibility of the economic feasibility determinations for Culp Branch and Pecan Creek Parks is strained to some extent by the Candeub, Flelssig Report with respect 1 to the conflict between stated desires of Tote'-Restaurant operators and K.O.A. type developers for long-term leases with renewal optlons and the Corps' policy relating to such matters. Some modification of leasing policy would Improve the credibility of the estimated potential revenues. f Section XVIII Coordination Many of the foregoing views have previously been furnished you in either conference or staff discussions but do not appear to be reflected In the draft Master Plan. It Is hoped that you will be able to accept our recommendations In the final report. j Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft. In view of the present uncertainties concerning this project, such as the pending status of the issuance of a permit by the Texas Water Rights Commission and the concept of greater involvement by 'texas Parks and Wildlife, it might be well to defer preparation of a new draft until these problems have been resolved. We will also be interested In having a provision Incorporated in the draft recreation contract which recognizes the limitation on repayment described In Section 2(b), j Public Law 89-72. i Yours very truly, j I 1. N. Rlee Acting Director DALLAS WATER UTILITIES i IMR: jd cc: Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission of ty of Denton, Texas Mr. Dan S. Petty, Asst. City Manager att. { ...f'.NM ♦.eJe,.M -MI .gym n~.s l,n _ I r. wF~ J I u d Additional Comments Draft Master Plan Aubrey Lake Project Section VII - Land and Water Use Plan of Development It Is assumed that the signs, buoys, and markers mentioned in subparagraphs 11 7-03 b, d, and a will be the responsibiiJty of the Corps of Engineers and therefore not subject to cost-sharing unless ttay are Immediately adjacent k to and essential to the safe operation of a recreational area which is sub- ject to cost-sharing. This should be clarified. { It is assumed that the Corps of Engineers will be solely responsible for the f administration and management of those Collateral and Interim uses described ' in Paragraph 7-04 and the Hunting discussed In Paragraph 7-05 and.that the city will bear no responsibility therefor. This should be clearly stated. +I Section VIII - Physical Plan of Development The discussions of the four access areas would be materially enhanced and would become meaningful if the proposed site locations were shown on the ' reservoir maps, Plates VII-I and VII-2. Il _ _ ~ Section IX - Facllity_load and_Other Design Criteria yyy The picnic tables are described in Paragraphs 9-13 and 9-14 as "wooden tables further described parenthetically as "(steel frame with wood tops and seats)". t 1 However, the typical picnic unit referred to in each of the cited paragraphs as being shown on Plate IX-2, shows a "precast conc. table" with a "precast conc. bench" which is acceptable. They should be sealed with a polyurethane or equal substance to enhance sanitation. Naps Better maps were furnished with the recreation appendix to the General Design Memorandum than are contained In this draft. The access areas and Elin Fork Park appear to have been omitted from the maps. The Inclusion of aerial photo- i graphs is tin Improvement. 1 i Attachment. I ~G64:•i/ Fro•~.VF S] [ tic; qF V BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 007 SAN,FCIN/0 PurL01N0 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 FRANK R. BOOTH TCLC►.IoN[ Mall Ua %Sol { ROBERT H. LLOYD j LUTCH£R B. SIMMONS March 91 1976 JAMES A: BANNEROT General Jame3 Rose Executive Director Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texan 78711 Dear General Rose: r This letter is a request from i:he Cities of Denton, 1 Frisco, Lewisville, Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie for an opportunity to present their application to the Texas Water Development Board at its March 16, 1976, meeting for assis- 'tance in construction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project author- ized by Congress for construction by the U. S. Corps of Engineers in the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1965, P.L. 89-298. As proposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the Aubrey 3 Reservoir project would be a multiple purpose Project con- taining recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control and E municipal water supply storage benefits. Conservation storage would include an additional 177,600 acre feet by enlargement of the existing Lewisville Reservoir Project and 799,600 acre feet in the new Aubrey Reservoir. The combined f safe yield of the two reservoirs is estimated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers to be 91,200 acre feet per annum or an average of 81.4 million gallons per day. ; In 1969, the Texas Water Rights Commission designated the Cities of Dallas and Denton local sponsors of the Pro- ject and these two oitiL~' have negotiated contracts with the U. S: Corps 'of Engineers whereby Denton would acquire a 26 ! percent interest in the Project at an estimated cost of ' $28.4 million and Dallas would acquire u 74 percent interest in the Project at an estimated cost of $80.6 million. The Texas Water Rights Commission received applications for permits to appropriate, impound, divert and use water from ' the Project from the Cities of Dallas and Denton and the following additional public subdivisions of the States Political Subdivision Tm oP und, Divert and Use City of Frisco 68,000 9,000 City of Gainesville 420000 60000 'Colony Municipal Utility District No. 1 300000 40285 Collin-Denton County Water i sanitation District 480000 60500 r ' I t .RM-r 1'MNI Y„':.'R 4Y N 1 ' FF ineral James Rose March 9, 1976 Page 2 i The Texas Plater Rights Commission hold a joint public hearing beginning on January 13, 1976, on all six appli- cations for permits. A dispute between Dallas and the other applicants'developed during the hearing with Dallas con- tending that recognition of prior water right claims of Dallas reduced the safe yield of the Project to 21.9 M.G.D. t and the other applicants contending that the safe yield of f the Project is 81.4 M.G.D. as found by the U. S. Corps of Engineers which is the additional safe yield water supply E produced by the Project without impairment of prior water right claims by Dallas. J j An additional controversy developed during the hearing when Dallas announced that it was discontinuing its long- standing policy of making the water supply benefits of the Project available through water supply contracts with water- shed cities and D411 as County City customers of Dallas. Dallas announced its position that its application sought a permit from the Aubrey Project exclusively for the benefit of the City of Dallas and that it would not accept a permit under any other circumstances. The Texas Water Rtghts commission, at the close of S evidence on January 19, 1976, continued the hearing until 1 February 18, 1976. During the interval, the Director of Permits Division of the Texas Water Rights Commission, Mr. A. H.•Richardson, submitted a memorandum to the Commission dated February 11, 1976, concerning the evidence received by Commission .the your of Mr. Richards n'sgmethe safe morandum is yield enclosed for j A copy information. Mr. Richardson's memorandum contains the following con- . elusions and recommendations concerning the safe yield of the Project: 01. Yield of Aubrey Project The firm yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir plus Lewisville Reservoir enlargement) is totally de- pendent on the extent of existing downstream water rights and the priority of those water rights. There is not significant disagreement among parties involved that the Aubrey Project increases the firm yield of the existing Elm Fork system by about 81.4 mgd (910200 i acre-feet per year). ."The computer simulations are merely a series of mathe- matical computations and the results are dependent only on the concittions and constraints established. The only RiA niflca ahh difference between all the yield • .oral James Rose .aarch 91 1976 Page 3 studies of the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to the overdrafting of the existing Lake Lewis- Ville. The other studies did not." 04. Recommendations A. Recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that ~r determined by the Corps of Engineers to be distribu- ted on this basis of ownership of increased storage space in each reservoir. H: Limit total annual diversions from all sources by each permittee to the firm annual yield of all of permittee's water supply facilities." On the question of safe yield, Robert S. Gooch, a con- sulting engineer with the firm of Freese and Nichols and a i witness for Denton, testified that the yield of 81.4 M.G.D. does riot affect Dallas' prior water right claims because j during the critical drought period all inflows arc passed through the Aubrey storage for the beneLlit of downstream I rights and that the 81.4 M.G.D. yield from Aubrey is devel- oped ualely from water in storage at the beginning of the j critical drought. period (Tr. 779-780). On cross examina- tion, !,illiam A. Sims, a consulting engineer with the firm 3 of Forrest and Cotton, Inc., and a witness for Dallas, admitted that the computer operation yield study introduced into evidence and proposed by Dallas to reduce the safe yield to 21.9 M.C.D. contemplated reducing the storage content of existing Lewisville Reservoir and the Aubrey Project to zero on numerous occasionso including a 16 con- secutive month period from October 1955 to January 1957,(^xr. 726-729). 3 on February 18, 1976, the applicants stated their positions on the evidence and Dallas presented a position paper which stated that Dallas would not accept a permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission unless it gave all of the benefits of Dallas' 74 percent of the Project exclu- sively to the City of Dallas. At this point, the Chairman of the Texas {dater Rights Commission announced that Con- gressman R$y+ Roberts, the congressional sponsor, had advised him that there would be no Federally funded Aubrey Project unless the benefits of the Project were available to the watershed cities and Dallas County customer cities as well f as to :.Zllas itself. Chairman Carter and Commissioner • Dorsey D. Hardeman then both stated that they would not issue Dallas a permit unless it contained conditions which required Dallas to continue to furnish water to the water- shed cities and Dallas County customer cities and which l R 1. q4FY' l 11♦ 194IY.kJ1 r yy■■{ {.Sh f.lV~ I i general James Rose March 9, 1976 M Page 9 allowed these cities to Aubre p Participate in the benefit Y project. its of the Following these announcements and discussion, the Commission continued the hears o'clock ng until ' e A.M. March 18, 1976, at 20 Dallashadopted,aoresolution relating,tohtheiPositioniofot City of Dallas. the 7 ' has furnished I am informed that an attorney for Dallas ~ you with a copy of this resolution. As I read and understand the resolution, Dallas takes the ostion that it will not accept a permit which contains tbeicon- I ditions Chairman Carter and Commissioner Hardeman announced i must be in any Permit issued to Dallas. From.the above discussion,.pr , con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and ReservoirtProjectihas been Jeopardised by reason of the expressed unwillingness of the j City of Dallas to consider accepting a permit from the Texas Water Rights CO,MIl ssion'in the form and of the content the i Commission feels required by law. Conceivably, Dallas will conclude that its best interests etservedybyf 4 not participating in this Project. Faced with this ability, the cities mentioned in the first Prob- i letter desire to express their interest in participatin this the Aubrey project in conjunction with the Slater Development B oard. These cities hope that the Water Development Board will shouldnDallas electlnotntosacceptrtheitate in the Project Water Rights Ccmmission will issue. ype of permit the An appropriate response b At this time would be adoptionyofthe Water PesolutionlwhichtstBoard something along the linos of the following: ates "NOW, THEREFORE, PE IT RESOLVED that the Texas Water ,E Development Board supports the earliest possible con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and Reservoir will, if requested, entertain applicationspforefinnna I vial assistance in the manner presecribed by law, in furtherance of such Project to the extent that local sponsoring entities are unable to obtain permits for the full yield of the Project and contractually meat 'and give the assurances required by law for construe- tton of the Project." Very truly yours, ` FRD:bjs Frank R. Booth Enclosure MkNP.l7 lfe +.a+h`Y iNt:K I BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DENTON/DALLAS CONTRACT AUBREY RESERVOIR 1. 21.2 MOD Out of new Aubrey + 4.5 MOD Lake Lewisville 25.7 MOD From total supp17 '2. All prior rights of Dallas (Certified Filing 475 etc.) are f set aside insofar as Dallas and Denton are concerned. Prior rights are set aside hereafter forever between the cities. ~ 3. Overdraft - Denton will he limited to 29.2 MOD (year 2020 needs), subject to Water Rights Commission finding and approving a back-up source. Denton will have overdraft rights in the be- ginning of 5 MGD backed by wells. * (A second reservoir or supply will have to be acquired, +I but the 29.2 overdraft right plus the 25.7 safe yiuld 1 equals 54.9 MOD, which is equal to Denton's needs until the year 2020.) { 4. Continued sale of water to Denton until Aubrey project is completed. I 5. The Commission to grant applications for permits and the per- mits to be issued upon Denton and Dallas filing executed y i contracts with the Corps of Engineers. 1 6. Signed contract before we go back to Water Rights Commission ov February 18, 1976. 3 i a j 1 I A ~ , . tmRr j i f OUTLINE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH DALLAS'RE AUBREY RESERVOIR AND DIS- CUSSIONS TO DATE. f 1. Dallas guaran4.ees Denton 25.7 MGD subject to reduction ONLY by the granting by TWRC of upstream diversion rights that would decrease the yield of Aubrey and Lewisville. ' 2. Dallas entitled to all return flows until such time as Denton uses water from third source, then Denton shall get 26% of the increased return flows from third or subsequent sources. 3. Dallas permitted to overdraft and Denton may overdraft when IlI we have sufficient safe yield as approved by TWRC. 4. Dallas to sell water to Denton at 2 1/2 cents plus pumpage I until 1980 and then at posted raw water prices. if in 1990, Aubrey has not filled, Denton will develop another source. In any event, Dallas will not sell water past year 2000. i i j 5. Denton's effluent goes to Elm Fork watershed. 6. Denton will not sell water to other cities without approval of Dallas or unless ordered to dos 3 o by a governmental agency. ~ 1 7 a i r Aq ..4c r d s i i C tJ Of Denton e. d1)""(ipul 1~,~ildir,~l, De►ito~~,T:~zcs 76201 it 1lJ imgei February 26, 1976 The Honorable Ray Roberts House of Representatives ii Washington D,C. 24515 1 Dear Ray: On Monday of this week, the City Council of the City of Dallas, held a special meeting ng to be briefed on the water rights and water rates cases of the City of Dallas. I have nclosed two news articles from the Dallas newspaper which reports the Dallas con- tern in their water problems. I have not received any kind of communications from any of the City of Dallas staff, but in reading between the lines in these newspaper stories, perhaps it is at last clear what Dallas really wants and what their real concerns are over the Aubrey project. This is strictly an assumption on p City of Dallas is tr-ing to use theaAubrey~Rebut I servoirlasvlevera ehe against the Texas t,'et hand in distributing theRwater as they iseetfitt, andDalsosin thee processes of making charges to their wholesale cities as they feel necessary without any jurisdiction from the Texas Water Rights Commission. As I said earlier, this just a hunch I have, but as you read the article, see if you share the same feelings. I do not believe they nave any concern whatsoever as to any dif- ferences in, the yield figures that the City of Denton and the Corps have submitted as opposed to their contention of the water rights that Aubrey will ma~e available to the water shed. I believe these figures are gust "window-dressing" to their real concerns which is to apply preasure on the Water Rights Commission and perhaps even on your own office so that they might gain a free hand in shuffling the water rights in the north Texas area to suit their own whims. Ray, if I hear anything further on this project, I shall be sure and let you know. I wou?d'appreciate your remarks after you have had a i j NIAQ16~ 1 I 777f Page 2 Y The Honorable Ray Roberts 10 chance to look at these newspaper articles to see if you get the same feeling as I do. Tell me if you think I'm off-base as to what they are really after. J Sinf'f rely, Jim W. White City Xanager { City of Denton JWW/kf j A ' Attachments ';t { I y . ~ II rfi ~ Ir Y ~ (r Ye ~ 9 p■¢`► RCJf~ 1 {Y al I aVOC 1 7 , I x 000 CITY OF DALLAS February 27, 1976 1 I CC I Mr. James W. White, City Manager E City of Denton Municipal Building Denton, TX 76201 t ' Dear Jim: ou may have been made aware of recent actions by the Texas Water Rights € Commission which may have significant impact on the City of Dallas' c Capability to carry out-the Long-Range Water Supply Program in behalf of our mutual interests, , Actions have been taken recently by the Commission tions of the Cities of Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie. reOurcperceptioneof these actions is that a pattern is evolving which would impose an obligation on Dallas to develop water resources without obtaining a commitment to tike and pay for the water from those for whom it is developed. Also developing { is a disturbing pattern in which Dallas would furnish water for some area 1 cities without long-term contracts and without commitments to pay for their fair share of the costs for facilities develaped specifically for those com- munities. There is also a perception of a decision that could distribute the costs of developing and supplying water inequitably between (1) City of Dallas rate payers and others who have long-term contractual obligations to meet their obligations and pay their fair share and are developing and paying for the water supply facilities; and (2) some area communities who would realize benefits from those efforts without the corresponding commitments to share in the costs of development of the water resources. Concerned by this situation, the Dallas City Council adopted a policy! b resolution on February 23, 1976, which has the effect of moving into a 'tid- ing pattern" on further development and expansion of service to connecting cities pending the outcome of the rate case. (Copies of the Council Communi- cation and the Resolution are attached.) As one of our patron cities, your city's welfare will by affected by this ros- olution even though you are not a direct party to the rate case, it is our intention to consult with you on our future concerns with earnest hope that the 9 I Continued on page 2 r i 0►►itt O►TNR CIfY MAN AOlII CUT"gl OA lA7, TERAl f!}pl lillhONE lII /E/ll flfll f* y Mr. James W. White - 2 - February 27, 1916 , t question of rates to connected cities can be settled in such a way to not penalize City of Dallas customers and at the same time adequately accomo- date the long-range needs of customer cities with long term contracts. Your staff will be contacted in the near future by our Director of Water Utilities, Mr. 1. M. Rice, as to short-term alternatives to supply water to your city. For your further information, the City Council has authorized an outside consultant to conduct a thorough analysis of costs of water service which may lead to adjustments in the current method of deterxining rates so as to conform with new requirements by independent auditors, state regulatory bodies, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We would like for you to consult with us on this study of costs as the project progresses. The consul i i tant has just begun his, work, and we would like for you to share with us your views as the study progresses. Also, we would iikt. to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these matters of mutual concern. Please call me or Dan Petty, Assistant City I Manager, whenever you would like to discuss these important matters, Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincere y I City Manager e Schrader k is Atts. t , rte.. K i .r 4. NUUM 64-6 { wtI February 20, 1976 CITY OF DALLAS ro Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Long-Range Water Supply Program (Agenda Item 58, Page 6) i ` Submitted for consideration by the City Council on February 23, 19760 1s J V a resolution which authorizes the City Manager to undertake alternative j I and contingent courses of action with respect to implementation of the i Long-Range Water Supply Plan. An order by the Texas Water Rights Commission on'February 91 1976, overruling Dallas' motion to dismiss the complaint of Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie concerning water rates necessitates this redirection. f Approval of the resolution is recommended. f Background r'I In approving the long-range water program on April 28, 1975, the City # Council adopted and launched a program to develop water resources for I I county and water shed communities which obligate themselves by contract to participate fully in the direct costs of providing such facilities plus repayment for production and resource developments owned and paid for by the citizens of Dallas and dedicated to the present and future requirements of the contracting communities. The long-term effect of the February 9, 1976, order of the Texas (later Rights Commission would be to require the City of Dallas to supply water j f for communities who have not obligated themselves by contract to pay their i 1 fair share of the costs oTdeveloping these water resources. Moreover, the preliminary report by the Nearing Examiner in the Farmers Branch-Grand Prairie rate case recommends rates for these two Cities that would not permit the City of Dallas to recover the full costs of providing for the present and future water requirements of these two Cities thereby triggering the necessity for consideration of an iumediate increase in water rates for Dallas citizens. While it is possible that some relief fr,v the Hearing Examiners recommendations may be obtained, either from Commission's findings which would be less prejudicial to Dallas than those proposed by the Hearing Examiner, or, by successful appeal by the City of Dallas of the final Commission; findings to the courts, prudence dictates that Dallas take steps now to protect itself against potential adverse rulings either by the Coimnission or ultimately by the courts and develop a contingency plan for eater supplies for the citizens( of Dallas. ! t f .mwa~ r,e re 64-6 pC - 4 oau February 201 1976 CITY OF DALLAS • s ,o Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council wrgcr Long-Range Water Supply Program Page 2 (Agenda Item 58, Page 6) Measures recommended at this time include the following: r A. flake capital improvement investments, until settlement of the rate case, only for system facilities which may• serve inside City of Dallas customers. B, Enter into no new contracts with customer cities and, as current contracts expire, extend them on a year-to-year basis only. C. Develop a contingency plan and allocate the present maximuni capability of the water production distribution system, now estimated at 500 million gallons Pc". day, between the Dallas customer cities and the City of Dallas on the basis of their 1975 water use. A part of the plan should also be to develop vidi the ngstgthoseacitiesallocated, to the an allocation method for amo outside cities D. The City of Dallas maintain and defend its interests in its water utility system and contest to the fullest extent any adverse decisions by the Texas Water Rights Commission on rate matters and other matters which may adversely affect those interests. E. -In concert with other cities who have long-term arrangements for water with the City of Dallas, reevaluate and reassess s and our relat developmentnofia concer edastrategy fornmeetingiourimutual water supply needs. Summary It is regrettable that conflicting' positions of No cities have put in ieopardy and threatened interruption of the concerted action of cities 11 in this area in developing the long-P.angr: Water Supply Plan undertaken I by the City of Dallas to benefit both its citizens and those of neighboring ' I i -MON t „O r• l !!~tY3lI Itxxaa~ ~1111'~Li11 a xW+.re 64-6 DAYS February 20, 1916 Ci1Y OF DALLAS to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council mancY Long-Range Water Supply Program Page 3 (Agonda Item 58, Page 6) communities. Because of the substantial financial obligations involved, f the City of Dallas must undertake to protect the rights of its %in citizens. Should the rate case be resolved in a manner which is equitable to Dallas citizens, it may then be possible. to proceed with the implementation of the Long-Range Water Supply Plan as originally envisaged. Until such an acceptable solution is finally developed, ! this resolution will serve to put tha wator supply program on a eon- tangent and alternative course of action. Adoption of the resolution is recommended. It ~~A~,~1, ~ Its George R. Schrader City Manager b i ' l a 1 ~Dtb~ NM~ I I 1 I COUNCIL CHAMDER 1 February 23, 1976 WHEREAS, the City of Dallas as a matter of policy has undertaken to develop long-range water reserves and water supply for the Dallas area and reaffirmed this policy on April 28, 1975 with the adoption of the Long-P.ange Program recommended by the City of Dallas :dater Supply Advisory Committee in the following language: "DE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: "Section I. That the Long-Range Program as recommended by the city of Dallas hater Supply Advisory Committee be and is hereby adopted and th Instructed to proceed with the the City Manager is implementation of the plan insofar as the central city require- ments demand and to develop future water resources for those county communities and communities in the area of origin which obligate themselves by contract to participate fully in the cost of providing such facilities plus repayment for pr-)duction and resources developments ovrned and paid for by the citizens of Dallas dedicated to their present and future requirements;" and W1.EREAS9 the City of Dallas has entered into long-term water supply contracts with area cities pursuant to such policy, but the Cities of Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie have declined to sign such contracts and have instead brought actions against the City of Dallas before the Texas Water [tights Commission seeking to compel the 'City of Dallas to provide service on a basis and at rates which rpermit Dallas oftthe its costs to theeouthat tsidealias customer cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having been advised of the present status of the rate litigation betirreen the City of Dallas and the Cities of Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie, now is of the opinion that until the basic issues of this litigation are resolved, it would be imprudent and contrary to the interests of the citizens of Da nd to its _-tatm customers for t s proceed with i t a ditiona cap faTlimmoprov-ew7en-t--pr-oiTcm or the Dallas water system not now under c no strucifea the nurrose of which could be for providing slater service to outside j city customers; V1V014, THERE6~E, i BE 17 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COU"1CIL OF TOE CITY Of DALLAS: Section 1. The City Eianager is directed to make capital improvement investments, E until settlement or the rate case, only for system facilities which may serve inside City of i0_llas customers and to suspend until the termination of the pending customer city rate litigation or until otherwise directed by the City Council, all other projects for additions or improvements to the water system which would serve customer cities. a 4 ' COUNCIL CHAMBER February 23, 1976 i ' Section 2. Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, the City Manager is not to enter into new contracts with customer cities and, as current contracts expire, extend them on a year-to-year basis only. Section 3. Since the present capacity of the Dallas hater system serving the City of Dallas and the Dallas County customer cities now purchasing water from the City of Dallas will be exceeded in the near future, and possibly before the present rate litigation is terminated, as a temporary measure and for the pur- pose of protecting present quantity uses pending the resolution of the present rate litigation, the City Manager is hereby directed to develop a contingency ptan and allocate the present maximum capability of the water production distri- bution system, now estimated at 590 million gallons per day, between the Dallas I i customer cities and the City of Dallas on the basis of their 1975 water use. A ` part of the plan should also be to develop an allocatioi method for dividing the E Ei amount allocated to the outside cities equitably amor,it tnose cities. I Section 4. The City Manager or his designee is furtht:r directed to develop, reevaluate and reassess in concert with other cities Ono have long-term arrange- ments for mater with the City of Dallas, Dallas' relationships and comparative responsibilities in the development of a concerted strategy for meeting our mutual water supply needs. Section 5. The City Attorney is directed to take all steps necessary to protect and defend the interests of the City of Dallas in its water utility system and to i } contest to the fullest extent any adverse decisions by the Texas Water Rights f Commission on rate matters and other matters which may affect those interests. Section 6. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved. ! I r l i j A!►AOVtD~Y L!"-`.T.C ARIROYCD_~... ..-..CAI►RO ...!!S "SAO O/ 01/AA10,M1 C11, AUDHOR tiff MANArto E'; Fm MAi BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 30T SAN JAGN10 OWLOIN0 AUSTIN,TEXAS ?0701 a FRANK R. BOOZ ! lu[rNONt<~I~la+~sa ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT / i Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney I Municipal Building E Denton, Texas 76201 Rot Aubrey Reservoir Project 1 Ja, ! Dear Paul t ,I . Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published it, the area. i As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward y with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend f that we go forward with applications for pormits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- ! i viously. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Drivel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see tho Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. I Very truly yours, Frank R, Booth FRBtbjs Enclosure E cot Mr, Robert Gooch 1 h Y t I 1 K4keA f rpm.. I I AA'. .01 ..v.;. 1 w fi r l1CV n~!!h'} , ' BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 707 SAN JACINIO 6WlOINO AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 PRANK R. BOOTH T[LKP14"E ISIS) 4792504 ROBERT I, I. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. DANNEROT 1 I ~ I Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Roi Aubrey Reservoir Project I 111 i I Dear Paull Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. ;i As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward s with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- viously. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jiro Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRBlbjs I Enclosure cos Mr. Robert Gooch 1 ' t i k • ~~rtrr:)fjin•r ' BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 102 1 AN JAC M 0 0U1101 NO , AUSTIN, T EXA^. W01 FRANK R. BOOTH uuoNOnt (sI» srstsos ROBERT H. LLOYD LLITCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 j JAMES A, BANNEROT { I i Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 {j Re: Aubrey Reservoir Project bear Paul: j Enclosed is a copy•of a resolution adopted by the City l' of'Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a ,i. number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. E As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward' with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend { that we go forward with applications for permits on your { behalf along the lines that Y have discussed with you pre vio.+Sly. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by r the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. f Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRB:bjs Enclosure co: Mr. Robert Gooch i I A ! ' f 1 4.Y 1 riF a~ f rnuf)fpmr BOOTH. LLOYD AND SIMMONS lot "N JAOMTO DWILDINO AUS?4N. T ERAS 78706 re0s FRANK R. 600TH 1 E.tvHONt 41101 ROBERT' H. LLOYD LUTCHER B SIMMONS March 1, 1976 j JAMES A. BANNEROT 1 I 1 Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building E Denton, Texas 76201 i Rel Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paul: j { Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articies recently published in the area. As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward E with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend R that we go forward with applications for permits on your ! behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- viously. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Beard, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply bacause Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth j j FRBsbjs ' Enclosure cas Mr. Robert Gooch 1 i I f w .u peu4, v 1 I Lnr f1/fKrA , BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 707 /AN JA[IN10 61u4oiNO PRANK R. BOOTH AusTIN,7EXAS7870t i[![PHON[ I/i71 U/ /!0/ ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. 13ANNEROT Mr. Paul Isham , City Attorney Municipal Building ! Denton, Texas 76201 j Rot Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Pauli 1 ~ Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City 1 of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area, As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward , with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- 1 y• 1 I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see i the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. d Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRBibja Enclosure j cot Mr. Robert Gooch 1 1 { .f il,~aw1~ I y, ~ a,reyr A"(i y I , • I r ~illn!llltia 900TH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS JO! ILAN JACINTO OUILOiNO FRANK R, BOOTH AVS1 .TEXAS>a)os ROBERT H. LLOYD ItUrIvON[ Otis, I» o», LOTCHER U SIMMONS JAMES A,9ANNEROT March 1, 1976 Mr, Paul Isham City Attorney it Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Re, Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paul, j ' Enclosed is a COP Of Dallas o Februar 23of a resolution adoptod by the City Y , 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area, As I read the resolution, Dallas will not o forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your . behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- Viously. i I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General ,aim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out, Kindest personal regards, Very truly Yours, ~ Flank R. Booth FRSibjs Enclosure eei Mr, Robert Gooch a Y ry111A-^ ~4iYtl Bi➢N&~ pR'flY', JI 4] T.1vM.'.1mp 7 ' I 11 • / Illll' 1~lllfl'J • BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS HE SAN JACINTO OpKDIN4 AUSTIN. TEXAS 70701 FRANK R. BOOTH T[ISOHDNS (51:) .TS ROBEnT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT / Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Res Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Pauli i Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. ,I As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- viously. a I would also like to inform you that Y am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Davel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see tpe Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth rRBtbjs Enclosure i cot Mr. Robert Gooch i i i f 1, I .•yl<~ n..- Ll1*q~ ~ I I r.ui Al1Iren BOOTH. LLOYD AND SIMMONS $07 SAN,ACIN10 DUR )iNO AUSTIN. TE%AS70 01 FRANK R, BOOTH TMPHONK (51:) U,1 W4 RODERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B, SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT l v i i Mr. Paul Isham 1 City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 ~ I Ref Aubrey Reservoir Project i Dear Paulo Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City fi of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which orms the basis of a ,i number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. As I re7d the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pro- 1 viously. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Rinuoat personal regards, Very truly yours, I Frank R, Booth 1 FRBtbjs enclosure cot Mr, Robort Gooch I rs•.s r, rn•a~ I 1rI BOOTH, U OYO AND SIMMONS DOt CAN JACINTO 6UROINO AUSTIN, TEKAS 78701 FRANK Ft, BOOTH TMPH.JNt 16111 479+x4 ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCI4ER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT / i Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Ref Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paulo i { i Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City ; f4 of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. it I } 1 As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward f ? with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Theroforo, I recommend I thnt we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- yy viously. 1 I I would also like to inform you that r am advised by I the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water bevel- opmenL Huard, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. =i Kindest personal regards. Very trulyy yours, Frank R. Booth FRBtbjs Enclosure cat Mr. Robert Gooch } I rH TTTTTT wmc~ 7wrr t+ eau-.,.. • ~/RI' of jllC, BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 202 MN JACIN10 rUILOINIJ AUSTIN. TEXAS 70701 FRANK R. BOOTH TtLtrNUNI ISM 410$500 RODERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER 0,SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT • i I I Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney { Municipal Building r~ Denton, Texas 76201 ;I Rot Aubrey Reservoir Project i! I i Dear Pauli i Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 230 19761 which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area, As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Theroforo, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pro- ~ viously. s I would also like to inform you that I am advised by the General .7im Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. 1 Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth r FRB ""0 Enclosure j cot Mr. Robert Gooch l , owl • aYwy¢a JY' I ~ 4 • finrllfJfm, ~ BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS $07 SAN WoNTO 11V4DIN7 AUST IN, TE XA5 70701 FRANK R. BOOTH ThtPHONt 1612) 47S WO ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER D. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT / ' i { Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building t ! Denton, Texas 76201 Res Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Pauli Enolosed is a copy of a resolution adoptod by the City of Dallas on February 23, 1476, which forms the basis of a number of newspaper article, recently published in the area. As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf alon,1 the lines that I have discussed with yov pre- i viously, i would alto like to inform you that I am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devil 4 opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R, Booth FRBtbjs Enclosure coi Mr. Robert Gooch i II ` ` s.rynr. f I ~r014Y1' III` (tli,0:<~ I ' i I • ~JW'nj1irv'v nOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 307 SAN,ACIN?O OUILDISO FRANK R. BOOTH AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 MCPHON! ISM Olt 9503 RODERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER D. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEnOT r I I i , Mr. Paul isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Rat Aubrey Reservoir Project Dpar Pauli Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City Of'Dallas on February 23, 19760 which forms the basis of a number Of newspaper articles recently published in the area. As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend E that wo go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along the lino ~ s that I hav , viously, a discussed with you pre- i i would also like to inform you that 'l am advised by the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not sae ~ the Aubrey project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRBtbjs Enclosure i cci Mr. Robert Gooch I I 1 I I x 1 ~9'Y.'.N NY M•'r%. d ~°•n i.. 'd if i. A.s.~ 1JN,•O F BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 1 $02 SAN JAC IN TO RUIIOI N O AUSTIN•T ERAS 78701 FRANK R. BOOTH IMLL►NONIISII1p6SSOS ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 9, 1976 JAMES A, BANNEROT General James Rose Lxeculive Director 'Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 Dear General Roses This letter is a request from the Cities of Denton, ' Frisco, Lewisville, Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie for an opportunity to present their application to the Texas Water Development Board at its March 161 1976, meeting for assis- Lance in construction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project author- ized by Congress for construction by the U. S. Corps of Engineers in the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1965, P.L. 89-298. As proposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, the Aubrey } Reservoir. Project would be a multiple purpose Project con- taining recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control and Younioipal water supply storage benefits. Conservation storage would include an additional 177,600 acre feet by enlargement of the existing Lewisville Reservoir Project and 799,600 core feet in the new Aubrey Reservoir. The combined safe yield of-the two reservoirs is estimated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers to be 91,200 acre feet per annum or an average of 81.4 million gallons per day. In 1969, the Texas Water Rights Commission designated the Cities of Dallas and Denton local sponsors of the Pro- ject and these two oitics have negotiated contracts with the U. S: Corps of Engineers whereby Denton would acquire a 26 percent interest in the Project at an estimated cost of $28.4 million and Dallas would acquire a 74 percent interest in the Project at an estimated cost of $80.6 million. The Toxaa Water Rights Commission recoived applications for permits to appropriate, impound, divert and use water from the Project from the Cities of Dallas and Denton and the following additional public subdivisions of the States ` Political Subdivision impound Divert and Use City of Frisco 680000 90000 City of Gainesville 42,000 61000 'Colony Municipal Utility District No. 1 30,000 41285 c Collin-Denton County %later a Sanitation uistrict 481000 61500 I RRM.Sbf~ I '111^ed'e iI -I ' Xl 3x III ~ , ~ I :ncral James Rose March 9, 1976 Page 2 The Texas Water Rights Commission hold a joint public hearing beginning on January 13, 1976, on all six appli- cations for permits. A dispute between Dallas and the other applicants developed during the hearing with Dallas con- tending that recognition of prior water right claims of Dallas reduced the safe yield of the Project to 21.9 M.G.D. and the other applicants contending that the safe yield of the Project is 81.4 M.G.D. as found by the U. S. Corps of • Engineers which s e a ditional safe yield water supply produced by the Project without impairment of prior water right claims by Dallas. 'An additional controversy developed during the hearing when Dallas announced that it was discontinuing its long- standing policy of making the water supply benefits of the Project available through water supply contracts with water- shed cities and Dallas County City customers of Dallas. Dallas announced its position that its application sought a permit from the Aubrey Project exclusively for the benefit of the City of Dallas and that it would not acceph a permit under any other circumstances. The Texas Water Rights Commission, at the close of j evidence on January 19, 1976, continued the hearing until February 10, 1976. During the interval, the Director of Permits Division of the Texas Water Rights commission, tor. A. E.,Richardson, submitted a memorandum to the Commission dated February 11, 1976, concerning the evidence received by the Commission concerning the safe yield of the Project. A copy of Mr. Richardson 's memorandum is enclosed for your information. Mr. Richardson's memorandum contains the following con- elusions and reicommendations concerning the safe yield of the Projects "1. Yield of Aubrey Project The firm yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir i plus Lewisville Reservoir enlargement) is totally do- pendent on the extent of existing downstream water rights and the priority of those water rights. There ,is not significant disagreement among parties involved that the Aubrey Project increases the firm yield of the existing Elm Fork system by about 01.4 mgd (91,200 acre-feet per year). ."The computer simulations are merely a series of macho- matical computations and the results are dependent only on the conditions and conutraints established. The only ~nitlcqn difference between all tho yield S Y nhf tli P!'ill+~ Y i .eral James Paso t larch 9, 1976 Pago 3 ' studies of the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to the uverdrafting of the existing Lake Lewis- ville. The other studies did not." ~ff 04. Recommendations A. Recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that . determined by the Corps of Engineers to be distribu- tea on the basis of ownership of increased storage G space in each reservoir. Be Limit total annual diversions from all sources by 'each permitter to the firm annual yield of all of permittee's water supply facilities." I On the question of safe yield, Robert S. Gooch, a con- salting engineer with the firm of Freese and Nichols and a witness for Denton, testified that the yield of 81.4 M.G.D. does not affect Dallas' prior water right claims because E during the critical drought period all inflows are passed through the Aubrey storage for the benefit of downstream rights and that the 91.4 M.G.D. yield from Aubrey is devel- oped solely from water in storagge7aatt the0bneginning oft the critical drought period (Tr. tion, William A. Sims, a consulting engineer with the firm of Forrest and Cotton, Inc., and a witness for Dallas, admitted that the computer operation yield study introduced -into evidence and proposed by Dallas to reduce the safe yield to 21.9 M.G.D. contemplated reducing the storage content of existing Lewisville Reservoir and the Aubrey Project to zero on numerous occasions, including a 16 con- secutive month period from October 1955 to January 1957 (Tr. 726-729), On February 18, 1976, the applicants stated their positions on the evidence and Dallas presented imposition paper which stated that Dallas would not accept a permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission unless it gave all of the benefits of Dallas' 74 percent of tpoirt,ject Cexclu hairman f sively to the City of Dallas. the of,the Texas {pater Rights Commission announced that Con- U esoman RU Roberts, the Congressional sponsor, had advised m that there would be no Federally funded Aubrey Project unless the benefits of the Project were nvailablo to the wateruhed cities and Dallas County customer eihies as well as to Dallas itself. Chairman Carter and Commissioner Dorsey D. Hardeman then both stated that they would not issue Dallas a permit unless it contained conditions which water- shed cities Dallas to continua to furnith water eY~ Dallas County customer citioutandhwhich MMF_ 10. ♦H09 1 6 11 Voneral James Rose March 9, 1976 Page 4 allowed these cities to Aubrey Project. participate in the benefits of the Following these announcements and discussion, the Commission continued the hearing until !,larch 18,.1976, at 10 o'clock A.M. Wherefore, on February 23, 1976, the City Council of ~ n Dallas adopted a resolution relating to the position of the City of Dallas. I am informed that an attorney for Dallas has furnished you with a copy of this resolution. As I read 1 and understand the resolution, Dallas takes the position that it will not accept a permit which contains the con- ditions chairman Carter and Commissioner llardeman announced I must be in any permit issued to Dallas. 1 From,the above discussion, progress toward final con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and Reservoir Project has been jeopardized by reason of the expressed unwillingness of the City of Dallas to consider accepting a permit Water Rights Commission in the form andofthefcontent these Commission feels required by law. Conceivably# the City of Da1,1as will conclude that its best interests are served by i I not participating in this project. Faced with this prob- ability, the cities mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter desire to express their interest in participating in the Aubrey Project in conjunction with the {dater Development Board. These cities hope that the Water Development Board 1 will indicate a willingness to participate in the Project should Dallas elect not to accept the type of permit the Water Rights Commission will issue. An appropriate response by the Plater Development Board at this time would be adoption of a Resolution which states tt something along the lines of the followings "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Texas Water Development Board supports the earliest possible con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and Reservoir Project and R will, if requested, entertain applications for rinnn- cial assistance in the manner prosecribed by law, in furtherance of such Project to the extent that local sponsoring entities are unable to obtain permits for the full yield of the Project and contractually meet 1 'and give the assurances required by law for construc- tion of the Project." Very truly yours, FRDsbjs Frank R. 'Booth Enclosure owl wv I3 ~,CW 0.i`Ari i+i BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 30J SAN JAC,NTO NUILDWa AUSTIN, TEXAS 70701 PRANK R. BOOTH TRVwoN, inri 411 0906 ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 10, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT Mr. Jim White City Manager Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 f Res Aubrey Project } } Dear Jims I Sections 11.307 and 11,306, Texas Water Code, authorize the Texas Water Development Board to contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to acquire storage space in the Aubrey Project. The purchase price by a political subdivision of the State to acquire storage space from the Water Develop- meet Board is contained in the Texas Water Code as followss `S11.357. Price of Sales Facilities Acquired under Contracts The price of the sale or transfer'of a facility acquired under a contract shall be the sum of the direct cost of acquisition, plus an interest charge computed at a rate of one-half of one percent per year j from the date of acquisition of the facility to the date of sale or transfer, plus interest at the cumu- lative average effective rate on all water development bonds sold up to the date of the sale or transfer for each year or portion of a year for which the board paid interest to the other party to the contract, plus the board's cost rf operating and maintaining the facility irom the date of acquisition to the date of the sale or transfer, less any payments received by the board from the leasu of the facility or the sale of water from it. "(b) If, in transferring any contract# the board remains in any way directly, conditionally, or con- tingently liable-for the performance of w.ty part of the contract, then the transferee, in addition to the payments proscribed by Subsection (a) of this section, shall pay to the board annually one-half of one percent of the remaining amount owed to the other party to the contract, and shall continue these payments until the board is fully released from the contract. i f r I 10, 1 ~9rXWl k , Mr. Jim White March 10, 1976 Page 2 I "Sll.358. Costs Defined "With reference to the sale of a state facility, 'direct cost of acquisition' means the principal amount the 1 board has paid or agreed to pay for on the facility up _ to the date of the sale." The contractual arrangement that I envision to be j acceptable to the Water Development Board would contain these two features: j I. The political subdivision applicant would obtain an option to purchase a fixed amount of the Water J Development Board storage on or before a date 1 certain in the future with perhaps 15 years being an acceptable date. If the option is not called, then the Water Development Board would be able to sell the storage space to some other political j 1 subdivision. I j 2. TLe Water Development Board would obtain a contrac- tual right to use the applicant's storage space for overdrafting and for terminal and transfer storage ~r subject to a permit from the Water Rights Commis- i i sion and a finding that the Water Development Board ! had a backup water supply to equal the overdraft i right to provide water during average and below average runoff and rainfall years. 'r k Following this approach, I recommend that you send a ~ letter to me addressed to General Rose, the Executive Direc- tor of the Water Development Board, along the lines of the attached draft. I will file the letter with the Water I Development Board. Also, if I am sLecessful in getting the matter on the Water Development Board Agenda on March 16, 1976, I would like you to appear before the Board with me to explain our position and to answer questions. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, M Frank R. Booth E FRBibjs Enclosure I ' cot Mr. Paul Isham Mr. Bob Gooch I~ ~'4'v4f`® tt>xnr ecs "e I DRAFT i General James Rose Executive Director Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 Dear General Rose: Re: Aubrey. Project c i The City of Denton has negotiated a contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to acquire a 26 percent interest in the Aubrey Reservoir Project and has permit applications pending before the Water Rights Commission to impound water in the Aubrey storage space and to divert and use the safe yield of the 26 percent share or an average of 21.2 M.G.D. i In the event the City of Dallas is unable to acquire a permit to utilize the remaining 74 percent share of the Aubrey Project, for which Dallas has negotiated a contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers, construction of the Project does not appear porsible unless the Water Develop- 1 went Board contracts with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to ; acquire the conservation storage space remaining after local political subdivisions have contracted for storage to their E maximum present financial capability. j The City of Denton hereby makes preliminary application to the Water Development Board for financial participation in the Aubrey Reservoir Project. The 21.2 M.G.D. safe yield share of the Project which Denton is prepared to contract for will supply Denton's projected water requirements to the year 1994 when used in conjunction with the 4.5 M.G.D. yield Denton presently owns in the Lewisville Project. Should the Water Development Board acquire storage space in the Aubrey Project, Denton will contract now with the Water Development Board for an option to acquire up to an additional 30 M.G.D. yield from the Project. The addi- tional 30 M.G.D. yield will supply Denton's projected water requirements to the year 2020. Very truly yours, j , Jim White City Mar+ager I i PIN , t ,011 city Of Denton Municipal Building, Denton,Rms 76201 L' >t ~ll Office of City Ala nage), ti. March 12, 1976 , General James Rose j Executive Director f Texas Water Development Board Ve O, Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 I Re: Aubrey Reservoir Dear General Rose: R'he City of Denton has negotiated a contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to acquire a 26 percent in- terest in the Aubrey Reservoir Project and has permit applications pending before the Water Rights Commission i to impound water in the Aubrey storage space and to divert and use the safe yield of the 26 percent share or an average of 21.2 MGD. In the event the city of Dallas is unable to acquire a permit to utilize the remaining 74 percent share of the Aubrey Project, for which Dallas has negotiated a contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers, construction of the Project does not appear possible unless the Water Development Hoard contracts with the U. S, Corps of. Engineers to acquire the conservation storage space re- maining after local political subdivisions have contracted for storage to their maximum present financial capability, The City of Denton hereby makes preliminary application to the Water Development Hoard for financial participation in the Aubrey Reservoir Project, The 21,2 MGD safe yield share of the Project which Denton is prepared to contract for will supply Denton's projected water requirements to the year 1997 when used in conjunction with the 4,5 MGD yield Denton presently owns in the Lewisville Project. I I ' M ' i • s... " Y tY1Mrt ~+AZro ♦hVl r,m.;os~ 1( 1 / r, General James Rose March 12, 1976 Page Two Should the Water Development acquire storage space in the Aubrey Project, Denton will contract now with the Water Development Board for an option to acquire up to 11 an additional 30 MGD yield from the Project. The addi- tional 30 MGD yield will supply Denton's projected water requirements to the year 2020. I ' Very truly,yours, James W. White City Manager 1 JWWrjs co: Frank Booth Booth, Lloyd & Simmons Attorneys at Law j 302-San Jacinto Building Austin, Texas 78701 Bob Gooch Freese & Nichols 611 Lamar Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Paul C. Isham, City Attorney s 1 I i, Y t ' s AGENDA Texas Water Development Board March 16, 1976 9:00 a.m. Stephen F. Austin Building 1700 North Congress Austin, Texas ~ i 1. Approval of 14inutes of February 26, 1976 Board meeting 2, Staff Reports a. Progress reports by the Executive Director on the agency work plan' b. Report concerning the weather modification permit adjudicative hearings 3. Development Fund Manager's Report 4, Consideraticn of a policy statement to be adopted by the Board concerning the development of water resources ine the State of Texas 5. Consideration of staff authoriza-ion to begin procedures to amend the Rules Re_gu_l_a_ttiiors and Policies of the Texas Water Develop m`ent Board ate at n to nanc a Programs by a opt ng a rule to require a Notice or f ten-Oon to Apply for Financial Assistance prior to Board action on any application for financial aslistance a 6. Water Quality Enhancement Loan Applications: E ~ a. City of Atlanta - increase in present commitment from $330,000 to $355,000 I I b, City of Bangs - new application, $85,000 i j c. City of Highland Village - new application, $1,310,000 ~!M~tEY 7 , r 7. Application by the City of San Augustine for an increase in its existing Texas Water Development Board loan { commitment from $350,000 to $500,000 j 8. Application for financial assistance by the City of Stephenville in the amount of $1,600,000 (further i consideration of application submitted at the January 20, 1976 meeting) 9. Report concerning the creation of South Bear Creek Levee Improvement District, in Western Dallas County, as required by Rule 501, Rules and Re ulations of the Texas Water Development Re-lat-InFI2 at n to evee, m rovement stricts an Approval o Plans or Reclamation -0 ects 10. Interagency contract (payable) - Texas A&M University, Remote Sensing Center, aerial photography and mapping of vegetation in coastal marsh systems, Colorado River to Corpus Christi Bay; amount not to exceed $30,000; term, April 1, 1976 through August 31, 1976 11. Election of Vice Chairman of the Texas Water Development Board , j sj 12. April meeting date - April 20, 1976 f i i k i i j 4A'CJe~ AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OF SAID CITY ON THE 15TH UAY OF MARCH, A,D/ 1976. i RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Cities of Denton and Dallas were named Cc-Sponsors of the Aubrey Reservior Project by the Texas Water Rights Commission; and WHEREAS, Dallas and Denton had previcusly agreed that Dallas would acquire 74% of the storage space and Denton would acquire 26% of the storage space; and v WHEREAS, Denton has negotiated a contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to acquire 26% of the storage space; and WHEREAS, Denton has a permit application pending before the Texas Water Rights i CNaission to impound water in the Aubrey Reservoir Project storage space and to divert and use the safe yield of the 26% share; end f 1 i WHEREAS, Dallas has a permit application pending before the Texas Water Rights commission to impound 74% of the water in the Aubrey Reservoir Project and divert the same; and 1 { k WHEREAS, it appears that the Texas Water Rights Commission may place conditions on the permit to the City of Dallas which will be unacceptable to Dallas and result j i I in their withdrawing from the project; and WHEREAS, it is extremely important to the City of Denton that the Aubrey Reservoir Project be built, and built on schedule whether the City of Dallas participates or not; RCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: That James W. White, City Manas-r of the City of Denton, Texas, be authorized j to appear before the Texas Water Development Board to request that said Board i become a financial participant in the Aubrey Reservoir Project If the City of Dallas is unable to acquire a permit to utilize the remaining 74%; and, in the event the Water Development Board becomes a participant, then hwvaA t as City Manager for the City of Denton is authorized to contract with the Texas rater Development Board for an option for the City of Denton to acquire an additional 30 MGD yield from the Project. ; PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of March, A. D. 1976, TOM U. JESTER, R„ RYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS { 17 ATTEST: i J j BTtb6R3T~i C R ! CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: PAUL C. ISKAM. CITY TT R EY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS j i h • I I i ~rf. IIIr ~ A 1,' t e I i r C J 'k February 9, 1976 BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DENTON/DALLAS CONTRACT AUBREY RESERVOIR 1. 21.2 MGD Out of new Aubrey 4.5 MGD Lake Lewisville 25.7 MGD From total supply 2. All prior rights of Dallas (Certified Filing #75 etc.) are set aside insofar as Dallas and Denton are concerned. Prior rights are set aside hereafter forever between the cities. 3. Overdraft - Denton will be limited to 29.2 MGD (year 2020 needs), subject to Water Rights Commission finding and approving a back-up source. Denton will have overdraft rights in the be- ginning of 5 MGD backed by wells. * (A second reservoir or supply will have to be acquired, but the 29.2 overdraft right plus the 25.7 safe yield equals 54.9 MGD, which is equal to Denton's needs until the year 2020.) 4. Continued sale of water to Denton until Aubrey project is completed. 5. The Commission to grant applications for permits and the per- 3 - faits to be issued upon Denton and Dallas filing executed j contracts with the Corps of Engineers. 6. Signed contract before we go back to Water Rights Commission on February 18, 1976. 3 7 JI A F I 1. 1 , 1 lMi1RI I Cbitq ' .fa'~ 1 THE STATE OF TEXAS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRLSIiN'fS: I COUNTY OF DALLAS WHEREAS, on November 19, 1962, the Cities of Dallas (here- inafter called Dallas) and Denton (hereinafter called Denton) entered into a contract, a true copy of which is attached hereto and marked :xhibit "A", in which the cities agreed among other things upon the safe drought yield of Denton's share of Lewisville Reservoir and a plan of Water Development of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River above Lewisville Reservoir, which included plans 1 for joint construction and use of Aubrey Reservoir; and WHEREAS, in said contract, Dallas and Denton agreed that in I the program for joint construction of Aubrey Reservoir, Denton would finance up to twenty-six (26%) percent of the construction I I costs of the Reservoir and would receive, not to exceed, twenty- i six (26x) percent of the increased safe yield of. Aubrey Reservoir , and Lewisville Reservoir, and WHEREAS, it is now contemplated that Aubrey Reservoir Pro- . ~ . , I Ject will be built by the U.S. Corps of Engineers with Dallas and I Denton entering into contracts with the U.S. Corps of-Engineers regarding the cost and use of the proposed reservoir project and the financial contribution to be made by each City; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has calculated the in- creased hydrological safe yield under 1985 conditions from the eonatruction of Aubrey Reservoir and the transfer of flood con- 1 i trol storage from Lewisville Reservoir to be 81.4 MCD, which yield computation does not take into account any rights of downstream I appropriators or return flows from sewage treatment plants into either reservoir; and WIIEREAS, the Cities of Dallas and Denton, in contemplation of entoring into contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers re- garding the construction of Aubrey Reservoir Project anti transfer of storage from Lewisvillo Reservoir, desire to settle all issucn I .u a ,kw rFt q . . existing between them regarding the extent of impoundment, diver- sion and appropriation of water by each City out of Lewisville and Aubrey Reservoirs; now, therefore 6Y■{y WITNESSETH: I. The parties hereto, the City of Dallas and the City of Denton, do hereby agree that upon construction and filling of Aubrey Reser- voir Project and such additional construction as may be contem- plated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers at Lewisville Reservoir and transfer of storage to Aubrey Reservoir, Dallas and Denton shall have rights to impound, 'divert and appropriate water for municipal and industrial purposes from the two said reservoirs as follows: (a) Denton shall have the right to impound 275,100 acre feet of water and to divert therefrom an average of 25.7 MGD per anntun, on•a--safe yie . This 25.7 MOD includes all diveraion rights that Denton presently holds in Lewisville Reservoir and represents those diversion rights plus an amount equal to twenty-six (26%) per- cent of the increased yield of 81,4 MGD resulting from the con- struction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project, as calculated by the 3 1 U.S. Corps of Engineers. CSuch 25.7 MGD diveraion will be allocated between the reservoirs at Denton's discretion, but in no event shall Denton's total diversion from both reservoirs exceed an average of 25.7 MGD in any year unless herein otherwise stated or unless otherwise agreed to by Dallas, I r j (b) Dallas shall have the right to impound 1,138,100 acre feet of water and to divert therefrom, not to exceed, an average i j of 149. 5 MGD of water per annum c%es.r/ (c) As between Dallas and Denton, all storage rights of 'the parties in Lewisville Reservoir and Aubrey Reservoir will be treated } as undivided interests in thq storage notwithstnndinr nny provision:a in tho U.S, Corps of Engineers contrncte providing, for horivontal divisions of the storap,o space, and nnllas and Denton would have undivided interests no follow:j: The'enlnrged Lewisville Venervoir , .2_ p k 1 6CMY:r NS YiE r FMU,•K~ j will have a total conservation storage space of 613,600 acre feet, of which Dallas will own an undivided 546,400 acre feet or 89% of the total storage, and Denton will ohm an undivided 679200 acre feet or 11% of the total storage. Of the 546.400 acre feet Dallas will own in the enlarged Lewisville project, it will own an undi- vided'415,000 acre feet or 67.6% interest in the whole, by virtue of its May 18, 1953 contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and its Permit Nos. 798 and 798B. Dallas will acquire an additional undivided 131,400 acre feet or 21.4% of the whole under the contract J with the Corps of Engineers which is presently under negotiation and 1 1111 its new permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission. Of Den ton's { ~ E 67,200 acre feet of storage, Denton will ovm an undivided 21,000 acre feet by virtue of its May 20, 1954 contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and its Permit No. 1706. Denton would acquire an addi- tional undivided 46,200 acre feet by virtue of its contract with ~ the Corps of Engineers which is presently under negotiation and its new permit. The new Aubrey Reservoir will have a total conservation space of 799,600 acre feet, of which Dallas will own an undivided i 591,700 acre feet or 747. of the whole, and Denton will own an un- 207,900 acre feet or 26% of the whole under the contracts divided { 3 presently being negotiated and the new permits. ! r II. t The City of Denton holds Permit No. 1590, dated June 17, 1954, granted by the State of Texas, and the City of Dallas holds Certi- fied Filing No. 75, dated April 29, 1914, Permit No. 798, dated AuPust 8, 1924, Permit No. 1464, dated August 19, 1948, ane Per- €k€ mit No. 1476, dated January 20, 1949, pertaining to Elm Fork and/or E Lewisville Reservoir. Nothing contained in this contract shall con- stituta any recognition on the part of Dallas that the 25.7 MGD di- version right recognized in Denton under this contract represents the diversion rights to which} Denton would be entitled in the absence of this contract and the considerations obtained by Dallas under this contract, Nothing ho.rcin shall constitute any limitation .3- I or impairment on any right of Dallas under its above existing I appropriative rights insofar as third parties are concerned. To the extent that the diversion of 25.7 MGD by Denton under this ' contract may be determined to exceed Denton's rights under the storage to which it is entitled under its contracts with the O.S. Corps of Engineers, then such diversion shall be considered as being produced from the increased storage in Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs accruing to Dallas by virtue of the construction of i Aubrey Reservoir and shall not result in any reduction in any rights Dallas ray have under other permits and certified filings, ~ IYY, i The parties have simultaneously filed applications for per- a wits with the Texas Water Rights Commission which are identical except as to quantities reflecting the different ownership in- terests and these applications seek the right to impound and di- vert the full amount of the applicant's storage annually, Neither ~ I party will claim priority over the other under any permits issued in response to the n6-;a applications. ~Soth parties agree to re- quest the Tex Qs Water Rights Commission to grant both patties yy ~ + 1 3 applications consistent with the provisions of this contract and to request that permits be issued to each party upon submission Of executed contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers J I IV. (a) Both parties recognize that Dallas may find it desirable in the management of its water resources to introduce water into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from either or both Lake Ray I Hubbard or Tawakoni or from sornother source, Denton hereby con- E sonts to such use of the reservoirs provided the quality of water from such source for municipal purposes is not decreased. Denton agrees that it will not clabn the right to use any water so introduced by Dallas, (b) Both parties recognize that Denton may find it desirable in tho management of its wntor resources to introduce water into s V lawisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from some other source which Denton may acquire in the future. Dallas hereby consents to such use of I the reservoirs provided the quality of water from such source for municipal purposes is not decreased. Dallas agrees that it will not claim the right to use any water so introduced by Denton. (o) Both parties recognize that the approval of the Texas Water Rights Commmission or other appropriate agency will be re- quired to introduce water from some other source into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs and that mutual agreement an operation plans in connection therewith will not unreasonably be withheld. n V. (a) Both parties agree that ballas may overdraft the safe yield of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville P.eservoirs to j the extent it may be authorized to do so under its existing permits or under future permits it may obtain from the Texas Water Rights Commission or other appropriate agency and Dallas may transfer water from Aubrey Reservoir to Lewisville Reservoir at its discretion provided, that Denton's right to divert its 25.7 MGD from either Aubrey or Lewisville koservoirs shall not be impaired. (b) Both parties agree that Denton may overdraft the safe i ! yield of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs to the extent it may be authorized to do so under its existing per- mit or under future permits it may obtain from the Texas Mater. Rights f Commission or other appropriate agency, but not to exceed an average of 29,2 MGD per annum, (o) Both parties agree that overdrafting shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to any imposed by thn. Texas Water Rights Commission: (1) Reservoir o orating agreemonts mutually agreeable to the parties which protect the storage and diversion rights of each party. (2) Both parties agree that Dallas han sufficient safe yield available to it for overdrnfting in nccord- anco with this contract, but that Denton (toc,s wot. . 1 i Y5 R 1 Therefore, both parties agree that Denton's right to overdraft 24.2 MCD of the 29.2 MGD stated in Paragraph V (b) above, shall be subject to either the mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the Texas Water Rights Conmission that Denton has sufficient safe yield available to its system from some other water supply source before Denton's right to overdraft exceeds an average of 5 MGD per annum. `(3) Mutual agreement or reservoir operating agreements and overdrafting shall not unreasonably be withheld. VI. { Denton agrees that any sewage effluent returned by Damban to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River or any of its tributaries shall be returned upstieam from Lewisville Dam and shall be treated in t the manner required by the Texas Water Quality Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other appropriate agency having j jurisdiction over the subject matter. Denton agrees that all con- tracts it may enter into to supply water to others shall contain I~ this requirement and provisions sufficient to enforce this require- } ` menC, VII. The covenants and agreements made by the parties herein shall be binding on the parties and their successors in interest so long as water is being diverted or appropriated from either Lewisville { or Aubrey Reservoirs by or under authority of either Denton or Dallas, M 1 VIII . ,-f,Y fJq,`Qrw Both parties earee-that the consideration received by each con- sists of covenants and agreements made by the other and hence the terms and provisions of this contract are not severable unless the E same are disapproved by the Texas Wator Rights Connnission or the parties are unable to contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers. In this event, this contract shall be abrogateJ and shall be of no ; s force and effect. Both pnrtios further np,ree that after approval i of this contract by all regulatory agencies exor.cininr jurisdiction i a •.i15M' 1 of the subject matter of this contract, the issuance by the Texas Water Rights Coninission of impoundment and diversion permit rights necessary to carry out the terms of this contract and the execution of contracts by both Dallas and Denton with the U.S. Corps of Engi- neers, the terms and provisions hereof shall be severable and if 1 any provision hereof is held void or becomes legally impossible of performance, then that provision shall become null and void, but ! the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. XX. Both parties agree that this contract shall supersede and re- f i place the contract between the parties dated November 19, 1962, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", except Dallas agrees to continue to I t sell water to Denton in accordance with the November 19, 1962, con- j i tract until the Aubrey Reservoir Project is completed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and deliberate impoundment of water therein com- menbes. Until 1980, such sale of water will be at the price stated in the 1962 contract and thereafter at Dallas ''posted prices per raw j water sales to watershed cities. I j WITNESS the signatures of the parties hereto this the day i of , 19769 the Cities signing by and through their respective City Manager and attested by their City Secretaries, duly authorized by resolutions enacted by the respective governing bodies of said Cities, CITY OF DALLAS CITY )MqXC,),R ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY XTTMET' :5. bRM-4Y r i-1d . NM+A61J " COUNTERSIGNCDI CITY AUDITOR t CITY OF DENTON CITY WAGER 1 I ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM; { r , Y v I i i i -8~ 1 1 ~ j}Rry)J` Both parties agree that the safe yield of the two reservoirs ` is an empirical figure which may suffer depreciation or apprecia- tion through record drought or changed hydrological conditions. The hydrological safe yield figures totalling 175.2 MGD have been calculated on the basis of information available at this time from i the 1950-1957 drought under projected 1985 conditions, including projected reservoir sedimentation conditions and projected im- provements on the watershed above the reservoirs, but without considering any releases to honor downstream water rights or any increase in yield by virtue of increased sewage return flows. In the event of a more severe drought than is of record at this time I or in the event of material changes in hydrological conditions or in any event no later than the year 2000,the parties agree that the hydrological combined safe yield of the Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs shall be recalculated on the same basis without regard , to downstream rights but with the inclusion of increased sewage f effluent return flows to the lakes. If the parties can agree upon r { a recognized authority in the field to perform such recalculations, jr such will be done by such authority and presented to the Texas 9 Water Rights Commission for approval. In the event the parties cannot agree upon a recognized authority to perform Ruch recalcu- i lations, the matter will be submitted to the Texas Water Rights 1 ~ l Commission for recalculation in accordance with this contract. UP ioni Denton's average of 25.7 MGD per annum } Upon such recalculation, and Dallas' average of 149.5 MGD per annum diversion rights under this contract shall be adjusted by the percent changa of the in- creased or decreased safe yield 'that the said increased or do creased safe yield bears to 175.2 MGD, the presently estimated total hydrologiCal,nAfo yield of the combined reservoirs. N (,R a-..'. vJ'J 2.~ 1 r .'IP t ~I ill TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM { I ll~ 1 DATES February 11, 1976 ~i A TOt Texas Water Rights Commission FROMC A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division s 5UBJECTi, Application for Proposed Permits to use water from } the proposed Aubrey Project. After heaFAng all the testimony and considered the evidence presented in the subject matt3r, the following represents my t reaction to the evidence. l (1) YIELD OF AtMREY PROJECT The firm yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir ~ { plus enlargement of Lewisville Reservoir) is totally dependent upon the extent of existing downstreac water rights (priority of existing rtghts). There is not significant disagreement I among the parties involved that the Aubrey Project increases the firm yield of the existing Elm York Syttem by about 81.4 r Ii MGD (91#200 acre feet per year). The aomputor's similiations are merely a series of math- matical computations anti the results are dependent only upon the conditions and restraints established. The only si ny ifi- M cant difference between all the computor studies on the Aubrey k project is that the Dallas studies recognize full priority over the proposed Aubrey project by the overdrafting of the oxistant ♦ TiryIlM'! 3 A Lake Lewisville. The other studies did not. 2. Overdrafting Overdrafting of a reservoir, or a system of reservoirs, is the diversion of more water on an annual basis than the reservoir will continue to supply through a repitition of the most critical drought of record, i.e., the firm yield. The practice of over- drafting of a supply system has operational advantages to a cityl i however, unless certain restraints are employed it can lead to difficulties for the city and other water users. I feel that the following general conclusions concerning overdrafting can be a drawnt (a) Tho total Annual Diversion by City should not exceed, I the firm yield of its total water supply system. (b) If "overdrafting" of one source of a supply system has occurred during the critical drought, then overdrafting some or all of the remaining portions of the supply system must also occur in order to carry the system through the critical drought. s (c) If overdrafting of a portion of a water supply system } for municipal purposes is to carry a priority over other users i junior•in time, the effect will be to "tie-up" a portion of water equal to several times the amount that can be used annually by the city. E 3. AUBREY The disagreements between rpplicants voiced during the hear- ing emphasizes the necessity of an operating agreement between 1 4 Y9'.~fx }fin.. ♦ a iY' J all parties having diversion rights in the Aubrey or Lewisville ervoirs. In addition the proposed overdrafting of the reser Res - voirs makes an operating agreement essential. i 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Recognize the yield of the Aubrey project as that de- (a) o be di 1 termined by the Corp of Engineers tstributed on the basis of ownership of the ineressed storage space in each reservoir. i each (b) Limit total annual diversion of all cities by permit user to the firm annual yield of all affirmative water ' I i ! supply facilities. authorized overdrafting of municipal supply (c) Limit any reservoirs to a non-priority right. I i ` (d) Make any permits issued contingent upon the conditional f artiea that have approval of an operational agreement between all p i LJ diversion rights in the Lewisville and Aubrey Reservoirs. These recommendations are essentially the same as those con- tained in the Permits Division Memorandum dated November 3, 1975. I feel these recommendations are still valid. However, in the event that the commission feels that the parties involved can r operational agreement, not or will not work out a satisfactory permits then the Commission should consider denying the pending p ) and request the Water Development Board to make application for the conservation and storage in the Aubrey Reservoir. r !i Signed, A. E. Richardson . l eryry'Aivr February 9, 1976 ' BASIC FUNDAMENTALS Or DENTOMALLAS CONTRACT y AUDREY RESERVOIR 1. 21.2 MGD Out of new Aubrey 4.5 MGD Lake Lewisville 25.7 MGD From total supply 2. All prior rights of Dallas (Certified Filing #75 etc.) are set aside insofar as Dallas and Denton are concerned. Prior rights are set aside hereafter forever between the cities. i 3. Overdraft - Denton will he limited to 29.2 MGD (year 2020 needs), subject to Water Rights Commission finding and approving a back-up source, Denton will have overdraft rights in the be- ginning of 5 MGD backed by wells. * (E, second reservoir or supply willhave to be acquired, I but the 29.2 overdraft right plus the 25.7 safe yield equals 54.9 MGD, which is equal to Denton's needs until 4 the year 2020.) 4. Continued sale of water to Denton until Aubrey project is I i completed. I 5. The Commission to grant applications for permits and the per- mite to be issued upon Denton and Dallas filing executed contracts with the Corps of Engineers. 6. Signed contract before we go back to Water Rights Commission on February 18, 1976. 1 t ; 71 r l x THE STATE OF TEXAS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS COUNTY OF DALLAS X WHEREAS, on November 19, 1962, the Cities of Dallas (here- inafter called Dallas) and Denton (hereinafter called Denton) entered into a contract a true copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A", in which the cities agreed among other things upon the safe drought yield of Denton's share of Lewisville Reservoir and a plan of. Water Development of the Elm Fork of the i Trinity River above Lewisville Reservoir, which included plans for joint construction and use of Aubrey Reservoir; and f WHEREAS, in said contract, Dallas and Denton agreed that in j the program for joint construction of Aubrey Reservoir, Denton i would finance up to twenty-six (26%) percent of the construction { coats of the Reservoir and would receive, not to exceed, twenty- six (267.) percent of the increased safe yield of. Aubrey Reservoir i and Lewisville Reservoir; and i WHEREAS, it is now contemplated that Aubrey Reservoir Pro- jest will be built by the U.S. Corps of Engineers with Dallas and Denton entering into contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers regarding the cost and use of the proposed reservoir project and the financial contribution to be made by each City; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has calculated the in- creased hydrological safe yield under 1985 conditions from the construction of Aubrey Reservoir and the transfer of flood con- trol .9torage from Lewisville Reservoir to be 81.4 MGD, which yield computation does not take into account any rights of downstream E appropriators or return flows from sewage treatment plants into either reservoir; and I WHEREAS, the Cities of Dallas and Denton, in contemplation of entering into contracts with the U.S. Corps of Cng,ineers r.c- I, Carding the construction of Aubrey Reservoir Project and transfer of stornge from Lewisville Reservoir, desire to settle all fssaeA i l C existing between them regarding the extent of impoundment-, diver- sion and appropriation of water by each City out of Lewisville and Aubrey Reservoirs; now, therefore WITNESSETN; 1. The parties hereto, the City of Dallas and the City of Denton, do hereby agree that upon construction and filling of Aubrey Reser- voir Project and such additional construction as may be conteia- plated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers at Lewisville Reservoir and transfer of storage to Aubrey Reservoir, Dallas and Denton shall have rights to impound,'divert and appropriate water for municipal j and industrial purposes from the two said reservoirs as follows: j (a) Denton shall have the right to impound 275,100 acre feet f f of water and to divert therefrom an average of 25.7 MGD per annum. I on- a -safe yie2d-hasts. This 25.7 MOD includes all diversion rights ~i that Denton presently holds in Lewisville Reservoir and represents those diversion rights plus an amount equal to twenty-six (26%) per- cent of the increased yield of 81.4 MOD resulting from the con i , struction of the Aubrey Reservoir rroject, as calculated by the y U.S. Corps of Engineers. Such 25,7 MOD diversion will be allocated LJ between the reservoirs at Denton's discretion, but in no event s'iall Denton's total diversion from both reservoirs exceed an average of 25.7 XOD in any year unless herein otherwise stated or unless i otherwise agreed to by Dallas (b) Dallas shall have the right to impound 1,138,100 acre ' feet of water and to divert therefrom, not to exceed, an average of 149.5 MOD of water per annum, (o) As between Dallas and Denton, all storage rights of the parties in Lewisville Reservoir and Aubrey Reservoir will be treated as undivided interests in the storage tiotwithstnnding any provisions in the U.S. Corps of Engineors contracts providing for horizontal divisions of the storage space, and Dallas and Denton would have undivided intorestn as followss The enlargod 1&,wtavillo Penervoir .2 + ' tlFYgiM , will have a total conservation storage space of 613,600 acre feet, of which Dallas will own an undivided 546,400 acre feet or 89% of 4-,.•:, the total storage, and Denton will o%,m an undivided 67,200 acre feet or 11% of the total storage. Of the 546,400 acre feet Dallas will own in the enlarged Lewisville project, it will own an undi- vided'415,000 acre feet or 67.6% interest in the whole, by virtue of if:s May 18, 1953 contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and its Permit Nos. 798 and 798B• Dallas will acquire an additional undivided 131,400 acre feet or 21.4% of the whole under the contract with the Corps of Engineers which is presently under negotiation and its new permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission, Of Denton's 67,200 acre feet of storage, Denton will own an undivided 21,000 { acre feet by virtue of its May 20, 1954 contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and its Permit No. 1706. Denton would acquire an addi- tional undivided 46,200 acre feet by virtue of its contract with the Corps of Engineers which is presently under negotiation and its new permit. The new Aubrey Reservoir will have a total conservation ! space of 799,600 sire feet, of which Dallas will own an undivided 591,700 acre feet or 74% of the whole, and Denton will own an un- divided 207,900 acre feet or 26% of the whole under the contracts f presently being negotiated and the new permits, II. ~ The City of Denton holds Permit No, 1590, dated June 17, 1954, r granted by the State of Texas, and the City of Dallas holds Corti- fied filing No. 75, dated April 29, 1914, Permit No. 7980 dated August 8, 1924, Permit No. 1464, dated August 19, 1948, and Per- mit No. 1476, dated January :0, 1949, pertaining to Elm Fork and/or Lewisville Reservoir. Nothing contained in this contract shall con- stituto any recognition on the part of Dallas that tho 25.7 YCD di- version right recognized in Denton under this contract represents 1 the diversion rights to which Denton would be entitled in the absonco of this contract and the consldorattons obtained by Dallas under this contract, Nothing harein shall constitute any li.mitition { 'ItNl+• s , I elI1. or impairment on nny right of Dallas under its above existing appropriative rights insofar as third parties are concerned. To y the extent that the diversion of 25.% MCD by Denton under this contract may be determined to exceed Denton's rights under the storage to which it is entitled under its 'contracts with the U.S. Corp§ of Engineers, then such diversion shall be considered as being produced from the increased storage in Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs accruing to Dallas by virtue of the cons ruction of Aubrey Reservoir and shall not result in any reduction in any rights Dallas may have under other permits and certified filings. I k The parties have simultaneously filed applications for per- wits with the Texas Water Rights Commission which are identical E I i j except as to quantities reflecting the different ownership in- terests and these applications seek the right to impound and di- i j Vert the full amcunt of the applicant's storage annually. Neither party will claim priowity over the other under any permits issued in response to the new applications. LBoth parties agree to re- quest the Texas Water Rig%ts Conunission to grant both parties I i applications consistent with the provisions of this contract and to request that permits be issued to each party upon submission of executed contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers IV. (a) Bnth parties recognize that Dallas may find it desirable in the management of its water resources to introduce water into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from either or both Lake Ray Hubbard or Tawakoni or from son other source. Denton hereby con- sents to such use of the reservoirs provided the quality of water { from such source for municipal purposes is not decreased. Denton ~ j agrees that it will not claim the right to ure any water so introduced by Dallas, (b) Both pnrtios recognize that Denton may find It desirable in the mb.ingement of its wntor rosources to introduce water into I f i Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from some other source which Denton h, may acquire in the future. Dallas hereby consents to such use of the reservoirs provided the quality of water from such source for municipal purposes is not decreased. Dallas agrees that it will not claim the right to use aiiy water so introduced by Denton. (c) Both parties recognize that the approval of the Texas Water Rights Commission or other appropriate agency will be re- quired to introduce water from some other source into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs and that mutual agreement on operation plans j in connection therewith will not unreasonably be withheld. ! V. j (a) Both parties agree that Dallas may overdraft the safe yield 1 I~ i of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville P,eservoirs to j the extent it may be authorized to do so under its existing permits or under future permits it may obtain from the Texas Water Rights Commission or other appropriate agency and Dallas may transfer water I from Aubrey Reservoir to Lewisville Reservoir a'- its discretion, provided, that Denton's right to divert its 25.7 MGD from either Aubrey or Lewisville Reservoirs shall not be impaired. (b) Both parties agree that Denton may overdraft the safe yield of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs to the extent it may be authorized to do so under its existing per- mit or under future permits it may obtain from the Texas Water flights Commission or other appropriate agency, but not to exceed an average of 29.2 MGD per annum. (c) Both parties agree that overdrafting shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to any imposed by the Texas Water Rights Commission: (1) Reservoir operating agreements mutually agreeable' to the parties which protect tho storage and dive:•sion rirhts of cacti party. (2) Both parties agree that Dallas has sufficient safe yield available to it for overdrafting in accord- ance with this Contract, but that Denton duos not. i I r ~I ~•MT..-any •.CY+1~ Therefore, both parties agree that Denton's right to overdraft 24.2 MGD of the 29,2 MGD stated in . M.,, Paragraph V (b) above, shall be subject to either the mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the Texas Water. Rights Coranission that Denton has sufficient safe yield available to its system from some other water supply source before Denton's right to overdraft exceeds an average of 5 MGD per annum. (3) Mutual agreement or reservoir operating agreements and ovardrafting shall not unreasonably be withheld. Vi. Menton agrees that any sewage effluent returned by Da n to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River or any of its tributaries shall be returned upstream from Lewisville Dam and shall be treated in the manner required by the Texas Water Quality Board, the U.S. E Environmental Protection Agency or other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over the subject matter. Denton agrees that all con- tracts it may enter into to supply water to others shall contain I ~ this eequivoment and provisions sufficient to enforce this require- , I ment. VII. I The covenants and agreements made by the parties herein shall I ba binding on the parties and their successors in interest so long as water is being diverted or appropriated from either Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs by or under authority of either Denton or Dallas. VIII. 1f"`°, qw JDJPf-v Both parties agree'that the consideration received by each con- oists of covenants and agreements made by the other and hence the Corms and provisions of this contract are not severable unless tho same are disapproved by the Texas Water Flights Conunission or the I parties are ratable to contract with the U. S. Corps of Engineers. In this event, this contract shall be abrogated and shall be of no ~ force and effect, 110th parties further apree that after approval of this contract by all repulntory agencies exercising jurisdict4 oo . burn • - n,x~ of the subject matter of this contract, the issuance by the Texas Water Rights Cotinission of impoundment and diversion permit rights necessary to carry out the terms of this contract and the execution of contracts by both Dallas and Denton with the U.S. Corps of Engi- neers, the terms and provisions hereof shall be severable and if any provision hereof is held void or becomes legally impossible of performance, then that provision shall become null and void, but the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect, t 1 IX. oft C"'04 do-l" Both parties agree that this contract shall supercede and re- f place the contract between the parties dated November 19, 1962, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", except Dallas agrees to continue to ? sell water to Denton in accordance with the November 19, 1962, con- tract until the Aubrey Reservoir Project is completed by the U.S. ! Corps of Engineers and deliberate impoundment of water therein com- mences, Until 1980, such sale of water will be at the price stated i j in the 1962 contract and thereafter at Dallas''posted prices per raw, water sales to watershed cities. j WITNESS the signatures of the parties hereto this the day of 19760 the Cities signing by and through their E respective City Manager and attested by their City Secretaries, duly authorized by resolutions enacted by the respective governing bodies of said Citi?s. CITY OF DALLAS i i CITY IMA(-,)AR 1 ATTEST: I CITY SECOMY i i APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY MOWN f i ~ ~wwvc rCMt~'!', NpP] I Both parties agree that the safe yield of the two reservoirs r, a is an empirical figure which may suffer depreciation or apprecia- tion through record drought or changed hydrological conditions. The hydrological safe yield figures totalling 175.2 MGD have been calcrlated on the basis of information available at this time from j thz 1950-1957 drought under projected 1985 conditions, including projected reservoir sedimentation conditions and projected im- provements on the watershed above the reservoirs, but'without considering any releases to honor downstream water rights or any increase in yield by virtue of increased sewage return flows. In the event of a more severe drought than is of recore at this time ~ t f or in the event of material changes in hydrological conditions or in any event no later than the year 2000, the parties agree that the hydrological combined safe yield of the Aubrey and Lewisville Reservoirs shall be recalculated on the same basis without regard { to downstream rights but with the inclusion of increased sewage effluent return flows to the lakes. If the parties can agree upon j a recognized authority in the field to perform such recalculations, such will be done by such authority and presented to the Texas Water Rights Commission for approval. In the event the parties cannot agree upon a recognized authority to perform such r'ecalcu- la'tions, the matter will be submitted to the Texas Water Rights Commission for recalculation in accordance with this contract. Upon such recalculation, Denton's average of 25.7 MGD per annum and Dallas' average of 149.5 MGD per annum diversion rights under this contract shall be adjusted by'the percent change of the in- creased or decreased safe yield that the said increased or de creased safe yield bears to 175.2 MGD, the presently estimated total hydrological safe yiold of the combined reservoirs. j { f ~ i i I ~ ti w MUMI 1 COUNTERSIGNEM CITY AUDITOR ' 11 CITY OF DENTON ~ I CITY WAGER i { ATTEST: 6 f CITY BECIMM :i 1 , I $ APPROVED AS TO FORM 11 4. ~ i f ?4 I i ~ -13- SYNOPSIS OF TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION HEARING RE AUBREY RESERVOIR ON FEBRUARY 18--l 97 6 r Several hours prior to the commencement of the hearing, Da1Tas submitted a Statement of Position. A copy is attached. Basically, Dallas stated that they were unwilling to accept a permit from TWRC re Aubrey if it contained certain conditions. They also reiterated their prior rights argument. At the start of the hearing, Chairman Joe Carter of TWRC } asked Dallas if their statement represented the bottom line and were they unwilling to tako a permit with conditions. Dallas stated they could not accept a permit with provisions relating 4 to customer cities. Chairman Carter stated that the Commission f was going to condition Dallas' permit with provisions serving customer cities. Carter further stated that "If Dallas' position is the bottom line, we are wasting our time because Representative Roberts will not support project on that basis. it looks like we have a dead project." Denton asked Carter why he thought the pro- ject was dead, and he answered "Well, if a major partner can't accept the permit with conditions, it looks like the project is scrapped." Frank Booth, on behalf of Denton, then stated that he wanted to make an oral presentation concerning Denton's position and would also address himself to the unwillingness of Dallas to participate with conditions. The Commission told Booth to proceed. y Booth presented a 30 minute argument and stated that Denton's position was as follows: (a) Disregarding prior rights, all parties, including Dallas, { agreed that the increased yield of the Aubrey project was 81.4 MGDj (b) that Denton needed and should be granted a permit for 268 of the 81.4 MGD) (c) that the staff's recommendation regarding ovorerafting should be followed] I , f k~ n (d) that Denton be allowed to overdraft upon proof of an alternate water supply source= (e) that the parties granted permits enter into an opera- tional agreement and if those parties can't agree, the TWRC write an agreement (f) that the permits be granted, i.e. 741 to Dallas and 261 to Denton; (g) that Denton wants the project, that it should be started immediately, that we trust the judgment and wisdom of the Commis- sion and will accept the permits with any condition the Conanission desires; (h) that if Dallas doesn't want to take their permit with i conditions, then request the Texas Water Development Board to assume Dallas' 741 sharer t (i) that Denton was ready to proceed with Dallas as a partner, or anyone else as a partner; (j) that Denton had requested 261 of the water because of a 1962 agreement with Dallas, and if Dallas wanted out, then Denton i would desire more that, 261 of Aubrey. y At the conclusion, Chairman Carter asked Booth how the Texas Water Development Board uould be brought into the project. Booth said that either Dallas could reject their permit or the Commission , could deny it, 'and Texas Water Development Board could be asked to apply for 744 of the water. Booth went on to say that he had some contact with the staff of Texas Water Development Board and they seemed willing to participate and that it seemed that this was a s way to resolve and solve the water situation for North Texas. i i Booth stated that the Texas Water Development Board was the proper s agency to develop the water resources in North and Northeast Texas, and this would get them started, He felt sure that T'RDD could con- ( tract to sell water to Lewisville (who had representatives present), Frisco# Farmers Branch, Gaine villa, North Texas Municipal Water Distrietp etc, f _2- n Jim Wilson representing Dallas stated that it would be im- practicable for TWDB to come in because Dallas owned the water aa~m~ due to its prior rights and the project would only yield 20 MGD; R! and that the horizontal division in Lewisville presented problems. Booth said that we would take our chances on the prior rights and that ~t would be best to start adjudication proceedings on the Elm Fork as soon as the permits were issued. He stated that the stratification of Lewisville was not a problem because that had been solved in other reservoirs. Dallas, through Wilson, stated they would accept a permit which did not have conditions and requested the Commission to give them such a permit. Said that if Dallas gets hurt on their rate case, then they would have to split the blanket and no longer serve those citiesl and, in that case, Dallas would want the Elm Fork reservoirs. Carter responded that "there are other people in North Texas besides the City of Dallas and we have to look put for those folks in light of the limited sources of water". He stated that the 1 faot "Dallas did not want to take a permit with conditions chilled { him". Commissioner Dorsey Hardeman agreed that Dallas' permit should contain conditions that would give the customer cities the benefits of Aubrey. He disliked Dallas' attitude of suddenly ignoring those entities. At this point, Graham 1Ass't City Attorney of Dallas? stated i that Dallas could not accept a permit with conditions when the f rate case was pending and they didn't know what the Commission would do with that. Carter said he didn't think that the rate case effected this matter and that they should not hold up these permits until that case was concluded. Booth stated that Denton s was not involved in the rate matter and that we should get on ? with this project. Carter agreed, I Carter then said that it appeared that Dallas was unwilling M to accept a permit with conditions, and that he was "presently -3- I disposed to denying Dallas' application and granting Denton's but he didn't know how to get other parties into the case". Carter then asked Dallas if Dallas was trying to run this as a Dallas project. Wilson did not answer that question, but stated that Dallas wanted a permit as requested in their position state- went; Carter again asked if that meant Dallas wanted it as a Dallas project. Dallas remained silent. Then Carter said, the reason I asked was that I understand that Congressman Roberts is the sponsor of this project and he tells me that he will not sponsor the project as a "Dallas Project". "It thus appears that if Dallas can't accept the permit other than on i their conditions, they are out." A discussion took place as to what to do and the Commission } thought that it would be best to study the situation and also to 1 make contact with the TWDB. They agreed to continue the hearing until March 18 at 10100 A.M. Where does this leave Denton? In my opinion we are in great shape. The TWRC has said that Denton will get 261, Dallas is on the verge of getting kicked out of this project and they really need to loo}, at themselves. They have constantly wanted the whole pie anli to eat it too, and that is backfiring on them. It now appears that Denton will have to wait to see if their partner is Dallas or TWDB. If it is the TWDB, there should not be any great delay. We have no preference and think Dallas should be in the i project, but they are digging a grave for themselves and that is hurting the project. Thusp Denton may be better off with the TWDB, but it is Dallas+' move. Respectfully submitted, Faul C. Isham ! 1 City Attorney j City of Denton Denton, Texas 76201 1 nEFORr THE TEXAS {CATER RIGHTS COM1%%1SSION ~ ~zun~ 'AUSTIN, TEXAS APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE X PUBLIC WATER FROM THE X PRQPOSED AUBREY PROJECT X STATEMENT OF POSITION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS The position of the City of Dallas on the pending , Aubrey Project applications may be summarized briefly. Dallas has agreed to join with the City of Denton in the 'development of the Aubrey Project and to share costs and j + benefits on a 748-268 basis. Accordingly, Dallas asks that { the Commission grant it a permit which will allow it to I impound water in its 748 share of the additional storage made available by the project. Dallas also asks for diver- I lion rights which will allow it to utilize its Lewisville f and film Fork storage effectively under its overdraft opera- tion program. 1 Dallas also asks that the applications of the appli- cants other than Dallas and Denton be denied and that no rights be granted other than to Dallas and Denton. Xt asks that no conditions be imposed on Dallas' permit which seek to impose obligations on Dallas to serve other cities and that no other unusual conditions be included in the permit. because of the differences among the parties over the status of existing water rights, Dallas asks that the Commission follow the precedent set in the recent Grapevine proceeding and not address itrclf to the questian of firm yield, and it asks that no other provision be included in the permit which could be conutrued as an attempt to limit Dallas' existing water rights. f , .While Dallas has agreed to join with the city of Denton in the development of the Aubrey Project and to share the i w- costs and benefits of the project on a 70-26% basis, Dallas cannot agree that the benefits to be derived from the Aubrey Project are represented by the yield as computed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or as computed by Denton's engineer. ing -consultants. The yield computation of the Corps of Engineers admittedly ignores all water rights. The Freese and Nichols computation does not totally ignore prior rights, but it is based on assumptions as to Dallas' water rights which Dallas contends are insupportable. The differences between Dallas' and Denton's approaches to the evaluation of the benefits to be derived from the Aubrey Project cannot be resolved in these hearings on E applications for permits. The basic differences flow from differing contentions as to Dallas' prior rights, and these differences probably cannot be resolved short 'of an adjudi-. cation proceeding. If Denton feels sufficiently secure in E I its position with respect'to Dallas' rights, or-if Dentor is willing to participate in the project even if its position should not be upheld, there is no reason why the Aubrey Project may not go forward. However, Dallas cannot agree to any arrangement which requires that Dallas surrender its existing rights or priorities or to the issuance of any permits which might be construed as an evaluation by the Commission of Dallas' rights contrary to its contentions, The principal area of difference between Dallas and Denton surrounds the increase in safe yield which will result from the Aubrey Project. As we understand the situa- ton, the importance of the safe yield determination results from the policy, unarticulated in any statuto, court decision or Commission rule as far an we know, under which this Commission imposen limits on diversions for municipal purponen j jj i in pernits it grants to the safe yield of the reservoir. The basis for this policy is that it would be imprudent for a city to divert substantially in excess of the amount of water which it can divert on a sustained basis if there were to be a repetition of the drought of record. A city should not become dependent upon a level of diversions from a source of supply and then find that during a drought the water is not there. ; Thus, the insertion of a safe yield limitation in a permit is not an end in itself but represents the applica- tion of a rational public policy. Dallas sub:aits that the same public policy considerations which militate against a city diverting and becoming dependent upon diversions in excess of the safe yield, argue just as strongly against a 1 city diverting, and becoming dependent upon diversions of, a safe yield which is calculated on false assumptions. Actually, of course, there is no such thing as a safe f yield which does not take prior rights into account. Simi- larly, there is no such thing as a safe yield,which ass=es i that diveraions from downstream reservoirs will be limited ..to the safe yield of those reservoirs when (1) there is no legal restraint to the safe yield, (2) there is substantial economic incentive to overdraft the safe yield in such reservoirs, and (3) such overdrafts may be made safely because of other water supply sources. When Denton asks this Commission for a permit with diversion rights equal to the firm yield calculateu without consideration of downstream rights, it is in effect asking the Commission to accord it the right to overdraft the true f firm yield. The simple and undeniable facts aro that if P.' Dallas exercises its prior rights, as it mr.st do to serve its own citizens properly, and if Denton dlvcrts on the basis of 26t of an 61.4 mgd increamid yield, when tho drought I . P49Ni. 1 i of record re-occurs, Denton will Cind that the amount of water it is diverting is simply not there, for the full period of the drought. The difference between Dallas and Denton is pointed up in the memorandum of Mr. A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division, dated February-11, 1976, in the following statements The only significant difference between all the yield studies of the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to the overdrafting of the existing Lake Lewisville. The other studies did not. This difference is not only significant, it is crucial, and' l to the extent that the author suggests that Dallas' Lewis- ville priority does not extend to its diversion rights in excess of firm yield, there 13 simply no basis for such a ! conclusion. ' Although we believe that the preferable course would be to follow the Grapevine precedent and not address the safe j yield question, Dallas has no particular objection to the j ,a 11 Commission's granting permits on the Aubrey Project with addi- tional diversion rights in amounts equal to the increased yield as computed by the Corps of Engineers a1j long as it is recognized that such a yield has no relation to what will happen in a real world drought and as long as there is nothing in the permit which purports to attribute reality to + a yield which ignores downstream rights) R; Mr. A. E. Richardson's memorandum of February 11, 1976, recommends that the Commission "recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that determined by the Corpd of Engineers to be distributed on the basis of ownership of increased storage space in each reservoir." ror what purpose does Mr. Richardson propose that such yield be recognized? Yf he is suggesting that there is 01.4 mgd of water available for appropriation on a dependable basis# the facto are directly contrary to his conclusion. This amount of water may be •n~ i I MIS • 1 •1 I I appropriated on a firm basis only by confiscating a portion of Dallas' prior rights. With respect to Denton's proposal for overdraft pro- i visions as set forth in the statement of its counsel at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing,'Dallas has no objec- ti,on to the suggestion that additional overdraft rights be granted only on a non-priority basis. However, to the extent that counsel suggests that such a condition-be imposed on Dallas' existing Lewisville rights, we believe that the i j Commission has no authority to take such action here. Such a limitation could be imposed, if at all, only in a cancel- lation proceeding, and no grounds exist for cancellation r I here. f Turning to other points made by Denton's counsel in his closing remarks, Dallas could not accept a permit with provisions relating to customer cities in the form suggested ' -by Denton. The Commission has found jurisdiction in the ` Farmers Branch rate case on the basis of alleged represents- I tions made by Dallas in previous permit proceedings and on 3 the basis of recitations in the Lake Ray Hubbard Permit. Dallas makes no representations with respect to customer cities here, and at least as long as the rate case remains unresolved, Dallas cannot accept any permit with provisions j 1 which could be used as a basis for rate jurisdiction or to impose additional obligations to provide water service to its customer cities. With respect to Denton's request that permits not issue until the parties have signed contracts with Cho U.S. Army Corps of gngineers, Dallas believes th, -it it isuat at least know what action the Commission intends to take before it eign9 a contract with the Corps. It also believes Clint an operating agreement between Denton and Dallas should be reached before the Corps contracts ara signed. With respect to Denton's and Mr. Richardson's sugges- tions that the TCx06 Water Development Board be asked to develop the Aubrey Project without Dallas, Dallas would respectfully point out that the rights Dallas now holds must still be recognized. If the Texas Water Development Board were to undertake an Aubrey Project without Dallas which recognizes Dallas' prior rights, the evidence shows, we submit, that such a project would not be economically feasible. We are confident that the Board would not undertake an Aubrey Project without Dallas which does not recognize Dallas' rights, but if such a Project were undertaken, by the Board or anyone else, Dallas would, of course, have no i alternative but to oppose such an effort. E f What is said above with respect to Denton's position I aprlies with even greater force to the other applications pending before the Commission. The water these applications seek to appropriate in the Aubrey Project can be made avail able for appropriation only at the expense of Dallas' prior ` rights, and Dallas opposes the granting of any of these { applications. Xf any member of-the Commission requires clarification i of any of the above, Dallas will be pleased to respond at the hearing sot for February 18, 1975. Respectfully submitted, I N. ALEX BICKLEY 1 City Attorney ? 502 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75241 I CARROLL R. GRAHAM } Assistant City Attorney 501 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75201 JAMES W. WILSON MCGINNIS, LOCH RIDGE & KILGOR) 5th Ploor, 'texas State Dank 111(19. 900 Congresu Avenue Austin, Texas 70701 i ATTORN11VI POR APPLICA14T, CITY OV DALLA i ti f r t lei CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify that I have on this Jf7-k day of February, 1976, served copies of the foregoing Statement of Position of the City of Dallas upon counsel for the Cities of Denton and Frisco. i i E ~ ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT, CITY OF DALLAS i 1 ' ,fir '~76 TEXAS'"rATER RIGHTS CO~11.'"SSION FF t STEPHEN r. AUSTIN STATE OFFICE HUILDINC COMMUIBIONE RB JOE O. CART[ R,CHAI AM AN R. 1.(80816CMNEIDER 4762460 February 11, 1976 ■klCUTIVIDIREDTDR j DOA6EY E, 7tARDFMAN . it 470432$ 4164462 JOE A. CARROL L MARY ANN HEFNER A766A61 BECRETARY 4784671 { Mr. Francs R. Booth Booth, Lloyd & Simmons Attorneys at Law 308 San Jacinto Building Austin, Texas 78701 I Re: Pending Applications - Aubrey Project f Dear Mr. Booth: Enclosed is a staff memorandum dated February 11, 1976, signed by A, E. Richardson concerning the proposed % Aubrey Project. Copies of the memorandum have been furnished to a representative for each of the applicants. Should you have any questions, please let us know. Very truly yours, TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION f By MM ry Ann Hefner MAH:Ib Enclosure 1 AN EOUAL ORMORTUNITV EIVLOYER r... B.C BOX $my MIA COD$ $11 AWIN 11RAB 7//11 ~ i t,,g;t,~ ~rlf.?1 ~~t !1'.W n,•-7 rv'l ~F, , /INTE.ROF'~'CI! MEiORANDUM i to The Commission oigE February 11, 1976 riaml A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division soamtor Applications for Permits to Use Water in the Proposed Aubrey Project After having heard all the testimony and considered the evidence presented in the subject matter the following represents my reaction to the evidence. E ! ~ ~II 1. Yield of Aubrey Project- i 1 The firin yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir plus. Lewisville C I Reservoir enlargement) is totally dependent on the extent of existing down- kk stream hater rights and the priority of those ti)ater rights. There is not E t I significant disagreement among parties involved that the Aubrey Project I increases the'fim, yield of the existing Elm Fork system by about 81.4 mad { (91,200 acre-feet per year). The computer simulations are nerely a series of mathematical corputations j and the results are dependent only on the conditions and constraints r { established. The only significant difference between all the yield studies ~ of the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey project to the overdrafting of the existing Lake { Lewisville. The other studies did not. } 2. Overdrafting Overdeafting of a reservoir, or system of reservoirs, is the diversion of more water on an annual basis than the reservoir will continua to supply ! through a rmtition of the asst critical drought of record, i.e., the fira, i yield. The practice of overdrafting of a portion of a supply system can have E ; obvious operational and economic advantages to a city; hotiiever, unless 4 T' Y !iM1.11n P Mli .+tY Yemo,to the Comciission - 2 roll, February 31, 1476 4 j certain restraints are employed it can lead to difficulties for the city and other water users. I feel the following general conclusions concerning overdrafting can be drawn. t A. The total annual diversion by a city should not exceed the firm yield of its total water supply system: B.. When "uverdrafting" of one portion of a supply system has occurred during j the critical drought then overdrafting soma or all of the re•raining I portion of the supply system must also occur in order to carry the system i through the critical. drought. C. If overdrafting of a portion of a water supply syste,n for municipal j purposes is to carry a priority over other uses junior it. time the effect will be to "tie up" a quantity of water equal to several tivaes the amount that can be used annually by the city. 3. Operating Agreement The disagreements between applicants voiced during the nearing emp;iazises the necessity of an operating agreement between all parties having diversion rights in either the Aubrey or Lewisville Reservoirs. In addition the proposed overdrafting of the reservoirs makes an operating agr3emernt essential. 4. aecommendations A. Recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that determined by the Corps of Engineers to be distributed on the basis of ownership of increased storage space in each reservoir. B. Limit total annual diversions from all sources by each periiittee to tha f firm annual yield of all of permittee's water supply facilities. ' 77 I ileino to the Comi,ission - 3 - February 11, 1976 C. Limit any authorized overdraftlig of municipal supply reservoirs to a non-priority right. 0. flake any permits issued contingent on ComaissioA approval of an operating ++I agreement betweean all parties having diversion rights in Lewisville and I Aubrey Reservoirs. i 'These recoronendations are essentially the same as contained in Per,niis Division memorandum dated November 3, 1975. I feel these reconx;,endations { are still valid. However, in the event the Commission feels that the parties involved can not or will not work out a satisfactory operating agreewent, then the Convaission should consider denying the pending per'7its { and request the Water Developni_nt Board to make application for the conservation storage in the Aubrey Reservoir. A. E. Richerdson i i I e ~r DRAFT ,s4 4`,~,,,, ~G 4 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT I f Dallas w111 not object to Issuance of a permit which allows Denton to divert from Its share of new storage an amount equal to 268 of increased safe yield of Aubrey' Project calculated by method used by Corps of Engineers without regard to any prior rights of Dallas. 2. Denton will agree to limit its diversions from present storage to an amount equal to safe yield of Its share of storage calculated without reg.-rd to any prior rights of Dallas. 3. Dallas will not object to Inclusion in Denton's permit of overdraft diversion tights predicated upon finding by Commission that Denton has connected back-up 1 supply adequate to make up any overdrafts. Denton's wells will qualify ar such a back-up source only upon such a finding by TNRC. f 41A Under no circumstances is Denton or Dallas to divert any water beyond the remaining amount of water In Its share of storage. S. Denton will not export return flows outside watershed above Lewisville and 4 any return flows will accrue to interests In reservoirs as oaier inflow. Denton will not sell water to anyone other than entitles described In Denton Exhibit No. 3 before TWRC. 7. Dallas will sell water to Denton at 2.50 per 1,000 gallons plus pumping costs 11 until 1980, and thereafter at Dallas' posted prices. Such water shall be provided until water becomes available to Denton In Aubrey and when partially available In Aubrey, to extent water is not available to Denton In Aubrey. I • ~ I , j 1, I 1 ~ . . 1 1 If Aubrey has not filled by the beginning of the year 1990, Dcnton shall i begin to develop an alternate source of supply to be connected by year 2000, • and Dallas' obligation to sell water to Denton shall terminate at the ' beglnning of the year 2000. 1 B. The Corps' contract will not be signed until (1) Denton and Dallas have entered Into contract, and (2) approved permits or official drafts thereof have been received. 9: Entire project conditioned upon no rights granted to any applicant other than Dallas and Denton. E 10. Nothing herein shall be construed as waiver of any right or priority by Dallas, and Dallas shall have the right to require the operation of Lewisville and Aubrey in conformity with Its rights. C 1 i • . 1 . •'i f 1 T tgq`d61 11 V.'14'~ BEFORE THE TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION ~ AUSTXN, TEXAS APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE X PUBLIC WATER FROM THE X PROPOSED AUDREY PROJECT ~ STATMENT OF POSITION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS The position of the City of Dallas on the pending Aubrey Project applications may be summarized briefly. I Dallas has agreed to join with the City of Denton in the i a development of the Aubrey Project and to share costs and i j i benefits on a 744-261 basis. Accordingly, Dallas asks that f I the Commission grant it a permit which will allow it to impound water in its 741 share of the additional storage a made available by the project. Dallas also asks for diver= ~ • 1 I f Bion rights which will allow it to utilize its Lewisville # { and Elm Pork storage effectively under its overdraft ai-eras tion program. Dallas also asks that the applications of thi appli- cants other than Dallas and Denton be denied and that no rights be granted other than to Dallas and Denton. it asks that no conditions be imposed on Dallas' permit-which seek to impose obligations on Dallas to.servo other cities and that no other unusual conditions he included In the permit. because of the differences among the parties over the status of existing water rightso Dallas asks that the Commission follow the precedent not in the recent Grapovino proceeding and not address itself to the question of firm yield, and it ? asks that no other provision bo included in tho permit which 'Could bo construed as an attempt to limit Dallas' oxinting water rights. 1 I ~1MK.'.'. ' K:4 Mg t4hila Dallas has agreed to join with the City of Denton in the development of the Aubrey Project-and to share the Ilk, costs and benefits of the project on a 70-26% basis, Dallas ti ` cannot agree that the benefits to be derived from the Aubrey Project are represented by the yield as computed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or as computed by Denton's engineer- In; consultants. The yield computation of the corps of i j. Engineers admittedly ignores all water rights. The Freese and Nichols computation does not totally ignore prior rights, f but it is based on assumptions as to Dallas' water rights t which Dallas contends are insupportable. The differences between Dallas' and Den ' ton's approaches i to the evaluation of the benefits to be derived from the Aubrey Project cannot be resolved in these hearings on applications for permits. The basic differences flow from } differing contentions as to Dallas' prior rights, and these , differences probably cannot be resolved short*of an adjudi- cation proceeding. If Denton feels sufficiently secure in 1 ' f its position with respect'to Dallas' rights, or•if Denton is ~ willin to g participate in the project even if its position should not be upheld, there is no reason why the Aubrey E Project may not go forward. However, Dallas cannot agree to any arrangement which requires that Dallas surrender its eristinq rights or priorities or to the issuance of any po:7nits which might bu construed as an evaluation by the Commission of Dallas' rights contrary to its contentions, The principal area oX difference between Dallas and Denton surrounds the increase in safe yield which will result from the Aubrey Project, As we understand the situa- 'tion, the importance of the We yield determination results f ' from the policy, unarticulated in any statute, court decision or Commission rule as far as we knotia, under which thin Conuninnion imporen limits on divorulona for municipal purponan i I , I . 1 I 4pPCM. . tlP4'T'STy ~M'Q11\R , r ' r RWGYA in permits it grants to the safe yield of the reservoir. The basis for this policy is that it would be imprudent for a city to divert substantially in excess of the amount of water which it can divert on a sustained basis if there wero to be a repetition of the drought of record. A city should not become dependent upon a level of diversions from a . r source of supply and then find that during a drought the ,water is not there. ; Thus, the insertion of a safe yield limitation in a permit is not an end in itself but represents the applica- tion of a rational public policy. Dallas submits that the i 1 i same public policy considerations which militata against a 1 L city diverting and becoming dependent upon diversions In excess of the safe yield, argue just as strongly against a II city diverting, and becoming dependent upon diversions of, a i s safe yield which is calculated on false assumptions. Actually, of course, there is no such thing as a safe field which does not take " ~ y prior rights into account. simi- ~ iariy, there is no such thing as a safe yield which assumes { that diversions from downstream reservoirs will be limited f -to the safe yield of those reservoirs when (1) there is no legal restraint to the safe yield, (2) there is substantial economic incentive to overdraft the safe yield in such reservoirs, and (3) such overdrafts may be made safely because of other water supply sources. When Denton asks this Commission for a permit with diversion rights equal to the firm yield calculated without consideration of downstream rights, it is in affect asking the Commission to accord it the right to overdraft the truo ' firm yield, The simple and undonioblo facts are that if I Dallas exorcises its prior rights, as it must do to serve its own citizens properly, and if Denton diverts on the I basin of 26% of an CIA mgd increased yield, when the drought i • f i of record re-occurs, Denton will find that the amount of water it is diverting is simply not there, for the full period of the drought. The difference between Dallas,and Denton is pointed up J . in the memorandum of Mr. A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division, dated February-11, 1976, in the following statement: The only significant difference between all the yield staid esi of the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to the overdrafting of the existing Lake Lewisville. The other studies did not. This difference is not only significant, it is crucial, and' e to the extent that the author suggests that Dallas' Lewis- Ville priority does not extend to its diversion rights in ,i excess of firm yield, there is simply no basis for such a I f j conclusion. It 4 Although we believe that the preferable course would be to follow the Grapevine precedent and not address the safe f I yield question, Dallas has no particular objection to the !E i Commission's granting permits on the Aubrey Froj ect with addi- tional diversion rights in.amounts equal to th© increased yield as computed by the Corps of Engineers as long as it is recognized that such a yield has no relation to what 4ill happen in a real world drought and as long as there is LJ nothing in the permit which purports to attribute reality to a yield which ignores downstream rights, Mr. A. L. Richardson's memorandum of February 11, 1976s recommends that the Commission "recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that determined by the Corpd of Enginoors to be distributed on ti.r basis of ownership of increased ' storage space in each resorvoir," For what purpose does Mr, Richardson propose that such yield be recogni/tod? tf he is suggooting that there is 01,4 mgd of water available for appropriation on a dependable basin, the facts are directly contrary to his conclusion, 'Phan amount of water may be ~'4VYi ~ , G~YY~I appropriated on a firm basis only by confiscating a portion r,r of Dallas' prior rights. With respect to Denton's proposal for overdraft pro- visions as set forth in the statement of its counsel at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, Dallas has no objec- tion to the suggestion that additional overdraft rights be granted only on a non-priority basis. However, to the extent that counsel suggests that such a condition be imposed on Dallas' existing Lewisville rights, we believe that the Commission has no authority to take such action here. Such a limitation could be imposed, if at all, only in a cancel- lation proceeding, and no grounds exist for cancellation here. I I ~ Turning to other points made by Denton's counsel in his [ closing remarks, Dallas could not accept a permit with provisions relating to customer cities in the form suggested -by Denton. The Commission has found jurisdiction in the i ; I Farmers Branch rate case on the basis of alleged represents- tions made by Dallas in previous permit proceedings and on the basis of recitations in the Lake Ray Hubbard permit. Dallas makes no representations with respect to customer cities here, and at least as long as the rate case remains unresolved, Dallas cannot accept any permit with provisions which could bo used as a basis for rate jurisdiction or to impose additional obligations to provide water snrvico to its customer cities. With respect to Donton'e'request that permits not issue until the partios have signed contracts with this U.S. Army Corps of Engineor6, Dallas believes that it must at least 1 know whet action the Commtasion intends to take before it signq a contract with the Corps. It also boliovoo that an operating agreement between Denton and Dallas should be reached hofora tho Corpn contracts am nignrd. ~WG\ - YVNt.y With respect to Denton's and Mr. Richardson's suggos- tions that the Texas Water Development Board be asked to develop the Aubrey Project without Dallas, Dallas would ` respectfully point out that the rights Dallas now holds must still be recognized. If the Texas Water Development Board were to undertake an Aubrey Project without Dallas which recognizes Dallas' prior rights, the evidence shows, we submit, that such a project would not be economically feasible. We are confident that the Board would not undertake an Aubrey Project without Dallas which does not recognize 1 + Dallas' rights, but if such a Project were undertaken, by the Board • or anyone else, Dallas would of course, have no alternative but to oppose such an effort. What is said above with respect to Denton's position applies with even greater force to the other applications pending before the Commission. The water these applications I , seek to appropriate in the Aubrey Project can be made avail- able for appropriation only at the expense of Dallas' prior rights, and Dallas opposes the granting of any of these applications. If any member of the Commission requires clarification of any of the above, Dallas will be pleased to respond at I the hearing set for February 18, 1976. Respectfully submitted, I N. ALEX BICXLEX City Attorney 901 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75201 CARROLL R. GRAJIAM Assistant City Attorney 501 Municipal. Building I Dallas, Toxau 75201 JMIrS W. WILSON McGINN7S, LOCIIRIDGE & XILGOnF Sth Floor# Texas State Bank nldg. 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texau 78701 ATrO)INEYn 110R APPLYCANI', { CITY 0I. DALI,An CRRTIFICATE of SERVICE X hereby certify that I have on this day of 6 February, 1976, served copies of the foregoing Statement of Position of the City of Dallas upon counsel for the Cities of Denton and Frisco. ;s s' ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT, a CITY OF DALLAS ' s • i I I ' I k SIM "s F r f r ENI) i 1 1 l 1 0 F 4 i f F ILE 't