The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Materials - Futures Committee - 06/08/2015 -Water Supply Planning: Past, Present, and Future Carol Webb Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager 06-08-15 ISSUE The high cost and availability of raw water in the region Today’s Agenda •Review background/history of water supply planning including formation of districts •Compare water supply planning policies •Discuss current/future water supply demands •Considerations for future discussions Water Provider Profiles Fort Collins Water Utility East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) Date Organized 1883 1962 1961 Total Population Served 133,000* 17,000 40,000 Service Area size (square miles) 53 49 38 Annual Treated Water Demand 25,000 4,000 9,000 Water Taps 34,500 8,000 16,300 *Includes 5,500 customers within the FCLWD service area served by agreement. Does not include 4,000 customers served within WFCWD as the City does not provide raw water for those customers. 5 Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map Raw Water Supplies CITY ELCO FCLWD •Poudre River •City’s raw water pipeline •Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP) (seasonal supply) •Halligan Project (in progress) •Rigden Reservoir •C-BT (Horsetooth Reservoir) •Michigan Ditch/Joe Wright Reservoir •Poudre River •PVP (seasonal supply) •Overland Trail Ponds (in progress) •C-BT •Poudre River •PVP (seasonal supply) •NISP (in progress) •Overland Trail Ponds (in progress) •C-BT Raw Water Supplies Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) •Designed to deliver 310,000 acre-feet each year. •Quotas expressed as a percentage of 310,000 acre feet •C-BT unit = 1/310,000 of the total quantity of water the board makes available in any particular year. •70% quota for one unit = 0.7 AF BACKGROUND City History of Water Supply Planning 18 8 0 s – 19 4 0 s Water Utility formed Purchased senior rights on Poudre River 19 5 0 s Active acquisition of CBT water Formation of Water Board 19 6 0 s – 19 7 0 s Acquired stock in irrigation companies Established raw water requirements (RWR) Joe Wright Reservoir purchase & enlargement Introduction of Michigan Ditch supplies 19 8 0 s – 19 9 0 s Continued acquisition of water rights Adoption of the Water Supply Policy Increased RWR Conversion of water rights Option agreement with NPIC for Halligan 20 0 0 s – 20 1 0 s Updated Water Supply Policy (2003 and 2012) Exercised Halligan Option agreement Increased RWR Halligan NEPA process Conversion of water rights Rigden Reservoir Formation of Water Districts Late 1950s and early 1960s: Request from developers extension of water and sewer service Cities determines expansion beyond financial capabilities; denied requests for service. Pressure for development in the area continued to increase. Separate utility districts form to provide service. Development increases; the City annexes or includes area in the GMA now served by both ELCO and FCLWD. Water Districts History of Water Supply Planning Ea r l y 1 9 6 0 s Water Districts organize 19 6 0 s – 19 9 0 s Acquisition of CBT supplies - direct or through RWR Districts begin acquiring Poudre River rights 20 0 3 Districts partner with City in Halligan Project 20 0 4 Construction of PVP - seasonal access to Poudre River supplies La t e 2 0 0 0 s Districts drop out of Halligan Project FCLWD joins NISP FCLWD and ELCO enter Overland Gravel Ponds project. Collaborations •City and Districts have extensive history of collaboration •Numerous IGAs to share supply, treatment, and transmission of raw/treated water •1998 – Josh Ames Certificates for raw water for in ELCO and FCLWD. •2001 – Sale/delivery of water from City to FCLWD for approved subdivisions (expired in 2011) •2013 •Capacity agreement with FCLWD •Study of regionalized treatment with Tri-Districts Conflicts: City/FCLWD Service Area Dispute •Dispute in late 1970s regarding service area boundaries between City and FCLWD •Included lawsuits filed by both parties •Court ordered parties to resolve dispute •Entities formed steering committee •Explored various options for collaboration •Entered IGA in 1985 •Establish service areas •Collaborate on planning •Evaluate Regionalization •Resulted in collaborations in place today Water Supply Planning Policies Current Supply and Demands Water Development Fees •Development fees consist of •Raw Water Requirements •Dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu to ensure adequate water is available to serve development •Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) - one-time fees for cost of utility infrastructure needed to serve a new development •Development fees reflect lot size and type of development (single family or multifamily) Raw Water Requirements (RWR) •All providers require dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights for development •RWR consist of •Raw Water Dedication or cash-in-lieu •Based on water provider needs and yield from accepted sources •Conversion (or Credit) Factor •Applied to each share or unit dedicated •Value determined by annual average yield •Water Supply Factor •Ensure reliable supply when water rights yield less than average. Comparison of RWR Water Provider Water Rights or Cash-in- lieu Current Cash- in-lieu/Acre- Foot Water Rights Accepted Credit Factor Supply Factor ELCO Accepts both water rights and cash-in-lieu for one lot; water rights only for more than one lot For single lot only; based on a value of acre-foot unit of CBT •CBT Units •North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) shares •Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) shares •Jackson Ditch Company (JDC) shares Historic average or decreed yield 1.5 FCLWD Accepts cash- in-lieu only $25,000; based on value of acre-foot of CBT None Unknown Unknown CITY Accepts both water rights and cash-in-lieu for all development $6,500; based on market value of accepted water rights (last increased in 2001) •Arthur Irrigation Co. •Larimer County Canal No. 2 •New Mercer Ditch Co. •NPIC •CBT Units •PV&LC Co. •Warren Lake Res. Co. •City Water Certificates •Josh Ames Certificates Average acre/foot yield 1.92 Comparison of Water Development Fees •FCLWD does not consider size of lot (up to 3 acres) in determining the single family PIF or RWR. •City PIFs based on the actual plant installed and a 10-year projection of what additional plant is needed to serve customers. •City allows multi-family developments to use a single tap for domestic and irrigation use. FCLWD and ELCO require separate irrigation taps for such developments. •Acceptance of cash-in-lieu vs. water rights Water Development Fee Comparison Plant Investment Fee FCU FCLWD ELCO Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $2,640 $7,000 $7,614 Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $16,290 $28,000 $29,360 Raw Water Requirement Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) 0.663 1.000 0.567 Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) 5.760 6.000 2.580 Cash-in-lieu (per acre-foot) $6,500 $25,000 $32,857 Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $4,310 $25,000 $18,630 Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $37,440 $100,000 $84,771 Total Water Development Cost Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $6,950 $32,000 $26,244 Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $53,730 $128,000 $114,131 Current Water Demands and Yields 55,000 6,800 14,900 25,000 4,000 9,000 31,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 City ELCO FCLWD Ac r e -Fe e t Average annual yield Annual water demand Firm yield 2012 Households served by Districts in City/GMA 75.79% 15.60% 8.61% Fraction of Households Served by Water District in GMA, 2012 Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Fort Collins Loveland Water District ELCO Water District 81.06% 14.92% 4.02% Fraction of Households Served by Water District in City Limits, 2012 Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Fort Collins Loveland Water District ELCO Water District FUTURE DEMANDS AND FIRM YIELD Future Water Demands 25,000 4,000 9,000 31,100 35,200 9,600 18,000 38,400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 City ELCO FCLWD Ac r e -Fe e t Annual water demand 2025 Demand Planning Level 2040 Demand Planning Level 2065 Demand Planning Level City’s Current Firm Yield = 31K AF 2040 Projected Households served by Districts in City/GMA 70.71% 14.57% 14.71% Projected Fraction of Household Served by Water Districts in City Limits, 2040 Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Fort Collins Loveland Water District ELCO Water District 64.59% 15.63% 19.78% Projected Fraction of Household Served by Water Districts in GMA, 2040 Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Fort Collins Loveland Water District ELCO Water District Policy Comparison City of Fort Collins Water Districts (ELCO and FCLWD) Diverse water rights portfolio that are available the majority of the year. Water rights portfolio relies heavily on CBT, with only seasonal access to Poudre River supplies. Planning based on •Reliability (1-in-50 year drought), •Storage reserve factor (20%), •Planning demand level (150 gpcd). The Districts consider dry-years and storage in planning, however specific criteria are unknown to City staff. Acquire supplies before they are needed. Acquire supplies primarily as they are needed. Sophisticated supply planning models. Static supply planning models. Cash-in-lieu rate last updated in 2001; does not reflect costs of storage or current market rates. FCLWD updates cash-in-lieu annually; ELCO accepts water rights, which are priced at the current market rate. Considerations For Future Discussions •City limited in options for providing firm supply to Districts •NEPA process constraints •Changes to water rights decrees •City’s water rights portfolio includes limited storage. Water provided by the City to Districts requires storage to firm supply •Past collaborations may serve as models •Opportunities to address affordable housing development •Districts and staff have/continue to collaborate Direction Sought •Is the cost of raw water in City/GMA served by Water Districts: •Prohibiting development; and/or, •Prohibiting affordable housing development? •How could the City have more input/ control over water supply planning in areas of City/GMA served by Water Districts to facilitate integrated planning? •Should the City update raw water requirements and/or cash-in-lieu? Questions