Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1986 A r YAW}~ Alt s.Ytf MWY I.}~ . r: R 1h `AI .x'5+11 a 4 ow" water utilm" NO & Ervey •tabu, Texas 75277, (211) 718.9711 30 March 1976 Mr. John C. Ball Chief, Planning Branch Fort Worth District i Corps of Engineers i P. 0. Box 17300 d Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Dear Mr. Be111 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. ; It is desired to reaffirm the position of the City of Dallas stated in our comments dated 10 October 1973 on the draft of General Design Memorandum No. 2, quoted in pertinent part for ready reference, as follows, 'l...we suggest reductions in the project scope by elimination of the featuees listed below... r'A. Purchase of 41.6 acres of additional land and construction of additional recreational facilities at Lewisville Lake. Moreover, we do not feel that the Cltv of Dallas should be expected to pay for capital costs o` development of any addi- tional recreational facilities at Lewisville. If these are needed, we believe that the federal government should provide them as it did the existing recreational facilities. 118. Purchase of 203 acres for Culp Branch Park at Aubrey Lake. This is an untlmbered area and the price of land Is high. j If comparable recreational facilities are required, they should be provided in area where land Is not so expensive and where there are some native trees. . r 'IC. Purchase of the two proposed five acre tracts for Elm Fork access areas /1 and 12. It is believed that the stream bed in this area is likely to be nearly dry most of the time. Releases from the conservation pool will be made based on water supply needs which wail probably not coincide with recreation needs." J I I i A city utility providing Dallas with water purif estiom and distribution, waste water collection andtrostmernt 4444,:51. It,A111..ix r.,..r . i al.. '~.{WW ill A.'~ Mr. John C. Sall - 30 March 1976 - page 2 With respect to the above reco,rvnendations, we note the following: l A. Lewisville lake is not covered in this Master Plan, but we unicrstand that } the purchase of an additional 41.6 acres of land and the imposition of i cost-sharing of recreation at Lewisville are still contemplated. B. Rather than eliminate the purchase of 243 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 potcntial and Its selection I 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 expemsive channel to make boating practicable. Trees would nave to be planted to make it a desirable picnic site. i C. Our recommendation 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 o,i land otherwise acquired for the project. The best potential park oa the lake, Isle du Soi%, has been coon1 tied to the State. As it is the prime park site, it would lend itself to a cormerclal development and Its dedication to State use removes this alternative. While assumption of the burden of a portion of the recreational requirements by the State will reduce the burden on the local cooperating sponsors, this must be off-set by the potential dlminution of attractiveness to potential clammerclal sponsors. i Section XVII Cost Estimates 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 1 Mr. Sam Garrett advised our consultant, Mr. 0. L. Gardner, by telephone on March 8, l 1976, that these facilities are still considered to be necessary. Section XIV Fish and Wildlife Management Plan_ The releases requested by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not likely to coin- 1 elde with a need for releases for water supply purposes. Perhaps flood control storage could be retained in the Aubrey flood control pool In sufficient quantity to comply with this request, although It is appreciated that this may cause operating problems. The request for three access areas below the dam and your response thereto is of 1 ' 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 ad,acent 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 i so the requested areas could become useful, then the cost should be assigned to the entity being served, rather than the water supply sponsors. l t 1 ~ 1 it 1 K •.NIH 6+w wvVUtr. Liti+++'{.,a, i M r, w A Y , y V.ll SKI . • C.'h. Ml~ i y,,,y, F'a'1P iY " L 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 is recommended that consideration be given to requesting that agency to assume responsibility for managing the entire recreation plan for Aubrey lake. Texas Parks and Wildlife have much more expertise in designing, constructing and man- aging lake-related recreational facilities in a iron-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 it would be most helpfal If those paragraphs of this section which bear on Operating, Maintenance S Replacement (OMSR) by the cities were elaborated upon or supplemented in some way so as to provide the cities with the benefit of the Corps', wide experience ii k in 0110 of recreational facilities, Insofar as It Is reasonable and practlcal. I The credibility of the economic feasibility determinations for Culp Branch and Pecan Creek Parks Is strained to some extent by the Candeub, fleissig Report with respect to the conflict between stated desires of Motel-Restaurant operators and K.O.A. type { developers for long-term leases with renewal opts ms and the Corps' policy relating l to such matters. Some modification of teasing policy would improve the credibility j of the estimated potential revenues. i ! Section_ XVII1 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. I I Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft. In view of the j present uncertainties concerning this project, such as the pending status of the issuance of a permit by the Texas Water Rillits 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), Public Law 89-72. Yours very truly, i ~ I. M. Rice ~ Acting Director i DALLAS WATER UTILITIES i i iMR:jd cc: Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission ytlty of Denton, Texas Mr. Dan S. Petty, Asst. City Manager Act. j; r i f Additlonal 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 j 7-03 b, d, and a will be the responsibllity of the Corps of Engineers and l therefore not subject to cost-sharing unless they are immediately adjacent i 1 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 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 i city will bear no responsibility therefor. This should be clearly stated. Section Vill - Physical Plan of Development ! f The discussions of the four access areas would be materially enhanced and i would become meaningful if the proposed site locations were shown on the I reservoir maps, Plates V11-1 and VII-2. j f Section IX - facility Load and Other Design Criteria i 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)". 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 seated with a polyurethane or equal substance to enhance sanitation. Maas. Oetter maps were furnished with the recreation appendix to the General Design Memorandum than are contained in this draft. The access areas and Elm Fork Park appear to have been omitted from the maps. The inclusion of aerial photo- graphs Is an Improvement. i i : Attachment I ' f.nr' O1~,rn / ©00711, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 009 SAN ,AC,N 70 pUR01N0 AUSTIN,TEXAS WOL FRANK 14. GOOTH vsvnORK ~st:I a»so. R013FRT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B, SIMMONS March 9, 1976 JAMES A.BANNEROT General James Rose Executive Director Texas 'dater Development Board P.O. Box 13087 'Austin, Texas 78711 f Dear General Rose: This letter is a request from the Cities of Denton, 1 Frisco, Lewisville, Farmers Bran and rtodtheaTirie exasfWater opportunity to present their application Development Board at its March 16, 19761 meeting for assis- tance in construction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project author- ized by Congress for construction by the U. S. Corps of ff ! 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- twining recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control and municipal water supply storage benefits. Conservation storage vaitid include an additional 177,600 acre Pfeet roject e and ~isviil e Reservoir ~ Hiergetr.ent of ,.he existing Lei mbined i 799,600 .-,cre fec~~, in the new Aubrey Reservoir. The co I 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 i average of 81.4 million gallons per day. In 1969, the Texas Water Rights Commission des?,gnated the Cities of Dallas and Denton local sponsors of the Pro- ject and these two cities 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. Tiexas Water Rights Commission received app Varmits to appropriate, impound, divert and use water from and the the ; following C additional public subdivisions ofethenStates Political Subdivision TmEound Divert and use f city of Frisco 68,000 90000 City of Gainesville 42,000 60000 Colony Municipal Utility 30,000 4,285 District No. 1 Collin-Denton County slater 6$06 L Sanitation District 48,000 ♦ +A 53iM ~yprr, Y.a.iLn W': - a.': f ..•.r. V I" v . w j _neral James Rose March 9, 1976 Page .2 f The Texas Water Rights Commissioa held a joint public hearing beginning can January 13, 1976, on all six appli- cations for permit.n. A dispute between Dallas and the other applicants'develop~!d 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 N.G.D. as found by the U. S. Corps of Engineers which is the additional safe yield water supply produced by the Project without impairment of prior water right claims by ba%las. 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 i Project available through water supply contracts with water- shed cities and Dallas County City customers of Dallas. j 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 Rights Commission, at the close of evidence on January 19, 1976) continued the haaring until February 180 1976. During the interval, the Director of Permits Division of the Texas Water Rights commission, Mr. 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- clusions and recommendations concerning the safe yield of the Project: "l. 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 n 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 (91,200 acre-feet per year). "The computer simulations are merely a series of matho- matical computations and the results are dependent only on the conditions and constraints established. The only significant difference between all the yield i eral James Rose .aarch 90 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 . determined by the Corps of Engineers to be distribu- tea on the basis of ownership of increased storage { space in each reservoir. S. 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 { witness for Denton, testified the.t the yield of 81.4 M.V.U. does not affect Dallas' prior water right claims because during the critical drought period all inflows ai- raised through the Aubrey storage for the benefit of dc,rnsrrcam rights and that the 81.4 M.G.D. yield from Aubrey is devel- oped solely from water in storage at the beginning of tha 111 critical drought period (Tr. 779-780). On Gross exami.na- i tion, William A. Sims, a consulting engine•=c with the firm ~ of Forrest and Cotton, Inc., and a witness for Dallas, 11 admitted that the computer operation yield study introduced 1 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- i secutive month period from October 1955 tt: January 1937.(Tr. 726-729). i I on February 180 1976, the applicatsts stated their 1 i 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 Water Rights Commission announced that. Con- gressman P Ay 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 tho Carter citstomer cities as aatorshed Dallas cities and Dallas Chairman County Dorsey D. Hardeman then both stated that they would not issue Dallas a permit unless it contained conditions which ed required cities Dallas to and Dallas continue County customerr cities t and hwhicheY- sh p A General James Rose March 9, 1976 Page 4 allowed these cities to participate in the benefits of the Aubrey project. Following these announcements and discussion, the Commission continued the hearing until March 18, 1976, at 10 o'clock A.M. Therefore, on February 23, 1976, the City Council of Dallas adopted a resolution relating to the position of the City of Dallas. I am informed that an attorney for Dallas t ` has furnished you with a copy of this resolution. As I read and understand the resolution, Dallas takes the position that it will not accept a permit which contains the con- ditions chairman Carter and Commissioner Hardeman announced 1 must be in any permit i.-sued to Dallas. 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 from the Texas Water Rights Commission in the form and of the content the Commission feels required by law. Conceivably, the City of f 'Dallas will conclude that its best interests are served by { not participating in this Project. FaceO with this prob- ability, the cities :zentioned in the first paragraph of this letter desire to express their interest in participating in j the Aubrey Project in conjunction with the Crater Development Board. Thee cities hope that the water Development Board 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 t'ie Plater Development Board at this time would be adoption of a Resolution which states something along the lines of the following: "NOW1 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Texas Water Development Hoard supports the earliest possible con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and Reservoir Project and will, if requested, entertain applications for finan- oial 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 'and give the assurances required by law for construe- tion of the Project." Very truly yours, Frank R. 'Aooth • I'm bj .9 Enclosure I I r i i I I atzxa x 7.1 BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DENTON/DALLAS CONTRACT AUSREY 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), sub ect to Water Rights Commission finding and approving a bac -up source. Denton will have overdraft rightsin 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.) C 4. Continued sale of water to Denton until Aubrey project is 4 I completed. 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. i I i i 3 ~ { i I, i . +H,, .;,t:l.l6 txc'ii::i.lfdan. h, v .':natr.a.• . . Y tl# s y ~IRM* ys.,;i ra;M M1'risLi1 i ~{I 3 OUTLINE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH DALLAS'RE AUBREY RESERVOIR AND DIS- CUSSIONS TO DATE. 1 1. Dallas guarantees Denton 25.7 MGD subject to reduction ONLY { by the granting by TWRC of upstream diversion rights that E would decrease the yield of Aubrey and Lewisville. j 1 2. Dal).ss entitled to all return flows until such time as ~ Denton uses water from third source, then Denton shall get I 261 of the increased return flows from third or subsequent 1 sources$ ; 3. Dallas permitted to overdraft and Denton may overdraft when we have sufficient safe yield as approved by TWRC. i. Dallas to sell water to Denton at 2 1/2 cents plus pumpage 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. 5. Denton 's effluent goes to Elm Fork watershed. f 6. Denton will not sell water to other cities without approval j of Dallas or unless ordered to do so by a governmental agency. I i 1 i r } NlY6R~ I I w ` r If 1111 i . ,n ' / A f`I . Y C2tJ Of Del?toll i3 ,l anicihul l;rrildi~t~h Denton,T vs X201 r ~l February 26, 1976 R The Honorable Ray R.berts House of Representatives Washington D.C. 24515 Dear Ray: i On Monday of this week, the City Council of the City of Dallas held a special meeting to be briefed on the water rights and water rates cases o5 the City of Dallas. I have enclosed two news articles from the Dallas newspaper which reports the Dallas con- cern 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 may part, but I believe that the City of Dallas is tr?ing to use the Aubrey Reservoir as leverage against the Texas Water Rights Commission to grant Dallas a free hand in distributing the water as they see fit, and also in the 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 -ave 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 make available to the water shed. I believe these figures are just "window-dressing" to their real concerns which is to apply pressure or, 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 Borth Texas area to suit their own whims. Ray, if I hear anything further on this project, I shall be sure an ~ let you know. I would appreciate your remarks after you have had a d 1 . rs., VAJ 7r kT q r Page 2 The Honorable Ray Roberts ,t iI chance to look at these newspaper articles to see if you get the I same feeling as I do. Tell me if yoiA think I'm off-base as to j what they are really after, i Sin rely, Jim W. White City Xanager City of Denton JWW/kf Attachments l } I 4 I i f I I - f r Dff CITY Or DALLAS r February 27, 1976 Mr. James W. White, City Manager City of Denton Municipal Building Denton, TX 76201 Dear Jim: You may have been made aware of recent actions by the Texas Water Rights Commission which may have significant impact on the City of Dallas' capability to carry out. the Long-Range Water Supply Program in behalf k of our mutual interests. I Actions have been taken recently by the Commission with respect to the pets- Lions of the Cities of Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie. Our perception of l these actions is that a pattern is evolving which would impose an obligation on Dallas to develop water resources without obtaining a commitment to take 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 cities without long-term contracts and without commitments to pay for their fair share of the costs for facilities developed 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 i realize benefits from those efforts without the corresponding commitments to j share in the costs of development of the water resources. Concerned by this situation, the Dallas City Council adopted a policy, by resolution on February 23, 1976, which has the effect of moving into a "hold- ing pattern" on further development and expansion of service to connecting cities pending the outcome of the rate case. (Wiies of the Council Communi- cation and the Resolution are attached.) j As one of our patron cities, your city's welfare will be 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 i Continued on page 2 . i a tl s is 0 OCI 01"I CII I M ANA011 CII 441 CANLAS, TCAAS "I 1f IfP~P11011„ill yo ri,11 `Y1 •n siY:Ya~ l f ~ { Mr. James W. White - 2 - February 27, 1976 I 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. i I Your staff will be contacted in the near future by our Director of Water Utilities, Mr. I. 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 a:+ustments in the current method of determining rates so as to conform with new requirements by independent auditors, state regulatory C ! 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- 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 like to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these matters of mutual concern. Please call me or Dan Petty, Assistant City Managers whenever you would like to discuss these important matters, Thank F you for your time and consideration. Sincere y i 2WIVS cc h r a e r i City Manager Is Atts• i 1 nz•.,w i ~iu~ • ~.i '.JRw~ I h " 4 5 R MU4Btt 64-6 A k au February 20, 1976 CITY OF DALLAS to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council wBxel, tong-Ran;e Water Supply Program (Agenda Item 58, Page 6) { Submitted for consideration by the City Council on February 23, 1976, is a resolution which authorizes the City Manager to undertake alternative and contingent courses of action with respect to implementation of the f Long-Range Water Supply Plan. An order by tta Texas Water Rights Commission on February 9, 1976, overruling Dallas' motion to dismiss the complaint of farmers Branch and Grand Prairie concerning water rates necessitates this redirection. Approval of the resolution is recommended. Background - In approving the long-range water program on April 286 1975, the City Council adopted and launched a program to develop water resources for J 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 or by the citizens of Dallas and dedicated to the present and future requirements of the contracting communit es. LJ The long-term effect of the February 9, 1976, order of the Texas Water Rights Commission would be to require the City of Dallas to supply water for communities who have not obligated themselves by contract to pay their fair share of the costs aTTeveloping those water resources. Moreover, the preliminary report by the Hearing Examiner in the Farmers Branch-Grand Prairie rate case recorbicrids 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 Immediate increase in water rates for Dallas citizens. While it is possible that some relief from the Hearing Examiner's recormendations 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 in the courts, prudence dictates that Dallas take bteps now to prott:et i, itself against potential adverse rulings either by the Commission or ultimately by the courts and develop a contingency plan for water supplies for the citizens: of Dallas. ~ NNd'S'Y M'iM,t ~~.4ti it 9i 64-6 li=D c.n February 20, 1976 CITY OF DALLAS ro ,Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council w~xar Long-Range Water Supply Program Page 2 (Agenda Item 58, Page 6) l Measures recommended at this time include the following: A. Make capital improvement investments, until settlement of the rate case, only for system facilities which'may• I serve inside City of Dallas customers. 0. Enter into no new contracts with customer cities and, as current contracts expire, extend them on a year-to-year oasis only. f ' C. Develop a contingency plan and allocate the present maximum } i capability of the water production distribution system, now estimated at 500 million gallons per day, batween 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 I an allocation method for dividing the amount allocated to the outside cities equitably amongst those 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 L those interests. E. •In concert with other cities who have long-term arrangements i for water with the City of Dallas, reevaluate and reassess our relationships and comparative responsibilities in the development of a concerted strategy for meetinq our mutual water supply needs. j Summary. 1 It is regrettable that conflicting positions of two cities have put in eopardy and threatened interruption of the concerted action of cities in this area in developing the Long-Range Water Supply P Urn undertaken by the City of Dallas to benefit both its citizens and those of neighboring i . d' 1d T° 1 ~Iktrtll ~p { 5tU ^,>A qvt: `PTj I -N ! riwa~e 64-6 ' DAit February 20, 1976 CITY OF DALLAS Honorable Mayor and Members of the Citr Council pr•ktt Long-Range Water Supply Program Page 3 (Agenda Item 68, Page 6) communities. Because of the substantial financial obligations involved, 1 the City of Dallas must undertake to protect the rights of its own citizens. Should the rate case be resolved in a manner which is equitable to Dallas citizens, it may then be possible to proceed with E 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 the water supply program on a con- I tingent and alternative course of action. Adoption of the resolution is recommended. r` i +I George R Schrader City Manager b i i I f l COUNCIL. CHAMBER February 23, 1976 I WHEREAS, the City of Dallas as a matter of policy has undertaken to develop # tong-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: JIBE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: "Section. 1. That the Long-Range Program as recommended by the City of Dallas Hater Supply Advisory Committee be and is hereby adopted and the City Manager is instructed to proceed with the 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 I of providing such facilities plus repayment for production and resources developments olrmed and paid for by the citizens of Dallas dedicated to their present and future requirements;" and WHEREAS, the City of Dallas has entered into long-term hater 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 slater Rights Commission seeking to compel the C'.tyy of Dallas to provide service on a basis and at rates which would not permit Dallas to recover its costs and would require that Dallas ` resident customers pay much of the cost of providing service to the outside customer cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having been advised of the present status of the rate litigation between 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 ma--teLm customers for t s proceed with a ditiona cap a improvement pro or the Dallas water system not row under constr. uctfon, the phase of which would be for providing %,ater service to outside city customers;-Fi0'd, THe.l f f., i BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY of DALLAS: Section 1. The City Manager is directed to make capital improvement investments, ' until settlement of the rate case, only for system facilities which may serve inside City of Dallas customers and to suspend until the termination of the pending customer city rate litigation or until otherwise directed by the City j Council, all other projects for additions or improvements to the dater system which would serve customer cities. 77g COUNCIL CHAMBER February 23, 1976 Section 2. Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, the City !`tanager is not to enter into new contracts faith 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 tiater 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 plan and allocate the present maximum capability of the water production distri- bution system, now estimated at 500 million gallons per 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 an allocation method for dividing the E amount allocated to the outside cities equitably amongst those cities. F Section 4. The City Manager or his designee is further directed to develop, reevaluate and reassess in concert with other cities who have long-term arrange- ments for riater with the City of Dallas, Dallas' relationships and comparative responsibilities in the development of a concerted strategy for meeting our mutual E 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 contest to the fullest extent any rdverse decisions by the Texas Water Rights 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 i passage in accordance with the provsio,,s of the Charter of the City of Dallas, and it is accordingly so resolved. t e I, 1 4 AhNIOVt A/lAOYIO_..---'-_~ - - - AM►RO II9AO OF 01FAA/MAMI toil AvOIlOO Oft MAMACIM j r ~LYA A{i AP.YI 'TYITi NN rr , i BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 302 IAN JACINTO OVI\C INO AUSTIN•TEXAS 70701 ' FRANK R. BOOTH It IIPHONE 461J) 471 flOI ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER 0. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT I Mr. Paul 7sham City Attorney Municipal Building , Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paul: l j Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the city of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a f number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. 1 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. I 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 hot see tho Aubrey Project stoppbd simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards, j I Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRB:bjs Enclosure cot Mr, Robort Gooch f I A rl >'iL.♦~,. ...M,; _ . ~w ...rr.u~ I PiSx,d•. yp~s af2s kx ft 60^T-I, LLOYD AND SIMMONS lot SAN 1ACi N10 VVRC,NO AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 FRANK R. 6007H tcuruoNE 46121 47115" FMERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER 6, SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. OANNEROT j Mr, Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Res Aubrey Reservoir Project 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 i 9 number of newspaper articles recently published in the area, ;i As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward i 7 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 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, Very truly yours* 3 ~/~!~'~I err f'h Frank R. booth I FRBibjs j Enclosure cat Mr. Robert Gooch t I 1 ' t. .1 . Ih vy nwxRr IIgP ~~f I1fP1 BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 303 SAN JACINTO OVILO1N0 AUST IN• T E%AS 73701 FRANK R. BOOTH ~uavNONC o~»i ua-seoa RODERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 ' JAMES A. BANNEROT + Mr. Paul Isham I City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Rot Aubrey Reservoir Project i Dear Paul: 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. 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. 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. Xiniest personal regards. Very truly yours,~j j Frank Roth I' FRBebjs ; Enclosure ; I cet Mr. Robert Goech i E m.ws... ,.a .n_. ;I:.- t:r; y. 44.E ty ti ~e! r.i•rt K.Jw yry I BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 702 SAN JACIN10 6WLOINI7 AUSTIN, TEXAS 70701 FRANK R. BOOTH MENtONC 19191 anfwa ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER 0. SIMMONS March It 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT h , I Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building ff Denton, Texas 76201 III Re: Aubrey Reservoir Project I Dear Paul: II' Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City 1 l 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. i 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. ~Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, I Fran Booth 1 FRB,bjs i Enclosure coo Mr. Robert Gooch I , a +,i A:'161 i!1I1T p~ r r \ . 1{ 1 , 1 • 1 r,ae~l~irel r DOOTH. LLOYD AND SIMMONS 707 SAN JACINTO PUILOW0 I FRANK R. BOOTH AUSTIN. T EXAS 78701 rILLIMON[ 16177 qP 6604 RODERT H, LLOYD LUTCHER D. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. 6ANNEROT / i i Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building 1 Denton, Texas 76201 1 Re: Aubrey Reservoir Project f Dear Paul: 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. As I read the resolution, Dallas will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Thereforo, 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 j } the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water bevel- { opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not see f the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. fy Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRB:bjs Enclosure Oct Mr. Robert Gooch E pi 1 RY VIi~ i r , Lnr (lff+rr~ BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 102 SAN JACINTO MUILO,NO AUSTIN.TEXAS 78701 FRANK R. 1300TH 14[PHON[ If7 71 472 006 RODERT H, LLOYD LUTCHER D, SIMMONS March 1, 1476 JAMES A. SANNEROT / i Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Res Aubrey Reservoir Project i Dear Paul: Enclosed is a copy-of a resolution adopted by the City k of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a ' II 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 I 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 Genoral Jim Rose, Executive Director of the Water Devel- opment Board, that the Water Development Board will not sea the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. VAry truly yours, Frank R. Booth rmbjs Enclosure 1 eci Mr. Robert Gooch j i • r,nr rlf flro. nOOTH. LLOYD AND SIMMONS 307 SAN,ACIN10 OVILDINO AUSTIN, T ERAS 70701 FRANK R. BOOTH TELEPHONE 111171 418 0504 ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. DANNEROT i f Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney I Municipal Building I Denton, Texas 76201 i Res Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paull . 1 Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the city of Dallas on February 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area, r 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- i , vioualy. I would also like to inform you that I am advised by i the General Jim Rose, Executive Director of tho Water Devel- opment Bodrd, that the Water Development Beard will not see the Aubrey project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out, Kindest personal regards. ` i s Vory truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRBIbjs Enclosure i oc1 Mr. Robert Gooch I ~ ~ t i v' r _ -1 •1 I • llM1P nj~in'f i BOOTIt. LLOYD AND SIMMONS 707 SAN JACIN70 PUU91N0 AUSTIN.IEXAS78701 FRANK R, BOOTH IMPHON1Ie121 478 RODERT H, LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT I ` Mr. Paul Isham f City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 j ` Re, Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Paull { y 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 f with the Aubrey Reservoir; Project. Theroforo, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf along t1!,s lines that I have dis::assed with you pro- i voisdY, i I would also like to inform you that r 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. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, Frank R. Booth FRBrbje Enclosure col Kc. Ro',._rt Gooch t j i j j ,a , M •504 ~y...c;~ rv,,LY'M. LM'nr~ I , r , linr CIf ~inv ©OOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 366 SAN JACINIC BU"'NO AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 FRANK R. 600TH ttu•NONr uui 4716506 ROBERT FI, LLOYD LUJ'CHER D. SIMMONS March It 1976 JAMES A. 13ANNEROT I 1 Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 iI Res Aubrey Reservoir Project I j Dear Pauli 1111' Enclosed is a copy'of a resolution adopted by the City 23, 1976, which forms the basis of a of Dallas on February 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, that we go forward with applications for permits on your " behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pro- 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. Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, z I} i I ~ Frank R. Booth FRBsbjs Enolosure Cos Mr. Robert Gooch . I I r 1 7~ ~mmq{aa~~yaa 6JCAW 111• • 1/IIl'~r~lfl'1 1 BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 102 SAN JACINTO FURDINO FRANK R, BOOTH AUSTIN,IEXAS 7o7D2 TMPHON[ Hill 474 SloS - ROBERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT j 1 i h Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building lot i( Denton, Texas 76201 Res Aubrey Reservoir Project { Dear Pauls 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 5 with the Aubrey Reservoir Project, Therefore, I recommend { 1 that we go forward with applications: for permits on your behalf along the lines that I have discussed with you pre- viously. 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 Developrc•,t Board will not see the Aubrey Project stopped simply because Dallas pulls out. Kindest personal regards. Very ttuly yours, Frank R. Booth FRB sbja Enclosure cos Mr, Robert Gooch f T by A 1 Fm F ~i.PA.-nl v'tlnsy~ BOOTH, LLOYD AND SIMMONS 202 SAN JkCIN10 IDURCiNO AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 FRANK R. DOOTH RODERT H, LLOYD LUTCHER D. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAMCS A. DANNEROT I ' { I Mr. Paul Isham I City Attorney Municipal Building f Denton, Texas 76201 i i j Rai Aubrey Reservoir Project I Dear Pauli 7 ff 3 Enclosed is a copy of a resolution adopted by the City of Dallas on February 23, 19761 which forms the basis of a number of newspaper articles recently published in the area. ) As I read the resolution, Dal:as will not go forward with the Aubrey Reservoir Project. Therefore, I recommend that we go forward with applications for permits on your behalf aloe the lines that viously. g I have discussed with you pre- 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 pull's out, 1 Kindest personal regards. Very truly yours, " Frank R. Booth ' I FRBibjs i C Enclosure eel Mr. Robert Gooch I , r i 1 i . F , ~Yrirarq ae.s. 1 + 1 i ! r,„„ nffi«r, r BOOTH. LLOYD AND SIMMONS ~ aoa a,v ~~nroto ourcoko Fl?XN K R. BOOTH AUS • i N, TEXAS 78701 15L[PHON! 1527) 4159505 ROE]ERT H. LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 1, 1976 JAM5S A, BANNEnOT EE I I~ t E Mr. Paul Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 d I 1 Rot Aubrey Reservoir Project Dear Pauli 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. 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, 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. Kindest personal regards, Very truly yours, I ` Frank R, Booth FRBrbjs Enclosure s cost Mr. Robert Gooch j r ~I 4 u, r n 4 M IYN~ IL lot. SIMMONS BOOTH. LLOYD D AND S02 LAN IACiN10 PUILDINO AU ST IN, 7 E #AS 78701 FRANK R. BOOTH t[LCrrons isir~ usssot ROBERT K LLOYD LUTCHER B. SIMMONS March 91 1976 JAMES A. BANNEROT General James Rose Executive Director Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13089 I! Austin, Texas 78711 Dear General Rose: This letter is a request from the Cities Of Denton, j Frisco, Lewisvillo, Farmers Branch and Grand Prairie for an opportunity to present their application to the Texas Water I 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 Reservoir Project would be a multiple purpose Project con- taining recreation, fish and wildlife, flood control and municipal water supply storage benefits. Conservation storage would include an additional 177,600 acre feet by enlargement of the existing Lewisville Reservoir project and 7990600 sore 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 LJlI average of 81.4 million gallons per day. i In 1969, the Texas Wates• Rights Commission designated the Cities of Dallas and Denton local sponsors of the Pro- jeot and these two cities have negotiated contracts with the J. S.' Corps of Engineers whereby Denton would acquire a 26 percent interest in the Project at an estimated cast of $$28.4 million and Dallas would acquire a 74 percent interest in the Project at an estimated cost of $80.6 million. The Texan 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 Subdivinion Impound Divert and Use City of Frisco 680000 91000 City of Gninesvillo 42,000 6,000 Colony Municipal Utility District No. 1 30,000 41285 Collin-Denton County Water rw Sanitation District 480000 60500 t , P ~VdhM s M aneral 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 rozognition 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 j right claims by Dalla-i. '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 accept a permit under any ot..er circumstances. The Texas Water Rights Commission a t evidence on January 19, 19.16, continued thehearing 3euntil Februar t 188 1976 Y During the interval, the Director of Permits Division of the Texas Water Rights Commission, Mr. 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 i I information. Mr. Ric elusions andhrecommendaardson's project: Y f "1. Yield of Aubrey Preieot The firm yfuld of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey neservoir plus Lewisville Reservoir enlargement) is totally de- pendent on the extent of existing downstream water rights and the priority of thoso water rights. There ,is not significant disagreement among parties involved i that the Aubrey Project increases the firm yield of the existing Elm Fork system by about 01.4 mgd (91,200 I acre-feat por year). ."The computer simulations are merely a series of mathe- matical computations .end the results are dependent only on the conlitions and conatraints established. The only significant difference between all the yield Y :Dti M4 5 ~Y+:W.I.I ra rYwg .oral James Rose iarch 9, 1976 Page 3 studies of the Aubroy Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to the overdrafting of tha existing Lake Lewis- villa. The other studies did not." "4. Recommendations 1 A. Recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that 3 determined by the Corps of Engineers to be distribu- tad on the basis of ownership of increased storage space in each reservoir. B. Limit total annual diversions from all sources by each permittee to the firm annual yield of all of parmitteels water supply facilities." On the question of safe yield, Robert S. Gooch, a con- i sulting 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 during the critical drought period all inflows are passed through the Aubrey storage for the benefit of downstream rights and that the 81.4 M.G.D. yield from Aubrey is devel- oped solely from water in storage at the beginning of the critical drought period (Tr. 779-780). on cross examina- 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 ovidence 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)d on Yobruary 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 Water Rights Commission announced that Con- gressman Ray Roberts, the Congroscional 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 ~ as to Dallas itself. Chairman Carter and Commissioner Dorsey D. Hardeman than 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 4 • ~Y11 R61 4*1 0 l` general James Rose March 9, 1976 Page 9 allowed these cities to participate in the benefits of the Aubrey Projec.. Following these announcements and discussion, the Commission continued the hearing until March 18,.197 '60 at 10 O'clock A.M. s i Therefore, on February 23, 1976, the City Council of 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 and understand the resolution, Dallas takes the that it will not accept a permit which contains theicon- ditions Chairman Carter and Commissioner Hardeman announced roust be in any permit issued to Dallas. From,tho above discussion, progress toward final con- struction of the Aubrey nam and Reservoir Project has been jeopardized by reason of the expressed unwillingness of the City of Dallas to Consider accepting a permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission in the form and of the content the Commission feels required by law. Conceivably, the City of Dallas will c%hclude that its best interpscs are served by 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 hater Development Board. These cities hope that the Water Development Board 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 Water Development Board at this time would be adoption of a Resolution which states something along the lines of the followings KNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Texas Water Development Board suppni,ts the earliest possible con- struction of the Aubrey Dam and Reservoir Project and will, if requesterj, entertain applications for finan- 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 mast 'arid give the assurances required by law for construe- tion of the proiect," Very truly yours, Frank R. 'Booth •"r FRBSbjB Enclosure I o c•m ~c 6 WN~ r.unrpr< ' BOOTH, LLOYV AND SIMMONS 302 {AN JAciNTO "W LOINO AUST I N. T E XAS 76701 FRANK R. BOOTH IMPHON[ 1511) 4746%06 ROBERT H. LLOYD March 10, 1976 LUTCHER B. VMMONS JAMES A. BANNEROT 1 Mr. Jim White City Manager Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Aubrey Project Dear Jim: E Sections 11.307 and 11.308, Texas Water Code, authorize the Texas Water Development Board to contract with the U. 8. Corps of Engineers to acquire storage space in the Aubrey Project. The purchase price by a political subdivision of j { the State to acquire storage space from the Water Develop- sent Board is contained in the Texas Water Code as followss "S11.357. Price of Sales Facilities Acquired under + Contracts "(a) The price of the sale or transfer-of a facility j acquired under a contract shall be the stun of the direct cost of acquisition, plus an interest charge computed at a rate of one-half of one percent per year from the date of acquisition of the facility to the date of sale or transfer, plus interest at the cumu- LJ 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'& cost of operating and maintaining the faoility from the date of acquisition to the date of the sale or transfer, less any payments received by the board from the lease 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 any part of the contract, then the transferee, in addition to the payments prescribed 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 antil the board is fully released from the contract. 1 i Mr. Jim White March 10, 1976 Page 2 0$11.358. Costs Defined "With reference to the sale of a state facility, 'direct cost of acquisition' means the principal amount the board has paid or agreed to pay for on the facility up to the date of the sale." E~ The contractual arrangement that I envision to be acceptable to the Water Development Board would contain these two features: 1. The political subdivision applicant would obtain an option to purchase a fixed amount of the Water Development Board storage on or before a date f 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 subdivision. 2. The Water Development Board would obtain a contrac- tual right to use the applicant's storage space for overdrafting and for terminal and transfer storage I subject to a permit from the Water Rights Commis- , f sion and a finding that the Water Development Board had a backup water supply to equal the overdraft right to provide water during average and below average runoff and rainfall years. • I 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 Development Board. Also, if I am successful 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, 'tank R. Booth FRBrbjs Enclosure cot Mr. Paul Isham Mr. Bob Gooch WSK.1 rr ^.4r.•i YV.iwy.ay, 5F DRAFT General James Rose Executive Director Texas Water Development Board P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 Re: Aubrey Project Dear General Rose: 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 1 in the Aubrey storage space and to divert and use the safe I yield of the 26 percent share or an average of 21.2 M.G.D. In the event the City of Dallas is unable to acquire a I 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 Develop- ment 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 maximum present financial capability. 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.L. safe yield f 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. i 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, Jim White • City Manager n. KpK`Y t {'Kq:' . . ;"A 7 City of Denton Municipal Building, Denton,kws 76201 Office of City Ala nager F March 12, 1976 s General James Rose € Executive Director f Texas Water Development Hoard I P. 0. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 i Re: Aubrey Reservoir E ~ t i Dear General Rosei } The 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 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 I Development Board contracts with the U. S. Corps of Engineers to acquire the conservation storage space re- maining after local political subdivisions have contrtieted for storage to their maximum present financial capability. The City of Denton hereby makes preliminary application I to the Water Development Board 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.E, MGD yield Denton presently owns in the Lewisville Project. 4 / General James Rose ' March 120 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 an additional 30 MGD yield from the Project. The addi- tional 30 MGD yield will supply Denton's projected 1 1 water requirements to the year 2020. Very truly,yours, E ~ f James W. White k City Manager { ~ JWW:js , j col Frank Booth Booth, Lloyd & Simmons E Attorneys at Law i 302. San Jacinto Building Austin# Texas 78701 Bob Gooch Freese & Nichols 811 Lamar Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Paul C. isham, City Attorney E I I M i I i r,eu t . i v I AGENDA ? Texas Water Development Board } Mar•h 16, 1976 9:00 a.m. f~ Stephen F. Austin Building 1700 North Congress Austin, Texas k 1. Approval of Minutes of February 26, 1976 Board meeting 2. Staff Reports 4 ~ a, Progress reports by the Executive Director on the 1 agency work plan . b, Report concerning the weather modification permit adjudicative hearings , 3. Development Fund Manager's Report 4, Consideration of a policy statement to be adopted by the Board concerning the development of water resources in., i the State of Texas I E 5. Consideration of staff authorization to begin procedures to amend the Rules Re ulationa and Policies of the Texas Water Deve o went oar a at n to Financial Programs by adopting a rue to require a Notice o 3 ntent on to Apply for Financial Assistance prior to Board action on any application for financial assistance 6. Water Quality Enhancement Loan Applications: a. City of Atlanta - increase in present commitment i from $330,000 to $355,000 b, City of Bangs - new application, $85,000 c. City of Highland Village - new application, $1,310,000 i t 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 E 8. Application for financial assistance by the City of Stephenville in the amount of $1,600,000 (further 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 Regulations of the Texas Water I Development Boar a at n to evee, m rovement stricts aria_ ova o Plans or Reclamation Projects 10. Interagency contract (payable) - Texas A&M University, i Remote Sensing Center, aerial photography and mapping of vegetation in coastal marsh systems, Colorado River 4 to Corpus Christi Bay; amount not to exceed $30,000; I !I term, April 1, 1976 through August 31, 1976 11. Election of Vice Chairman of the Texas Water Development E Board k 12. April meeting date April 20, 1976 j. I i g i ~ i r t Y ,1 b war" AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, [6■e' TEXAS, HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OF SAID CITY ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 1976. RES0LU7I0N 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 previously agreed that Dallas would acquire 74% of the storage space and Denton would acquire 26% of the storage space; and 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 Commission to impound water in the Aubrey Reservoir Project storage space and to divert and use the safe yield of the 26% share; and 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 j ~ WHEREAS, it appears that the Texas Water Rights Commission may place conditions r on the permit to the City of Dallas which will be unacceptable to Dallas and result in their withdrawing from the project; and 1 } WHEREAS, it is extremely important to the City of Denton that the Aubrey [ i Reservoir Protect be built, and built on schedule whether the City of Dallas participates or not; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: That James W. White, City Manager of the City of Denton, Texas, be authorized to appear before the Texas Water Development Board to request that said Board 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 i event the Water Development Board becomes a participant, then hwvl t as t I City Manager for the City of Denton is authorized to contract with the Texas Water Development Board for an option for the City of Denton to acquire an additfoaal 30 MGD yield from the Project. I PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of March, A. D. 1976., TM D. TER, JR.o MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: r BROOKS , CITY gEtRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS M 4r., APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: PAUL C. S Y T T R E Y , € CITY OF DENTON* TEXAS i i f a 1 l f 4 I i i I t ~ r, kAc 171 February 9, 1976 ayj[■ i i i BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF DENTON MALLAS CONTRACT r,u AUBREY RESERVOIR 1. 21.2 MGD Out of new Aubrey 4.5 MGD Lake Lewisville 3 i 25.7 MGD From total supply } 2. All prior rights of Dallas (Certified Filing 475 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- n ginning of 5 MGD backed by wells. I * (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- mite tn 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 F , A 1 . ~R+'fxr . THE STATE OF TEXAS X KNOW ALL ZtEN BY THESE PRESENTS: COUNTY OF DALLAS X I WHEREAS, on November 19, 19620 the Cities of Dallas (here- i; inafter called Dallas) and Denton (hereinafter called Denton) entered into a contract, a true copy of which is attached hereto i 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 Trinity River above Lewisville Reservoir, which included plans for joint construction and use of Aubrey Reservoir; and WHEREAS, in said contract, Dallas and Denton agreed that in the program for joint construction of Aubrey Reservoir, Denton would finance up to twenty-six (26%) percent of the construction costs of the Reservoir and would receive, not to exceed, twenty- six (26%) percent of the increased safe yield of. Aubrey Reservoir and Lewisville Reservoir; and WHEREAS, it is now contemplated that Aubrey Reservoir Pro- ject will be built by the U.S, Corps of Engineers with Dallas and i i Denison entering into contracts with the U.S. Corps of -Engineers i regarding the post and use of the proposed reservoir project and LJ 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 storage from Lewisville Reservoir to be 81.4 MGD, which yield computation dues not take into account any rights of downstream r appropriators or return flows from sewage treatment plants into either reservoir; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Dallas and Denton, in contemplation of entering into (.ontracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers ru- gardinE the construction of Aubrey Reservoir Project and transfer of storngo from Lowisville Reservoir, desire to settle all iPsues Y•. existing between them regarding the extent of impoundment, diver- lion and appropriation of eater by each City out of Lewisville 9 and Aubrey Reservoirs; now, therefore WITNESSETR: I. The parties hereto, the City of Dallas and the City of Denton, j 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 1 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 annua, on•a -safe yield-bzLs , This 25.7 MGD includes all diversion rights that Denton presently holds in Lewisville Reservoir and represents I ~ • j those diversion rights plus an an.ount equal to twenty-six (26%) per- cant of the increased yield of 81.4 MGD resulting from the con- struction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project, as calculated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Such 25.7 MCD ;:aversion 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 (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 MGD of water per annum, i (e) As between Dallas and Denton, all storage rights of 'the i parties in Lewisville Reservoir and Aubrey Reservoir will be trerred as undivided interests in thq storage notwithstanding; any provisions ~ in the U.S. Corps of Engineers contracts proviJing for horizontal divisions of the stornpo space, and Dnllar, and Denton would have undivided interests as followvi TIc'enlnr.;,ed lawinville Venervoir -2- 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 z the total storage, and Denton will own 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 its May 18, 1953 contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and its Permit Nos. 798 and 798B, Dallas will acquire an additional j 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 °rom 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 acre feet, of which Dallas will own an undivided 1 591,700 acre feet or 747. of the whole, and Denton will owu an un- divided 207,900 acre feet or 26% of the whole under the contracts presently being negotiated and the new permits. II. 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 291 1914, Permit No. 798, dated August 8, 1924, Permit No. 1464, dated August 19, 1948, and Per- mit No. 1476, dated January 20,.1949, pertaining to Elm Fork and/or Lewisville Reservoir. Nothing contained in this contract shall con- stitute any recognition on the part of Dallas that the 25.T YGD di- version right recognized in Denton under this contract represents { tho diversion rights to which Denton would be entitled in the absence of this contract and the considerations obtained by Dallas under this contract. Nothing herein shall constitute any limitation ! -3- or impairment on any right of Dallas under its above existing 1 appropriaCivc rights insofar as third parties are concerned. To 3. the extent that the diversion of 25.7 MOD by Denton under this contract may be determined to exceed Dentor's rights under the itorage to which it is entitled under its contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers, then such diversion shall be considered as i being produced from the increased storage in Aubrey and Lewisville f Reservoirs accruing to Dallas by virtue of the construction of. i Aubrey Reservoir and shall not result in any reduction in any rights Dallas may have under other permits and certified filings. The parties have simultaneously filed applications for per- r mite 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 party will claim priority over the other under any permits issued in response to the new applications. GSoth parties agree to re 3 ; quest the Texas Water Rights Commission to grant both parties applications consistent with the provisions of this contract and ! l 1 i to request that permits be issued to each party upon submission I of executed contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers IV. (a) Both parties recognize that Dallas may find it desirable in the management of its water resources to introduce water into E Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from either or both Lake Ray Hubbard or Tawakoni or from sons other source. Denton hereby con- 1 sonts to such use of the reservoirs provided the quality of wafer { from such source for municipal purposes is not decreased. Denton agrees that it will not claim the right to use any water so introduced by Dallas. (b) Both parties recognize that Denton may find it desirablo in the management of its water resourcea to introduce water into x b Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from some other source which Denton 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 any water so introduced by Denton, (c) Both parties recognize that the approval of the Texas Water IdIghts Commission or other appropriate agency will be re- i I quired to introduce water from some other source into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs and that mutual agreement on operation plans in connection therewith will not unreasonably be withheld. V. (a) Both parties agree that Dallas may overdraft the safe yield f of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville Peservoirs to the extent it may be authorized to do no 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 at its discretion, { provided, that Denton's right to divert its 25.7 MGD from either Aubrey or Lewisville Reservoirs shall not be impaired. i (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. Rights 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 Connnission: (1) Reservoir operating agreements mutually agreeable to the parties which protect the storage and diversion rights of cash party. (2) Both parties ni;reo that Dallas has sufficient snfe yield available to it for overdrnftinr in nccord- ance with this contract, but that Denton loos not. rJr ' 1 •1 i Therefore, both parties agree that Denton's right to overdraft 24.2 MGD of the 29.2 MCD stated in Paragraph agreementeofs the shall be subject to either ~ Parties or a finding by the Texas Water Rights Coninission 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. f ~(3) Mutual agreement or reservoir operating agreements and overdrafting shall not unreasonably be withheld. s , VI. Denton agrees that any sewage effluent returned by Dearin 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, 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 requirement and provisions sufficient to enforce this require- men,t. VII. The covenants and agreements made by the parties herein shall I be binding on the parties and their successors in interest so long is water is being diverted or appropriated from either Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs by or under authority of either Denton or Dallas. VIII. JD404v i Both parties agree 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 game are disapproved by the Texas Water Rights Cominission or the parties are unable to contract with the U. S. Corps of Engincers, in this event, this contract shall be abrogated and shall be of no force and effect, Both parties further nnreo that after approval of this contract by all regrilntory agencies cxer.cl.sing, jurisdiction G- ' of the subject matter of this contract, the issuance by the Texas Water Rights Connnission 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. f i { IX. p I Both parties agree that this contract shall s a and re- place the contract between the parties dated November 19, 1962, and %U/4;j 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 Ly the U.S. i I Corps of Engineers and deliberate impoundment of water therein com- menoes, Until 1980, such sale of water will be at the price stated in the 1962 contract and thereafter at Dallas "posted prices per raw water sales to watershed cities. I WITNESS the signatures of the parties hereto this the day l of >r j 1976, the Cities signing by and through their respective City Manager and attested by their City Secretaries, duly authorized by resolutions enacted by the respective goveraing bodies of said cities. CITY OF DALLAS ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORMi .7- i ' r Rc N+*1 , F k OOUNTERSIGNED! 4 CITY AUDITOR CITY OF DENTON CITY WAGER ` i ATTEST: i i CITY SEM7M I i APPROVED AS TO FORM: UM ATTMCY i ' 3 j , r 8. k + 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 the 195D-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 I 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 or in the event of material changes in hydrological conditions or 1 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 affluent return flows to the lakes, If the parties can agree upon a recognized authority in the field to perform such recalculations, ;j j such will be done by such authority and presented to the Texas j i Water Rights Commission for approval. In the event the parties cannot agree upon a recognized authority to perform such recalcu- lations, the matter will be submitted to the Texas VAter Rights 1 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 boars to 175.2 MGD, the presently estimated total hydrologir.tt-r.afe. yield of the combined reservoirs, i 4 y 9 I 1. !f TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDGH DATE: February 11, 1976 i TOs Texas Water Rights Commission FROMI A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division r SUBJECT:. Application for Proposed Permits to use wr,:er from j + the proposed Aubrey Project. 3 i After hearing all the testimony and considered the evidence I presented in the subject matter, the following represents my j reaction to the evidence. (1) YIELD OF AUBREY PROJECT The firm yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir plus enlargement of Lewisville Reservoir) is totally dependent E upon the extent of existing downstream water rights (priority 4 of existing rights). There is not significant disagreement among the parties involved that the Aubrey Project increases the firm yiold of the existing Elm Fork system by about 81.4 3 >3 XGD (91,200 acre feet per year). The computor's similiations are merely a series of math- matical computations and the results are dependent only upon ( the conditions and restraints established. The only signifi- cant difference between all the computor studies on the Aubrey project is that the Dallas studies recognize full priority over the proposed Aubrey project by the overdrafting of the existent ;i~`1 4.f M.y'T.. r , 17 5 i Lake Lewisville. The other studies did not. 2. Overdrafting 1 / Overdrafting of a reservoir, or a system of reservoirs, is f the diversion of more water on an annual basis than the reservoir will continue to supply through a repitition of the most critical I i 1 drought of record, i.e., the firm yield. The prr:otice of over- I drafting of a supply system has operational advantages to a cityl however, unless certain restraints are employed it can lead t,j difficulties for the city and other water users. I feel that the following general conclusions concerning overdrafting can be I drawn # i } (a) The total Annual Diversion by City should not exceed ' j 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. (c) If overdrafting of a portion of a water supply system r I for municipal purposes is to carry a priority over other users junior.in time, the effeet will be to "tie-up" a portion of water equal to several times the amount that can be used arincalZY by the city. 3. AUBREY 'Mi The disagreements between applicants voiced during the hear- ing emphasizes the necessity of an operating agreement between r. a 10 =+Mir 1 i all parties having diversion rights in the Aubrey or Lewisville i Reservoirs. In addition the proposed overdrafting of the reser- voirs makes an operating agreement essential t 4. RECOMMENDATIONS I (a) Recognize the yield of the Aubrey project as that de- termined by the Corp of Engineers to be distributed on the basis ! of ownership of the increased storage space in each reservoir. (b) Limit total annual diversion of all cities by each permit user to the firm annual yield of all affirmative water 4 l supply facilities. (c) Limit any authorized overdrafting of municipal supply ~ reservoirs to a non-priority right. ~ i (d) Make an., permits issued contingent upon the conditional approval of an operational agreement between all parties that have s diversion rights in the Lewisville and Aubrey Reservoirs. i These recommendations are ossentially the same as those con-' t tained in the Permits Division Memorandum dated November 30 1975. 3 I feel these recommendations are still valid. However, in the event that the commission feels that the parties involved can c not or will not work out a satisfactory operational agreement, then the Commission should consider denying the pending permits and request the Water Development Board to make application for 1 1 the conservation and storage in the Aubrey Reservoir. j Signed, c' A. E. Richardson i r f ~ y h'4 o4:v:~SS 1 i February 9, 1976 ` BASIC FUND&MENTALS OF DENTON/DALT.AS CONTIUICT AUBREY RESERVOIR 1. 21.2 MGD Out of now 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. { f (A second reservoir or supply will have to be acquired, but the 29.2 overdraft right plus the 215.7 safe yield i equals 54.9 MGD, which is equal to Denton's needs until I the year 2020.) 1 ` 4. Continued sale of water to Denton until Aubrey project is completed, j 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. E t , f f 10. Y THE STATE OF TEXAS KNOW ALL P9iN 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 Trinity River above Lewisville Reservoir, which included plans ~ i for joint construction and use of Aubrey Reservoir; and %IHEREAS, in said contract, Dallas and Denton agreed that in I the program for joint construction of Aubrey Reservoir, Denton I ; J would finance up to twenty-six (26%) percent of the construction costs of the Reservoir and would receive, not to exo~;sd, twenty- six (26%) percent of the increased safe yield of Aubrey Reservoir and Lewisville Reservoir; and E~ WHE EAS, it is now contemplated that Aubrey Reservoir Pro- ject will be built by the U.S. Corps of Engineers with Dallas and ff Denton entering into contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers 1 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 storage from Lewisville Reservoir to bcP 81.4 MOD, which yield computation does not take into account any rights of downstream i' appropriators or return flews from sewage treatment plants into either reservoir; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Dallas and Denton, in contemplation of entorina into contracts with the U.S. Corps of Engineers re- garding the construction of Aubrey Reservoir Project and transfer of storngo from Lewisville Reservoir, desiro to nettle all isauca i 5 ~ h Q. k 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 r WITNESSETH: 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 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: 1 h ~ ( j (a) Denton shall have the right to impound 275,100 acre feet i of water and to divert therefrom an average of 25.7 MGD per anmvn, j ~ on-&--safe yield-bv=tz. This 25.7 MOD includes all diversion 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 inct,,~3sed yield of 81.4 MGD resulting from the ctn- I struction of the Aubrey Reservoir Project, as calculated by the 1 U.S. Corps of Engineers. rSuch 25.7 MGD diversion will be allocated 1 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 (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 MGD of water per annum. (e) 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 notl4ithst,anding ,any prov W ons in tho U.S. Corps of Engineers contracts providing for hori,ontal f divisions or the storage space, and Dallas and Denton would have undivided interests as followr.: The enlnr{red l.c,wisvilie Penervoir p"RSW y +'vr l will have a total conservation storage space of 613,600 acre feet, i of which Dallas will own an undivided 546,400 acre feet or 89% of 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 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 with the Corps of Engineers which is presently under negotiation and i its new permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission, Of Denton's 1 I 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 { I 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 i 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 591,700 acre feet or 741% of the whole, and Denton will own an un- divided 207,900 acre feet or 26% of the whole under the contracts presently being negotiated and the new permits. i j The City of Denton holds Permit No. 1590, dated June 17, 19540 I ~ f granted by the State of Texas, and the City of Dallas holds Corti- fied Filing No. 75, dated April 29, 1914, Permit No. 798, dated August 8, 1924, Permit No. 1464, dated August 19, 1948, and Per- mit No'. 1476, dated January 20, 1949, pertaining, to Elm fork and/or i Lewisville Reservoir. Nothing contained in this contract shall con- • stituto any recognition on the part of Dallas that the 25.7 lJGD di- f version right recognized in Denton under this contract representa the diversion rights to which Denton would be entitled in 0io abnonce of this contract and the considerations obtained by Dallas under this contract, Nothing horein shall constitute any li.mit:ntion - 3. Y: ,17- ~qY rap or impairment on any right of D%1las under its above existing appropriative rights insofar as third parties are concerned, To the extent that the diversion of 25.'% 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 U.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 Aubrey Reservoir and shall not result in any reduction in any rights Dallas may have under other permits and certified filings, M. The parties have simultaneously filed applications for per- . I wits with the Texas Water Rights Commission which ars 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 party will claim priority over the other under any permits issued in response to the new applications; D oth parties agree to re- quest the Texas Water Rights Commission to grant both parties 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) 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 Lak-j Ray Hubbard or Tawakoni or from someother 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 agrees that it will not claim the right to use any water so introduced , by Dallas. (b) Both parties recognize that buniton may find !.t desirable in the management of its water resourcee to introduce water into Lewisville or Aubrey Reservoirs from some other source which Denton 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 j not claim the right to use ahy 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 Lew`sville or Aubrey Reservoirs and that mutual agreement on operation plans in connection therewith will not unreasonably be withheld. (a) Both parties agree that Dallas may overdraft the safe yield I of its share of the storage in Aubrey and Lewisville P.eservoirs to f 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 f 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. Rights Commission or other appropriate agency, but not to exceed an average of 29.2 MGD per annum. { (e) Both parties agree that overdraftinge shall be subject to the following conditions in addition to any imposed by the Texas Water Rights 4oninission: { (1) Reservoir operating agreements mutually agreeable' to the parties which protect the stornt;e and J diversion rights of each party, j (2) Both parties agree that Dallas has sufficient safe yield available to it for oveidrnft:ing in accord- ance with this contract, but that UcnLon does not. -5- a f 10 Therefore, both parties agree that Denton's right to overdraft 24.2 t1GA of the 29.2 MOD 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 Commission 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 MOD per y annum. (3) Mutual agreement or reservoir operating agreemrnts and overdrafting shall not unreasonably be withheld. - r Denton agrees that any sewage effluent returned by DGA"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 I the manner required by the Texas Water Quality Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency or other appropriate agency having jurisdiction over the subject matter. Denton agrees that all con- F tracts it may enter into to supply water to others shall contain this requirement and provisions sufficient to enforce this require- ment, 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 Levisville or Aubrey Reservoirs by or under authority of either Denton or Dallas. Vill. C'V6.+, ;!w r)JVC.,..1'd~ Both parties agree'that the consideration received by each con- sists of covenants and agreements made by the other and hence the toxins and provisions of this contract are not severable unless the same are disapproved by the Texas Water Rights Coimnission or the parties are unable 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. Both parties further ngree that after npproval of this contract by all rapulntory npenctes exercisinf; jurisdiction r + . . . rxt of the subject matter of this contract, the issuance by the Texas Water Rights Conanission of impoundment and diversion permit rights necessary to carry out the ternis 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. Ix. Both parties agree that this contract shall supercede and re- place the contract between the parties dated November 19, 1962, and r attached hereto as Exhibit "A", except Dallas agrees to continue to j sell water to Denton in accordance with the November 19, 1962, con- 1 I i tract until the Aubrey Reservoir Project is completed by the U.S. t + Corps of Engineers and deliberate impoundment of water therein com- I menses, Until 1980, such sale of water will be at the price stated in the 1962 contract and thereafter at Dallas " posted prices per raw, water sales Co watershed cities. ' WITNESS the signatures of the parties hereto this the day of 1976, the Cities signing by and through their f I ILJ respective City Manager and attested by their City Secretaries, duly 4 authorized by resolutions enacted by the respective governing bodies 1 of said Citier'. CITY OF DALLAS I~ i MY I c: ; R ATTEST r i APPROVED AS TO FORMi CITY NIT00EY -7- i 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 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 evert of a more severe drought than is of record at this time or in the event of material changes in hydrological conditions or i in any event no later than the year 2000,the parties agree that { I the hydrological combined safe yield of the Aubrey and Lewisville 1 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 a recognized authority in the field `o perform such recalculntions, such will be done by such authority and presented to the Texas I Water Rights Commission for approval. In the event the parties cannot agree upon a recognized authority to perform such recalcu- lations, 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 249,5 MOD per annum diversion rights under this contract shall be adjusted by the percent change of, the in- creased or decreased safo yield that the said increased or de- creased safe yield bears to 175.2 MGD, the presently estimated total hydrological safe yield of the combined reservoirs, 1 M. 14 Pat 1 I II 1 1 I COUNTERSIGNED: CITY D R I I f 4 , l I I CITY OF DENTON f i t CITY MANAGER I ~ ATTEST: E CITY SECRETARY--'- APPROVED AS TO FORM: i I i I III ~F M i E Ir t ~sx. s . FSp}~ 1 SYNOPSIS OF TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION HEARING I RE AUBREY RESERVOIR ON FEBRUARY 181 476 i F Several hours prior to the commencement of the hearing, Dallas 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 coa.tained 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 k , were they unwilling to take a permit with conditions. Dallas ~ I stated they could not accept a permit with r ~ provisions relating t to customer cities. Chairman Carter stated that the Commission was going to condition Dallas' permit with provisions serving customer cities. Carter further stated that "If Dallas' position 1 is the bottom line, we are wasting our time because Representative i Roberts will not support project on that basis. it looks like we. S 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 j participate with conditions. The Commission told Booth to proceed. Booth presented a 30 minute argument and stated that Denton's { position was as followst J (a) Disregarding prior rights, all parties, ino!uding Dallas, agroed that the increased yield of the Aubrey project was 81.4 MGDj (b) that Denton needed and should be granted a permit for 26% of the 81.4 MGDJ (e) that the staff's recommendation regarding overdrafting should be followed: 0 Mill M w R■■ NL.0.~ (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. 749 to Dallas and 269 to :,)ntoni (g) that Denton wants the project, that it should be started t immediately, that we trust the judgment and wisdom of the Commis- . sion and will accept the permits with any condition the Commission desires; j (h) that if Dallas doesn't want to take their permit with conditions, then request the Texas Water Development Hoard to assume Dallas' 749 shares (i) that Denton was ready to proceed with Dallas as a partner, i or anyone else as a partner= (j) that Denton had requested 269 of the water because of a 1962 agreement with Dallas, and if Dallas wanted out, then Denton would desire more than 269 of Aubrey. y I At the conclusion, Chairman Carter asked Booth how the Texas 1 L I Water Development Board could be brought into the project. Booth said that either Dallas could reject their permit or the Commission I could deny it, and Texas Water Development Board could be asked to apply for 749 of the water. Hooth went on to say that he had some I contact with the staff of Texas Water Development Board and they seemed willing to participate and that it seemed that this was a way to resolve and solve the water situation for North Texas. Booth stated that the Texas Water Development Board was the proper agency to develop the water resources in North and Northeast Texas, and this would get them started. He felt sure that TWDB could con- , tract to sell water to Lewisville (who had representatives present), Frisco, Farmers Branch, aainesville, North Texas Municipal Water District, etc. I~ I I -2- j + r a 10. F kr~ t Jim Wilson representing Dallas stated that it would be im- practicable for TWDB to come in because Dallas owned the water due to its prior rights and the project would only yield 20 MGD; and that the horizontal division in Lewisville presented problems. Booth said that we would take our chances on the prior rights and that ,tt 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 f case, then they would have to split the blanket and no longer serve f I those cities] and, in that case, Dallas would want the Elm Fork I 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 fact "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 (Ass't City Attorney of Dallas) stated that Dallas could not accept a permit with conditions when the 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 was not involved in the rate matter and that we should get on with this project. Carter agreed. Carter then said that it appeared that Dallas was unwilling to accept a permit, with conditions, and that ho was "presently i i' r f -3- 1 disposed to denying Dallas' application and granting Denton's but he didn't know how to get other parties into the case". s"^y Carter then asked Dallas if Dallas was trying to run this as 11 a Dallas project. Wilson did not answer that question, but stated that Dallas wanted a permit as requested in their pcsition state- Mt. Carter again asked if that meant Dallas wanted it as a Dallas project. Dallas remained silent. 'then Carter said, the reason 14sked 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 their conditions, they are out." A discussion took place as to what to do and the Commission 4 I thought that it would be best to study the situation and also to make contact with the TWDB. They agreed to continue the hearing until March 18 at 10:00 A.M. Where does this leave Denton? In my opinion we are in great +j shape. The TWRC has said that Denton will get 26%. Dallas is on the verge of getting kicked out of this project and they really need to look at themselves. They have constantly wanted the whole pie and 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 TWDH. If it is the TWDH, there should not be any great delay. We have no preference and think Dallas should be in the project, but they are digging a grave for themselves and that is hurting the project. Thus, Denton may be better off with tra TWD9, but it is Dallas' move, Respectfully submitted, Paul C. Isham City Attorney City of Denton Denton, Texas 76201 I 4 4 MJ FV~ ' 1 !f BEFORE THE TEXAS {DATER RIGHTS COI mrsSION 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 + benefits on a 741-26% basic. Accordingly, Dallas asks that { the Commission grant it a permit which will allow it to ' Lnpound water in its 74• share of the additional storage made available by the y project. Dallas also asks for diver- bion rights which will allow it to utilize its Lewisville and Elm Fork storage effectively under its overdraft opera- f tion program. f 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. It 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. E l Because of the differences among the parties over the status of existing water rights, Dallas asks that the Commission f follow the precedent cot in the recent Grapevine proceeding I♦ 1 ! and not address itsolf to the question of firm yield, and it asks that no other provision be included in tho permit which 'could be construed as an attempt to 11mit Dallas' existing water rights, dA"4' Xd .While Dallas has agreed to join with the City of Denton in the development of the Aubrey Project and to share the costs and benefits of the project on a 70-268 basis, Dallas k cannot agrce 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 j to the evaluation of the benefits to be derived from the Aubrey Project cannot be resolved in these hearings on applicatir.ns 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 fee?s sufficiently secure in its position with respr,et to Dallas' rights, or if Denton is willing to participate in the project even if its position should not be upheld, there is no reason why the Aubrey 3 Project may not go forward. However, Dallas cannot a ' gree 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 inesease in safe yield which will } result from the Aubrey Project. As we understand the situa- tion, the importance of the safe yield determination results j from the policy, unarticulated in any statute, court decision or Commission rule as far an we know, under which this Commission imposon limits on divaralons for municipal purposes • NM 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 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 submits that the same public p;,licy considerations which militate against a 4 city diverting and becoming dependent upon diversions in j excess of the safe yield, argue just as strongly against a 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 ~i yield which does not take prior rights into account. Simi- larly, there is no such thing as a safe yield,which assumes that diversions 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 calculated without consideration of downstream rights, it is in affect asking the Commission to accord it the right to overdraft the true firm yield. The simple and undeniable facts are that if Dallas exercises its prior rights, as it must do to servo its own eitizeno properly, and if Denton diverts on the basis of 26t of an 81.4 mgd increased yield, when the drought of record ro-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 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 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 to the extent that the author suggests that Dallas' Lewis- villa priority does not extend to its diversion rights in excess of firm yield, there is 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 yield question, Dallas has no particular objection to the 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 as 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 r.ttribute reality to a yield which ignores downstream-rights. 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 reservbir." For what purpose does Mr, Richardson propose that such yield be recognized? If ho is suggobting that there is 01.4 mgd of water available for appropriation on a dependable basis, the facto nro directly contrary to hie conclusion, This amount of water may be M4u • appropriated on a firm basis only by confiscating a portion 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 I ~I a limitation could be imposed, if at all, only in a cancel- lation proceeding, and no grounds exist for cancellation here. ! Jj Turning to other points made by Denton's counsel in his j + 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 Farmers Branch rate case on the basis of alleged representa- I tions made by Dallas in previous permit proceedings and on I the basis of recitations in the hake Ray Hubbard permit. Ij 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 be used as a basis for rate jurisdiction or to 1 impose additional obligations to provide water service to its customer cities. i With respect to Denton's requost that permits not issue until the parties have signed contracts with the U.S. Army B ` Corps of Engineers, Dallas believes that it must at least i know what action the Commission intends to take before it signs a contract with the Corps. It also believes thnt• an operating agreement between Denton and Dallas should be reached before the Corps contracts arc eigned. i ' I With respect to Denton's and Mr. Richardson's sugger.- , 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 Dallas' rights, but if such a Project were undertaken, b~j C the Board or anyone else, Dallas would, of course, have no alternative but to oppose such an effort. j What is said above with respect to Denton's position ` applies with even greater force to the other applications I 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 yy 1 applications. i If any member of-the Commission requires clarification of any of the above, Dallas will be pleased to respon3 at the hearing sot for February 18, 1976. Respectfully submitted, N. ALEX DICKLEY City Attorney 501 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75201 CARROLL R. GRAIIAM Assistant City Attorney 501 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75201 JAMES W. WILSON 1 McGINNIS, LOCIIRIDGE 6 KILGORE 5th Ploor, Texas State Dank Bldg. 900 Congreta v Lusti it Texas 70701 i } ATTOIAMBYS V011 APPLICANT, CITY OY DAIJAIJ i ~~7<i~1 1 • 1 1 1 A i 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G X hereby certify that I have on this L°~r 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. ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT, CITY OF DALLAS I ~ C ~ I 1 1 i { j j 1 , , r n ' , 1 1 Y t r WW FFf? ? ,.975 TEXAS (IATER RIGHTS CON'IR,.,"WON STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE OFFICE BUILDING COMAIE/IOIA'W JOE O• CANTEA,C.IAIRMAN February 21, 1976 R[.1[OEIEC.lME+DER DOREEV s. NARDEMAN exicuTlvE DIRECTOR 4784371 47"462 JOER,CARRCCI MARY ANN NEfN ER a711sn QCRETARY Mr. Frank R. Booth Booth, Lloyd & Simmons Attorneys at Law -AJ 302 San Jacinto Building Austin, Texas 78701 Res Pending Applicattons Aubrey Project Dear Mr. Booth: ,f 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 applicant/. Should you have any questions, please let us know. ;Y Very truly yours, TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION By 't Mrs; ry Ann Hefner MAHslb Enclosure c AN IOUAL ONORTUNITY [MfIo VER i 040 [Olt lJM? AREA CODE NI AliiflN TE%AE flil I e ? y i ME A R, IR F I"— ky/K? H u311.ur:n~'^S to The Commission oATr. February 11, 1976 flog A. E. Richardson, Director of Permits Division, SUCE . Applications for Permits to Use Water in the Proposed Aubrey Project a After having heard all the testimony and considered the evidence presented in the subject matter the following represents my reaction to the evidence. 1. Yield of Aubrey Project The firm yield of the Aubrey Project (Aubrey Reservoir plus. Lewisville Reservoir enlargement) is totally dependent on the extent of existing do,m- 1 stream dater rights and the priority of those dater rights. There is not 'I significant disagreement among parties involved that the Aubrey Project iI increases the'fim yield of the existing Elm fork system by about 81.4 mad ; ll (91,200 acre-feet per year). p y + 1 The computer simulations are merely a series of mathematical conputations and the results are dependent only on the conditions and constraints established. The only significant difference between all the yield studies P f of the Auoroy Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey project to the overdrafting of the existing Lake Lewt;ville. The other studies did not. i 2. Overdrafting Overdrafting of a reservoir, or system of reservoirs, is the diversion of more water on an annual basis than the reservoir will continue to supply + through a repetition of the rust critical drought of record, I.e.. „ the fire j , yield. The practice of, overdrafting of a portion of a supply system can have obvious operational and economic advantages to a city; however. unless •N Y'Jr 7 v' r 9n MNf f,etio•to the Commission - 2 February ll, 3976 certain restraints are enaloyed it can lead to difficulties for the city and other rater users. I feel the following gen,:,al conclusions concerning ccverdrafting can be draun. A. The total annual diversion by a city should not exceed the firm yield of its total water supply system. B,. When "overdrafting" of one portion of a supply system his occurred during j the critical drought then overdrafting some or all of the retaining portion of the supply system must also occur in oruer to carry the system through the critical drougltit• fI C. If overdrafting of a portion of a water supply system for municipal J purposes is to carry a priority over other uses funiov in time the effect , will be to "tie up" a quantity of water equal to several times the anount i that can be used annually by the city. f li 3. Operating Agreement I The disagreements between applicants voiced during the hearing eripNizises 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 agreement essential. 4. Recommendations_ 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. y B. LImit total annual diversions fro,n all .sources by each Pon4ttee to W1. firm annual yield of all of permittee's water supply facilities. 1 . Mme" -loop p~ L'SY1'Ib'~ I F au:WUay Ig Ue!IN to the Co fission - 3 - February 11, 1976 C. Limit any authorized overdraftir., of municipal supply reservoirs to a non-priority right. D. P'wke any permits issued contingent on Com;iission approval of an operating agreement between all parties having diversion rights iq Leuisville and Aubrey Reservoirs. E 'These recoimnendations are essentially the same as contained in Permits r Division memorandum dated November 3, 1975. I feel these reco:naendations ~ I are still valid. However, in the event the Cownission feels that the parties involved can not or will not work out a satisfactory operating agreement, then the Coraaission should consider denying the pending pernlts fI and request the b,ater Development Board to make application for the conservation storage in the Aubrey Reservoir. i /,00~ A. E. Richardson i f I r I 4 X .19 • • rJ A'd ~FT "JSIL~IS~4 . CwLiu OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ACREEHENT Dallas will not object to Issuance of a permlt which allows Denton to divert from Its share of new storage an amount equal to 26$ of Increased safe yield of Aubrey' Project calculated by method used by Corps of Englneers without regard to any prior rights of Dallas. I ' i 2. Denton will agree to 1Imlt Its diversions from present storage to an amount equal to safe yield of Its share of storage calculated without regard to any prior rights of Dallas. j 3. Dallas will not object to inclusion In Oenton's permit of overdraft diversion i rights predicated upon finding by Commission that Denton has connected back-up n E supply adequate to make up any overdrafts. Denton's wells will qualify as such aback-up source only upon such a finding by TIJRC. jf Under no circumstances is Denton or Dallas to divert any water beyond the remaining amount of water In its share of storage. Denton will not export return flows outside watershed above Lewisville and j I any return flows will accrue to Interests In reservoirs as other Inflow. ! r Denton will not sell water to anyone other than entities described In Denton Exhibit No. 3 before TWRC. Dallas will sell water to Denton at 2.5p per 11004 gallons plus pumping costs 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, . 3 . t 4 ' 1 * 4 ~~T _ ~ IbY rl• J i If Aubrey has not filled by the beginning of the year 1990, Denton shall begin to develop an alternate source of sLpply to be connected by year 2000, and Dallas' obll,.ition to sell water to Denton shall terminate at the ' beglnning of tho year 2000. 8. 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 recelvel3. 9: Entire project conditioned upon no rights granted to any applicant other than Dallas and Denton) 3 E E 10. Nothing herein shall be construed as waiver of any right or priority by Dallas, E i and Dallas shall have the right to require the operation of Lewisville b-d Aubrey In conformity with Its rights. P 4 , • . I 1 1 i 1 4 1 1 , 11• 1 P 1'. 1 1 r~ BEFORE T11E TEXAS WATL••R RIGHTS COMMISSION ' AUSTI111 TEXAS APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE X PUBLIC WATER FROM THE X PROPOSED 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 i development of the Aubrey Project and to share costs and • I r, benefits on a 70-26% basis. Accordingly, Dallas asks that the Commission grant it a permit which will allow it to impound water in its 74• share of the additional storage i made available by the project. Dallas also asks f,%r diver- e, bion rights which will allow it to utilize its Lewisville and Elm pork storage effectively under its overdraft opera- tionprogram. , 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 ani Denton. It asks that no conditions be imposed on Dallas' permit'whioh seek to impose obligations on Dallas to~servo other cities and that no other unusual 'conditions be included in the permit. Decause of the differences among the parties over the status of existing water rights, Dallas asks that the Commission follow tho precedent cot in tha recent Grapovino proceeding and not address itcolf to the question of firm yield, and it asks that no other provision be included in the pormit which 'could be construed as an attempt to limit Dallas' oxiating water rights. I ' it ' % lvhile Dallas has agreed to join with the City of Denton in the development of the Aubrey Project-and to share the ` costs and benefits of the project on a 741.1-26% 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- . 1 ins consultants. The yield computation of the Corps of 9ngineors admittedly ignores all water rights. The rreese 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' a nd Denton's approaches ' to the evaluation of the benefits to be derived from the i Aubrey Project cannot be resolved in these hearings on applications for permits. The basic differences flow from II -differing contentions as to Dallas' prior rights, and these , differences probably cannot be resolved short•of an adjudi- cation proceedii,g, if Denton feels sufficiently secure in Its position with respect'to Dallas' rights, or•if Denton 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 tho increase in safe yield which will . result from the Aubrey Project, As we understand tho situa- •tion, the importanco of the aafo yield determination renults 1 from tho policy, unarticulated in any statute, court decision , or Commission rule as for an wo know, under which thin Commission imposen limits on divornions for munfoipal purpones i r fG , S , ~.C1wW • h.: ,.,.'pry I ~ 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 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 Mater is not there. Thus, the insertion of a safe yield limitation in a permit is not an end in itself but represents the applica- I tion of a rational public policy. Dallas submits 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 `E 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 yield which does not take prior rights into account. Simi- laxly, there is no such thing as a safe yield which assumes that diversions 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 uubstantial 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 effect asking the Commission to accord it the right to overdraft the true firm yield. The simple and undeniable facts are that if Dallas oxoroisas its prior rights, as it must do to serve its own oitizens properly, and if Denton diverts on the basis of U t of an 01.4 mgd increnned yield, when tho drought of record ro-occurs, Denton will find that the amount of water it is diverting is simply not thoro. for the full period of the drought. The difference between Dallas and Denton is pointed up in iho memorandum of Air. A. E. Richardson, Director of 1 Permits Division, dated February 11, 1976, in the following statement: The only significant difference between all tho i yield stu esdi o£ the Aubrey Project is that the Dallas studies recognized full priority over the proposed Aubrey Project to i•.he overdrafting of the existing Lace Lewisville. The other studies did not. j This difference is not only significant, it is crucial, and' to the extent that the author suggests that Dallas' Lewis- villa priority does not extend to its diversion rights in excess of firm yield, there is simply no basis for such a conclusion. i Although we believe that the proferable course would be to follow the Grapevine precedent and not address the safe 1, yield question, Dallas has no particular objection to the 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 as long as it is recognized that such a yield has nb 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 dorm stream•rights, Mr, A. E. Richardson's memorandum of February 11, 1976, recommends that the Commission "recognize the yield of the Aubrey Project as that dotormined by tho Corps of Engineers to be distributed on the basis of ownorship of increased storage space in each reservoir," For what purpose does Mr. Richardson propose that such yield bo recognized? Yf he is suggosting that there is 01.4 mgd of water availabla for approprIn tion on a dopondahlo basin, the facts are directly contrary to his conclusion, Thin mnount of water may be i , { 1 1 , , appropriated on a firm basis only by confiscating a portion of Dallas' prior rights, i 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 Ei extent that counsel suggests that such a condition be imposed ( on Dallas' existing Lewisville rights, we believe that the i Commission has no authority to take such action here. Such a limitation could be imposed, if at all, only in a cancel- 'E _ lotion proceeding, and no grounds exist for cancellation f hares I ` Turning to other points made by Denton's counsel in his I 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 j Farmers Branch rate case on the basis of alleged representa- tions made by Dallas in previous permit 1 . proceedings and on I the basis of recitations in the Lake Ray Hubbard permit, I Dallas makes no representations with respect to customer I cities here, and at least as long as the rate case remains unresolved, Dallas cannot accept any permit with provisions which could be used as a basis for rote jurisdiction or to impose additional obligations to provide water service to its customer cities. With respect to Donton's'roquoat that pormits not issue until the portion have signed contracts with lhn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dallas believes that it must at least I know what notion the Commission intends to take before it signs a contract with tho Corps. It alno bolievon that an opornling agreement between Denton And Dallas should bo roaeleod before the rorpn eontrnctn are signed. 0" Sm With respect to Denton's and Mr. Riehardson'a suggefi_ 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 Hoard i were to undertake an Aubrey Project without Dallas which recognizes Dallas' prior rights, the ©videnco shows, we submit, that such a project would not be economically feasible. I Ila are confident that the Board would not undertake an AlOrey 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 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 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 those applications. If any member of the Commission requires clarification of any of the above, Dallas will be pleased to respond at the hearing set for February 18, 1976. Respectfully submitted, 1 N. ALEX DICKLEY City Attorney 501 Municipal Building Dallas, Texas 75201 CARROLL R. GRAHAM 4 AoPlatant City Attorney 501 Municipal Building balloa, Texas 75201 MC3 if, WIf.SON ~ McGINNIS, LOCtlRiDGR & HTLGOtW-, 5th Floor, Texas Stato bank Bldg. 900 Congrann Avenue Austin, Texan 70701 Ah POItNiMI VOR Al+hLICAN9', CITY OY OULM c f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE X hereby certify that I have on th;s JYXk day of V;Vbruary, 1976, served copies of the foregoing Statement of Position of the City of Dallas upon counsel for the Cities of Denton and Frisco. I ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT, I CITY OF DALLAS I.. ! i' r 1 a,, ~CHiN! p'=b'.'' y~<{....f [{(R( I K g %1aa ~p,e l E f 'f { I z i I ~t. I 4, ~ ~f _ .