HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/10/2012 - WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY UPDATE (DATE: January 10, 2012
STAFF: Donnie Dustin,
Dennis Bode, Kevin Gertig
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Collins Utilities staff has been working on updating the City’s Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy. The current Policy was adopted by City Council in September 2003
(Resolution 2003-104). Since the Policy’s adoption, the Utility has seen a significant reduction in
water use while continuing to plan for future water needs. This includes substantial efforts related
to the Environmental Impact Study for the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir being directed by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Updating the Policy will provide further direction regarding the
planning, management, and maintenance of the City’s water supply system needed to assure a safe,
reliable drinking water supply and provide an appropriate level of water conservation. It will also
provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other beneficial
purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have regarding the update of this Policy?
2. Is this Policy ready for formal Council consideration?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
History
Since the Fort Collins Water Utility’s origin in the 1880s, the City has been focused on providing
a high quality and reliable water supply to its customers. Policies that have supported the Utility
in providing this water supply, as well as encouraging water conservation, have included the 1988
Water Supply Policy, the 1992 Water Demand Management Policy and the current 2003 Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy. This Policy update should continue the objectives of
providing a sustainable and integrated approach to ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable supply
of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community, while managing the level of
demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource.
January 10, 2012 Page 2
Policy Update Process
AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., along with Catalyst, Inc., were selected in the fall of 2010
to provide consulting and facilitation services to aide the Utilities in the update of the Policy. As
proposed by the consultants, a Community Working Group (CWG) was formed as an integral part
of the public outreach process for updating the Policy. The CWG consisted of 19 individuals with
diverse interests and opinions in water including representatives from agricultural, environmental
protection, civic, business, homeowner, university and state backgrounds. After six meetings for
educating and gathering input on the Policy update from the CWG, a draft Policy update was
developed that incorporates many of their issues and concerns.
The City’s Water Board considered the Policy update and CWG input at its November 17, 2011
meeting. Additional public outreach to date has included posting Policy update information on the
Utilities website, conducting a landscape preference survey with a Utilities customer online survey
panel and presenting Policy update information to other City boards and commissions, as well as
other organizations.
Key Policy Elements
The draft Policy update has significantly changed from the current Policy adopted in 2003 and was
developed with much input from the CWG, as well as some revisions from the Water Board. The
updated Policy, current Policy and a list of updated Policy provisions and changes from the current
Policy are attached (Attachments 1-3). The following are the key updated Policy elements:
• General Policy Language: In order to align with Plan Fort Collins and incorporate
sustainability concepts, references to policies stated in Plan Fort Collins and incorporation
of triple bottom line concepts (considering economic, environmental and social aspects) have
been added throughout the Policy update.
• Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management: This section reduces the average daily use
(water conservation) goal to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020, compared to 185
gpcd in the current Policy. This revised goal was developed in the 2009 Water Conservation
Plan (WCP), which includes programs and measures used to reach the goal. Since it may
be updated on a more regular basis (at least every 7 years), future conservation goals will be
adjusted by subsequent WCPs. The Policy also states the peak day use goal of 350 gpcd by
2020, compared to 475 gpcd in the current Policy. In addition, this section mentions the use
of water rate structures to provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently.
• Water Supply Reliability: This section uses three main planning criteria to develop the
City’s water supply system: the planning demand level, drought criterion and storage
reserve factor. The 1-in-50 year drought criterion has been used for numerous years and has
been stated in past policies. In order to be more transparent, the other criteria which have
been used in recent years for modeling purposes were added to the Policy update. The
Policy states that the City’s water supplies should be maintained to meet an average demand
of 162 gpcd through at least a 1-in-50 year drought, while maintaining 15% of annual
demand in storage through that drought. These criteria are designed to deal with potential
uncertainties in water supply planning, one of which is the potential effects of climate
January 10, 2012 Page 3
change. In addition, this section mentions maintaining a plan for responding to projected
water supply shortages.
• Additional Supplies and Facilities: This section addresses alternatives for meeting the City’s
future needs that best fit the City’s water supply system. It includes working towards long-
term water sharing arrangements with agriculture and is not specific about the amount of
storage capacity required.
• Water Quality: This section focuses on protecting our watersheds and maintaining the taste
and quality of our treated water.
• Surplus Raw Water: This section includes a strong commitment to use the Utilities surplus
supplies for beneficial purposes such as supporting local agriculture and supplementing
flows in the Poudre River.
• Regional Cooperation: This section directs the City to maintain good working relationships
with regional entities that are affected by the City’s water use and supply planning.
Supporting Information
Water Use
The City currently delivers about 26,000 acre-feet/year of treated water and 4,000 acre-feet/year of
raw water (which irrigates the City’s parks, golf courses, etc.). Demand levels have declined
significantly over the last few decades from around 230 gpcd in the early 1990s to about 200 gpcd
before the drought year of 2002. The average use over the last five years (2006-2010) has been
about 153 gpcd, indicating a 25 percent reduction in per capita water use from before 2002. The
majority of these water use reductions have come from the City’s residential customers, but the
commercial sector has also reduced its water use significantly. These reductions are a result of
water conservation efforts by our customers that have been aided by the City becoming fully water
metered in 2003 (along with tiered and seasonal rate structures) and the Utilities water conservation
program. Utilities conducted a landscape preference survey with an online survey panel to gage
customer’s desire for changing landscapes in Fort Collins as it relates to the potential for additional
water conservation and its potential impact on existing landscapes. Results of the survey indicated
general satisfaction with current landscapes in Fort Collins (especially trees) and support for
additional xeriscape. Results indicated no strong opinion regarding additional water conservation.
The survey results are attached (Attachment 4).
Water Supply Sources
The City’s water supplies generally come from two main sources: the Poudre River and the
Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT). On average, the City gets about half its treated water
supply from each of these sources each year. The City’s Poudre River water supplies include its
senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights (mostly from shares in the irrigation ditches
that run through the City) and the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir system. The CBT
supplies are administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), which
allocates the supplies to unit owners through a variable annual quota. The City receives delivery
of its allocated water from Horsetooth Reservoir and does not own or operate that reservoir. Policies
January 10, 2012 Page 4
of the NCWCD limit carryover of unused CBT water in the project facilities (including Horsetooth
Reservoir). The yield of the City’s water supplies is mostly dependent on snowmelt runoff, which
is subject to high annual and monthly variability. Because the City plans for its water supply system
to meet demands through a 1-in-50 year drought, there are adequate supplies in most years. The
City can currently meet about 31,000 acre-feet/year of treated water demands through the 1-in-50
year drought without restrictions.
Future Water Demands and Supplies
The Water Utility is expecting a future projected need of approximately 39,700 acre-feet/year of
treated water demands by 2050. The increase in demand is mostly from a projected increase in
population of around 35,000 people in the Water Utility service area, but also includes an increase
in large contractual use of approximately 3,000 acre-feet/year. This future demand should be near
a build-out condition, since the Water Utility has a limited growth potential due to surrounding water
districts. These districts will meet some of the future water demands projected within the City’s
Growth Management Area.
The City will continue to acquire additional water rights and/or cash in-lieu-of water rights through
Raw Water Requirements, which requires developers to turn in water rights or cash to meet the
water needs of additional development. The City has been working towards acquiring and/or
developing storage capacity to help manage its current and future water rights. Operational storage
is a critical need to help meet legal requirements associated with the City’s converted agricultural
rights. The City is pursuing local gravel pits to meet these operational storage needs. Carryover and
vulnerability protection storage can help meet the City’s projected future demands, as well as
provide a storage reserve for disruptions to the City’s supply system. The City is pursuing the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir to meet these types of storage needs.
Water Supply Planning Criteria
These criteria determine the amount of water supplies and/or facilities the City needs (e.g., the
amount of storage required) and should be somewhat conservative to account for uncertainties in
water supply planning. The 1-in-50 year drought criterion defines the level of risk for the City’s
water supply system and has been used since the 1988 Water Supply Policy. This criterion has
provided a reliable supply system to date, but not without issues during drought in the early 2000s.
The 15% storage reserve factor provides a short-term supply to address emergency situations. This
factor incorporates having 15% of annual demand in storage (through the 1-in-50 year drought),
which equates to about three months of winter (indoor) demand or about one month of summer
demand. Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin for meeting the storage reserve would help diversify
the City’s water supply system, which is highly reliant on CBT storage. The 162 gpcd planning
demand level is the average use for the years of 2002-2007 and coincides with an increase in water
demand that would be necessary to maintain existing landscapes considering the mid-range of
projected climate change on the existing use level of 153 gpcd. The planning demand level is higher
than the current use (153 gpcd) or the water conservation goal (140 gpcd) to account for
uncertainties in water supply planning, such as the potential effects of climate change.
Changing the water supply planning criteria in the Policy may not significantly change the amount
of supplies and/or facilities needed by the Water Utility. For example, using the lower use rate of
153 gpcd as a planning demand level while using the most recent 2050 population projection of
January 10, 2012 Page 5
approximately 165,000 equals the same water demand as using 162 gpcd and a 2050 population
projection of around 155,000, which are the values being used in the Halligan Reservoir permitting
process. However, changing these criteria could significantly delay this permitting process, which
has been ongoing for 6 years and has cost several million dollars.
Water supply planning is a long-term process with many uncertainties. The water supply planning
criteria seek to balance the benefits and risks of developing a reliable water supply with the
associated costs and impacts of doing so. These criteria determine the amount of supplies and/or
facilities needed, but it is the City’s water use that mostly impacts the river system (except for
construction and inundation impacts to the river). Planning for higher water use levels could provide
the City more flexibility to use supplies for other benefits such as supporting local agriculture, if the
City continues to reduce water use (e.g., meets the water conservation goal). All these factors
should be considered when determining the planning demand level.
Surplus Raw Water
The City has surplus supplies in many years as a result of planning its supplies for meeting demands
through a 1-in-50 year drought. Most of these surplus supplies are currently rented to agriculture
on a year-to-year basis that generate revenue and help reduce water customer rates. The City
recognizes recent interest in entering long-term arrangements with agricultural renters. Any unused
or unrented surplus water is essentially left in the river, which is typically diverted by the next senior
water right(s). Using the City’s surplus supplies for instream flows is currently difficult under
current Colorado water law. However, Utilities staff is working with other City departments and
the State of Colorado on initiatives to improve Poudre River flows.
Environmental Considerations
The City’s water use reduces flows in the Poudre River and other watersheds. However, most of
the flow reductions on the Poudre River (between the lower Poudre Canyon and the middle of Fort
Collins) are from irrigation company diversions. Most diversions for the City’s future uses will not
reduce flows through Fort Collins, since the City will mostly use water from converted agricultural
shares that have historically diverted upstream of Fort Collins.
Community Working Group (CWG) Input
Since the CWG helped develop the updated Policy, there was a high level of agreement with most
of the Policy elements. However, there were some divergent views on the water supply planning
criteria. Although there were a few CWG members that felt the criteria should be more
conservative, some members thought the criteria were too conservative. In particular, there were
several members that thought the planning demand level of 162 gpcd is too high and should be
lowered to the current use level of 153 gpcd, the conservation goal of 140 gpcd or even lower.
Given this discussion, the majority of CWG members at the final meeting felt that the water supply
planning criteria were set at reasonable levels. Setting the numbers aside, all but one of the CWG
members fully supported the Policy update. A list of CWG members and the CWG memorandum
are attached(Attachments 5 and 6), along with a letter from CWG member Gary Wockner (Save the
Poudre) (Attachment 7), who requested it be given to Water Board and City Council.
January 10, 2012 Page 6
Water Board Input
The updated Policy and CWG materials were presented to the Water Board at its November 17,
2011 meeting. Prior to this meeting, all Board members were invited to two meetings to receive
background information and discuss Policy issues. In general, the Water Board also supported the
updated Policy. The Board also discussed the water supply planning criteria and considered potential
changes to those criteria. However, the majority of the Water Board decided these criteria should
remain the same to avoid potential delay to the Halligan Reservoir permitting process. The Board’s
discussions are described in the attached Letter of Support (Attachment 8) and Water Board minutes
(Attachment 9).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Updated Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
2. Current Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (adopted 2003)
3. Updated Policy Provisions and Changes from 2003 Policy
4. Landscape Preference Survey Results
5. Community Working Group Members
6. Community Working Group Memorandum
7. Save the Poudre Letter
8. Water Board Recommendation
9. Water Board minutes, November 17, 2011
10. PowerPoint presentation
11. Glossary of Water Resources terms
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Draft 12-5-2011 (Update of the 2003 Policy)
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
The City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management Policy provides a
foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions concerning the
City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions by the Water
Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this policy.
Objective
To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable
supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level
of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences
of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year
vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states,
“Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to
providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community
while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”
This Water Supply and Demand Management Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated
approach” to water demand and water resources management. Sustainability is defined within
the context of the triple-bottom-line decision making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically,
creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our
present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which
we depend.” Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility will take a leadership role by
incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water supply and demand. When this
core value is applied to the use and development of our valuable water resources, the Utility will
strive to:
Avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment
Consider the social benefits of having a reliable and high quality water supply for health and
safety, economic prosperity and healthy landscapes, as well as a healthy natural environment
Analyze the cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has to our
local and regional economies
Managing water supply and demand is a dynamic process that evolves as data management and
technology progresses, legal and political environments change, and the State’s population
continues to increase. Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective
policy that is based on current data. The policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and
updated by 2020, or sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
1.0 WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing
indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing
outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable changes in landscaping.
The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes
Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs
Prepare for potential impacts of climate change
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan1 established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water
use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)2 by the year 20203. The City will utilize water use
efficiency measures and programs with the aim of reducing its water use to an average of 140
gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2)
impacts on water demand due to changes in land use policies, building codes and housing trends,
3) additional studies on climate change, and 4) changes in the water use goal as may be adjusted
by any subsequent water conservation plans. This water use goal is subject to change as
discussed above and is intended as a goal that can be met while sustaining reasonable indoor and
outdoor values of the City.
The per capita peak daily demand4 will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by
the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans.
1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program
Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and
effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the
programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures
include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational
1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and
likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this policy, water use efficiency is
referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.
2 Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment
Facility for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange
arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.
3 This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use
of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average
daily water use of 197 gpcd.
4 The peak daily demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios of
average to peak daily use.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.
The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis
and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s
water use goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the status and
results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be updated at a
minimum of every seven years, as currently required by the State of Colorado.
1.3 Water Rate Structures
The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of
customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently
while also providing sufficient revenue for operational and maintenance purposes. Examples of
structures that may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use
increases, 2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget
approaches based on appropriate targets for individual customers.
The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial
analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the
rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate
structure will require City Council approval.
2.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV
21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration
potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities
shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental
factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered
when addressing water supply for municipal use include:
Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility
Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not overly depend on any one source
Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances
Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security
Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management
Collaboration with the City’s regional water providers and users
Maintaining awareness of state, national and worldwide trends and adapting as needed to
meet our customer needs
2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer
models that estimate the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water
supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for
planning future supplies.
ATTACHMENT 1
4
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level
The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita
demand level of 162 gpcd5,6. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water
use goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning.
It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water
supply facilities. Because water supply system infrastructure may take many years to permit and
construct, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to size facilities that may be needed for
the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger than the water use goal, primarily
because of the uncertainties related to projected water demands, yields from specific water
rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.
2.1.2 Drought Criterion
The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the
planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River
Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be
planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought
criterion, considering the time required to obtain water court decrees and permit and construct
diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a
balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such
reliability and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.
2.1.3 Storage Reserve Factor
The City’s water supply planning criteria will include a storage reserve factor that equates to
15% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought7,8. This factor provides an
additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other
reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed
a 1-in-50 year drought.
5 The 162 gpcd value is based upon the 2006-2010 average daily use, adjusted to reflect the increase in demand that
would be necessary to maintain existing levels of urban landscaping considering the mid-range of projected climate
change impact.
6 The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced at the Water Treatment Facility for use by Water
Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the
estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is multiplied by population projections
developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate future water demands.
7 For the Water Utility, 15% of annual demand is equivalent to three months of average winter demand and just over
one month of average July demand.
8 In meeting this factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT
unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the following year. However, this program has varied over the years and
there is no guarantee that it will be continued in the future.
ATTACHMENT 1
5
2.2 Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount
of water required to maintain existing landscapes9; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty
related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are
conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will
continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply
planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.
2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply
shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought)
or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.
This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns,
regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include
provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts,
leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short
situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The
plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s
water use and its water supply system.
2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities
In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain
system reliability and operational flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its
current water supply system. The following policy elements address ways of meeting these
needs.
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development
The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-
lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of
the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.
Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into
water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities
and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration will
9 Current research indicates that changes in precipitation in this area are uncertain but that temperatures will increase
and therefore it is likely that runoff will come earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may more often
come as rain, and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes.
ATTACHMENT 1
6
be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability inherent in
both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned over and cash
received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a reliable and
effective system.
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are decreed only for
agricultural use. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from agricultural
use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those rights that come
from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation has ceased, when
needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable
agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to municipal use as
long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent to do so. The
City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for municipal uses
when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at other times, in a
manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.
2.4.3 Facilities
The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities that are needed to manage the
City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and enhance the City’s ability to meet
demands through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity,
diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that
increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.
Additional storage will be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow
obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet
years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and
reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e.,
environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential environmental
impacts of developing storage along with other associated costs and benefits, and will develop
that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment. Storage
capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel
pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, the
development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.
3.0 TREATED AND RAW WATER QUALITY
Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality
standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection
that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the
quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived and
maintaining the taste and quality of the City’s treated water. This may include mixing of the
City’s source waters to maintain high water quality and require collaboration with private,
county, state and federal land owners and managers. The acquisition, development, and
management of the City’s raw and treated water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking
ATTACHMENT 1
7
Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection and water
treatment.
4.0 USE OF SURPLUS RAW WATER
The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities:
1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw
water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas.
Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of
agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.
Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made
available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. Since the City plans
its water supply system using a 1-in-50 year drought criterion, it typically has significant
quantities of surplus raw water in many years. This surplus water may be available on a year-to-
year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not significantly impair the City’s ability
to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent its surplus supplies at a fair market
price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes
Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the
environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre
River or providing other regional benefits. The City’s surplus supplies come from a variety of
sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These sources include CBT water and shares
in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more suitable and available than others to meet
beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can be used for these other purposes is
dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of water, place of use and other decree
limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should consider, and will likely require
coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other groups. Some uses of the surplus
supplies, such as maintaining an instream flow according to the State’s Instream Flow Program,
may require a change of water rights through the water court process. The City will engage in a
thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing the use of its surplus supplies for these
beneficial purposes.
Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow voluntary contributions from its
ratepayers (i.e., Utility bill “check-off box”) for programs that are designed to support the
following purposes: preserving local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River, or
meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire.
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space
Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado
Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and
implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1
ATTACHMENT 1
8
of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the
integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad
range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet
community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support
the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus
agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.
The City will explore long-term rental and sharing arrangements with irrigators10 in order to
support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other benefits provided
by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1.2 Instream Flows
Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream
flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la
Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural streamflows,
the City will seek opportunities to improve, beyond any associated minimum regulatory
requirements, the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its diversions. The
Water Utility will take a leadership role in working with other City departments, local and
regional groups and agencies towards the following objectives in accordance with Colorado
water law and the administration of water rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in local streams
to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the operation of its water supplies and facilities in a manner
that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment while meeting customer
demands, and 3) explore projects or measures that would provide flows in streams and water in
reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic purposes.
4.1.3 Other Arrangements
The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other
entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental
agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners.
These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually
beneficial to the parties and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to the
region.
5.0 REGIONAL COOPERATION
The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with regional entities and
coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that growing Colorado
municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs in a
manner that minimizes negative impacts to agricultural economies and river ecosystems. The
10 The City’s largest irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still
has substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and CBT water that
lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.
ATTACHMENT 1
9
Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in
a manner that respects other interests.
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers
The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front
Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified,
the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building, sharing capacity and operating
water transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs for greater mutual benefit.
The City has common interests and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the
water districts around Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, as well as other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should
work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies
regarding drought protection, conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.
5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies
The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange
and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the
local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City work closely with these
companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in
local irrigation companies.
5.3 Working with Others
City Departments will work together and also cooperate with local, state and federal agencies,
civic organizations, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when
common goals would benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals
that may involve City water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for
existing and development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river
flows and supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and
sources of revenue for specific goals or projects.
RESOLUTION 2003-104
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING A WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
MANAGEMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, a Water Supply Policy was adopted by the City Council in December 1988 to help
direct the acquisition, development, and management of the City’s water supplies since that time; and
WHEREAS, a Water Demand Management Policy was adopted by the City Council in April
1992, which set water use goals and provided for measures to help meet those goals; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to update the water supply and demand management policies to
provide guidance regarding the future development and use of the City’s water supplies; and
WHEREAS, the Council has requested that staff develop an integrated water supply and
demand management policy; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy attached hereto
as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference has been developed over the last several years
through discussions with interested citizens, groups, the Water Board and City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Council hereby adopts the Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy attached hereto, to provide general criteria for City decision making regarding water supply
projects, acquisition of water rights, and demand management measures.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 16th
day of September, A.D. 2003.
ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT 2
1
EXHIBIT “A”
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
September 16, 2003
Policy Objective: To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to (1) providing an
adequate and reliable supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the
community and (2) managing the level of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and
valuable resource.
1. Demand Management
a. Water Use Goals. The City will implement the necessary water conservation
practices and programs to reduce its water use to an average of 185 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) by the year 2010. In addition, the per capita peak daily
demand will be reduced to 475 gpcd by the year 2010. These calculations are
based on the total treated water produced for use by City customers (adjusted for
large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by
the estimated population of the City’s water service area.
b. Educational Programs. The City will have a continuous, comprehensive and
visible public education program that helps citizens and businesses use water
appropriately and efficiently. Examples of such programs include (1) working
with the schools to provide water conservation education, (2) promoting the use
of xeriscape landscaping for public facilities, businesses, homeowners, and others,
(3) helping the public to understand and utilize evapo-transpiration information in
determining their irrigation applications, and (4) educating water users on the
operation of sprinkler system controllers.
c. Rate Structures. The City will have water rate structures for all classes of
customers that provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently. Examples
of structures that may be utilized include (1) tiered structures with increasing
prices as water use increases, (2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the
irrigation season, (3) water budget approaches based on appropriate targets for
individual customers, and (4) flat rate structures.
d. Incentive Programs. When determined to be cost effective, the City will
implement incentive programs that will assist customers in replacing outdated
plumbing fixtures or landscape features that use excessive amounts of water.
Examples for reducing indoor use are rebates for replacing showerheads, toilets
and clothes washers with water conserving models. Examples for reducing
outdoor use include rebates for expenses related to irrigation scheduling
equipment and converting landscape to xeriscape.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
e. Regulatory Measures. The City will maintain and/or adopt regulations that
promote water efficiency and reduction of water waste while recognizing the
benefits of adequate water to maintain an attractive and pleasant environment in
the City. Examples include regulations that require the amendment of soils with
organic materials and prohibition of homeowner associations banning the use of
xeriscape. The City will also review its Land Use Code for potential revisions
which would limit bluegrass turf on new landscapes and prohibit landscaping that
requires irrigation in certain areas such as medians, thin strips, and other small
areas.
f. Operational Measures. The City will establish practices and procedures to deliver
and use water in its facilities without excessive losses. Examples of such
practices are the leak detection program to reduce losses through the Utility's
water distribution system and the recycling of backwash water at the Water
Treatment Facility.
2. Water Supply for Municipal Use
a. Drought Criteria. The reliability of the Fort Collins water supply should be
maintained to meet at least the 1-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre
River Basin. Water rights and storage capacity should be acquired ahead of the
time it is needed to meet at least the 1-in-50 year drought criteria, so as to provide
enough time to seek and obtain water court decrees and diversion or storage
facilities, if needed, to use such water.
b. Raw Water Requirements (RWR). The City shall require developers to turn over
water rights, or cash in-lieu-of water rights, such that the total water supply
available for municipal purposes is adequate to meet or exceed a 1-in-50 year
drought over the long term. Cash collected shall be used to purchase additional
water rights, acquire or develop additional storage capacity, or enter into other
arrangements that will increase the long-term reliability of the City’s supply
system.
c. Storage Capacity. The City will pursue the acquisition or development of storage
capacity which is needed to manage the City’s water rights in an efficient and
effective manner and which will enhance the City’s ability to get through at least
a 1-in-50 year drought. New storage capacity in the range of 12,500 to 14,000
acre-feet shall be pursued to (1) help meet return flow obligations incurred from
transfers of water rights from agricultural use to municipal use, (2) provide
carryover water from wet years to dry years, and (3) provide operational
flexibility, some redundancy and reliability. Storage options include the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel pits into
storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, or
some combination of the above.
ATTACHMENT 2
3
d. Use of Existing Supplies. The City will use its existing supplies to meet
municipal obligations with the following priorities: (1) to meet water demands by
the City’s treated water customers, and (2) to meet raw water needs in the City
and to meet other obligations of the City. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and other greenbelt
areas. Other raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other
entities because of agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply
system more effectively. Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to
as surplus water and may be made available to others in accordance with decrees
and other policies that may apply.
3. Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water
supply shortages, either because of severe drought conditions or because of disruptions in
the raw water delivery system. This plan may include measures to temporarily reduce
water use through media campaigns, various regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments
and others. The plan may also include provisions to temporarily supplement the supply
through interruptible water supply contracts, leases, exchanges and operational measures.
4. Use of Surplus Raw Water
To the extent the City has surplus raw water available after meeting the needs of its
treated water customers and meeting other raw water obligations, it will make water
available to entities or individuals at a fair rental market price that helps offset the City’s
cost of owning such supplies. Other objectives or uses of the surplus water include, in no
particular order, providing irrigation water to farmers to provide for the continued
production of agricultural crops in the Cache la Poudre River Basin and the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, helping maintain open space and natural areas
supported by Fort Collins, and providing for other uses as opportunities arise.
5. Regional Cooperation
a. Working with Other Municipal Providers. The City will continue to work with
the water suppliers throughout the Northern Colorado Front Range to assure that
adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified, the
City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building, and sharing capacity
of water transmission lines, distribution systems, and storage reservoirs. Entities
in this area that have many common interests with the City and which the City has
the potential to cooperate with include the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant and the
associated water districts, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District. In particular, the City should work closely with water
districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies regarding
drought protection and to provide mutual assistance during emergency situations.
ATTACHMENT 2
4
b. Working with Local Irrigation Companies. The City will continue to cooperate
with local irrigation companies regarding the transfer, exchange and use of water
in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the local
irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City work closely with
these companies.
c. Transferring Water Rights from Agricultural to Municipal Use. The City will
periodically transfer its water rights from agricultural use to municipal use on
those shares that come from areas upon which the City is growing, or from shares
where the irrigation of such lands has ceased. For water rights that were derived
from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable agricultural areas, the City
may transfer these water rights to municipal use when a need is identified or other
factors make it prudent to do so. To the extent that this water remains surplus to
the City's need, the City will continue to support the local agricultural economy
by renting this surplus agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective
irrigation companies.
6. Raw Water Quality
The City will take a proactive role in protecting the quality of water in the various
watersheds from which the City's raw water is derived. The acquisition, development,
and management of the City’s raw water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking
Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection.
7. Stream Flow and Ecosystem Protection
To the extent the City’s use of its water rights and water resources are not adversely
affected, the City will cooperate with other local groups or agencies to encourage flows
in local streams to protect the ecosystem, in accordance with Colorado water law and the
administration of water rights in Colorado.
8. Recreational/Aesthetic Flows
To the extent the City’s use of its water rights and water resources are not adversely
affected, the City will cooperate with other local groups or agencies to explore projects or
measures that would provide flows in streams and water in reservoirs for recreational and
aesthetic purposes, in accordance with Colorado water law and the administration of
water rights in Colorado.
ATTACHMENT 2
5
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update
Draft Updated Policy Provisions and Changes from 2003 Policy
December 30, 2011
Draft Revised Policy Section Summary of Policy Provisions Changes from 2003 Policy
Introduction and Objective ● Follow the objectives of ensuring an adequate
and reliable water supply, while managing the level
of demands
● Adopt a sustainable and integrated approach by
considering social, environmental and economic
aspect in our decision making
● Review and update policy by 2020
Previously at beginning of old policy
● Added introductory paragraph
● Slightly revised objective
● Added paragraph about alignment with Plan Fort
Collins
● Added paragraph about sustainability and the
triple bottom line
1.0 Water Use Efficiency and
------Demand Management
New section not in old policy
● Paragraph on the benefits of conservation
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals
------for Treated Water Use
● Work towards reducing average annual water
use to 140 gpcd by 2020
● Respond accordingly to studies on landscape
water needs and climate change, as well as
changes in land use, building codes and housing
trends
● Work towards reducing or maintaining the peak
day water use at no more than 350 gpcd
Section 1a of old policy
● Reduced average use goal from 185 to 140 gpcd
● Reduced peak daily demand goal from 475 to
350 gpcd
● Refers to Water Conservation Plan (and any
subsequent changes to it)
● Split paragraph and footnoted slightly revised
language about calculation of gpcd
1.2 Water Use Efficiency
------Program
● Use programs and measures specified in the
Water Conservation Plan to achieve water use
efficiency goals
● Provide annual water conservation report to
track program effectiveness
● Update the Water Conservation Plan at least
every seven years
Sections 1b, 1d, 1e & 1f of old policy
● Refers to Plan Fort Collins
● Refers to the programs and measures in the
Water Conservation Plan instead of listing
individually
● Includes evaluation of effectiveness through
annual report
1.3 Water Rate Structures ● Structure rates that provide an economic
incentive to use water efficiently, while providing
sufficient revenues
Draft Revised Policy Section Summary of Policy Provisions Changes from 2003 Policy
2.0 Water Supply Reliability New section not in old policy
● Includes reference to Plan Fort Collins
● Includes key principles to consider in water
supply planning
2.1 Water Supply Planning
------Criteria
New section not in old policy
● Mentions water supply modeling and the need
for planning criteria
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level ● Use an average annual water use level of 162
gpcd for water supply planning
New section not in old policy
● States planning demand level of 162 gpcd and
footnotes its derivation
● Addresses importance of criteria
● Footnotes calculation of gpcd and future water
demands
2.1.2 Drought Criterion ● Use the 1-in-50 year drought criterion for water
supply planning
Section 2a of old policy
● Slightly revised language
● Added sentence about seeking balance of
benefits and costs of drought criterion
2.1.3 Storage Reserve Factor ● Incorporate a storage reserve factor of having
15% of annual demand in storage through the 1-in-
50 year drought for water supply planning
● Exclude CBT carryover for meeting the storage
reserve factor
New section not in old policy
● States the 15% storage reserve factor
● Describes quantity of storage reserve factor and
its purpose
● Footnotes CBT carryover assumptions
2.2 Climate Change ● Use conservative assumptions to account for the
potential effects of climate change on City water
supplies
● Monitor climate change information and revise
water supply planning criteria if needed
New section not in old policy
● Addresses climate change and the need to be
conservative with assumptions
2.3 Water Supply Shortage
------Response Plan
● Maintain a plan for responding to projected water
supply shortages
● Periodically review and update the plan
Section 3 of old policy
● Slightly revised language
● Added sentence about when to activate plan
● Split paragraph and added mention of periodic
review and update
2.4 Additional Supplies and
------Facilities
New section not in old policy
● Introduces the need for additional supplies and
facilities
2
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Revised Policy Section Summary of Policy Provisions Changes from 2003 Policy
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements
--------for New Development
● Assess raw water requirements for new
development to obtain water rights or cash for
future growth
● Carefully consider alternatives for meeting future
water needs that include the need for a diversified
supply system
● Adjust the cash in-lieu-of rate as needed to
obtain an appropriate mix of water rights and cash
Section 2b of old policy
● Slightly revised language
● Split paragraph and added to how cash collected
can be used
● Added sentence about need for diversified
system
● Added sentence about changing water
rights/cash mix
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or
--------Sharing of Agricultural
--------Water Supplies
● Periodically convert City owned water rights from
agricultural to municipal use
● Refrain from converting agricultural decrees to
municipal use for lands that remain in viable
agricultural production
● Work towards water sharing arrangements
Most of section 5c of old policy
● Added introductory sentence
● Slightly revised language about converting
agricultural lands in viable production
● Added sentence about exploring water sharing
arrangements
2.4.3 Facilities ● Acquire or develop facilities needed to manage
the City's water rights and increase firm yield
● Pursue additional storage considering
obligations, carryover capacity,
flexibility/redundancy/reliability and potential
multiple-use benefits
● Consider environmental impacts, along with
costs and benefits
Section 2c of old policy
● Revised language to incorporate other facilities
that can manage water and increase yield
● Split paragraph and added potential multiple-use
benefits to reasons for additional storage
● Added sentence about developing storage in a
manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the
environmental effects
3.0 Treated and Raw Water
------Quality
● Maintain the City’s high quality water by following
the City’s Drinking Water Quality Policy and other
applicable policies
Section 6 of old policy
● Added reference to Plan Fort Collins at
beginning
● Added language referring to taste and quality of
the City's treated water
Draft Revised Policy Section Summary of Policy Provisions Changes from 2003 Policy
4.1 Commitment to Other
------Beneficial Purposes
● Commit to using surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes
● Engage in a thorough evaluation of the issues
related to using surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes
● Consider voluntary contributions from ratepayers
to support other beneficial purposes
New section not in old policy
● Commits to using surplus for other beneficial
purposes
● Mentions specific uses such as supporting local
agriculture or supplementing flows in the Poudre
River
● States that thorough evaluation of issues related
to using surplus supplies will be needed
● Includes potential for voluntary ratepayer
contributions to support other beneficial purposes
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open
--------Space
● Rent surplus supplies to support agriculture and
potentially preserve the associated open spaces
● Explore long-term rental arrangements with
agricultural irrigators
Last part of section 5c of old policy
● Refers to Plan Fort Collins
● New paragraph about exploring long-term rental
arrangements
4.1.2 Instream Flows ● Take a leadership role in encouraging instream
flows, minimizing operational impacts and
providing water for recreational and aesthetic
purposes
Sections 7 and 8 of old policy
● Refers to Plan Fort Collins
● Added mention of recognizing the City's water
use depletes streamflow and seeking opportunities
to make improvements
● Added pursuing water supply and facility
operations that minimize environmental impacts
4.1.3 Other Arrangements ● Consider participating in other surplus water
arrangements with other entities that provide
mutual benefits and support the region
New section not in old policy
● Addresses other potential uses of surplus water
5.0 Regional Cooperation Section 5 of old policy
● Added introductory paragraph
5.1 Working with Other
------Municipal Providers
● Work with water suppliers to assure adequate
regional supplies
● Cooperate with local suppliers in potential
sharing of facilities
● Participate with regional groups for information
exchange and to identify opportunities for
cooperation
Section 5a of old policy
● Added mention of working with other Colorado
water providers
Draft Revised Policy Section Summary of Policy Provisions Changes from 2003 Policy
5.2 Working with Local
------Irrigation Companies
● Work closely and cooperate with local irrigation
companies regarding the transfer, exchange and
use of water
Section 5b of old policy
● Added sentence about relationship of City
supplies and irrigation companies
5.3 Working with Others ● Cooperate with others when common goals
would benefit the City and surrounding community
● Identify appropriate entities and sources of
revenue for specific goals or projects
New section not in old policy
● Addresses the need to work with others for
multiple purposes
5
ATTACHMENT 3
Utilities Online Survey Panel
The City of Fort Collins Utilities formed an online survey panel in 2011 as part of its
ongoing market research to gather customer perceptions and insight to help Utilities
accomplish its mission and achieve specific goals. The online survey panel was formed
by sending email invitations to more than 28,000 Utilities’ customers, about 2,000 of
whom agreed to participate. Surveys will be administered on an established schedule
and follow certain standards and protocols.
2011 Fort Collins Landscape Survey Results
As part of an update to the City’s Water Supply and Demand Management Policy,
Utilities administered an online survey to the panel in November 2011 to gather
customer opinions about landscape preferences in Fort Collins, as well as opinions
regarding additional water conservation efforts. More than 1,200 panel respondents
completed the survey, the results of which are provided below.
The following email was sent to the online survey panel as an introduction to the survey:
Dear (panel member),
Thank you for your continued participation in our online survey panel. Your opinion is
important!
The City of Fort Collins is in the process of updating its Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy, which will continue to ensure a reliable supply of water to meet
customer's needs and provide an appropriate level of water conservation. This survey is
designed to gather opinions on landscaping preferences. Results will help guide
decisions we make about additional water conservation.
To participate in our online survey please click on the link below.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NSHS3XY
We expect that this survey will take no more than 8 minutes to complete. Due to the
longer than normal survey length, the Utilities will award 10 gift cards rather than the
usual 5. All respondents who provide their email address at the end of the survey will be
entered into a drawing for a $50 Downtown Bucks gift card, selected at random.
Thank you,
Patty Bigner
Customer & Employee Relations Manager
Fort Collins Utilities
ATTACHMENT 4
1
1 of 12
Utilities Survey Panel - Landscaping
1. For each item below, please check the response that best describes your opinion. The
reason for residential and commercial landscaping is to:
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/Undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Make the property more attractive
53.4%
(646)
44.2%
(535)
2.1% (25) 0.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 1,210
Increase the property value
39.2%
(473)
51.4%
(620)
8.0% (97) 1.2% (15) 0.1% (1) 1,206
Provide a place to play, relax
and/or entertain
40.5%
(488)
50.0%
(602)
8.2% (99) 1.3% (16) 0.0% (0) 1,205
Express resident's gardening style
19.4%
(232)
43.3%
(518)
30.3% (362) 6.4% (76) 0.7% (8) 1,196
Be consistent with the
neighborhood/community
12.5%
(150)
43.3%
(520)
28.7% (344)
13.0%
(156)
2.5% (30) 1,200
Provide energy savings through
shade
30.0%
(361)
47.1%
(568)
17.8% (215) 4.3% (52) 0.7% (9) 1,205
Reduce greenhouse gases
26.2%
(315)
36.9%
(444)
25.7% (309) 7.5% (90) 3.7% (44) 1,202
answered question 1,211
2 of 12
2. The reason for community parks landscaping is to:
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/Undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Make the City more attractive
59.5%
(717)
39.1%
(471)
1.2% (15) 0.2% (2) 0.1% (1) 1,206
Provide a place for City residents
to play and relax
70.9%
(853)
27.8%
(335)
1.2% (14) 0.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 1,203
Be consistent with the
neighborhood/community
25.3%
(304)
45.8%
(550)
21.3% (256) 6.5% (78) 1.1% (13) 1,201
Provide energy savings through
shade
28.2%
(338)
35.7%
(428)
25.1% (301)
9.4%
(113)
1.7% (20) 1,200
Reduce greenhouse gases
30.9%
(371)
34.3%
(411)
24.5% (294) 7.1% (85) 3.2% (38) 1,199
answered question 1,209
skipped question 2
ATTACHMENT 4
3
3 of 12
3. Low water use, or xeric landscaping, is adapted to our semi-arid climate and requires
limited watering. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following
statements about xeriscaping/low water landscaping in our community.
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Provides a desirable landscape
31.0%
(374)
42.3%
(511)
18.7% (226) 7.3% (88) 0.7% (8) 1,207
Does not include my favorite
plants
4.2% (50)
26.1%
(314)
40.9% (491)
22.6%
(272)
6.2% (74) 1,201
Provides enough green
14.3%
(172)
41.5%
(499)
26.4% (318)
15.9%
(191)
1.9% (23) 1,203
Is too expensive 2.8% (33)
9.4%
(113)
46.1% (553)
30.7%
(368)
11.1%
(133)
1,200
Requires a lot of maintenance 2.2% (27) 7.4% (89) 31.0% (373)
42.4%
(511)
17.0%
(205)
1,205
Looks attractive
19.5%
(234)
47.0%
(564)
21.6% (259)
9.8%
(118)
2.1% (25) 1,200
Provides enough variety in
4 of 12
4. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about cool
season turf lawns (Kentucky bluegrass, fescue, etc). Cool season turf lawns:
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Are familiar
23.2%
(278)
48.2%
(577)
21.2% (253) 5.6% (67) 1.8% (21) 1,196
Are cooling
11.6%
(138)
41.3%
(492)
42.5% (506) 3.9% (47) 0.6% (7) 1,190
Provide a place for recreation for
people/children/pets
24.6%
(294)
58.2%
(695)
16.2% (194) 0.9% (11) 0.1% (1) 1,195
Are desirable for landscaping
14.2%
(170)
43.6%
(520)
31.6% (377)
9.0%
(107)
1.6% (19) 1,193
Often look unattractive 3.2% (38)
12.1%
(144)
40.9% (488)
38.4%
(458)
5.4% (64) 1,192
Require a lot of maintenance
18.3%
(218)
28.8%
(343)
39.2% (466)
12.2%
(145)
1.5% (18) 1,190
Require too much water
21.0%
(250)
22.2%
(265)
44.9% (536)
5 of 12
5. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. Trees in a
residential yard:
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Make an area more beautiful
67.3%
(812)
30.5%
(368)
1.7% (20) 0.5% (6) 0.1% (1) 1,207
Increase the value of a home
51.2%
(617)
36.7%
(442)
10.5% (126) 1.4% (17) 0.2% (2) 1,204
Create too much litter 2.1% (25)
9.2%
(111)
21.6% (260)
53.4%
(644)
13.8%
(166)
1,206
Provide valuable shade
62.5%
(753)
35.4%
(427)
1.3% (16) 0.7% (9) 0.0% (0) 1,205
Produce too much pollen 2.0% (24) 7.1% (86) 33.7% (406)
45.3%
(546)
11.9%
(144)
1,206
Are an important part of the
landscape
55.8%
(673)
39.1%
(472)
3.7% (45) 1.1% (13) 0.2% (3) 1,206
Require too much water 1.3% (15) 6.8% (82) 34.8% (418)
46.9%
(563)
10.2%
(122)
1,200
Any other benefits or drawbacks (please specify)?
122
answered question 1,209
skipped question 2
6 of 12
6. The amount of xeriscape in our community is:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Not enough 61.1% 729
About right 37.0% 441
Too much 1.9% 23
answered question 1,193
skipped question 18
7. The amount of cool season turf lawns (bluegrass, fescue, etc.) in our community is:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Not enough 15.3% 180
About right 54.3% 640
Too much 30.4% 359
answered question 1,179
skipped question 32
8. The number of trees in our community is:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Not enough 26.7% 322
About right 69.8% 841
Too many 3.5% 42
answered question 1,205
skipped question 6
ATTACHMENT 4
7
7 of 12
9. The general look of landscaping in our community is:
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Too brown and drab 6.8% 81
About right 81.5% 976
Too green and lush 11.8% 141
answered question 1,198
skipped question 13
ATTACHMENT 4
8
8 of 12
10. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements related to water
use and conservation in the Fort Collins community.
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral/undecided Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Response
Count
Current reduced landscape watering
levels are resulting in undesirable
yards (i.e., dirt/weed lawns).
2.9% (35)
17.2%
(208)
32.9% (397)
39.9%
(481)
7.0% (85) 1,206
Current water use levels seem
reasonable.
4.0% (48)
43.3%
(520)
31.6% (379)
18.0%
(216)
3.1% (37) 1,200
Indoor water use should be reduced
further.
7.3% (87)
35.4%
(424)
32.7% (392)
20.9%
(251)
3.8% (45) 1,199
Outdoor water use should be
reduced further.
14.8%
(178)
38.6%
(464)
29.4% (353)
15.2%
(182)
2.0% (24) 1,201
Total water use should be reduced
further.
12.8%
(154)
46.5%
(558)
26.2% (314)
11.8%
(142)
2.7% (32) 1,200
The City’s conservation program
should place more emphasis on
9 of 12
11. Do you water landscaping at your residence?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 70.8% 854
No, don't water 5.7% 69
No, live in
apartment/condo/complex where
someone else takes care of
outdoor watering
23.5% 284
answered question 1,207
skipped question 4
12. In the future would you consider changing your landscaping to use less water?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 65.1% 557
No 13.6% 116
Maybe 21.3% 182
answered question 855
skipped question 356
ATTACHMENT 4
10
10 of 12
13. Which category below includes your age?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Under 25 7.3% 88
25-39 37.6% 453
40-54 26.4% 318
55-64 18.9% 228
65 or over 9.1% 110
Prefer not to say 0.7% 8
answered question 1,205
skipped question 6
14. Do you own or rent your home in Fort Collins?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Own 70.2% 845
Rent 28.8% 347
Prefer not to say 1.0% 12
answered question 1,204
skipped question 7
ATTACHMENT 4
11
11 of 12
15. Are you a Fort Collins Utilities Water customer?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Yes 87.2% 1,049
No 9.1% 110
Don't know 3.7% 44
answered question 1,203
skipped question 8
16. What is the zip code at your residence?
Response
Percent
Response
Count
80521 18.0% 217
80524 12.2% 147
80525 33.3% 402
80526 27.3% 330
80528 8.1% 98
80535 0.7% 9
Other 0.3% 4
answered question 1,207
skipped question 4
ATTACHMENT 4
12
12 of 12
17. Please provide your email address to be entered in the drawing for a Fort Collins
Downtown Bucks gift card.
Response
Count
1,118
answered question 1,118
skipped question 93
ATTACHMENT 4
13
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy Update
Community Working Group Members
NAME
Barbara Rutstein
Bill Emslie
David Mack
Gary Wockner
George Varra
George Wallace
Gina Janett
Holly Jo Roseberry
Jenn Orgolini
Johannes Gessler
John Sanderson
K-Lynn Cameron
Lewis Grant
Mark Forsyth
Matt Robenalt
Neil Grigg
Nolan Doesken
Paul Czarnecki/Dennis Wallisch
Reagan Waskom
Steve Warner
ASSOCIATION
League of Women Voters
Platte River Power Authority
Homeowner
Save the Poudre
Poudre River Commissioner (State of Colorado)
CSU - Natural Resources Department
Water Board - Chairperson
Hewlett Packard
New Belgium Brewery
Water Board - Water Supply Committee Chair
The Nature Conservancy
Homeowner
Grant Family Farms
Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative
Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
CSU - Engineering Department
Colorado State Climatologist
Anheuser-Busch
CSU - Colorado Water Institute Director
Homeowner
ATTACHMENT 5
1
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 1
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy Update
Community Working Group Memo
Introduction
The Community Working Group (CWG) was formed on behalf of Fort Collins Utilities (with an
invitation from the City Manager) to provide a forum for thoughtful discussion of potential
refinements to the existing Water Supply and Demand Management Policy among community
members with varied perspectives on water issues. This memo documents the CWG’s process
and comments for the purpose of providing community input to the Water Board and City
Council in their review of the Draft Policy created by Fort Collins Utilities and consultants.
This memo is organized into the following sections:
CWG Process
− Membership
− Meeting Process
Comments on the Revised Policy
− Overall Response
− Comments on Sections of the Policy
− Comments on Issues not Addressed in the Policy
Review of the CWG Process
Conclusions
Attachments:
− A: CWG Roster
− B: CWG Charter
− C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings
− D Revised Policy
− E: Meeting #6 Comment Form - Compilation of Verbatim Responses
− F: Meeting #6 Minutes
Additional information on the CWG process, including meeting agendas, materials and minutes,
are included on the City’s website at www.fcgov.com/wsdmp-cwg.
CWG Process
Membership
The CWG included three representatives from the Fort Collins Water Board and 16 additional
members with different interests including:
ATTACHMENT 6
1
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 2
Agriculture
Environmental protection
Civic organizations
Business
Homeowners
University
State of Colorado
Members were invited to participate following a series of 27 interviews conducted between
November 2010 and February 2011 that were focused on gathering data for designing the
process for updating the City of Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy.
Barbara Lewis of Catalyst Inc. and Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth & Environmental, consultants
for the Policy update, conducted the interviews. Fort Collins Utilities provided an initial list of
interview candidates and additional candidates were identified during the interviews. The group
roster is contained in Attachment A of this memo and Attachment B presents the CWG Charter.
Meeting Process
The CWG process began with a meeting focused on launching the effort, which involved
introducing participants and understanding issues and concerns. Four subsequent meetings
addressed key topics in the Policy. Project team members presented background information at
each meeting. Key topics addressed and information presented and discussed are highlighted
below.
Non-Drought Water Use
Severe Drought Preparedness
Additional Supplies and Facilities
Non-Municipal Water Use
Following CWG meeting #5, the Project Team prepared a Draft Policy Update and circulated it
to the CWG via Google Documents to enable members to add comments on particular sections.
The Project Team then reviewed all the comments and created a Revised Policy prior to CWG
meeting #6. CWG members received the Revised Policy and a compilation of comments and
responses prior to CWG meeting #6.
The Project Team, comprised of Utilities staff and consultants, supported the CWG process by
developing information materials and presentations, designing meeting agendas, facilitating the
meetings and documenting the meetings and other input. Detailed minutes of each meeting
provided a record of the working group process and discussions. CWG members had the
opportunity to suggest revisions to these minutes before the Project Team posted final copies on
the project SharePoint. In addition, CWG members received comment forms at each meeting to
enable them to provide more detailed comments. A meeting packet with the agenda and
previous meeting minutes were distributed one week in advance of the next meeting and all
project materials were posted on a CWG SharePoint site. A quick evaluation at the end of each
meeting provided an opportunity for CWG members to note meeting strengths and suggestions
for making meetings even more productive. Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings
summarizes the CWG’s input and the meeting evaluations from the first five meetings.
ATTACHMENT 6
2
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 3
Comments on the Revised Policy
As stated above, most CWG members commented on an initial draft of the Policy Update via
Google Documents. The Project Team then prepared a Revised Policy in response to the CWG’s
first round of comments. The following summarizes what the CWG members said about the
Revised Policy during meeting #6 and in writing in response to the meeting #6 Comment Form.
Comments on Revised Policy are organized as follows:
Overall response to the Policy, which presents the CWG’s level of support for the Revised
Policy and each CWG member’s highest priority strength and suggested change to the
Revised Policy
Comments on Sections of the Policy, which presents a summary of the comments CWG
members submitted in writing in response to each section of the Revised Policy
Other Issues Not Addressed in the Policy
Overall Response
At CWG meeting #6, many CWG members were pleased that the group reached common ground
on much of the Revised Policy. The facilitator invited the CWG members to express their
overall response to the Revised Policy using the following “level of agreement” scale:
1. = Full support
2. = Support with reservations
3. = Do not support
Of the 15 members in attendance, 8 expressed full support (two in writing on their comment
forms as they had to leave early), 6 supported the revised Policy with reservations and 1 did not
support the revised Policy but stated that he would neither support nor oppose the Policy. Many
members were pleased that the Revised Draft was responsive to the CWG comments and there
appeared to be a general feeling that the Revised Policy is heading in the right direction,
although several members felt it should go further in some areas.
The following discussion highlights strengths and suggested improvements to the Revised
Policy. Following the polling on level of agreement, each member stated one “Like” or strength
of the Policy and one “Dislike” or suggestion for improvement.
Strengths of the Revised Policy that were repeated in the comments were as follows:
The emphasis on agricultural preservation and water sharing
The emphasis on protection of instream flows
Presenting Fort Collins Utilities as a leader in water resource planning
Inclusion of climate change
Creating a well organized and comprehensive Policy
Reflecting the CWG’s diverse views in the Policy
Notes recorded in the meeting on the flipchart about what members liked in the Revised Policy
are as follows:
Incorporated aspects regarding respect for needs of agriculture and working with
agriculture
ATTACHMENT 6
3
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 4
Continuing from previous Policy and taking into consideration different concerns
Good Policy
Included being a Leader in the Policy
More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing
More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing, heard what the CWG said
Comprehensive, addresses climate change
Like climate change, streams, rivers, agriculture. All encompassing.
Water sharing and interrelation between city and agriculture
Well organized and comprehensive – at right level, addresses climate change
Likes new 4.1 and other beneficial purposes. Appreciate Utility’s hearing the group’s input;
hope specifics follow.
Very good Policy. Started thinking take out the #’s but now thinks they are the railings on
the bridge. Don’t turn everything over to Utility staff to decide.
Appreciate strong, diverse group providing Policy input. Excellent choice of process. Like
the 3 planning criteria.
Remarkable agreement by the group
Some of the recurring themes in what CWG members noted as “Dislikes” or areas for
improvement in the Revised Policy were:
Lowering the planning demand level (suggestions ranged between 120 gallons per capita per
day (gpcd) to 153 gpcd)
Recognition of the importance of preserving the quality and taste of Fort Collins water
Clearly enabling discussions about water sharing, especially related to midterm and long
term arrangements
Strengthening language on working with other providers
Notes recorded in the meeting on the flipchart on dislikes or desired changes in the Revised
Policy are as follows:
p. 8 3rd sentence….replace rental with sharing. Policy should be straightforward in
directing the City to form a work group to explore water sharing and other collaborative
agreements with agriculture.
Need to recognize that it matters how and where you get water from, especially with respect
to water quality
Instream flows important. Be clear on meaning of “exceed regulatory requirements”
FC best tasting water – great tasting water.
Lower planning demand water level – 153?
Working with other municipal providers that serve FC residents. Don’t imply that other
providers need to act more like us.
Reword places where it is Policy not opinion
Take out the numbers – The Policy is the bases for response to whatever the city is facing.
Arrangement with water sharing better defined with more emphasis on Long Term Sharing
(not year to year)
Shoot for 140 gpcd. Should not inflate it so much higher.
Adjust numbers to fit John’s proposal – 140 gpcd. 15% is key and it is too low but may be
the only thing we can get.
ATTACHMENT 6
4
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 5
Policy is too weak on working with other providers. Suggest aggressively seek
collaboration. (Example is Denver metro pooling of infrastructure – treatment, storage, etc.)
Structure: Thought of 2.0 as Core Values for decision-making. Add overt statement on
environmental responsibility, financial responsibility, and water quality value.
Will submit letter on how can be improved. Most of ideas are in online comments on
previous draft.
Comments on Sections of the Policy
This section presents comments on sections of the Revised Policy and includes both comments
voiced at CWG meeting #6 and those submitted in writing. The version of the Revised Policy on
which these comments are based is included as Attachment D. The Comment Form distributed
at meeting #6 asked each respondent to indicate their level of agreement with the section; the
tally of responses for each section represents ratings by those who included their ratings in their
written responses (a few members did not complete this section). Attachment E is a Compilation
of Verbatim Responses from the Meeting #6 Comment Form and Attachment F: Meeting #6
Minutes provides additional detail on the discussion of the Revised Policy.
Introduction and Objective
The nine CWG members who rated the section on Introduction and Objective all gave it full
support. Specific strengths were that it provided a “good overview” and “commitment to the
triple bottom line and sustainability.” Suggestions included broadening the objectives to address
water supply core values related to financial and environmental responsibility; in particular, one
CWG member suggested adding the following objectives or values:
Environmental value, such as making decisions about supply and demand should be done in
an environmentally responsible manner,
Financial value, such as address potential adverse economic impacts, for example study the
financial impacts of a 1-in-100 year drought criterion,
Water quality value, such as maintain the watershed yet also address emergency situations
such as a wildfire.
Another member raised a concern that the phrase “meet our present needs and those of future
generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend” may be
“greenwashing” and questioned whether this language should be changed or the Policy changed
to better reflect this intent.
1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management
In these comments, CWG members addressed sections 1.0 on Water Use Efficiency and Demand
Management and subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 on Water Use Efficiency Goals, the Water Use
Efficiency Program and Water Rate Structures. These sections received full support from eight
members and support with reservations from two members. Strengths noted were the addition of
supporting information for the numbers presented in the section and the commitment to 140
gpcd. Suggestions for improvement were as follows:
Present supporting information in footnotes
ATTACHMENT 6
5
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management
11/8/11
Avoid the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in
landscaping”
Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without
considering the effects of climate change on water demand.”
Recognize how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections
for water supply needs and storage.
Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below
this in Fort Collins and Fort Collins shoul
conservation…”
2.0 Water Supply Reliability
In these comments, CWG members addressed
subsections 2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
Shortage Response Plan. These sections received full support from five members and support
with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on
this section of the Revised Policy
meeting followed by a summary of comments submitted in writing.
Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring
to the numbers used in defining the Water Supply Planning Criteria. In
Policy, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the
Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a
brief presentation explaining the criteria. In particu
managing risk in Utilities’ Policy
Community Working Group Memo
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
void the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in
Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without
considering the effects of climate change on water demand.”
ze how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections
for water supply needs and storage.
Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below
this in Fort Collins and Fort Collins should “lead forward on the path of aggressive water
In these comments, CWG members addressed Section 2.0 on Water Supply Reliability and
Water Supply Planning Criteria, 2.2 Climate Change and 2.3
. These sections received full support from five members and support
with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on
Policy, the summary below presents comments made during the
meeting followed by a summary of comments submitted in writing.
Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring
to the numbers used in defining the Water Supply Planning Criteria. In commenting on the Draft
, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the
Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a
brief presentation explaining the criteria. In particular, he noted how there are four pieces to
Policy.
Community Working Group Memo
6
void the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in
Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without
ze how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections
Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below
d “lead forward on the path of aggressive water
2.0 on Water Supply Reliability and
and 2.3 Water Supply
. These sections received full support from five members and support
with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on
comments made during the
Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring
commenting on the Draft
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 7
The Planning Demand Level is the per capita water use assumed for Utility customers; combined
with population projections and large contractual water uses, the Planning Demand Level is used
to project future water demand. The Revised Policy includes 162 gpcd for the Planning Demand
Level, which is equivalent to the average use between 2006 and 2010 adjusted to reflect
increased usage based on the 50
th
percentile climate change scenario for the year 2040. The
Drought Criterion expresses the reliability of the Utilities’ supply system before it might
experience water shortages. The Revised Policy states that Fort Collins’ water supply system
should be able to meet the planning demand level during at least a 1-in-50 year drought event.
The Safety Factor is a reserve or contingency for unforeseen circumstances like a pipeline
failure. The Revised Policy includes a Safety Factor of 15% of the Utility’s annual supply,
which is equivalent to 3 months of winter demand or 1 month of summer demand. Finally, the
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan provides a way to respond to projected water shortages,
most notably from droughts that are more severe than the 1-in-50 year recurrence.
CWG members had a rich discussion about whether the Water Supply Planning Criteria numbers
in the Revised Policy (162 gpcd planning demand level, 1-in-50 year drought criterion and 15%
safety factor) were the right numbers to use. Several members felt the numbers were too
conservative while several others thought they were about right. Initially, the facilitator asked
that each person indicate whether the degree of reliability represented by the Planning Criteria as
a whole should be as proposed in the Revised Policy or decreased or increased. Several
members were concerned that asking to decrease reliability or increase risk biased the response
and suggested looking at each of the “numbers” separately. The following presents results for
how many people favored which numbers and the comments recorded on flipcharts in support of
each choice.
Planning Demand Level
Perspective Number of CWG Members Comments Noted
162 gpcd 6 About right
Good place to start
153 gpcd 2 - 3* Safe box achievements which reflects variability already
There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor
creep)
140 gpcd 1 - 2* There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor
creep)
Our stated goal is 140 gpcd. We should achieve that
goal. It is not terribly aggressive. Even if you want to
account for climate change, 140 gpcd + 6% = 148.4.
Looking beyond the Front Range, we see plenty of
examples below 140 gpcd.
120 gpcd 1
*One CWG member supported both 140 and 153 for the same reason.
Other comments in the discussion included:
Future water use will decrease not increase. Since this Policy is going to set planning
precedence for the next ten years, it would be accurate to assume that demands will continue
to drop.
Use 153 gpcd as that is what is the average of the last few years and it allows for fluctuations
Customers will continue to lower water consumption in response to water cost increases,
education and climate change so future demand will decrease
ATTACHMENT 6
7
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 8
Both the water conservation goal and the planning demand level should be lower and based
on sound scientific calculations
Drought Criterion
Perspective Number of CWG
Members
Comments Noted
1-in-50 5
1-in-75 1 Expect climate change to increase drought
severity. This needs more conservative planning.
1-in-100 2 1-in-50 is not conservative enough
Study this first before we commit to it. What is
the impact? Does it meet values test?
Other comments in the discussion included:
Having been around for the droughts of 1930s, 1950s, 1970s and 2002, suggests being more
conservative with a criterion of 1-in-100 year. Need to study the 1-in-25, 1-in-50, 1-in-75
and 1-in-100 to know what the implications are economically and for reservoir planning.
Information presented on climate change is questionable but still feels that there is cause for
additional conservatism.
We could look at what it would mean to adopt 1-in-100 but this could be a huge task. We
would need to study the financial and other implications and consistency with our core
values.
Consider 1-in-40 rather than 1-in-50 for the drought criterion
What really matters is the seniority of Utilities’ water rights portfolio. “If a city has a secure
portfolio with lots of senior direct flow rights, it is much more impervious to drought.”
Safety Factor
Perspective Number of CWG
Members
Comments Noted
15% 9
Other comments raised in the discussion included:
The label for the safety factor is misleading. Call it a water reserve, strategic reserve or
contingency.
Safety factor may be too low but anything higher may be infeasible.
Other general comments in the discussion included:
The Policy should be a bag of tools that can be used to address problems in the proper way.
In 2002 and 2003, agricultural water was leased, yet this was not specifically written down
anywhere in advance. It was allowed because the Policy was flexible enough to allow it to
happen.
Use agricultural reserves as a safety factor.
Policy needs to give direction on how to approach water sharing. We need to figure out how
many irrigators need to participate to participate in water sharing for the needed yield.
ATTACHMENT 6
8
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 9
Future agricultural agreements should be developed in advance of droughts that specify an
expected amount of water farmers would give up during a drought.
It is unrealistic to think of agriculture as a safety factor given that farmers do not have that
much supply and will have even less in the future.
The CWG has not been given adequate information to make a judgment on these numbers
With the high water use goal, the drought criterion, the safety factor, the higher planning
demand level and the City’s water response to climate change, it seems as if the Policy has a
“built-in quintuple safety factor.”
Need to be clear about the implications of these numbers and what they mean for the
Halligan Reservoir enlargement
As described above, CWG members have different perspectives on what “numbers” are best for
this Policy. When asked for the level of agreement with the Policy if the “numbers” were set
aside, everyone but one person gave full support and the one remaining member would support
the Policy with reservations. CWG members discussed a proposal to remove the specific
numbers for the planning demand level, drought criterion and safety factor. Two people favored
this approach for different reasons. One felt the numbers do not provide enough flexibility to
address changing circumstances. The other felt that the implications of the numbers are not
clear; “we don’t really know what a 1-in-25 or a 1-in-50 years looks like in the city or what the
city would look like if the planning demand level was 90 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd.” In the end,
most of the members felt that the “numbers” were important to provide direction to Utilities. As
one member said, “the numbers provide rails on the bridge.”
On the meeting #6 comment forms, CWG members offered the following additional suggestions
for revisions:
Clarify the intent of the conservation goal and the planning demand level; the conservation
goal deals with an “efficiency goal” and the planning demand level deals with “risk”
Add a commitment to “aggressively seek collaboration with the City’s neighboring water
providers.”
2.0 should be a list of core values. Add environmental, economic impact and water quality
values.
Remove redundancy in this section
Climate change is mentioned 20 times in the document and was used as a scare tactic. To
address climate change, “1. Use the best available science, quantify the likely impact, and
then include that impact with margins of error in one spot in the Policy. “ and 2. Cut water
use “and begin switching away from a high water-use economy. This Policy update only
offers one response to the threat of climate change – more water and bigger facilities.”
2.4 Water Supply Reliability - Additional Supplies and Facilities
Section 2.4 on Additional Supplies and Facilities and subsections 2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements
for New Development, 2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies and
2.4.3 Facilities received full support from eight members. CWG members strongly support
agricultural preservation and would like to see Utilities continue to work with different interests
to explore the strengths of different options, including water sharing and other collaborative
arrangements. Many members feel the policy should be more straightforward in directing the
city to convene a task force to explore water sharing and other collaborative arrangements that
ATTACHMENT 6
9
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 10
address both agricultural preservation and environmental benefits. One strength noted was the
flexibility in supply choices. Suggestions for improvements included:
Stressing diversity as a key value
Explain the rationale of growth pays its own way for why developers turn in water
Need to more fully address the potential for sharing water with farmers. “Sharing water with
farmers was supported by everyone in the meetings and should be a large part of Fort Collins
future water supply” rather than an afterthought.
Questions need for storage based on overstated reliability numbers.
Address additional water supplies such as “using farms as reservoirs” as was done in the
2002/2003 drought and purchasing additional senior direct flow rights.
3.0 Treated and Raw Water Quality
Section 3.0 on Treated and Raw Water Quality received full support from the eight members
who rated this section on their comment forms. No suggestions for improvement were offered
but a couple CWG members recognized the high quality and taste of Fort Collins water and the
need to continue to make this a priority.
4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water
In these comments, CWG members addressed section 4.0 on Use of Surplus Raw Water and
subsections 4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes (Agriculture and Open Space,
Instream Flows and Other Arrangements). These sections received full support from the eight
members who completed this section of the comment form. In particular, many CWG members
were pleased to see the commitment to agriculture and the environment in these sections.
Suggested improvements included the following:
Edit some of the language and remove redundancies
Flip the order of 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 as “I believe Utility customers are more interested in water
in the Poudre than ag production”
Strengthen this section by making instream flows “more of an imperative.”
5.0 Regional Cooperation
In these comments, CWG members addressed section 5.0 Regional Cooperation, and subsections
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers, 5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies, and
5.3 Working with Others. These sections received full support from six members and support
with reservations from two members. One CWG member noted support for the last sentence,
which indicates that Utilities is “accepting the role of ‘leader’ on water supply planning that
respects all community interests.” Suggested changes included:
Include working with Northern Water and Central, not just irrigation companies
Stress the opportunity to share facilities with regional entities
Reference to Colorado building and supplying water is not correct. Change Colorado to
growing municipalities.
ATTACHMENT 6
10
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 11
Comments on Issues not Addressed in the Policy
In reviewing the Policy, one CWG member noted population growth, costs and environmental
impacts as missing issues in the Policy. These concerns are noted verbatim in Attachment E:
Meeting #6 Comment Form: Compilation of Verbatim Responses and summarized briefly below.
Population growth - While the CWG raised this as an issue in meeting #1, future population
growth projected by the City is a given in the Revised Policy. The CWG member notes that
population growth is “the main factor influencing the need for more water and the destruction
of northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape” and that the interactions between population
growth and water supply is an important issue to address in the Policy.
The process should have spent considerably more time on costs and environmental impacts,
especially as they relate to the proposed enlarged reservoir.
Review of CWG Process
CWG members provided feedback on the overall process on the comment forms distributed at
meeting #6. CWG members noted several strengths of the process:
Producing a specific document with a high level of agreement
Informative presentations
Good facilitation
Excellent debates and discussions
Adapting to member input, leading to real changes in the Policy
Worked well given very little time and the very diverse views of the CWG
Common commitment to working toward sustainability
Respect for diversity and listening to others
Very respectful dialogue with everyone heard
Surfaced areas of disagreement as well as agreement
More common ground among diverse interest groups than most of us expected
“Almost finding” consensus
With respect to suggestions for improvement, one member suggested slower delivery of
information in the beginning to allow all members to get up to speed. While recognizing that it
is hard to get people to show up for 6 meetings, one member felt that there was “too much
material to cover in the 6 meetings.” Another member noted that the extra information meeting
hosted by staff to answer questions and provide additional discussion was poorly attended; he
suggested seeking input and discussion after each presentation. Another member would like to
see more “information on how the Utility uses the Policy and what is required to produce water
and how it is impacted by the Policy.”
At the last meeting, many members commented that they were surprised and pleased by the
“remarkable agreement within the group.” At the same time, while many members appreciated
the diverse representation on the CWG, some members found the volume of information
overwhelming. Many comments suggested that the second, third and fourth meeting had too
much time spent on presentations and too little on discussion and that the fifth and sixth
meetings, where there was more time for discussion, were especially productive. Additional
comments on the meetings is included in the Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings.
ATTACHMENT 6
11
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 12
Conclusion
In conclusion, the group of 19 CWG members met 6 times between March and October 2011 to
provide input on the Policy Update. In the final “synthesis” meeting, CWG members were both
pleased and surprised by how much agreement they had reached on the Revised Policy. Of the
15 members in attendance, 8 expressed full support, 6 supported the revised Policy with
reservations and one did not support the revised Policy but stated that he would neither support
nor oppose the Policy publicly.
In commenting on the Revised Policy, there was one principle area where CWG members had
divergent views: the Planning criteria numbers. CWG members differed on whether the
Planning Criteria numbers (162 gpcd planning demand level, 1-in-50 year drought criterion and
15% safety factor) were the right numbers to use. Recognizing this area of disagreement, the
group explored their level of support for the Revised Policy if the numbers were set aside.
Everyone either fully supported the policy or supported it with reservations.
With respect to specific numbers in the Revised Policy, several people felt that the Planning
Demand Level of 162 gpcd was too conservative while slightly more thought it was about right.
Suggestions for revising the Planning Demand Level were 153 gpcd, 140 gpcd and 120 gpcd.
There was also considerable interest in additional research to explore community preferences
with respect to water use and landscaping. (Note: Utilities committed to conduct a customer
survey and bring results forward to the Water Board and City Council prior to policy approval.
This survey is being conducted and CWG members will be included in the polling.) In looking
at the drought criterion, most members supported the 1-in-50 year drought criterion but some of
the members favored additional conservatism and suggested looking at 1-in-100 or 1-in-75 years.
There appeared to be widespread support of the Safety Factor of 15%.
CWG members also offered the following as their “highest priority” revisions to the Revised
Policy:
Strengthen the language on working with other providers in the area.
More explicitly recognize and commit to preserve the quality and taste of Fort Collins water.
Clearly enable discussions of water sharing, with an emphasis on medium to long term
arrangements.
Add core values related to environmental responsibility, financial responsibility, and water
quality.
Finally, the CWG noted the following key strengths in the Revised Policy:
The emphasis on agricultural preservation and water sharing
The emphasis on protection of instream flows
Presenting Fort Collins Utilities as a leader in water resource planning
Considering sustainability that includes agriculture and the environment
Inclusion of climate change
Creating a well organized and comprehensive Policy
Reflecting the CWG’s diverse views in the Policy
ATTACHMENT 6
12
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 13
Between October 31 and November 4, CWG members reviewed a revised version of the CWG
Memo that responded to their comments on the first draft. All respondents approved the memo
as a fair representation of their comments and no one stated opposition to the memo. Several
people stated that they felt the CWG Memo should more clearly indicate the strong support,
without dissent, for water sharing and other types of collaboration with agriculture. These
members also suggested that the policy should direct the City to form a task force to study water
sharing and other agricultural agreements. (This issue will be taken back to the Water Board as
agreed to at a previous meeting where the Water Board tabled the issue until completion of the
Policy.)
ATTACHMENT 6
13
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8//11 Attachment A.1
Attachment A: CWG
Roster
CWG Members
K-Lynn Cameron
Bill Emslie
Mark Forsyth
Johannes Gessler
Lewis Grant
Neil Grigg
Gina Janett
David Mack
Jenn Orgolini
Matt Robenalt
Holly Jo Roseberry
Barbara Rutstein
John Sanderson
George Varra
George Wallace
Dennis Wallisch
Steve Warner
Reagan Waskom
Gary Wockner
*Nolan Doesken – Originally invited to serve on the CWG but did not continue due to
scheduling conflicts.
Project Team
Fort Collins Utilities
Donnie Dustin, Project Manager
Dennis Bode
AMEC Earth & Environmental
Lee Rozaklis
Courtney Peppler
Catalyst Inc.
Barbara Lewis
ATTACHMENT 6
14
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment B.1
Attachment B: CWG Charter
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy Update
Community Working Group Charter
This charter is intended to help clarify the role and process for the Community
Working Group. In developing this draft Charter, the project team incorporated
ideas from individual interviews with potential group members completed prior to
our first group meeting. This draft charter will be reviewed and refined at the first
meeting of the Community Working Group to produce a final charter.
Purpose of the Policy Update
The current Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Policy) was adopted by Council in
September 2003 (Resolution 2003-104). Since the Policy’s adoption, the Utility has seen a
significant reduction in water use while continuing to plan for future water needs by pursuing the
enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. Updating the Policy will provide further direction regarding
the planning, management, and maintenance of the City’s water supply system needed to assure
a safe, reliable drinking water supply and provide an appropriate level of water conservation. It
will also provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other
beneficial purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community.
Scope
The technical coordination and public outreach activities associated with the Policy update will
be integrated to address the following key questions:
What is an appropriate level of water use in Fort Collins during non-drought years?
What is an appropriate level of reliability when planning for severe drought or other water
supply vulnerabilities?
Given an appropriate level of water use and reliability, what sources of supply and associated
facilities are needed?
How should the City use its surplus water in the future, while considering the benefits and
costs of the competing desires to increase flows in the Poudre River through the City, provide
support to local agriculture and promote regional cooperation?
Community Working Group Role and Deliverables
The Community Working Group (CWG) will provide a forum for thoughtful discussion of
potential refinements to the existing Policy among community members with varied perspectives
on water issues. With the assistance of the project team, the CWG will develop a memorandum
describing issues identified by the CWG related to the city’s Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy and suggested actions for addressing those issues. The memorandum will
ATTACHMENT 6
15
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11.8/11 Attachment B.2
also list priorities identified by the CWG. It will reflect where there is agreement within the
CWG on their findings and where CWG members disagree and why. The CWG will be asked to
reach consensus on the memorandum as a fair and accurate summary of its discussions and input
to the Update. City staff will present this memorandum to the Water Board and the City Council.
CWG Study Process
Through a series of regular meetings, the CWG will provide input to the project team regarding
potential refinements to the Policy. A draft Timeline for CWG meetings is attached as Figure 1.
This timeline will be refined based on the CWG’s input on which issues are of greatest import.
The project team will prepare and distribute meeting agendas and relevant supporting
information prior to each CWG meeting. Background information and previous meeting minutes
will be compiled and distributed at least 1 week in advance of the next meeting. A quick
evaluation at the end of each meeting will provide an opportunity for CWG members to suggest
what is working and how to make meetings even more productive. To provide the information
needed while avoiding information overload, additional information will be made available
electronically.
Other Roles and Responsibilities
Fort Collins City Council will be involved through updates, worksession(s) and eventual
adoption of Policy Update.
The Water Board will be the central advisory body. They will be asked to provide input to the
Policy Update and to provide comments and recommendations prior to review by City Council.
Three Water Board members will be liaisons with the rest of the board as CWG members.
The Utilities Team will include staff that is supported by the consulting team of AMEC Earth &
Environmental and Catalyst Inc. The Utilities Team will manage the Policy Update by
preparing materials for review and discussion by the CWG, Water Board and City Council,
performing additional public outreach, producing reports and developing the revised Policy
recommendations.
Other City Boards will be offered an opportunity to review and provide input on the Policy
Update through presentations. These boards may include:
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
The Natural Resources Advisory Board
The Planning and Zoning Board
Parks & Recreation Board
Economic Advisory Board
Downtown Development Authority
Others as needed
The Facilitators will support the CWG in accomplishing the tasks at hand. The Facilitators are
responsible for keeping the process moving forward in an effective and productive way and are
responsible for maintaining the CWG ground rules.
ATTACHMENT 6
16
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11.8/11 Attachment B.3
Other Interested Individuals will have the opportunity to learn about the plan process through
the website and other public outreach activities. Meeting materials and supporting information
will be posted on the website so that people can track the progress of the process. Others may
also attend CWG meetings as observers with an opportunity to comment at designated times
during CWG meetings. Interested individuals may also submit comments via the website or
through e-mail to the project manager.
Commitments
Practice inclusive participation
Keep open minds
Listen well to understand different perspectives and ideas
Allow time for everyone to be heard; avoid domination by a few
Be hard on the issues, but easy on each other; avoid personal attacks
Provide an opportunity for public comment at meetings
Be efficient with our time for meetings
Share the responsibility to stay on task and adhere to time constraints
Be willing to “agree to disagree” and move on
Participate in subcommittees if and when needed
Avoid rehashing past meetings
Be accountable for meaningful participation
Commit to consistently attend meetings; if you are absent, take responsibility for getting up
to speed
Communicate between meetings with the project team and CWG members as needed
Come to meetings prepared and follow through on commitments
Share responsibility to achieve our purpose
Focus on the big picture; avoid a long drawn-out process
Listen for common ground
Respect different perspectives (CWG, staff, Water Board, City Council)
Hold Project Team accountable for accurate and timely record-keeping
Show respect for the process and the CWG’s role
Honor the CWG’s process and efforts
Support City Council as the final decision maker
In speaking to the media and others, present individual views and avoid characterizing
others’ opinions or representing the views of the CWG
ATTACHMENT 6
17
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11
Figure 1 Timeline
Community Working Group Memo
Update Community Working Group Memo
Community Working Group Memo
Attachment B.4
ATTACHMENT 6
18
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.1
Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings
This attachment includes a synopsis of the first five CWG meetings. More detailed meeting
minutes are posted on the City’s website.
Meeting #1: Issues
In the first meeting, CWG members explained their core issues and voted on the issues of
greatest importance. The chart below lists the issues identified by the project team based on the
interview results as well as additional issues listed by the CWG during meeting #1. The numbers
adjacent to the various issues reflects results of the CWG’s prioritization of the issues; issues
receiving more than one vote are highlighted in bold. This prioritization helped inform the
agenda for each CWG meeting.
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Issues*
Non-Drought Municipal Use
Management through pricing
Increase in rates as revenues from tap fees decline
Water reuse (1)
Embracing best management practices in partnership
with innovative businesses. (1)
Consistent supply of good quality water (5)
Use of conserved water given physical, legal and
financial realities (instream flow vs. more growth vs.
increased reliability?)
Potential for additional savings through conservation
vs. aesthetics/quality of life (1)
Raw water quality
– Increased water acquisitions by neighboring
communities (1)
– Effect of climate change on water demand
Additional Facilities and Supplies
Need for additional storage and other facilities (5)
Municipal/agricultural water sharing agreements for
water supply (5)
Gravel pit storage
Raw water quality of new supplies
Aquifer storage
Developer requirements (1)
Assured carryover capacity in CBT system
Utilities’ fiscal responsibility to the ratepayers
Severe Drought Preparedness
Reliability of CBT water in the face of increased
demand on Colorado River rights, including
Colorado Compact call (1)
Adequacy of existing reliability criteria and
drought supply (4)
Equity in water use restrictions during drought (1)
Effect of conservation on drought preparedness
Effect of climate change in drought planning (1)
Maintenance of infrastructure to preserve full storage
capacity
Adaptive management
Supply and demand side uncertainties and the need
for a safety factor (1)
Impairment to raw water quality during drought
Non-Municipal Uses
Minimum flows for aquatic populations (2)
Recreational base flows
River health and biodiversity (9)
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.2
New Issues
Legal Constraints such as gray water and rain barrel use; legal constraints on instream
flow restoration or preservation (4)
Operation and maintenance of existing facilities, e.g., dredge existing reservoirs to increase
storage capacity
Watershed health management (2)
Vulnerability analysis
Agricultural preservation in land use decisions and land use planning
Growth management – demand reduction and agricultural land preservation (2)
List core values address each valve – missing values, group all issues under core values
(2)
Meeting #2: Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management
Conservation emerged as a complex topic with many members frustrated that data on the
potential for additional conservation is limited. Many want to find that right balance between
lowering water use and maintaining the City’s aesthetics while others believe there needs to be a
shift in how people use water, leading toward greater sustainability. Some members are
concerned that conservation will adversely affect today’s residents for the benefit of future
growth.
At the meeting on water use efficiency and demand management, CWG members provided input
on:
The Water Conservation Goal
Additional information needs
The Planning Goal
Water Conservation Goal
CWG members commented on what water conservation goal is appropriate for the City at this
point in time, given declining water use by City customers coupled with concerns about future
water supplies. The existing Water Conservation Plan includes a goal of 140 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd).
CWG members stated that addressing the triple bottom line means that the goal should
encompass all sectors of water use and be tied to both supply and demand. Some CWG members
feel strongly that the goal should be inspirational with Fort Collins taking a leadership position in
the state, looking at 120 gpcd or perhaps even lower. “Be bold and aggressive.” Others are
concerned about how a lower goal will affect today’s residents: “Don’t squeeze existing
residents to meet the needs of future populations.” Between these two views, is the perspective
that while 140 gpcd may be too high for a goal given current trends (increased costs, retrofits to
landscaping at older homes, etc.), the level can be modified through water conservation planning.
Many members appeared to share the view that it is important to explain the rationale for the
goal and its impact on customers and quality of life in Fort Collins. In particular, suggestions
included articulating:
ATTACHMENT 6
20
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.3
The benefits of the specific level chosen
What the goal means for both indoor and outdoor water use
How this level affects local food production, recreation, the health of the river, etc.
How the goal will affect maintaining infrastructure, the rate structure, system reliability, the
resource portfolio, and water reserve.
Conservation Survey
The CWG feels it is important to understand the water needs of landscaping and how additional
conservation is likely to affect landscaping as well as how the community views conservation.
The project team committed to conducting a survey to assess how Utility customers view
additional outdoor water conservation. CWG members provided input on what to communicate
to customers about water use and what to ask to assess the community’s interest in additional
water conservation:
What to communicate to people:
How costs are going up
How water conservation serves quality of life goals
How conservation results in increased rates
What tradeoffs have been made to get to current consumption levels
What additional tradeoffs would be needed to get to 140 gpcd
What to ask customers:
What value do community members place on various landscape components (trees, shrubs
and forbs, gardens, turf)?
Would you be willing to implement turf management to be able to keep a garden?
What sacrifices are you willing to make for river health?
How much leadership should Fort Collins provide in protecting flows in the Poudre River?
Planning Goal
CWG members were asked if they supported the Utility proposal of having a conservation goal
and a planning goal that includes a contingency for uncertainties like climate change. One
comment was that a planning range needs to take into account climate and Policy changes, shifts
in population and growth made sense. No one opposed this approach but there were comments
that the time horizon would need to be clear and the goals would need to be expressed in the
context of what they would achieve.
Other Comments
CWG members were also concerned that other water providers need to be involved in
discussions about conservation. There is no regional approach to water supplies and demands,
although the state is moving in this direction. Local governments need to talk about
opportunities to work together.
Several members also feel strongly that water supply and demand Policy is an obvious place for
integrating land use and planning. “We don’t get anywhere with the philosophy that the Utilities
ATTACHMENT 6
21
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.4
responsibility is to only serve water.” Water is key to land development, which creates wealth, so
we need to look at land use and water together.
Meeting #3: Water Supply Reliability Criteria
Project team members provided background information on Utilities’ 2003 Policy related to
preparedness for severe drought and shared research on how other water providers in the state
approach drought response. CWG members were asked to comment on the adequacy of
Utilities’ current approach by addressing the following questions:
Does our approach to water supply reliability provide a responsible level of drought
preparedness?
Does our approach to the safety factor provide an appropriate contingency for emergencies?
In a water supply shortage situation, how would you prioritize any needed water use
reductions?
Reliability Criterion
While views on climate change vary, many members see a need to be conservative in preparing
for drought and climate change. When asked to choose what level of reliability they thought
would be best for the City, almost half the members expressed support for the existing 1-in-50
year reliability criterion stating that this approach is working and there is no need to change it
while about the same number suggested increasing the drought criteria (perhaps to 1:100), noting
a preference for being conservative given the number of uncertainties. A few members did not
choose, noting that they would need to understand the whole picture before answer the question.
Their views were captured subsequently in commenting on the draft Policy.
Safety Factor
Most of the group supported keeping the safety factor at 15% or increasing it but several
members stated that the issue is too connected to other factors to say at this time.
Reasons expressed for supporting 15% or higher were:
Provides flexibility to address a number of unknown factors
We should use partnerships with agriculture as a safety factor; however, there is so little
water left in agriculture, this approach has limitations.
We can’t rely on traditional means to get more water so we need a larger safety factor.
The primary reason expressed by CWG members who preferred to hold off on addressing the
safety factor was that the level of the safety factor is too interconnected with other issues like
storage and the drought criterion.
Water Use Reductions in a Drought
One person expressed support for looking at the tiered structure Boulder has where there are
different levels of criteria while another commented that there should be just one criterion for
reliability but different levels for drought response. Another suggestion was to explore potential
savings in the commercial sector.
ATTACHMENT 6
22
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.5
CWG members had several suggestions for enhancing drought preparedness:
Buy senior water rights as a strategy for drought protection
In next revision to Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, look at historical data to identify
years in which Fort Collin’s water supplies reached a warning limit and evaluate the cause.
Build stronger relationships between the city and agriculture as a method of drought
protection
Explore drought response measures for the commercial sector.
Need to have a regional approach to problem solving, especially drought preparedness.
Need to have a plan for the other 20% of Fort Collins’ residents who live within other
districts. What will the City do if they run out of water?
Meeting #4: Water Supply Reliability – Additional Supplies and Facilities
The meeting on Alternative Facilities and Supplies involved mostly presentations and questions
and answers, with limited time for sharing and discussion CWG views. To assess views, the
Project Team asked participants to complete worksheets indicating their preferences for supply
options and 7 members handed in these sheets at the end of the meeting. Results, tabulated
below, show preferences for a wide range of options without a clear preference for any one
source of supply. The discussion was continued in meeting #5 and comments from both
meetings are highlighted below.
Many members were concerned that the presentation focused too much on the
limitations of alternatives to additional storage and called on Utilities to work to
figure out how to address the limitations, especially with respect to creating water
sharing arrangements that are workable given water law and agricultural and
municipal needs. Another perspective was that the information was helpful in
understanding the complexity involved.
The discussion of alternatives revealed that the CWG appears to be unified in its
strong support for agricultural preservation. This topic is discussed further in the
following section.
In meeting #5, CWG members were asked to comment about enhancing storage
for the purpose of providing benefits to the river. Reponses were mixed. Several
members see a connection between Halligan enlargement and enhancing river
flows. One comment noted: “The purpose of the Halligan enlargement should
include supplying storage for river flows as one of its purposes. Sizing should
take into consideration storage for drought years, lower water use per capita and
for river flows.” Two people indicated that additional storage is detrimental to the
environment and should not be pursued but one of these felt that including
enhanced river flows in the Halligan Enlargement might be acceptable. Other
comments were:
May require a vote
The question is biased toward a new and bigger dam. Don’t put choices in silos.
Halligan should not be the only storage alternative
The City should be prepared for the possibility that only NISP will be permitted.
ATTACHMENT 6
23
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.6
Another view was that the City should more explicitly consider existing and
potential future infrastructure for regional benefits.
One member felt the group should focus on four choices: 1) no new storage, 2)
Halligan Reservoir only, 3) NISP only and 4) Halligan and NISP.
At the end of the meeting, CWG members completed comment forms with their
preferences with respect to facilities and supplies. Each person checked the items
that represented the most promising sources of supply to meet future needs.
Seven CWG members submitted comment forms and their responses are tallied in
the table below.
Alternative # CWG Comments
Acquire more irrigation company shares
More CBT units 3 - Higher (upstream) older more senior rights may reduce storage needs.
- Change raw water requirements of developers
- Shares in
upstream
companies
2 First preference to NPIC and second to WSSC
- Try other alternatives first
- Acquisitions in these companies would give more flexibility
- Shares in
downstream
companies
- Why bother? Need to change raw water requirement in Policy.
Other
1 - More flow for growth with location to optimize storage advantage
Water Sharing
Water Sharing -
overall
2 – Need careful work on these. This option produces many additional benefits (food
shed, open space, wildlife habitat, community separators, ground water recharge,
flood surge protection, shared infrastructure, reduced carbon footprint, etc.)
- Understand it is more complicated and it may be worth it! Important to keep
agricultural land in production.
Dry-year leases 2 - Opportunities to lease in drought with farmers by providing predictable water during
average years to farms. Can provide drought protection with possibly lower leasing
costs to City. Include agricultural sharing as a drought protection mechanism.
– Evaluate as companion activities to flow and storage acquisition
Rotational Fallowing 1
Purchase lease-
back
1 - Work out arrangement with NPIC for interruptible supply and put in Policy
Other
Additional Storage
Additional Storage -
overall
1 Consider all of these. It will require an alternatives analysis. Best to diversify to keep
storage distributed.
Build new reservoir
Enlarge existing
reservoir
2 – Find a way to let Corps know about its potential for water sharing
Acquire existing
reservoirs
1
ATTACHMENT 6
24
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.7
Alternative # CWG Comments
Gravel pits 3 - Pilot some
- Careful selection of existing gravel pits for storage with least harmful impact to
riparian corridor
– Gravel pit storage for return flows and local irrigation. Doesn’t need high water
quality. Not all Halligan storage; multiple storage options.
Aquifers
Other
Other Ideas
- Dual use system – use raw water for outdoor irrigation
Conservation 1 - Conservation - Achieving conservation goal will increase supply.
- State law changes and state support for reducing ditch losses (e.g., pipes)
– Given current direct flow rights and storage to accommodate these flows it would be
very helpful to optimize the flow/storage combination that allows the following:
- Sufficient storage to firm existing and planned direct flow rights to a
specified firming level
- Sufficient storage to capture all direct flows when available so that the flows
can be retimed based on need and use
There is an optimal balance between flow rights (yield) and storage (to firm this yield).
This balance will drive the amount of storage needed for current flow to supply
existing population.
Additional flow right acquisition will be based on projected growth of the population.
Additional storage will be needed to firm these new flow rights. Conservation and
shared use (ag rotation) are helpful and should be evaluated.
- The best plan is to create a more comprehensive total water management approach
– become a regional provider and water manager – approach water management
more comprehensively.
- Conservation and shared use (ag rotation) are helpful and should be evaluated.
Meeting #5: Use of Surplus Raw Water
Reducing adverse impacts on the Poudre River is a priority for many CWG members. While
recognizing that Fort Collins has a limited ability to affect flows in the Poudre River, many
CWG members would like to see the City take a leadership role in protecting the river.
Recreational flows, river health and biodiversity are important in downtown revitalization efforts
and quality of life in Fort Collins. While Colorado water law makes in-stream flow protection
difficult, many CWG members called on the City to find a way to protect the river despite the
legal and physical challenges. Members believe the City can find a way to meet municipal
demands and ecological needs. Most CWG members would like to see Utilities take a leadership
role to explore options and develop strategies for enhancing flows. Those favoring Utilities’
leadership noted that Utilities should provide expertise and resources. One person favors
leadership from Natural Resources with Utilities providing cooperation and technical assistance.
Another feels that Poudre River minimum flows are best met through the NISP project.
Agricultural preservation emerged as another priority for CWG members. Members see that
agriculture is depending on renting water from Fort Collins and preserving prime agricultural
lands is central to food security. This issue bridges rural and urban interests as the Downtown
ATTACHMENT 6
25
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.8
Development Authority sees itself as the interface between the local food system and urban
consumers. Effective partnerships will be key to agricultural preservation.
With respect to Utility Policy related to surplus water, the CWG expressed strong support for
using surplus water to benefit the larger community. Utilities should have a broader view of its
services to include the larger community, not just its traditional “customers.” Specific comments
were as follows:
City should take on more regional leadership
Need a broader view of “customer benefit” while keeping in mind the costs
“Surplus water used to support a sustainable foodshed is beneficial for Utility customers.”
Benefit customers but take a larger regional view
Don’t “squeeze” existing customers to increase surplus supplies by promoting additional
conservation
Consider leasing more water for other beneficial purposes
In addition, there is considerable interest in shifting from allocating surplus water on an available
basis to pursuing long-term arrangements, greater than 5 years. For many members, a key
condition to make long-term arrangements work would be that they would have to be flexible to
accommodate changes in the weather and other circumstances.
Specific comments on the timing for surplus water agreements are as follows:
Long-term arrangements provide greater certainty for water users, assuming agreements are
flexible and include appropriate contingencies to address changes in weather and other
conditions
Long-term arrangements should benefit agricultural preservation, Poudre River Flows and
regional benefits
Make some portion of irrigation water available in February even if higher cost
Include early releases as benefit to utility and user
Build short-term contingencies into long-term agreements that provide stability
A few CWG members favored shorter-term arrangements (less than 5 years) because they
believe that shorter terms are better suited to deal with complexity and provide flexibility. Most
of these members would support long-term arrangements with the right amount of flexibility.
The CWG discussed priorities among different surplus water uses, including agricultural
preservation, Poudre River flows and regional benefits. In a dot voting exercise where each
person had 10 dots to allocate to the three different uses for surplus water, the following
priorities were indicated:
Agricultural preservation (52 dots)
Poudre River flows (46 dots)
Regional benefits (19 dots)
All three priorities together (13 dots)
Much of the CWG’s discussion focused on finding ways to use surplus water, protect Poudre
River flows and support regional needs, rather than establishing priorities amongst the three.
Many in the group called for a more holistic approach. Some members were resistant to
supporting regional benefits if they meant that Fort Collins’ wise planning would support
ATTACHMENT 6
26
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.9
jurisdictions that have not planned well, accepted unmanaged growth or failed to promote
conservation. Some people in Fort Collins are adverse to conserving more if the conserved water
supports more growth without conservation in other areas. Several members emphasized the
need to have agreements to balance agricultural and Poudre River flow benefits and that the
updated Policy should enable such agreements.
At the same time, a member noted the importance of recognizing that Utilities is a government
owned business and as such, their revenues are intended to benefit the people who are paying for
the water. A few people supported the notion that the best strategy is to get City Council to
direct other departments and Utilities to work together on strategies to support agriculture and
river flows. For instance, the Natural Resources Department could take the lead on instream
flows and they could rent water from Utilities to keep the Utilities revenue fund whole.
Customers may not be willing to support flows in the river through water rates but they may
through taxes.
Specific comments from individual comment forms and the group’s discussion on using surplus
water for different purposes are noted below.
Agricultural Preservation
Universal agreement that agriculture should be supported in Fort Collins and surrounding
area
By supporting agriculture, the City gets drought protection and there are benefits to wetlands,
open space, flood surge and community separators
Support the food supply
Maintain what we have
Should there be a distinction between hobby farms and long-term agricultural businesses.
Businesses with conservation easements should take priority but hobby farms may support
food production.
City should consider point system created by Agricultural Advisory Board for water rentals.
Agricultural-municipal water sharing agreements could pre-empt southern cities from buying
more farms
Rotational fallowing can keep food local, support agriculture, protect the river and provide
regional benefits.
Create a system for renting surplus water to agriculture that reflects different types of
operations (those with conservation easements and hobby farms.)
Look at ways for water sales to the south to run water through the Poudre and diverted along
the South Platte.
Poudre River Flows
Need more water in the river which will have other environmental benefits; explore ways to
enhance flows by using surplus water through CWCB
The river is already highly compromised
NISP could impact river flows in the winter positively.
Need a Policy on surplus water without NISP
Yes to keeping excess flows in the Poudre and renting it to downstream farmers but no to
pumping it back
ATTACHMENT 6
27
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.10
Don’t maximize flows in the river but look to achieve optimum river health
Have there been any studies on the infrastructure necessary to pump water from downstream
of Fort Collins to the ditches upstream of Fort Collins? Study feasibility of moving head
gate(s) and letting some water go through town.
Water purchases by suburbs to the south could be run through the Poudre River to enhance
flows. It is complicated but there are ways it could work. Makes sense for existing
municipal supplies but new supplies would result in drying up more farms.
Regional Benefits
Supports only if there is an agreement – does not want to see the water go to Loveland, okay
with Greeley and Tri-Districts
We need to be considering regional benefits
The City should take a leadership role on regional issues and opportunities that include
common environmental benefits, preserving agriculture, a healthy environment and
amenities/recreational opportunities.
The City should more explicitly consider existing and potential future infrastructure for
regional benefits.
All Three
Don’t create priorities or silos but rather find a way to address all three needs
Explore how water sharing arrangements and existing storage can provide greater security to
agriculture, do better by the river and help the City meet its supply needs.
While I oppose dams, I support the city getting water. Look for creative ways to meet the
needs.
The City should develop a comprehensive Policy to use resources from its general fund and
utility fund to pursue goals to support flows in the Poudre and for water sharing agreements
with agriculture. Surplus water can play a role for both purposes but it is also desirable for
Natural Resources to kick in support for Poudre River flow and economic development to
support agricultural water sharing.
Balance is key.
Support surplus water uses that benefit agriculture, river flows and the region
Think more broadly about regional benefits
Recognize that neighboring entities do not have a well thought out plan for future
development but partner to support regional benefits
Create a task force to examine ways to meet all three needs.
Need to have City Council direct other departments in addition to Utilities to look at surplus
water use in the best interest of the City/Region as a whole. Have to be cognizant of the legal
limitations imposed by having the Utility be an enterprise.
Explore surplus water with the County too
Sustainability means working across boundaries.
Revenue from renting surplus water has averaged about $750,000 per year (about 3% of total
revenues). CWG members were asked how to address the lost revenue if changes in the surplus
water use resulted in decreased revenues. Responses varied with some CWG members favoring
ATTACHMENT 6
28
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.11
a strategy to maintain revenues at existing levels and others suggesting increased emphasis on
surplus water even if it reduced revenues. Specific comments included:
The City’s general fund and Natural Resources tax should rent surplus water from Utilities
The City could request a voluntary contribution
More creative solutions will involve combinations of solutions
Do not purchase additional water rights
Look at all of the options
At the 5
th
meeting, CWG members were asked to comment on where revenues should come from
to support surplus water uses that require additional funds. Reponses on a comment form were
as follows:
Utility rate payers (5)
City tax revenues (5)
County tax revenues (1)
User fees – individual and/or groups (4)
Other (10) –
− Sales tax because it comes from a broader base
− Voluntary instream or river restoration fee on water bills
− DDA taxes
− Support from economic development agencies
− Rental surcharge on agriculture to develop conserved water
− Non-profit organizations (TNC, Bonneville Environmental Fund, etc.)
− From all who benefit in proportion to benefits received
Meeting Evaluations
Each of the first five CWG meeting ended with an exercise to document what worked well in the
meeting and what would improve future meetings. The following table presents results of this
evaluation for the first five meetings.
ATTACHMENT 6
29
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment C.12
Meeting Evaluations
Worked Well Wishes for the Future
Meeting #1 Keeping to the timeline
Going around table and getting everyone’s
view points
Full participation and getting everyone involved
Good presentations
Good information
Appropriate amount of information (was not too
much just right)
The bandwidth diagrams were effective and
something new people in the local community
have not seen
Would be helpful to have a laser pointer for the
presentations
Make Tables legible, including captions
Presentation talked extensively about water
issues but not about the ecological devastation
to the river as a result of use
Meeting #2 Good job
Good discussion
These meetings have a lot of information.
However, it is not clear how this group’s
comments/discussion will be incorporated into
the Policy.
Meeting #3 Liked standing up for exercises
Good facilitation
Good food
Good discussion
Just right amount of presentation
Need to know what the benefits vs. costs are
before can make decisions.
Need more data/information in order to make
decisions (i.e. What would the effects be of a 1-
in-50 year drought versus a 1-in-100 year
drought?) Donnie will try to run a 1-in-100-
drought year scenario.
Need to take into account environmental
impacts
Adult beverages
Meeting #4 Excellent presentations
Process concerns were heard and process
will be adjusted to accommodate
Good food, not just water
More time for dynamic discourse
Presentations provided ahead of time
(previous presentations are available on
SharePoint)
Print presentation materials with fewer slides
per page (can print in large formats from
SharePoint)
Communicate plus sides of alternatives, not
just the negatives
Meeting #5 Small group break out discussions
Time to talk
Courteous to people that came in late
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment D.1
Attachment D: Revised Policy
City of Fort Collins
DRAFT
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update
October 7, 2011
This update of the City of Fort Collins’ 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
provides a foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions
concerning the City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions
by the Water Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this Policy.
Objective
To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable
supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level
of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences
of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year
vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states,
“Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to
providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community
while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”
This Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated approach” to water demand and water
resources management. Sustainability is defined within the context of the triple-bottom-line
decision-making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize
environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future
generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.” The use of our
valuable water resources should 1) avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment, 2)
consider the social benefits of having an adequate water supply for health and safety, economic
prosperity and healthy landscapes and 3) factor in the cost to provide such supplies, while also
considering the effects it has outside our City. Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility
will take a leadership role by incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water
supply and demand.
Managing water supply and demand is a dynamic process that evolves as data management and
technology progresses, legal and political environments change, and the State’s population
continues to increase. Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective
Policy that is based on current data. The Policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and
updated by 2020, or sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.
ATTACHMENT 6
31
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.2
1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management
The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply
variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing
indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing
outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable landscape transformation.
The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:
Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes
Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs
Prepare for forecasted climate change
1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan
1
established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water
use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by the year 2020, without considering the effects of
climate change upon water demands. This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use
compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29%
reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average daily water
use of 197 gpcd. The City will utilize water use efficiency measures and programs with the aim
of reducing its water use to an average of 140 gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water
requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2) additional studies on climate change, and 3)
changes in the 140 gpcd water conservation goal as may be adjusted by any subsequent water
conservation plans. This water use efficiency goal is subject to change as discussed above and is
not intended to be used for water supply planning purposes.
The per capita peak daily demand will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by
the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans. The peak daily
demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios
of average to peak daily use.
Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced for
use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange
arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.
1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program
Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and
effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the
programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures
include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational
measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.
1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and
likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this Policy, water use efficiency is
referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.
ATTACHMENT 6
32
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.3
The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis
and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s
water conservation goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the
status and results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be
updated at a minimum of every seven years.
1.3 Water Rate Structures
The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of
customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently
while also providing sufficient revenue for operational purposes. Examples of structures that
may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use increases, 2) seasonal
blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget approaches based on
appropriate targets for individual customers.
The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial
analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the
rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate
structure will require City Council approval.
2.0 Water Supply Reliability
The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV
21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration
potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities
shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental
factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable
supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered
when addressing water supply for municipal use include:
Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility
Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not depend on any one source
Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances
Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security
Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management
Considering the City’s neighboring water providers and users
Maintaining awareness of national and worldwide trends and adapt as needed to meeting our
customer needs
2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria
An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer
models that determine the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water
supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for
planning future supplies.
ATTACHMENT 6
33
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.4
2.1.1 Planning Demand Level
The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita
demand level of 162 gpcd. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water use
efficiency goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning. The 162 gpcd value is
based upon the 2006-2010 average daily use, adjusted to reflect the increase in demand that
would be necessary to maintain existing levels of urban landscaping considering the mid-range
of projected climate change impact.
It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water
supply facilities. Because many structures related to a water supply system take many years to
develop and last for many decades once built, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to
size facilities that may be needed for the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger
than the water use efficiency goal, primarily because of the uncertainties related to projected
water demands, yields from specific water rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.
The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced for use by Water
Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements)
divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is
multiplied by population projections developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate
future water demands.
2.1.2 Drought Criterion
The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the
planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River
Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be
planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought
criterion, considering the time required to seek water court decrees and permit and construct
diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a
balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such
reliability and the environmental costs associated with water storage and diversions.
2.1.3 Safety Factor
The City’s water supply reliability planning incorporates a safety factor of having 15% of annual
demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought. This is equivalent to three months of average
winter demand and just over one month of average July demand. This safety factor provides an
additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other
reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed
a 1-in-50 year drought.
In meeting this safety factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big
Thompson Project (CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit
holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the
following year. However, this program has varied over the years and there is no guarantee that it
will be continued in the future.
ATTACHMENT 6
34
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.5
2.2 Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount
of water required to maintain existing landscapes; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty
related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are
conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will
continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply
planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.
2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply
shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought)
or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the 2003 Water
Supply Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.
This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns,
regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include
provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts,
leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short
situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The
plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s
water use and its water supply system.
2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities
In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain
system reliability and flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its current water
supply system. The following Policy elements address ways of meeting these needs.
2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development
The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-
lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of
the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.
Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into
water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities
and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration
needs to be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability
inherent in both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned
over and cash received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a
reliable and effective system.
2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are still decreed for
agricultural use only. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from
ATTACHMENT 6
35
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.6
agricultural use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those
rights that come from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation
has ceased, when needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that
remain in viable agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to
municipal use as long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent
to do so. The City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for
municipal uses when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at
other times, in a manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.
2.4.3 Facilities
The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities which are needed to manage the
City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and which will enhance the City’s ability
to get through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity,
diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that
increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.
Additional storage should be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow
obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet
years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and
reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e.,
environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential impacts of
developing storage to the environment, along with the costs and benefits of doing so, and will
develop that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment.
Storage capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of
local gravel pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing
reservoirs, the development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.
3.0 Treated and Raw Water Quality
Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality
standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection
that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the
quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived. This may
require collaboration with private, county, state and federal landowners and managers. The
acquisition, development, and management of the City’s raw water will be consistent with the
City’s Drinking Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed
protection.
4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water
The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities:
1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw
water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such
purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas.
Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of
agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.
ATTACHMENT 6
36
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.7
Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made
available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. This surplus water
may be available on a year-to-year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not
significantly impair the City’s ability to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent
its surplus supplies at a fair market price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and
benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.
4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes
Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the
environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other
beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre
River or providing other regional benefits. Typically, the City has significant quantities of
surplus raw water from a variety of sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These
sources include CBT water and shares in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more
suitable and available than others to meet beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can
be used for these other purposes is dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of
water, place of use and other decree limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should
consider, and will likely require coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other
groups. Some uses of the surplus supplies may require a change of water rights through the water
court process. The City will engage in a thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing
the use of its surplus supplies for these beneficial purposes, if applicable.
Supporting local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River or meeting other
beneficial purposes that our community may desire will likely require actions outside of using
the City’s surplus water supplies. Utilities will consider voluntary contributions from their
ratepayers for programs that are designed to support these purposes.
4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space
Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado
Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and
implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1
of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the
integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas,
conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad
range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet
community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support
the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus
agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.
In order to support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other
benefits provided by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers, the City
will explore long-term rental arrangements with irrigators when applicable. The City’s largest
irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still has
substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and
CBT water that lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.
ATTACHMENT 6
37
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.8
4.1.2 Instream Flows
Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream
flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la
Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural stream flows,
the City will seek opportunities to exceed regulatory requirements that protect the ecological
function of the streams and rivers affected by its diversions. The Water Utility will take a
leadership role in working with other City departments, local groups and agencies towards the
following objectives in accordance with Colorado water law and the administration of water
rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in local streams to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the
operation of its water supplies and facilities in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the
effects to the environment while meeting customer demands, and 3) explore projects or measures
that would provide flows in streams and water in reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic
purposes.
4.1.3 Other Arrangements
The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other
entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental
agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners.
These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually
beneficial to the parties, and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to
the region.
5.0 Regional Cooperation
The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with local entities in the
region and coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that Colorado
is currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs for Front Range
municipalities in a manner that does not destroy whole agricultural economies and river
ecosystems, and the Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water
supply can be provided in a manner that respects other interests.
5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers
The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front
Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified,
the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building and sharing capacity of water
transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs. The City has common interests
and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the water districts around Fort
Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as well as
other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should work closely with water districts
that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies regarding drought protection,
conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.
ATTACHMENT 6
38
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
10/19/11 Attachment D.9
5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies
The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange
and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the
local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City works closely with these
companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in
local irrigation companies.
5.3 Working with Others
The City will work with other City Departments and cooperate with civic organizations,
environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when common goals would
benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals that may involve City
water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for existing and
development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river flows and
supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and sources of
revenue for specific goals or projects.
ATTACHMENT 6
39
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.1
Attachment E: Meeting #6 Comment Form - Compilation of Verbatim Responses
The following table records verbatim comments submitted by CWG members in writing on comment forms. The individual’s Initials
appear to the right of each comment. GW refers to Gary Wockner and GNW refers to George Wallace.
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
Introduction
and Objective
9 1’s
0 2’s
0 3’s
• Well written “as is” JG*
• Provides a good overview DM
• Clear objective
• Makes a clear commitment to
sustainability and triple bottom
line JS
• I like it as is but would like a core
values statement added. GJ
• Triple bottom line sustainability
MF
• N/A JG
• Would prefer less room for interpretation. Insist on faithful
interpretation. DM
• Add environmental and financial objective BE
• Would like an addition before the “objectives” that is a simple
statement of core values as suggested by Bill Emslie. GJ
• Delete “the beneficial use” RW
• Letter from GW/STP**: The section states that the Policy will
"...meet our present needs and those of future generations without
compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend." We ask the
City how it can achieve this goal at the same time the City proposes
to grow its population, build a larger dam and reservoir in
endangered species habitat on the North Fork of the Poudre River,
and take more water out of two of the most endangered rivers in
America – the Cache la Poudre River and Upper Colorado River?
The language in this section sounds very green, but if the actions are
not likewise green, it may appear as “greenwashing.” We ask the
City to consider if the language in this section should be changed, or
if the Policy should be changed to meet the language?
Water Use
Efficiency and
Demand
Management
(including 1.1,
1.2, 1.3)
8 1’s
1 2’
0 3’s
• Well written “as is” JG
• I like the addition of supporting
information for the #’s. DM
• Specific goals very important.
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.2
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
• Delete added statement “This goal represents…..197 gpcd.” Seems
very odd for Policy. RW
• Letter from GW/STP: STP believes that the water use efficiency goal
of 140 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) is too high. Water use in Fort
Collins has already dipped below 140, and will likely continue to fall.
Some new urbanism developments in the Southwest demonstrate
sustainable water use rates as low as 90 gpcd. Fort Collins should
set a lower goal to shoot for – Fort Collins should lead forward on a
path of aggressive water conservation that more responsibly and
sustainably uses this precious resource.
2.0 Water
Supply
Reliability –
Criteria
(including 2.1,
2.2 and 2.3)
5 1’s
4 2’s
0 3’s
• Ok JG
• Water partnership with Ag which
is positive for both the City and
Ag LG
• Like 2.1.2 1-in-50, 2.1.3 Safety
Factor, 2.3 Response Plan, 2.4
Climate Change GJ
• Addresses climate change MF
• I suggest in 2.1.1 to add (line 3) after “planning” ….because reliability
deals with risk, whereas the conservation target deals with an
efficiency goal.” (You can probably phrase much better.) NG
• In 2.0 “considering the City’s neighboring water providers is too
weak. Utility staff should “aggressively seek collaboration with the
City’s neighboring water providers.” 2.1.1 162 gpcd is too high, 152
would be fine. 1-in-50 should be 1-in-40. 2.1.3 15% of annual
demand is too low, though anything higher might be infeasible.” JG
• 2.0 should be a list of core values. Add environmental and economic
impact values. These are the basic guidance of the Policy. Add
water quality value that supports 3.0. BE
• Section 2.1.1: I understand how 162 gpcd was developed, but I still
don’t buy it. If our Policy is 140, we should achieve 140. JS
• 2.0 6
th
sentence – Who are the “other water users” agriculture? Not
clear. Last sentence of 2.0 “adapt” needs “ing” on the end. Change
“meeting” to “meet.” 2.1.1 “162 gpcd value…. climate change
impact” – a footnote. Also, “Gallons per capital to service area” also
on 1.1 p.2 Do we need this twice? 2.3 “This plan will include – etc.
Does this mean everything must be done or selected items? Not
clear. Page 5 BR
• I think the planning demand level should be set at something along
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.3
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
….landscaping” is realistic. Customers are responding to water cost
increases, education and climate change on their own and are
voluntarily reducing their landscape water demand. This will
continue and accelerate in the future. GJ
• Letter from GW/STP: 2.1.1 Though the staff and consultants
repeatedly tried, it was never adequately explained why the planning
goal of 162 gpcd is so much higher than the water use goal of 140.
There was concern expressed in the meetings that this number was
inflated for purposes of supporting the Halligan enlargement EIS
process. STP believes the planning goal and the water use goal
should both be lower, and should both be based on sound scientific
calculations.
• Letter from GW/STP: 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 When the committee
discussed drought criterion and safety factor, the exercise was over-
simplified – STP does not believe the committee was given adequate
information to make a judgment on these numbers. The concepts of
drought criterion, safety factory, planning demand level, and climate
change were all inconsistently lumped together during the meetings
and discussion. There was discussion in the meetings of “safety
factor creep” – i.e., that all the numbers were being over- inflated
non-scientifically. In addition, with the high water use goal, the
drought criterion, the safety factor, the higher planning demand level,
and the City's water response to climate change (more conservative
and more proposed storage), it seems like the Policy has a built-in
quintuple safety factor. STP will require further scientific review of
these numbers to evaluate if they are accurate.
• Letter from GW/STP: Additionally, the concept of “drought
criterion” was not sufficiently addressed in the meetings. A city’s
water supply portfolio is a critical factor in addressing drought – if a
city has a secure portfolio with lots of senior direct flow rights, it is
much more impervious to drought. This section, and the discussion
in the meetings, over-simplifies the complexity of drought’s
interaction with water supplies. More scientific analysis will be
needed by Save the Poudre to evaluate the City’s drought criterion.
• Letter from GW/STP: 2.2 “Climate change” was mentioned 20 times
in the Policy. Interestingly, in the former Policy, “climate change” was
mentioned zero times. Climate change was repeatedly used as a
scare tactic in the committee meetings and in the Policy wording –
ATTACHMENT 6
42
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.4
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
and for a good reason, climate change is scary. However, what is a
rational non-fear-based response? Should we make reservoirs
larger? Or should we lower water use rates? Which solution leads to
greater resiliency, more adaptability, and more economic success in
an uncertain future world? Consider this analogy – if oil is getting
scarce and expensive, should your next car be a Hummer or a Volt?
Should you invest in wider roads or should you invest in public
transportation, electric car plug-in stations, and bicycle routes? And
then consider the same question for water – if climate change will
cause water to get more scarce and expensive, what is a rational
response? More bluegrass lawns and bigger dams? Or wide-scale
water conservation and xeriscaping? STP has two recommendations
for addressing the threat of climate change in the Policy 1. Use the
best available science, quantify the likely impact, and then include
that impact with margins of error in one spot in the Policy. (As it is
now, the Policy just throws around the threat of climate change 20
times, sometimes without scientific backing.) 2. STP contends that
Fort Collins will be more resilient, adaptable, and more economically
competitive in the future if it significantly cuts its use of water and
begins switching away from a high water-use economy. This Policy
update only offers one response to the threat of climate change –
more water and bigger facilities. STP believes that other more
sustainable responses to climate change were not adequately
discussed or presented as options during the committee meetings.
2.4 Water
Supply
Reliability –
Additional
Supplies and
Facilities
8 1’s
0 2’s
0 3’s
• Flexibility in supply choices. BE
• Like it all. GJ
• Stress diversity as this is a key value. BE
• Just before “The City” … (line 1 in 2.4.1) it might be good to add a
sentence as to why developers turn in water….”growth pays its own
way.” NG
• 2.4.2 STP believes that the potential to share water with farmers will
be the water supply source of the future for Colorado. Over 80% of
the water in the Poudre River is used by farmers – cooperatively
tapping this source will be the primary path forward as demand for
water increases. This section does not fully address this potential,
nor does it fully address the conversation in the meetings. Sharing
water with agriculture was supported by everyone in the meetings
and should be a large part of Fort Collins future water supply; this
section makes it more of an after-thought.
• 2.4.3 Because the Policy's water use rates are high, planning
ATTACHMENT 6
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.5
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
demand level is high, drought criterion is not fully substantiated,
safety factor is not fully substantiated, and response to climate
change is to be more conservative, this section therefore assumes
the need for more storage. STP will require a more thorough
scientific analysis in order to evaluate this assumption. In addition, if
more storage is required, additional options should be considered
that were not mentioned in the Policy including but not limited to
“using farms as reservoirs” through leasing and sharing
arrangements both for firm supply and for drought supply. As an
example, Fort Collins weathered the worst one-year drought in
history (2002/3) by leasing water from farmers – a proven and
inexpensive option for future water supply that required no facility at
all. As another example, the purchase of senior direct flow rights
would also minimize the need for enlarged facilities. GW
3.0 Treated
and Raw
Water Quality
8 1’s
0 2’s
0 3’s
• Fine JG
• Specifics in stds. to meet
• Seems reasonable JS
• Like it. GJ
4.0 Use of
Surplus Raw
Water
(including 4.1,
4.2, 4.3)
8 1’s
0 2’s
0 3’s
• Fine JG
• I really appreciate the
delineation of section 4.1, which
includes a commitment to
agriculture and environment. JS
• Like especially 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 I
would change their order as I
believe Utility customers are
more interested in water in the
Poudre, then ag production. GJ
• Stress preservation of agriculture
• 4.1 end of added sentence. “may desire. This will likely ….water
supplies. Flip order. Revise to: “Utilities will consider voluntary
contributions from their ratepayers for programs that are designed to
support the following purposes: Local agriculture, supplementing
flows in the Poudre River, or meeting other beneficial purposes that
our community may desire.” Last sentence 4.1.1: Flip order of first 2
sentences to begin with what the City will do first. “The City will
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.6
Rating
1 = Full support
2 = Support with reservations
3 = Do not support
Circle selected response
Likes Dislikes
an imperative. Instead of the wording in the section that says
"encourage," "pursue," and "explore," STP strongly recommends the
City to work more aggressively to get it done. GW
5.0 Regional
Cooperation
(including 5.1,
5.2, 5.2)
6 1’s
2 2’s
0 3’s
• The last sentence of the
document is great – utility is
accepting the role of ‘leader’ on
water supply planning that
respects all community interests.
JS
• Fine JG
• I would change 5.2 to include work with Northern Water, Central, and
any others who are not just “irrigation companies.” NG
• Stress consideration of sharing facilities with regional entities. BE
• 5.0 added part needs “and” deleted and new sentence:
“ecosystems. The water utility ….etc.” 5.3 Instead of ‘The City” –
“The Utility” BR
• Fix added statement “The City also….” As there is opinion mixed
with a value statement. Suggest: “The City also recognizes that
growing municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to
meet future water supply needs in a manner that does no undue
harm to agricultural economies….” Colorado does not build/supply
water. Needs beyond Front Range. 5.1 delete last clause. “In
particular, the City should work closely with water districts that serve
Fort Collins residents and the surrounding community.” 5.3 Needs
to be edited: The Utility instead of the City. City will work across
departments. RW
*Initials at the end of each comment refer to the person who submitted the comment.
**Comments for GW were extracted with permission from a letter submitted by Gary Wockner on behalf of Save the Poudre.
ATTACHMENT 6
45
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.7
Comments I’d like on to see Issues a simple not addressed statement in of the core Revised values Policy as recommended by Bill in the beginning of
the Policy. GJ
Letter from GW/STP MISSED SECTION: Population Growth Although a few people in the
committee wanted to talk about population growth and its impacts on water supply planning
and farms, the facilitators/consultants/staff did not allow this discussion to occur. STP
believes that any discussion of future water supply planning should include information
about population growth because it is the main factor influencing the need for more water
and the destruction of northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape. Specifically, discussion
should include:
− How population growth is driving water supply Policy.
− How population growth is a Policy that the City Council can consider, address, and
control just as other cities in the Southwest have done.
− How population growth and sprawl are inter-related – higher density human habitation
(residential and commercial) uses significantly less water than sprawl and is significantly
less expensive to supply water to than sprawl.
− How population growth is also destroying northern Colorado's agricultural landscapes
and agricultural economy.
Letter from GW/STP - MISSED DISCUSSION: Most of the conversation in the meetings was
about the details of the Policy sections, but there was very little conversation about “cost”
and “environmental impacts.” Because the City is involved in a permitting process for a
proposed enlarged reservoir, cost and environmental impacts will be two of the biggest
considerations evaluated during that federal permitting process. For example, many federal
permitting precedents in the U.S. have occurred where water projects have been stopped
because of their environmental impacts. Additionally, there are federal permitting precedents
where the lowest costing project was denied a permit. Save the Poudre believes the Policy
update should have spent considerably more time on these two topics.
Comments on the CWG Process
Where the CWG’s input has had the greatest impact
Poudre River minimal flow, agricultural concerns JG
It is hard for me to tell since I missed many of the meetings, but I was pleased with the
readiness with which my comments were incorporated into the draft. DM
The process was just as important as the end result. The last vote of 9 green and 1 yellow
card speaks volumes as to the process. We need to leave 1-in-50, 162 and 15% in. We had
all 12 vote in favor. Please do not leave blank. This is irresponsible. Simply say 11
supported and 2 wanted no numbers. The ratio of 11 for 2 against says a lot. The majority
opinion is important and per Dennis, the staff needs these numbers. BE
Revising and adding to the Policy the Utilities should be a leader in water supply planning,
specifically that Utilities should also seriously consider sustainability that includes
agriculture and the environment. JS
To develop a specific document that has a high level of agreement. BE
ATTACHMENT 6
46
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment E.8
Last couple of meetings where group discussion was enabled. GJ
The CWG’s input had the greatest impact in ensuring that the Demand Management Policy
included consideration of agriculture, the environment and that the Utility take a lead role in
planning for the future. DW
What I have learned
How to run meetings of such a diverse group JG
The presentations and discussions were very informative for a water novice like me. I
learned a lot about all of the water-related issues. Learned a lot about water rights. DM
I am always impressed by the complexities of these issues. I was glad to learn that
conservative members of our CWG also want to work toward sustainability. JS
To respect diversity of opinion and to listen to others. BE
There is more common ground among diverse interest groups than most of us expected. GJ
We have fairly strong consensus MF
The existing Policy was good and that the water management in a town such as Fort Collins
is a very complex task. The City of Fort Collins has excellent water from the standpoint of
quantity and quality and this shows the Utility does a good job managing the complex task.
DW
How the process has worked well
‘Almost’ finding consensus’ JG
Good presentations and facilitation. Excellent debates and discussions. DM
It adapted to member input. It led to real changes in the Policy. JS
Yes. The votes at the end exemplify this and should be reflected in the final report. BE
In improving the Policy recommendations. GJ
Very respectful dialog, everyone heard. Surfaced the areas of disagreement as well as
agreement. MF
There was very limited time and the views of the CWG were very diverse. Considering this
fact I think the process worked well. DW
Suggestions for improving the process in the next Update
Worked well, especially the last couple of meetings. JG
I know it was hard enough to get people to show up to the 6 existing meetings, but I felt that
there was too much material to cover in the 6 meetings. Not sure how to improve this. DM
Seek input and discussions after each presentation. The session that was specifically for
input and discussion failed as only 2 people attended. BE
Slower delivery of information in the beginning to allow all members to come up to speed.
More opportunities for discussion in all meetings. GJ
Develop the presentations to more clearly explain the very complex nature of water
management. The presenters live and breathe it so what may be obvious to them is not
always clear to the general public. I think more information on how the Utility uses the
Policy and what is required to produce water and how it is impacted by the Policy would
also help. DW
ATTACHMENT 6
47
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.1
Attachment F: Meeting #6 Summary
Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management
DRAFT CWG Meeting #6 Minutes
October 12, 2011
Attendance and Materials
Participants Present at the Meeting
CWG Member
• Gary Wockner
Bill Emslie
George Wallace
Gina Janett
Lewis Grant
George Varra
Reagan Waskom
Neil Grigg
Dennis Wallisch
John Sanderson
Holly Jo Roseberry
Johannes Gessler
Barbara Rutstein
David Mack
Mark Forsyth
Fort Collins Staff
Donnie Dustin
Dennis Bode
Kevin Gertig
Melissa Katsimpalis
Laurie D’Audney
Susan Smolnik
Beth Molenaar
John Stokes
Consultant Team
Lee Rozaklis - AMEC
Barbara Lewis – Catalyst, Inc.
Courtney Peppler – AMEC
ATTACHMENT 6
48
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.2
CWG Members Unable to Attend
Jenn Orgolini
K-Lynn Cameron
Steve Warner
Matt Robenalt
Packet of Materials Distributed Prior to the Meeting
Draft agenda
Fort Collin’s Supply Planning Criteria presentation handout
Second draft of the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
Response to CWG Comments on first draft of Policy
Materials Distributed at the Meeting
CWG Process Update presentation handout
CWG Meeting #6 Comment Form
Welcoming
Barbara Lewis, lead facilitator for the CWG process, welcomed the Community Working Group
(CWG) and reviewed the agenda, logistical items, purpose and outline of the CWG memo,
projected timeline for the CWG memo and the remaining review and approval process to finalize
and adopt the Policy.
Planning Criteria
Lee Rozaklis provided a review of the planning demand level, drought criterion, water supply
shortage response plan and safety factor. This included an overview of the criteria’s purposes,
how the criteria were derived and aspects of uncertainty. Questions and comments include the
following:
Neil Grigg – Suggested changing the term safety factor to strategic reserve, which is more
expressive of what the criterion entails. Answer: Lee – This may be something we want to refine.
The term “safety factor” is somewhat opaque.
John Sanderson – He commented on the safety factor during the first round of Policy comments
and is still not convinced after Lee’s presentation on the planning criteria. There is already a
safety factor built into the 162 gpcd planning demand level because the starting point for this
criterion without a “safety factor” should be 140 gpcd instead of 153 gpcd. The 140 gpcd is the
targeted conservation goal. Hence the planning demand level is conservative. Then there is the
water supply shortage plan which is more of a coping factor than an engineering safety factor
and then on the supply-side, there is the 1-in-50 drought scenario which is a drought that far
exceeds the normal range. In summary, there appears to be a lot of conservatism and “safety
factors” ingrained in all of the planning criteria. Response: Lee Rozaklis – He understands the
point that John is making. However, he does not view the 162 gpcd as particularly conservative.
This criterion is the average of the per capita water use during the past five years adjusted for
ATTACHMENT 6
49
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.3
climate change and does not include the possibility of more intensive water uses in the future.
That said, the starting point is not the 140 gpcd conservation goal and water use in the future
could decrease. The drought criterion defines the boundary of what the water supply system can
“cover” operating under normal conditions. Essentially it determines the drought condition in
which Utilities would go from “normal” operating conditions to “coping conditions.”
John Sanderson – He would like to shoot towards lowering the planning demand level.
Johannes Gessler - He agrees with John and would refer to the whole situation as “safety factor
creep.” Each of the planning criterion adds more of a safety factor and at the end, there is this
large ambiguous safety factor. The planning demand level of 162 gpcd is very high. He would
even lower the conservation goal of 140 gpcd to 130 gpcd. Future per capita water demands will
decrease, not increase. Since this Policy is going to set the planning precedence for the next ten
years, it would be accurate to assume that demands will continue to drop. In addition, why are
we using a drought criterion of 1-in-50 years? Why not use 1 in 40 years? He agrees with the
15% safety factor, yet would change the terminology to strategic reserve per Neil’s suggestion.
Neil Grigg – Every utility needs some sort of reserve for emergencies (i.e. tunnel falls in or dam
breaks) which is available during the period of emergency.
Gary Wockner – When it comes to drought, what really matters is the seniority of a utilities’
water rights portfolio. During the 2002, the utilities that had senior water right portfolios had
little concern about running out of water. The big question is how senior is the City’s water
rights portfolio? Utilities can have a strategic reserve, yet is doesn’t have to be related to a
reservoir. For instance, strategic reserves can be underground tanks. Strategic reserves need to
be available during the emergency. If the City’s strategic reserve is in Horsetooth and it goes
offline or there is an issue in the Poudre River, then the City will not have access to the reserve.
Response: Lee Rozaklis – A strategic reserve is only useful is it can be delivered to the water
treatment plant. A strategic reserve can also consist of multiple diverse reserves. The City is
reluctant to use Horsetooth storage for its reserve because it does not control the reservoir.
Gary Wockner – Would it be possible to contract with farmers as a strategic reserve? Response:
Lee Rozaklis – Agricultural water would not be available in the winter. If available, cities could
purchase senior water rights to meet all of their needs. However, this would be very costly and
be an inefficient way of doing things. Response: Gary Wockner - He agrees that this could be
inefficient, however, it is a way to do business and could be a less environmentally destructive
way to meet demands.
Dennis Wallisch – Does the 162 gpcd include large contractual users? Response: Lee Rozaklis –
The 162 gpcd does not include large contractual users. The 162 gpcd is multiplied by population
to get total demands not including large contractual users.
Barbara Rutstein – What is the significant difference of using 153 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd?
Response: Lee Rozaklis – If the City used 153 gpcd, the projected demands would be reduced.
This would be ok if future demands actually end up being lower. There are a lot of factors that
could result in lower future demands. The City’s selection of 162 gpcd assumes that the City has
not achieved the 140 gpcd conservation goal and that the City is not relying on “passive savings”
(i.e. technological advances in water efficient fixtures and appliances). There are also factors
that would increase future per capita water use. It is important to remember that the past three
ATTACHMENT 6
50
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.4
years have been relatively cool and wet, resulting in lower per capita water demands than what
would have occurred if the weather had been hotter and drier.
John Sanderson – What are the benefits of “too low” of a planning demand level? Response:
Lee Rozaklis – The City would end up investing less in more storage or more in water rights (less
capital requirements would be necessary). This would be fine as long as future demands are
lower and/or if the service area is willing to accept less water during droughts.
Barbara Rutstein – Are the four planning criteria the accepted way of doing it? Response: Lee
Rozaklis – While the actual numbers are specific to each provider’s planning process, the process
is the acceptable/common way of municipal water supply planning.
Lewis Grant – He feels that he is on a little different page than other opinions expressed thus far.
He advocates for a more conservative drought criterion of 1-in-100. He was around for the
droughts of 1930, 1950, 1970 and 2002. The 1-in-50 drought criterion only includes the 2002
and 1970s drought. It does not cover the other droughts and we don’t know how severe the next
droughts could be. The 1-in-50 drought criterion only covers a minor number of the historical
droughts.
Barbara Lewis – Introduced planning criteria exercise
John Sanderson – Expressed difficulty with the proposed exercise of stating whether to increase
or decrease the drought criterion because there are a variety of options on how the City could
achieve reliability. These options need to be looked at as well.
Reagan Waskom – The criteria are all integrated, the change to one criterion may necessitate the
changing of another criterion. This makes the proposed exercise difficult. The CWG committee
is relatively ill informed compared to the Utilities staff that work with this every day.
Dennis Bode – He was not in Colorado for the 1970s drought, yet was here for the 2002 drought
and has experienced significant weather variability in Colorado. The 2002 drought was an eye
opener. He thinks that the City could have a more conservative drought criterion such as the 1-
in-100 criterion Lewis mentioned. One of the biggest questions that the Utilities had in 2002
was: how much water would the City have in reserve if they completely ran out of water? That is
what the strategic reserve is all about. The water supply shortage response plan is available for
droughts that exceed the 1-in-50 year criterion or in years when the Utilities is really skeptical
about future weather patterns (i.e. the Utilities had no way of knowing that a huge blizzard was
going to occur in 2003). The drought criterion expresses the level of what to plan for. Breaking
out the individual criterion makes the planning process more transparent and helps to ensure a
reliable system for the community.
Reagan Waskom – Each of quadrants (referring to the planning criteria chart) have an impact on
management and infrastructure. Using a lot of groundwater wells will have very different
implications and would eliminate the need for more reservoir storage.
Dennis Bode – The City has been fortunate with their seniority of water rights, yet, also has a lot
of junior water rights. The City is not short of water, it is short of a tool that helps it manage its
water rights. The planning criteria allows for the planning of facilities.
Gary Wockner – During the 2002 drought, the City was concerned about water supply quantity,
as they should be, and worked with farmers. Where does that level of cooperation fit in here?
ATTACHMENT 6
51
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.5
While he understands that wells/agricultural deals are not the preference, there is an option out
there that has not been discussed as a water supply safety factor.
Dennis Bode – Agricultural arrangements, such as what was done during the 2002 drought, fit in
with the supply-side of a water supply response plan for short-term extreme conditions. If 2003
had ended up being like 2002, conditions would have been really extreme. The City did not have
a safety factor during the 2002 drought. There is a supply-side and demand-side of a shortage
supply response plan. Most of the plan focuses on the demand-side however, the supply-side
(agricultural arrangements) can also be an important component especially during extreme
conditions.
Lee Rozaklis – Gary and Reagan’s comments address the supply-side options for meeting the
goals of the Policy. These things should not specifically be in the Policy, but rather be used to
meet the Policy. Future demands could possibly be met through wells or through agricultural
arrangements.
Susan Smolnik – Many of the agricultural leases in 2002 came from the WSSC system which are
now mostly owned by Thornton and won’t be available for next drought. Other farmers that
provided water to the City in 2002 have or will sell their water to municipalities. These supplies
will also not be available in the future. It was advantageous to use these supplies in 2002
because they could be leased without requiring storage for return flow obligations.
Lee Rozaklis – The agricultural leases, groundwater wells and other supply options are important
to look at after the Policy is in place.
Bill Emslie – He appreciates and feels that this is a good diverse discussion on important points.
It’s healthy and he commends the staff for allowing such discussion. It is important to remember
that this is a Policy and the CWG members, as advisors, need to be careful about providing too
much specific guidance on techniques and operations. Our responsibility is to have a Policy that
establishes goals, criteria, and allows Utilities to have a good portfolio of options with which to
address the problems, whether they be water shortages or water quality issues. The Policy
should be a “bag of tools” that can be used to address such problems in a proper way. The
Policy also needs to establish boundaries that reflect core values such as environmentally
responsible actions and flexibility with a broad range of options. Things like drought planning
are important. We could look at what it would mean to implement a 1-in-100 year drought
criterion; however, this could end up being a huge task. With regard to the Policy, we should be
careful of getting into the specifics too far. In 2002 and 2003, agricultural water was leased, yet
this was not specifically written down anywhere in advance. It was allowed because the Policy
was flexible enough to allow it to happen. Think of the Policy as railings on the side of the
bridge.
George Wallace – When the Agricultural Advisory Board approaches the Water Board about
water sharing, it would be most beneficial to have a Policy that tells us how to best do that. The
Policy needs a clear statement that enables agriculture to work with staff. It is easy to say how
many acre-feet to increase Halligan by, but more difficult to say how many irrigators are needed
to result in an equivalent yield.
Neil Grigg – Susan’s statement is very important. While agriculture is often mentioned as a
good standby supply option, farmers do not have that much supply. Farmers only own 15% of
ATTACHMENT 6
52
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.6
the North Poudre water. It is unrealistic to use agriculture as a safety factor. There were
agricultural supplies available in 2002, however less now, and even less in the future.
George Wallace – Future agricultural agreements should be developed in advance of droughts
that specify an expected amount of water farmers would “give up” during drought periods.
Reagan Waskom – While he appreciates the Policy framework, the criteria have real
implications. If the City accepts a 1-in-100 drought criterion, they will have to go out and
acquire additional storage. It is important to understand the implications.
Barbara Lewis – Is the Policy at an appropriate level of conservatism? She would like to know
this because in the CWG Memo she would like to say what the CWG thought about reliability.
Is the draft Policy at the right level, although there may be alternate options available to get
there? Where does the CWG generally lie on the reliability spectrum?
Lee Rozaklis – It is important to not bundle or confuse elements of Policy and action. This
process is not about the actions. The actions need to be addressed once the Policy is in place.
Gary Wockner – He does not like the term reliability criteria. He thinks of the concept more as a
trade-off.
Reagan Waskom – That is true. It is irrational to ask people for less reliability.
Johannes Gessler - What about using risk?
Lee Rozaklis – But this is the same dilemma, who would sign up for more risk?
Bill Emslie – We should go up a level and address values rather than specific criteria. Essentially
we want the system to be as reliable as possible without contradicting values (i.e. environmental,
cost, et). As long as we are within the sphere of values, we do not necessarily need to put a
specific number or measure on actions taken. Let’s be as reliable as we can and not violate our
core values.
John Sanderson – There are three specific numbers in the Policy: 162 gpcd, 1-in-50, and 15%.
For Barbara’s proposed exercise, we could look at each one of these. Are we being excessively
conservative, not conservative enough or right on?
George Wallace – How do you incorporate population in your demands? Does it go to
buildout? Response: Donnie – Yes, population is related to water utility service area at buildout
by 2050. The projected population is multiplied by the 162 gpcd demand planning level.
George Wallace – So by increasing the reliability, you are not making more room to serve more
people? Response: Donnie – Correct.
Johannes Gessler – He liked John’s idea of conducting the exercise with all three numbers, but
would also like to add the 140 gpcd as an independent issue. For example, changing the 140
gpcd down to 130 gpcd.
Lee Rozaklis – The 140 gpcd was established as the conservation goal during the development of
the water conservation plan. This process does not include the modification of this goal. John’s
idea could work, it unbundles the criteria.
In response to CWG suggestions, the exercise for gauging CWG views on the Planning Criteria
was changed to allow people to comment on each of the three key numbers: the planning
demand level (proposed as 162 gpcd in the revised Policy), the drought criterion (proposed as 1-
ATTACHMENT 6
53
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.7
in-50 in the revised Policy) and the safety factor (proposed as 15 % in the revised Policy.) Each
CWG member wrote their comments on one of three flipcharts reflecting different responses.
Comments are noted below with initials for who wrote down which comment.
Address Reliability Differently Support Numbers in the
Revised Policy
Increase reliability (also
expressed as be more
conservative or decrease
risk)
Planning
Level
Demand
153 gpcd – DW – safe box
achievements which reflects
variability already
GJ
153 gpcd – JG - There is enough
safety at several levels (safety
factor creep)
140 gpcd – JG - There is enough
safety at several levels (safety
factor creep)
140 gpcd – JS - Our stated goal for
gpcd is 140. We should achieve
that goal. It is not terribly
aggressive. Even if you want to
account for climate, 140 gpcd +
6% = 148.4. Looking beyond the
front range, we see plenty of
examples of <140 gpcd.
120 gpcd - GW
162 gpcd - HJR, BE, BR,
RW, GV, MF
LG - About right
GNW – Good place to start
Drought
Criterion
1-in-50 – HJR, DW, MF, GJ,
JS
1:100 – BE - Study this first
before we commit to it. What
is the impact? Does it meet
values test?
1:75 – RW - Expect climate
change to increase drought
severity. This needs more
conservative planning.
LG – 1-in-50 is not
conservative enough.
Safety Factor 15% - HJR, DW, BE, GJ, JS,
RW, MF, LG, JG
CWG Perspectives on Policy Sections
Barbara Lewis introduced an exercise to get a reading on how each CWG member felt about the
Policy. CWG members were asked to hold up a green card if they fully supported the Policy, a
yellow card if they could support it with reservations, and a red card if they couldn’t support it.
The results were:
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.8
Barbara asked the CWG members to go around the room and provide one strength of the Policy
and one recommendation on what they would like to see changed. Barbara recorded ”plusses”
and “wishes” on a flipchart; the flipchart notes are included in this summary as Attachment A.
George Wallace – Strength: Good job at incorporating needs of agriculture and working with
agriculture. Recommendation: Change “the City will explore long-term rental arrangements
with irrigators” to “the City will explore long-term sharing arrangements with irrigators.”
Dennis Wallisch – Strength: Liked continuity with the previous Policy yet also how concerns of
the different CWG members were incorporated into the updated draft Policy. Recommendation:
The draft Policy needs to do a better job addressing water quality. The quality of water can be
significantly different depending on whether the water is coming out of Horsetooth or out of the
Poudre. As a large contractual user, water quality has implications on how their system is
designed. Fort Collins has good quality water and this has served as an economic benefit to the
City. How the City manages water quality in the future will make a difference.
George Varra – Strength: He likes the Policy and thinks that it is exceptionally good.
Recommendation: He is not clear on the statement: “Recognizing that its water use depletes
natural stream flows, the City will seek opportunities to exceed regulatory requirements that
protect the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its diversions.” What does it
mean by exceeding regulatory requirements? Response: Donnie - This statement was not
intended to go around the law, but rather to exceed certain regulatory requirements. Response:
John Sanderson – This was his original comment. If the City is to be a leader, it needs to look
for opportunities to cooperate and go beyond just what the Corps for example is saying. The
City needs to seek other opportunities.
Gary Wockner – Strength: Policy refers to the City as a leader. Recommendation: Fort Collins
has some of the best tasting water in the United States and internationally. There is nothing in
the draft Policy about the taste of water.
Gina Janett – Strength: Draft Policy places more emphasis on instream flows and agricultural
water sharing. Recommendation: The planning demand level is a little high. She would like to
see it be as low as 153 gpcd.
Reagan Waskom – Strength: He liked the agricultural and environmental changes in the Policy.
Recommendation: He has a number of wordsmithing tweaks that he’ll provide on the comment
form. The most significant change involves the language on working with other providers. We
need to make sure that we do not imply that other providers have to “behave” like the City in
order for the City to cooperate with them (i.e. Tri-Districts).
Barbara Rutstein – Strength: She has some wordsmithing, but overall it is a good
comprehensive Policy and she likes how climate change was addressed. Recommendation:
There are some things that are opinions in the Policy. These need to be restated in Policy
language or included as footnotes. Specifics are noted on her comment sheet.
Holly Jo Roseberry - Strength: Overall it is a good all encompassing Policy. She liked how
climate change, instream flows and agriculture were incorporated. Recommendation: The
numbers (1-in-50 drought, 15% and 162 gpcd) should be taken out. The Policy should serve as
the basis on how to respond to certain numbers.
ATTACHMENT 6
55
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.9
Lewis Grant – Strength: Overall it is a good Policy. He likes the water sharing and interrelation
between the City and agriculture. Recommendation: The agricultural water sharing should be
better defined with more emphasis of having medium and long-term sharing arrangements that
support both agriculture and the City.
Mark Forsyth - Strength: The Policy is well organized, comprehensive and he likes the inclusion
of climate change. It is at just the right level. Recommendation: He has no specific
recommendations.
John Sanderson – Strength: He likes Section 4.1, which expresses commitment to both
agriculture and instream flows. He appreciates the Utilities efforts to hear the general sentiment
that the CWG put forward. Recommendation: The demand planning level should be lowered to
140 gpcd and in the future the 140 gpcd water conservation goal should possibly be revisited.
Johannes Gessler - Strength: Very good Policy. Recommendation: His former recommendation
was to take out all of the numbers. He has changed his mind and now thinks that they need to be
included. The numbers are needed to provide some guidance to staff. If there are no numbers,
there is too much flexibility. However, the numbers need to be adjusted. The 162 gpcd is too
high. The 1-in-50 is too conservative; it should be 1-in-40. The 15% safety factor is the most
important criterion and 15% does not give us much safety. The Policy is also too weak on
addressing working with the neighbors and other water providers. Language in this section
should be modified saying the City will aggressively seek collaboration and be a leader in
discussions including Northern.
Bill Emslie – Strength: Good Policy and process. The best Policy comes from having a diverse
set of viewpoints, which was achieved in this process. Recommendation: He generally agrees
with the Policy, but would like to see some changes. He would like to add to Johannes comment
regarding cooperating with neighbors and providers. Several communities in Denver are pooling
resources in order to share and optimize existing infrastructure. He recommends thinking about
water supply core values as a separate section instead of embedding these in the water supply
reliability section. Such values may include: 1) decisions about supply and demand should be
done in an environmentally responsible manner, 2) financial value (address potential adverse
economic impacts, for example study the financial impacts of a 1-in-100 year drought criterion,
3) water quality value – maintain the watershed for the preservation and enhancement of water
quality and also address emergency situations such as a wildfire.
Gary Wockner – He cannot support the Policy yet wants to be clear that he in not going to
oppose the Policy in a public way. There are a number of ways in which the Policy can be
improved. Most of these improvements were provided in his former Policy comments.
Common Ground
Barbara asked the group if it would like to spend the remaining time discussing other issues not
addressed in the Revised Policy or identify areas of common ground. Group decided to discuss
common ground.
Reagan Waskom – He pointed out that everyone but Gary can support the Policy as is or with
some minor changes.
ATTACHMENT 6
56
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.10
Bill Emslie – For those that held up the yellow card, if your recommendations were addressed,
would you support the Policy or are there still a few issues that would keep you from accepting
the Policy?
Gary Wockner – Does staff have to have all of the planning criteria numbers? This is a big
sticking point. Response: Dennis – The numbers do help. If we do not have the numbers, we do
not have any guidance.
Johannes Gessler – If the numbers remain in the Policy, he will continue to “hold the yellow
card.” The current numbers cumulatively results in “safety factor creep.”
Bill Emslie – If we take out all of the numbers, such as the 15 percent reserve, the 1 in 50
drought criteria and the 162 gpcd planning number, we strip out the vital guidance that his
needed to establish reserves and ensure sufficient water resources. . We should present the
majority opinions and then have a separate section that presents the alternative/minority
opinions.
Barbara Lewis – The CWG memo is intended to communicate that some of the group felt one
way and some of the group felt another way. In this way, the Memo can communicate the
common ground as well as the breadth of other opinions.
Reagan Waskom – Most of the disagreement appears to revolve around the numbers. If we
negate the numbers, it would be interesting to see if there are any other major points of
disagreement.
Johannes Gessler – Let’s exclude the numbers and do the “card exercise.”
John Sanderson – If we do not recommend specific numbers, who then decides on what the
numbers will be? What will that look like?
Reagan Waskom – Although it has been implied, we have not openly discussed the Halligan EIS.
The Halligan EIS has a planning level of 162 gpcd.
Dennis Bode – Would like to highlight that if we do not consider the numbers, the group appears
to generally agree with the Policy. In regards to Halligan, the 162 gpcd is used for planning
purposes. However, the 162 gpcd is not the only assumption that is incorporated into the
modeling for the EIS. There are many other assumptions and the use of 162 gpcd or 153 gpcd as
the planning level would not make that significant of a difference. If we have additional storage
(i.e. Halligan), it may not just be used for municipal water supply. It could also be used to meet
other needs such as agriculture and instream flows.
Barbara Rutstein – We need the numbers in the Policy because the staff could change. If the
CWG recommends the numbers, the Council will be less likely to change the number. The
Council could recommend anything.
Bill Emslie –If we say no to the numbers, we are abandoning our responsibility to provide a
useful policy recommendation.
Gary Wockner – If the numbers were dropped, he would go to green.
Holly Jo Roseberry – If something changes, the 1-in-50 criterion may not cover it. Response:
Donnie – The 1-in-50 criterion covers anything less than 1-in-50.
Barbara Rutstein – A 1-in-100 criterion means building more facilities
ATTACHMENT 6
57
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.11
Lewis Grant – He is not sure on what the 1-in-100 implies in regards to infrastructure changes.
Lee Rozaklis – What do people envision the Policy would sound like without the numbers?
Would there just be qualitative words instead of numbers? What does the Policy get us without
numbers?
Bill Emslie – Dennis says that the numbers are helpful and already in the Halligan enlargement.
If we send the Policy forward with blanks, what kind of message are we sending to the decision
makers? We are then saying to Council and the Water Board we can’t agree on the numbers,
which creates a vacuum and the first person that comes up with a logical argument may have
their view accepted by the Council, bypassing the recommendations we have provided.
John Sanderson – We are not going to agree on the numbers.
Bill Emslie – He likes providing a range of minority and majority. It speaks to the inability to
come to an agreement.
Gary Wockner – We don’t really know what the numbers mean. For instance, we don’t know
what a 1-in-25 or a 1-in-50 looks like in the City. What would the City look like if the demand
planning level was 90 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd? We need more information.
Lewis Grant – The staff has done a good job looking at the range of numbers. They have
provided us a lot of information. The Policy needs numbers ad guidelines. Without numbers
there are no decisions or anything.
Johannes Gessler - The Utility should make the decision on the numbers. If the Utilities are not
comfortable, then the Water Board can help decide on the numbers with cooperation of the staff.
Somebody will have to come up with the numbers. The Utilities staff are the ones that are to be
blamed if they come up with the numbers and therefore they tend to be conservative. If they do
not come up with the numbers, they won’t be blamed.
Barbara asked for a vote to see whether the Policy needs numbers:
7 voted yes out of 10 remaining
The CWG then voted on whether members could can accept Policy if the numbers were set aside
(do not consider what the actual numbers are):
Full agreement – 9 votes
Support with some reservation – 1 vote
Reagan Waskom – Some of the members are not here. He is concerned that they are not
adequately represented. Response: Barbara – She will ask others to provide input remotely.
Gina Janett – The memo should conclude that there is actually a lot of consensus.
Other Issues not Addressed in the Policy
This was not covered in depth but is addressed in written comment forms.
ATTACHMENT 6
58
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.12
Wrap Up
Kevin Gertig gave a sincere thank you on behalf of the Utility staff and stated that the CWG’s
input is extremely valuable and is taken seriously from a social, economic and environmental
standpoint.
ATTACHMENT 6
59
Community Working Group Memo
Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo
11/8/11 Attachment F.13
ATTACHMENT A Flipchart Notes of Policy Review Comments
CWG Policy Review Comments
Plusses Wishes
Incorporated aspects regarding respect for needs of
agriculture and working with agriculture
p. 8 3rd sentence….replace rental with sharing
Continuing from previous Policy and taking into
consideration different concerns
Need to recognize that it matters how and where you get
water from, especially with respect to water quality
Good Policy Instream flows important. Be clear on meaning of
“exceed regulatory requirements”
Included being a Leader in the Policy FC best tasting water – great tasting water.
More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water
sharing
Lower planning demand water level – 153?
More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water
sharing, heard what the CWG said
Working with other municipal providers that serve FC
residents. Don’t imply that other providers need to act
more like us.
Comprehensive, addresses climate change Reword places where it is Policy not opinion
Like climate change, streams, rivers, agriculture. All
encompassing.
Take out the numbers – The Policy is the bases for
response to whatever the city is facing.
Water sharing and interrelation between city and
agriculture
Arrangement with water sharing better defined with more
emphasis on Long Term Sharing (not year to year)
Well organized and comprehensive – at right level,
addresses climate change
Shoot for 140 gpcd. Should not inflate it so much higher.
Likes new 4.1 and other beneficial purposes.
Appreciate Utility’s hearing the group’s input; hope
specifics follow.
Adjust numbers to fit John’s proposal – 140 gpcd. 15%
is key and it is too low but may be the only thing we can
get.
Very good Policy. Started thinking take out the 3’s but
now thinks they are the railings on the bridge. Don’t turn
everything over to Utility staff to decide.
Policy is too weak on working with other providers.
Suggest aggressively seek collaboration. (Example is
Denver metro pooling of infrastructure – treatment,
storage, etc.)
Appreciate strong, diverse group providing Policy input.
Excellent choice of process. Like the 3 planning criteria.
Structure: Thought of 2.0 as Core Values for decision-
making. Add overt statement on environmental
responsibility, financial responsibility, and water quality
value.
Remarkable agreement by the group Will submit letter on how can be improved. Most of ideas
are in online comments on previous draft.
ATTACHMENT 6
60
October 17, 2011
TO: Fort Collins City Council and Fort Collins Water Board
FROM: Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
Statement on City of Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
Save the Poudre (STP) greatly appreciates the opportunity to participate in the City’s Water Supply
and Demand Management Policy (Policy) update in 2011. STP 100% supports the City of Fort Collins’
efforts to have a secure and sustainable water supply for the future. STP is especially interested in
ways this policy can be implemented to also meet goals supporting environmental sustainability.
The proposed policy has made some incremental progress forward on the path towards
sustainability. In specific, the proposed policy has made the following incremental but important
changes:
lowered the GPCD rate.
increased wording support for agricultural water sharing.
increased wording support for using surplus water for instream flows in the Poudre River.
We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Fort Collins to help make sure the wording in
the policy is implemented into actions.
In addition to these changes in the policy, Save the Poudre would like to offer additional
recommendations for how these and other sections of the policy could be further improved to more
substantively move Fort Collins’ water supply policy along the path towards sustainability.
Corresponding to the sections in the policy, our recommendations for improvement include the
following:
SECTION: Introduction and Objective
The section states that the policy will "...meet our present needs and those of future generations
without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend."
We ask the City how it can achieve this goal at the same time the City proposes to grow its
population, build a larger dam and reservoir in endangered species habitat on the North Fork of the
Poudre River, and take more water out of two of the most endangered rivers in America – the Cache
la Poudre River and Upper Colorado River? The language in this section sounds very green, but if the
actions are not likewise green, it may appear as “greenwashing.” We ask the City to consider if the
language in this section should be changed, or if the policy should be changed to meet the language?
ATTACHMENT 7
1
SECTION 1.1: Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use
STP believes that the water use efficiency goal of 140 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) is too high.
Water use in Fort Collins has already dipped below 140, and will likely continue to fall. Some new
urbanism developments in the Southwest demonstrate sustainable water use rates as low as 90 gpcd.
Fort Collins should set a lower goal to shoot for – Fort Collins should lead forward on a path of
aggressive water conservation that more responsibly and sustainably uses this precious resource.
SECTION 2.1.1: Planning Demand Level
Though the staff and consultants repeatedly tried, it was never adequately explained why the
planning goal of 162 gpcd is so much higher than the water use goal of 140. There was concern
expressed in the meetings that this number was inflated for purposes of supporting the Halligan
enlargement EIS process. STP believes the planning goal and the water use goal should both be
lower, and should both be based on sound scientific calculations.
SECTION 2.1.2 and 2.1.3: Drought Criterion and Safety Factor
When the committee discussed drought criterion and safety factor, the exercise was over-simplified –
STP does not believe the committee was given adequate information to make a judgment on these
numbers. The concepts of drought criterion, safety factory, planning demand level, and climate
change were all inconsistently lumped together during the meetings and discussion. There was
discussion in the meetings of “safety factor creep” – i.e., that all the numbers were being over-
inflated non-scientifically. In addition, with the high water use goal, the drought criterion, the safety
factor, the higher planning demand level, and the City's water response to climate change (more
conservative and more proposed storage), it seems like the policy has a built-in quintuple safety
factor. STP will require further scientific review of these numbers to evaluate if they are accurate.
Additionally, the concept of “drought criterion” was not sufficiently addressed in the meetings. A
city’s water supply portfolio is a critical factor in addressing drought – if a city has a secure portfolio
with lots of senior direct flow rights, it is much more impervious to drought. This section, and the
discussion in the meetings, over-simplifies the complexity of drought’s interaction with water
supplies. More scientific analysis will be needed by Save the Poudre to evaluate the City’s drought
criterion.
SECTION 2.2 Climate Change
“Climate change” was mentioned 20 times in the policy. Interestingly, in the former policy, “climate
change” was mentioned zero times. Climate change was repeatedly used as a scare tactic in the
committee meetings and in the policy wording – and for a good reason, climate change is scary.
However, what is a rational non-fear-based response? Should we make reservoirs larger? Or should
we lower water use rates? Which solution leads to greater resiliency, more adaptability, and more
economic success in an uncertain future world?
Consider this analogy – if oil is getting scarce and expensive, should your next car be a Hummer or a
Volt? Should you invest in wider roads or should you invest in public transportation, electric car plug-
ATTACHMENT 7
2
in stations, and bicycle routes? And then consider the same question for water – if climate change
will cause water to get more scarce and expensive, what is a rational response? More bluegrass
lawns and bigger dams? Or wide-scale water conservation and xeriscaping? STP has two
recommendations for addressing the threat of climate change in the policy:
1. Use the best available science, quantify the likely impact, and then include that impact with
margins of error in one spot in the policy. (As it is now, the policy just throws around the threat of
climate change 20 times, sometimes without scientific backing.)
2. STP contends that Fort Collins will be more resilient, adaptable, and more economically
competitive in the future if it significantly cuts its use of water and begins switching away from a high
water-use economy. This policy update only offers one response to the threat of climate change –
more water and bigger facilities. STP believes that other more sustainable responses to climate
change were not adequately discussed or presented as options during the committee meetings.
SECTION 2.4.2: Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies
STP believes that the potential to share water with farmers will be the water supply source of the
future for Colorado. Over 80% of the water in the Poudre River is used by farmers – cooperatively
tapping this source will be the primary path forward as demand for water increases. This section
does not fully address this potential, nor does it fully address the conversation in the meetings.
Sharing water with agriculture was supported by everyone in the meetings and should be a large part
of Fort Collins future water supply; this section makes it more of an after-thought.
SECTION 2.4.3: Facilities
Because the policy's water use rates are high, planning demand level is high, drought criterion is not
fully substantiated, safety factor is not fully substantiated, and response to climate change is to be
more conservative, this section therefore assumes the need for more storage. STP will require a
more thorough scientific analysis in order to evaluate this assumption. In addition, if more storage is
required, additional options should be considered that were not mentioned in the policy including
but not limited to “using farms as reservoirs” through leasing and sharing arrangements both for firm
supply and for drought supply. As an example, Fort Collins weathered the worst one-year drought in
history (2002/3) by leasing water from farmers – a proven and inexpensive option for future water
supply that required no facility at all. As another example, the purchase of senior direct flow rights
would also minimize the need for enlarged facilities.
SECTION 4.2: Instream Flows
This section is still too soft. STP believes that using the City’s surplus water for instream flows needs
to be more of an imperative. Instead of the wording in the section that says "encourage," "pursue,"
and "explore," STP strongly recommends the City to work more aggressively to get it done.
ATTACHMENT 7
3
MISSED SECTION: Population Growth
Although a few people in the committee wanted to talk about population growth and its impacts on
water supply planning and farms, the facilitators/consultants/staff did not allow this discussion to
occur. STP believes that any discussion of future water supply planning should include information
about population growth because it is the main factor influencing the need for more water and the
destruction of northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape. Specifically, discussion should include:
1. How population growth is driving water supply policy.
2. How population growth is a policy that the City Council can consider, address, and control just
as other cities in the Southwest have done.
3. How population growth and sprawl are inter-related – higher density human habitation
(residential and commercial) uses significantly less water than sprawl and is significantly less
expensive to supply water to than sprawl.
4. How population growth is also destroying northern Colorado's agricultural landscapes and
agricultural economy.
MISSED DISCUSSION: Most of the conversation in the meetings was about the details of the policy
sections, but there was very little conversation about “cost” and “environmental impacts.” Because
the City is involved in a permitting process for a proposed enlarged reservoir, cost and environmental
impacts will be two of the biggest considerations evaluated during that federal permitting process.
For example, many federal permitting precedents in the U.S. have occurred where water projects
have been stopped because of their environmental impacts. Additionally, there are federal
permitting precedents where the lowest costing project was denied a permit. Save the Poudre
believes the policy update should have spent considerably more time on these two topics.
Again, Save The Poudre thanks the City for the opportunity to be on the committee and provide input
to the City about this important policy. We encourage you to act on our recommendations. We
would be happy to help you move forward with these recommendations. Feel free to contact us with
any questions.
Respectfully,
--
Gary Wockner, PhD, Director
Save the Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
http://savethepoudre.org
970-218-8310
ATTACHMENT 7
4
Utilities — Water Board
City of 700 Wood St.
P0 Box 580
Fort
CoLLins
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970Ai2208 fax
MEMORANDUM
DATE: l)ccemher 15, 2011
riO: Mayor Karen Weitkunat and City Council Members
FROM: Gina C. Janctt, Water Board Chairperson
CC: Darin Atteherry, City Manager
Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director
RE: Water Board Recommendation for the Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy Update
The Water Boai-d voted unanimously to recommend to City Council support for the draft policy
in a memo incorporating Board member comments made during the meeting.
While the meeting minutes provide the Council with the detail of all the questions and
discLlssions that occurred at the meeting, this memo is intended to highlight some of the key
concerns expressed by the Water Board in their discussions.
Background
The full Water Board had only one meeting, on November 17 1h, as a group, to review the
proposed revised policy and to make recommendations. Prior to this meeting, staff met twice
with both the Water Board’s Water Supply Committee and Water Conservation and Public
Education Committee to review information regarding the revised policy. All Water Board
members were invited to these meetings. At the full Water Board meeting on November 17111,
there was a long question and answer period and numerous suggestions for wordsmithing to staff
to clarify particular policy language.
Ultimately, the issues of most significance and discussion by the Water Board were the
water supply planning criteria and the possible impacts that changes to these criteria in the
Policy might have upon the cost and schedule for the Halligan-Seaman permitting process
and upon the sizing of the Halligan Reservoir expansion.
The staff’s answers to questions about changing these planning criteria in the updated policy
indicated that the result would:
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Fort City of CoLLins
• Extend the research, time and expense br the permitting process. (It was stated that the
hIS permitting process is costing ahout $1 million per year, and that changing the
criterion could extend the PfOCCSS even longer, thereby increasing the cost to the City.)
• Change the sizing of the Halligan Reservoir expansion for the City’s portion by a
i-elatively small amount estimated to he in the area of I ,0002,O00 acre Feet.
• Impact the City’s partners in the Halligan—Seaman project.
Water Board Discussion and Recommendation
There were three motions made by Johannes Gessler for possible changes to the water supply
planning criteria section of the updated policy.
1. Motion on the Planning Demand Level
During discussion, there was a suggestion that a lower number such as the water conservation
goal oF 140 gpcd or the average use of the last five years (153 gpcd) he used for the planning
demand level instead of the 162 gpcd as proposed in the new policy.
Member Gessler moved to change the planning demand level to an average per capita demand
equivalent to the average consumption of the previous five years. For the past 5 years, this
methodology would result in a planning demand level of 153 gpcd, which is lower than the
proposed 162 gpcd.
The motion failed by a vote oF 2 for and 6 against. The Board members voting against this
proposal emphasized that while they were supportive of a lower planning demand level,
they were concerned about the financial and time costs to the City that changing the level
would have upon the Halligan permitting process, and that the margin of change in
Halligan sizing was not significant enough in order to support the proposed change to the
criteria.
2. Motion on recommending a change to the Drought Criterion
Member Gessler then made a motion to recommend changing the drought criterion from a 1-in-
50 year drought event to a I -in-40 year drought event. Such a change would mean that the water
supply storage would be planned for more frequent, but less catastrophic droughts. The staff’s
response in earlier discussion during the meeting about changing the drought criterion was that it
would not he easy to do and would mean that there would he an extensive effort needed to revise
the water demand and supply computer modeling which would take time and money to complete
and would significantly extend the Halligan EIS process.
The motion failed by a vote of 1 for to 7 against. Those members voting against the motion
indicated that while less conservative drought criterion could be considered, the reason for
ATTACHMENT 8
2
-Fort City V-of coLLins -
voting against the motion was the increased cost of changing the model (expense, time, and
EIS process).
3. Motion on recommending a change to the Storage Reserve Factor
Member Gessler than made a motion to increase the Storage Reserve Factor from 15% to 20%
because he believes there should he an additional layer of protection for risks outside the other
reliability criteria for emergency situations such as a pipeline failure and ftr droughts that exceed
a I —in—SO year drought.
The vote on the motion was 3 for increasing the Storage Reserve Factor and 5 against. Those
voting against the motion again cited the added expense of changing the Storage Reserve
Factor to the modeling process and its impact upon the cost and schedule of the Halligan
permitting process.
4. Motion to recommend support for the draft Policy
After all 3 motions failed, there was a fourth motion by member Brown to move that the Water
Board prepare a letter of support to the City Council for the draft policy incorporating comments
during the Board meeting with assistance as needed from staff and consider it for approval by the
Board at its December meeting.
This motion passed unanimously.
Other Comments to be Emphasized
Other concerns expressed during the discussion that should be noted were:
• the City needs to continue to monitor climate change and research in order to modify this
policy as needed,
• the triple bottom line aspects of the policy should more fully integrate the social,
environmental and economic benefits (e.g., identify the social benefits of a healthy
environment),
• land use planning can greatly impact landscape water use and as the City completes the
development of vacant land and redevelops, there may be changes to water use that
should he used to update the policy,
• the City should consider using a sensitivity analysis to identify the benefit and costs of
changing the planning demand, drought criterion, and/or storage reserve factor,
ATTACHMENT 8
3
Fort City of CoLLins
• waler stored in the expanded Halligan should he able to he used br instrearn Poudre
River flows 1111(1 br supporting local agriculture, and
• the City should work wil.h not only other municipal providers, local irrigation companies
and other local organizations, but also coordinate with existing state programs such as the
Interhasin Compact Committee roundtahles as well as state and Federal agencies.
ATTACHMENT 8
4
ATTACHMENT 9
1
Excerpt from Approved Water Board Minutes, November 17, 2011
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
(Attachments available upon request).
Water Resources Engineer Donnie Dustin introduced the item and introduced Water Resources
Manager Dennis Bode. Lee Rozaklis, consultant with AMEC Earth and Environmental, was also
available to answer questions.
Why Update the Policy?
The current policy was last adopted in 2003. Mr. Dustin outlined the reasons for updating the
policy including significant reductions in water use, the continued need to provide a reliable
water supply, to prepare for potential effects of climate change, the increased focus on the use of
surplus raw water, the importance of fostering regional cooperation, and to align with Plan Fort
Collins and incorporate sustainability efforts.
Policy Update Process
The process to date has focused primarily on a Community Working Group that included 19
individuals. Three water board members were a part of this group. The group members helped
draft the policy update that was provided in the Water Board packet.
The policy is presented to the Water Board to discuss their considerations. There will also be
outreach to other boards and commissions and other interested organizations. A landscape
preference survey will also be implemented. The policy will be discussed in a City Council Work
Session on January 10, 2012.
Policy Update Changes
Mr. Dustin outlined changes to the policy, including aligning with Plan Fort Collins, demand
management to reduce water conservation goal to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), water
supply reliability and associated planning criteria, looking at additional supplies and facilities,
exploring long term rental/sharing arrangements with agriculture, and maintaining water quality
and regional cooperation.
Community Working Group Findings
Mr. Dustin stated there was a high level of agreement among the working group members with
most elements of the updated policy. There were some divergent views from several members on
the planning criteria numbers. Several members thought planning demand level (162 gpcd) was
too high. Some members thought drought criterion should be higher (1-in-75 or 1-in-100);
however, most members agreed with the numbers. Setting the numbers aside, there was full
support on the policy update from all members present at the final meeting (except one with
some reservations).
Planning Criteria
The 1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion was developed in the 1985 Drought Study and has been used
since the 1988 Water Supply Policy. This has provided a reliable supply system to date and has
been used by the City of Greeley, a partner in the Halligan Seaman Water Management Project
(HSWMP). This provides a reasonable level when compared with other Colorado water
providers.
ATTACHMENT 9
2
Board discussion:
A board member questioned the statement concerning “reasonable level” and asked for
clarification on the meaning. Mr. Dustin stated this is based on a 1-in-50 level. Several other
communities along the Front Range use a 1-in-100 level.
Chairperson Janett stated the City of Fort Collins is less conservative than some of the other
communities. Even though some of the other communities may be more conservative, there is a
price tag to that in regards to storage.
Mr. Dustin explained the 15 percent safety factor. This means that 15 percent of annual demand
is in storage through design drought criterion (1-in-50). This equates to approximately three
months of winter demand and approximately 1 month of summer demand. This provides storage
reserve to address a short-term emergency situation.
The planning demand level of 162 gpcd was developed to consider potential increases in outdoor
water use due to projected climate change. This recognizes that water supply projects take many
years to develop and also accounts for other future uncertainties.
Potential Uncertainties
Mr. Dustin outlined the potential uncertainties. The water supply system modeling does not
include potential climate change impacts to water supplies, potential Colorado Big Thompson
(CBT) project curtailment, potential system failures, or supply blending for optimal treated water
quality. This assumes 4,200 acre-feet to Fort Collins from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA)
as part of the Reuse Plan.
Potential Ramifications of Changing Criteria
Changes to the criteria would require extensive study, time, and expense. Potential effects of
climate change should be carefully assessed. Changing the criteria could significantly delay the
HSWMP permitting process. This could include potential revisions to the project purpose and
need, alternatives analysis, and modeling efforts. In 2008, the gpcd was changed from 185 to 162
to recognize lower usage. Recent changes not reflected in the permitting process include lower
gpcd and higher population projections. Changes would not only impact Fort Collins, but the
HSWMP partners as well.
Planning Criteria Summary
Water supply planning is a long-term process with many uncertainties. Planning criteria seeks to
balance the benefits and risks of developing a reliable water supply with the associated costs and
impacts. These criteria determine the amount of supplies and facilities needed. Planning for
higher use levels will likely create additional surplus supplies for other uses. Considering all
these factors, staff believes these criteria are reasonable.
Policy Update Summary
Mr. Dustin outlined the key changes to the policy including the conservation goal of 140 gpcd,
acknowledging the water supply planning criteria, a stronger commitment to using surplus
supplies, and aligning with Plan Fort Collins and sustainability efforts. Input from the
Community Working Group helped update the policy to address many issues and the policy
update provides additional guidance for water supply and demand planning.
ATTACHMENT 9
3
Board discussion:
Chairperson Janett expressed her thanks for including the implications on the Halligan-Seaman
project in the presentation. She asked Board Member Gessler, a member of the Community
Working Group, for his thoughts on the process and the policy. Mr. Gessler stated the group
primarily agreed on policy language, and the only exception to that concerns the specific
numeric values. He thought the group worked well together and he expressed thanks to staff and
to the consultants for guiding the committee and keeping them on track. Mr. Gessler asked for
clarification on the process for approving the motion brought before the board. Chairperson
Janett stated she would like staff to entertain questions from the board members before voting on
the motion. She stated that even though the community working group was a diverse group of
individuals, there was agreement on policy language for the most part. There were differences of
opinions on the criteria. She stated it is very important for the Water Board to understand the
criteria before changes are recommended. She also noted Board Member Gessler has suggested
some recommended motions.
A board member questioned a statement in the Community Working Group Charter stating that
three Water Board Members will serve as liaisons. He asked for clarification on the meaning of
this statement. Chairperson Janett stated the three members could be viewed as resources to
assist the other members in understanding the policy more in depth and any opinions expressed
did not represent the opinions of the entire board.
Chairperson Janett stated the Water Board is basing its recommendation to Council on the nine
page draft policy attached in the packet for tonight’s meeting.
A board member questioned that if a particular board member has edits to the policy, does the
board have to vote on any changes? Vice Chairperson Balderson recommended the board could
make recommendations to the policy; however, due to the length of the policy document, it would
take a lot of time to edit every single section within the time frame of tonight’s meeting.
A board member gave a suggestion to the document. He recommended the word “determine” be
changed to “estimate” in Section 2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria.
Mr. Bode stated it would be appropriate for board members to make these types of
recommendations to the policy; however, he is concerned with the board suggesting major
changes at this point in time.
A board member asked for clarification on the statement on page 1 for “sustainable and
integrated approach” to water demand and water resources management as it relates to the
policy objective. Mr. Dustin stated the policy objective aligns with Policy ENV 21.2 from the
Plan Fort Collins document.
The board member also expressed concerns about the context of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
approach to the policy. She feels that the TBL aspects should more fully integrate the social
benefit. For example, there is a social benefit to having a healthy environment. Mr. Dustin stated
this aspect is considered as part of the overall view with the TBL analysis.
A board member expressed concern about the concept of demand management. He feels the
policy relates more to the City’s water conservation plan versus demand management. He
suggested more demand management components should be included in the next revision of the
ATTACHMENT 9
4
policy. Mr. Bode stated the water demand drives a lot of what happens on the water supply side
and the water conservation plan contains much more detail on specific demand management
measures.
Chairperson Janett stated if the policy was neutral on demand management, the City would still
have flat water rates. The tiered rate structure is a demand management tool. How the rates are
set causes and encourages the demand. The water supply planning in the future has to link with
the demand management. This policy incorporates the key components of the water demand
management.
Mr. Dustin stated that prior to the 2003 policy, there was a separate water supply policy and
water conservation policy. Council asked Utilities to combine the two policies into one
document.
A board member expressed concerns about the statement for the City’s urban landscaping in
Section 1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use. He suggested this should also
include suggestions for land use. Chairperson Janett stated the direction concerning land use
comes from the City’s Planning Department based on population projections and anticipated lot
sizes. She stated there could be suggestions back to the Planning Department for using less
water. Mr. Bode stated there has been communication between Utilities and the Planning
Department concerning landscaping and water use issues. There is not a complete separation
between planning and water use. The City has implemented smaller lots due to water use and
infrastructure issues.
A board member asked if this should be stated in the policy. Perhaps there could be one
statement asking other departments to consider water use suggestions. A board member stated
there should be a section at the end of the policy containing references to other documents where
land use is discussed in a broader sense.
Chairperson Janett suggested the policy contain a paragraph describing the process as land use
changes occur. There should be an interactive approach to this process. Mr. Dustin stated the
first point could be modified as follows, “continuing study of the water requirements of the
City’s urban landscaping and land use planning.”
Chairperson Janett stated she will draft a memo to Council highlighting the recommended
changes to the policy.
Mr. Dustin stated since the policy goes to a Council Work Session in January, changes to the
policy can still be suggested by the board members.
A board member suggested the last bullet in Section 1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand
Management should read as follows, “prepare for potential impact of climate change.” In
Section 1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use, the statement “and is not
intended to be used for water supply planning purposes” seems to contradict the gpcd goal.
The board member also asked for clarification on Footnote 2. Is the loss at the tap or at the
treatment facility? Mr. Dustin stated the loss is at the treatment facility. Mr. Bode clarified that
“water produced for use” is the water coming from the treatment facility.
ATTACHMENT 9
5
A board member stated there is no discussion relating to indoor use versus outdoor use or
differentiation between customer classes. Should the policy clarify the gpcd for all customer
classes? Also, with the implementation of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI), if better
data is available in the future, can different water conservation measures be implemented by
customer class? Can this be placed in a section on monitoring and updating?
A board member suggested the second sentence in Section 1.3 Water Rate Structures should read
as follows, “…sufficient revenue for operational purposes and capital projects.” Mr. Bode stated
the statement is aimed primarily on operational and maintenance type expenses, rather than
capital projects.
A board member expressed concern about the third bullet in Section 2.0 Water Supply Reliability
stating, “Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances.” He suggested the
statement read as follows, “Maintaining a water storage reserve to account for seasonal and
hydrologic variations and unforeseen circumstances.”
He also questioned the sixth bullet in Section 2.0 stating, “Collaboration with the City’s
neighboring water providers and users.” He suggested changing “neighboring” to “regional”
since the term “regional” appears in other sections of the policy.
A board member questioned the statement concerning customers versus the community as a
whole. Is this referring to agricultural customers? Chairperson Janett stated this language is used
in the policy because there are City residents who do not receive City water.
Has the City implemented the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan to date? Mr. Dustin stated
this plan was developed and implemented during the drought that became severe in 2003. The
City has not implemented mandatory restrictions since that time.
What are the two categories of water use the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan targets first?
How has the water use dropped from average when the shortage response plan is implemented?
Mr. Bode stated the water use is measured every day. Both indoor use and outdoor use are
considered in the plan.
In a 1-in-50 year drought, we assume we can operate as normal (162 gpcd is the average water
use over the last five years). The board member suggested advocating a lower number such as
140 gpcd.
Chairperson Janett stated the Community Working Group did look at the details of the Water
Supply Shortage Response Plan. There was unanimous support from the members for the plan.
People will use less water during a drought before the plan is implemented.
Mr. Bode stated that early in 2002, there was a voluntary approach to reduce water use.
Restrictions were implemented in July 2002. In 2003, there was a desire to continue with the
restrictions because there were concerns about long term water supply. Mr. Dustin stated the
planning criteria are used to dictate the supply and restrictions are usually implemented before
the drought level (i.e. 1-in-50 year) is known since the drought could continue and become more
severe.
ATTACHMENT 9
6
A board member stated the 1-in-50 year drought criteria is not as conservative as some, but is in
the norm. There is also the safety factor of 15 percent. If there is value in comparing our process
to other communities, the planning needs to incorporate the other components so it is compared
“apples to apples.” Mr. Rozaklis stated the planning demand level should be a relatively
conservative projection before there are restrictions. The safety factor is a separate allowance if
something major goes wrong.
Regarding future water storage needs, do the three components add to additional water storage
each with their own component? Mr. Rozaklis stated when the City looks at any combination of
the three criteria, the model takes into account the varying timing of peaks. Mr. Dustin stated the
1-in-50 year criteria are a set of hydrology that the supplies and facilities are run through. The
planning demand level dictates the demand the City needs to meet. The safety factor is taken into
account in case of an emergency.
Would the change in Halligan storage be relatively small? Mr. Dustin stated the Utility would
need about 10,500 acre-feet of storage at Halligan Reservoir based on this set of criteria.
A board member stated Halligan storage is primarily an insurance policy. The impacts on the
river would not take place every year. Mr. Bode stated that the purpose of Halligan is partially
for insurance, but there is also an operational purpose. Mr. Dustin stated there are some
contractual demands. There will be some storage necessary to meet these needs.
If the planning demand number is changed from 162 gpcd to 153 gpcd, what is the margin of
difference in the storage? Mr. Dustin stated there was only a small difference with modeling
based on that number.
What would it cost the City to change the drought criteria? Mr. Dustin stated that changing the
criteria would require extensive study and new modeling in the permitting process. Mr. Bode
stated the Purpose and Need Report would have to be changed as well.
Chairperson Janett asked the board if they have additional changes to the policy language.
A board member asked for clarification on the last paragraph in Section 4.1 Commitment to
Other Beneficial Purposes concerning allowing voluntary contributions from ratepayers for
specific programs. Chairperson Janett stated this statement pertains to a mechanism for
ratepayers to voluntarily fund non-drinking water purposes such as instream flows or river
restoration projects.
A board member stated she would like the policy to address industrial water conservation. Water
Conservation Specialist Laurie D’Audney stated there are programs that address this, such as
Climate Wise, but these programs are not specifically mentioned in this policy. These programs
are part of the Water Conservation Plan.
Chairperson Janett stated the second sentence in Section 4.1.2 Instream Flows concerning
associated regulatory requirements should be clarified. Mr. Dustin stated the intention is to go
beyond what is required with the regulatory requirements. This statement can be modified per
her suggestion.
ATTACHMENT 9
7
A board member suggested the last sentence in Section 2.1.2 Drought Criterion should read as
follows, “and the environmental impacts associated with water storage and diversions.” He also
suggested the first sentence in Section 2.2 Climate Change contain a statement for seasonal
timing as it relates to the impact of the reliability of the City’s supply.
A board member asked for clarification on Section 2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan.
Should it be dated as the 2003 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan? Mr. Dustin stated this is
per a City Council ordinance.
A board member stated perhaps the second sentence in Section 4.1 Commitment to Other
Beneficial Purposes concerning significant quantities of surplus raw water should be moved to
the beginning of Section 4.0.
A board member suggested the second sentence in Section 5.0 Regional Cooperation be modified
to read as follows, “…define a way to meet future water supply needs in a manner to minimize
negative impacts to agricultural economies.” Mr. Dustin stated staff would consider this change,
but this wording came directly from the Community Working Group.
A board member suggested the work with the state be mentioned in Section 5.3 Working with
Others. There is no direct mention of working with the state and the statewide studies.
Chairperson Janett asked if the excess stored in Halligan can be used by the City for instream
flow if it is not specifically mentioned in the Halligan Purpose and Need Report? Can Halligan
water be used for this purpose? Mr. Bode stated there may be opportunities in the interim that
will benefit the river and local agriculture. Mr. Dustin stated permit conditions have not been
discussed yet. His understanding was that as long as the permit conditions and as long as the
conditions are not violated, there will likely be opportunities for other uses.
Mr. Rozaklis stated there could be interim uses for the reservoir as long as they do not preclude
what the reservoir was designed for permanently.
A board member suggested staff should conduct a sensitivity analysis on the planning demand
level of 162 gpcd to look at a cost and benefit analysis as it relates to the safety factor. This may
provide an opportunity to raise the safety factor and reduce the risk.
Does the safety factor primarily deal with Halligan Reservoir? Mr. Dustin stated the safety
factor also includes the storage levels at Joe Wright Reservoir.
Discussion on the motion:
Board Member Gessler gave a background on the recommended motion. He feels the proposed
planning demand level of 162 gpcd is too high and recommends using the average over the last
Board Member Gessler moved to change the first sentence in Section 2.1.1 Planning
Demand Level to read as follows, “The reliability of the City’s water supply should be
maintained to meet an average per capita demand level equivalent to the average
consumption of the previous five years. This planning level provides a value that is higher
than the water use efficiency goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply
planning.” Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 9
8
five years (153 gpcd). The number can be adjusted if there are climate changes. He feels that a
specific project should not dictate what is in the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
language.
A board member stated changing the gpcd number is costly to the City and may not provide
much benefit. He also suggested that perhaps it should be based on a ten year average.
A board member reminded the board that changing the number changes the Halligan storage
capacity. Perhaps the focus should be on what to do with the surplus water year to year.
Chairperson Janett expressed concerns about maintaining the existing urban landscaping. Is it
possible to maintain the existing landscaping in light of a warming climate? She feels residents
will change their landscaping voluntarily and feels caution should be executed when maintaining
urban landscaping.
Does changing the demand level to an historical average impact the Halligan permit? Mr. Bode
stated that changing the number would have an impact. The modeling is set up for a level of 162
gpcd. If that number is changed, the modeling will change.
A board member questioned the statement from the presentation concerning “right sizing” the
amount of storage needed. Once Halligan is built, can the number be changed? Mr. Bode stated
the policy will be updated again in 5-7 years, and there will be opportunities to revise as
necessary.
Vote on the motion: 2 for (Gessler and Balderson), 6 against (Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett,
Brunswig, and Malers)
The motion does not carry.
Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, and
Malers cited the margin of change and the financial costs to the Halligan-Seaman permitting
process as their primary reasons for voting against the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Board Member Gessler gave background on his recommended motion. He feels our society likes
to have everything excessively safe. He is fine with imposing water restrictions if necessary.
Is there a plan to update that model to consider climate change? Mr. Dustin stated there is a
Front Range Climate Change Vulnerability Study due to come out soon that the City of Fort
Collins has been involved in. However; results from this study have not been incorporated into
the City’s water supply modeling.
A board member stated he feels both of the motions are valid, but he feels it is unnecessary to
make modifications in the middle of the Halligan EIS process.
Board Member Gessler moved to change the wording in Section 2.1.2 Drought Criterion
from “1-in-50 year drought event” to “1-in-40 year drought event.” Board Member
Brunswig seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 9
9
Vote on the motion: 1 for (Gessler), 7 against (Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig,
Malers, and Balderson)
The motion does not carry.
Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, Brunswig, Malers,
and Balderson cited the cost to change the model as their primary reason for voting against the
motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Board Member Gessler gave background on his recommended motion. He feels the 15 percent
safety factor is inadequate. He would like to increase the percentage from 15 percent to 20
percent over the next ten years.
If the safety factor is changed to 20 percent, does that automatically increase the size of Halligan
Reservoir by five percent? Mr. Dustin stated there would be approximately a 2,000 acre feet
increase in the size of Halligan Reservoir.
Board Member Gessler stated this storage capacity could occur in another location besides
Halligan Reservoir.
A board member asked if the third motion is dependent on the approval of the first two motions.
Board Member Gessler stated this motion is independent from the first two recommended
motions.
A board member stated he feels this motion is arbitrary. He feels this should be related to
something more tangible, perhaps a three month water supply during the summer. Can studies
be conducted to determine a number that is not arbitrary?
A board member stated he is going to support the recommended motion since it relates to the
issue of storage and perhaps this issue will be made visible to City Council.
Vote on the motion: 3 for (Gessler, Balderson, and Brunswig), 5 against (Brown, Bovee,
Goldbach, Janett, and Malers)
The motion does not carry.
Reason for the nay votes: Board Members Brown, Bovee, Goldbach, Janett, and Malers cited the
cost to change the model as their primary reason for voting against the motion.
A board member asked if it is possible to make Council aware of the fact that a large portion of
the Water Board voted less on policy substance than on where the policy is relating to the
Board Member Gessler moved to change the paragraph in Section 2.1.3 Safety Factor to
read as follows, “The City’s water supply reliability planning is to incorporate measures
over the next ten years to systematically increase the safety factor of having currently 15
percent of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought to having at least 20
percent on annual demand in storage. This safety factor provides an additional layer of
protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other reliability criteria,
including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed a 1-in-50
year drought.” Board Member Balderson seconded the motion.
ATTACHMENT 9
10
Halligan EIS process. He feels this information would be helpful for Council to know when
making their decision.
Chairperson Janett stated that for the purpose of a memo to Council, there was support from
multiple board members for lowering the planning demand number and support for
consideration of 1-in-40 year drought criteria; however, due to the cost of changing the Halligan
EIS process, the board voted against the motions.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
* Board Member Bovee departed the meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board prepare a letter of support to City
Council for the draft policy incorporating comments made during the board meeting with
assistance as needed from staff and consider it for approval by the board at its December
meeting. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion.
1
Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy Update
City Council Work Session
January 10, 2011
2
Overview
• Highlight process for updating policy
• Present main updated policy elements
• Provide supporting information about water use
and water supply planning
– Focus on water supply planning criteria
• Summary of public input
• Address questions
ATTACHMENT 10
1
3
Current Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy
• Adopted in 2003 (Resolution 2003-104)
• Guides the Utilities in balancing future water
supplies and demands
• Policy Objective
– Ensure an adequate, safe and reliable supply
of water for the beneficial use by customers
and the community
– Manage the level of demand and the efficient
use of a scarce and valuable resource
4
Why Update the Policy?
• Eight years since last update
• Significant reductions in water use since 2002
• Continued need to provide reliable water supply
• Prepare for potential effects of climate change
• Increased focus on the use of surplus raw water
– Supporting local agriculture
– Providing instream flows
ATTACHMENT 10
2
5
Why Update the Policy?
• Desire to “right size” amount of storage needed
• Importance of fostering regional cooperation
• Align with Plan Fort Collins and incorporate
sustainability efforts
6
Policy Update Process
• Hired consultants (AMEC & Catalyst) in late 2010
• Formed a Community Working Group (CWG)
– 19 representatives with various and diverse
backgrounds and opinions on water issues
(included 3 Water Board members)
– Six meetings to educate and discuss policy
– Helped develop updated policy
– CWG Memo documents their input/discussions
(fcgov.com/wsdmp-update)
ATTACHMENT 10
3
7
Policy Update Process
• Water Board consideration
• Outreach to boards and other interested groups
– Input similar to Community Working Group
• Conducted landscape preference survey
8
Updated Policy Elements
• Align with Plan Fort Collins and embed
sustainability
– Refer to related Plan Fort Collins policies
– Consider economic, environmental and social
aspects
• Demand Management
– Reduce water conservation goal to 140 gpcd
per the 2009 Water Conservation Plan (WCP)
• Compares to current use level of 153 gpcd
• Link to WCP for measures and future goals
ATTACHMENT 10
4
9
Updated Policy Elements
• Water Supply Reliability
– Continue 1-in-50 drought criterion and Water
Supply Shortage Response Plan
– Include other criteria used by Utility for greater
transparency
• Storage reserve factor (15% of annual
demand)
• Planning demand level (162 gpcd)
– Consider potential effects of climate change
10
Updated Policy Elements
• Additional Supplies and Facilities
– Consider alternatives that best fit supply
system
– Explore long-term rental/sharing arrangements
with agriculture
– Not specific about storage amounts needed
• Water Quality
– Protect watershed and maintain treated taste
and quality
ATTACHMENT 10
5
11
Updated Policy Elements
• Surplus Raw Water
– Stronger commitment to use surplus supplies
for other beneficial purposes
• Support local agriculture
• Enhance river flows
• Regional Cooperation
– Maintain good relationships with others
12
Current Water Demand (Use)
• Deliver about 26,000 acre-feet/year treated and
4,000 acre-feet/year of raw water
• Demand levels have declined significantly
– ~230 gpcd early 1990s
– ~200 gpcd before 2002
– ~153 gpcd since 2003
ATTACHMENT 10
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Use (gallons per capita per day - GPCD)
Year
Fort Collins Utilities - Per Capita Water Use
Actual Use Normalized Use
13
14
Water Use Reductions per Account
by Customer Category
• Reductions are calculated for the period averages
of 1998-2001 and 2004-2010
Commercial 19% 17% 18%
Multi-Family 18% 42% 24%
Duplex 25% 59% 38%
Single Family 22% 49% 37%
Category in Indoor Use in Outdoor Use in Total Use
Customer % Reduction % Reduction % Reduction
ATTACHMENT 10
7
15
Water Conservation
• Continued measures to reduce demands every
year
– Water Supply Shortage Response Plan used
to achieve temporary reductions
• On-going conservation efforts
– All customers metered in 2003
– Tiered & seasonal rate structures
– Educational programs
– Rebates, sprinkler audits, etc.
• Revised conservation goal of 140 gpcd by 2020
16
Landscape Preference Survey
• Gage customers desire to change landscapes
• General satisfaction with current landscapes
(especially trees), support for more xeriscape
• No strong opinion regarding additional water
conservation
ATTACHMENT 10
8
17
City of Fort Collins
Water Supply -Sources
Poudre River
CBT Project
18
Water Supplies
• On average, about 50/50 split between Poudre
River and CBT supplies used
• Poudre River
– Senior direct flow rights
– Converted agricultural rights
– Michigan Ditch/Joe Wright Reservoir
ATTACHMENT 10
9
19
Water Supplies
• Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT)
– Colorado River water delivered to east slope
– Administered by the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
– Annual quota dictates amount received per unit
owned
– Delivery of units from Horsetooth Reservoir
– Policies limit carryover storage year-to-year
Highly variable flows affect
City water right yields
20
ATTACHMENT 10
10
2/3rds
of runoff
occurs in 2 months
21
22
CBT project yields also
subject to variability
ATTACHMENT 10
11
23
Current Water Supplies
• Adequate supplies in most years
• Based on 1-in-50 year drought criteria
• 31,000 acre-feet/year treated water firm yield
24
Future Water Demands
• Depends largely on population and commercial
growth
• Total projected need of ~39,700 acre-feet/year by
2050
– Anticipated population served by Utility is
~165,100 by 2050 (~129,900 in 2010)
– Large contractual use increase of ~3,000 acre-
feet/year by 2050
– Existing firm yield of ~31,000 acre-feet/year
• Water Utility has a limited growth potential due to
surrounding water districts
ATTACHMENT 10
12
25
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
26
Future Supply Plans
• Acquire additional water rights and/or cash
through Raw Water Requirements
• Acquire/develop storage capacity to help manage
current and future water rights
– Operational storage (gravel pits or similar)
– Carryover and vulnerability protection storage
(Halligan Res. or similar)
• Reductions in water use have decreased the
amount of storage required
ATTACHMENT 10
13
27
Water Supply Planning Criteria
• Determines water supply and/or facility needs
– (e.g., amount of storage)
• Should be somewhat conservative to account for
uncertainties in planning
– Population projections
– Large contractual use
– Water right yields
– Climate change (demands and supplies)
• Critical for long-term planning (especially storage)
28
Water Supply Planning Criteria
• 1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion
– Defines level of risk for water supply system
– Used since 1988 Water Supply Policy
– Has provided reliable supply system to date
– Reasonable level when compared with other
Colorado water providers
– Used by the City of Greeley
• Partner in the Halligan-Seaman Water
Management Project (HSWMP)
ATTACHMENT 10
14
29
Water Supply Planning Criteria
• 15% Storage Reserve Factor
– Have 15% of annual demand in storage
through design drought criterion (1-in-50)
• ~3 months of winter (indoor) demand or
~1 month of summer demand
– Provides short-term supply to address
emergency situations (i.e., CBT shutdown)
– Helps diversify Fort Collins’ water supply
system by including Poudre Basin storage
• Minimizes our reliance on CBT storage
30
Water Supply Planning Criteria
• 162 gpcd planning demand level
– Considers increases in outdoor water use on
existing landscapes due to projected climate
change
– Recognizes that water supply projects take
many years to develop
– Accounts for other future uncertainties
ATTACHMENT 10
15
31
Potential Uncertainties
• Water supply system modeling does not include:
– Potential climate change impacts to supplies
– Potential CBT project curtailment
– Potential reduction in Windy Gap deliveries to
Fort Collins from Platte River Power Authority
(Reuse Plan)
– Supply blending for high treated water quality
32
Potential Impacts of
Changing Criteria
• May not significantly change the amount of
supplies/facilities needed by Utility
• Some changes may counterbalance needs
– Lowering gpcd, but increasing storage reserve
– Using lower use of 153 gpcd and higher
population projections of 165,100
• Equals same demand as 162 gpcd and
155,000 (Halligan permitting values)
ATTACHMENT 10
16
33
Corp’s preliminary modeling indicates
Utility will need about 8,000-9,000
acre-feet of additional storage.
These values subject to change.
34
Potential Impacts of
Changing Criteria
• Could significantly delay HSWMP permitting
process
– Potential revisions to project purpose & need,
alternatives analysis and modeling efforts
– Changed gpcd from 185 to 162 in 2008
– 6-years and $4 Million (Fort Collins only) to
date
– Changes would impact the HSWMP partners
ATTACHMENT 10
17
35
Planning Criteria Key Points
• Water supply planning is long-term process with
many uncertainties
• Planning criteria seek to balance the benefits and
risks of developing a reliable water supply with the
associated costs and impacts of doing so
• These criteria determine amount of supplies and
facilities needed
– Water use determines impacts to river system
(except for construction/inundation impacts)
36
Planning Criteria Key Points
• Planning for higher use levels could provide more
flexibility to use supplies for other benefits
• Considering all these factors, staff believes these
criteria are reasonable
ATTACHMENT 10
18
37
Surplus Raw Water
• City has surplus supplies in many years
– Result of planning for 1-in-50 year drought
• Most surplus water typically rented to agricultural
users
– Reduces customer rates
– Currently on year-to-year basis
– Recognize interest in long-term arrangements
38
Surplus Raw Water
• Unused or unrented surplus water left in river
– Diverted by next senior water right
• Surplus supplies difficult to use for instream flows
under current Colorado water law
• Utilities staff working with other City departments
on initiatives to improve Poudre River flows
ATTACHMENT 10
19
39
Environmental Considerations
• Fort Collins water use reduces flows in the
Poudre River and other watersheds (Colorado
and Michigan River basins)
• Poudre River flows are reduced mostly by local
irrigation diversions
• Diversions for the City’s future use will mostly
occur above downtown Fort Collins
40
ATTACHMENT 10
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Date
Flow (cfs)
Direct Flow Rights Water from Storage 2008 Actual Demands
130% of Average Poudre
River Flows (1986)
Water Supplies and Demands for Fort Collins Utilities
Direct flow
rights in excess
of demands.
Storage required to
meet demands.
41
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Date
Flow (cfs)
Direct Flow Rights Water from Storage 2008 Actual Demands
30% of Average Poudre
43
Community Working Group Input
• High level of agreement with most policy elements
• Some divergent views on the planning criteria
– Most members thought planning criteria were
reasonable
• Setting planning criteria aside, full support on
policy update (except one with some reservations)
44
Water Board Input
• Policy presented at November 17, 2011 meeting
– Education and discussion in two previous
committee meetings
• General support for revised policy
• Discussed planning criteria and potential changes
– Criteria should remain the same to avoid
potential delay to Halligan Reservoir permitting
– Discussions described in letter of support
ATTACHMENT 10
22
45
Policy Update Summary
• Policy update provides additional guidance for
water supply and demand planning
• Community Working Group input helped update
policy to address many issues
• Key changes:
– 140 gpcd conservation goal
– Acknowledge water supply planning criteria
• Consider potential effects of climate change
– Stronger commitment to using surplus supplies
– Plan Fort Collins and sustainability alignment
46
Questions
• What feedback does Council have regarding the
update of this policy?
• Is this policy ready for formal Council
consideration?
ATTACHMENT 10
23
ATTACHMENT 11
1
City of Fort Collins Utilities
City Council Work Session
Water Supply & Demand Management Policy
January 10, 2012
Glossary of Water Resources Terms
1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion - criterion adopted in the current Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy that defines the level of risk for the City’s water supply
system; a drought is a period of below average runoff that can last one or more years and
is often measured by its duration, average annual shortage and cumulative deficit below
the average; a 1-in-50 drought corresponds to a dry period that is likely to occur, on
average, once every 50 years; although the Poudre River Basin has several drought
periods in its recorded history, it is difficult to assess whether any of these droughts were
equal in magnitude to a 1-in-50 drought; the 1985 Drought Study developed the 1-in-50
drought used in assessing the Utilities water supply system; this drought period is six
years long and has a cumulative deficit of 550,000 acre-feet, which represents annual
river volumes that are about 70% of the long-term average for the Poudre River; see also
“Statistically Based Drought Analysis”
Acceptable Planned Project - refers to a term used in a 2011 report by Western Resource
Advocates “Filling the Gap: Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water
Needs” where it is mentioned that the Halligan and Seaman enlargements have the
potential to be Acceptable Planned Projects if urban efficiency measures are implemented
first and Poudre River (particularly the North Fork) flows and water quality are protected
and/or restored
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (AF) - volume of water equal to about 326,000 gallons; one acre-
foot can supply around three single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for storage
comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 150,000 acre-feet
Active Capacity - the usable capacity of a reservoir for storage and regulation of inflows
and releases that does not include any capacity below the reservoir’s lowest outlet (which
is known as dead capacity)
Carryover - used in reference to storage; it is the ability to save water in storage for use at
a later time, most notably in following years
Change in Water Right - used to refer to changing water rights under Colorado water law
from agricultural to municipal water use; see also “Legal Return Flows or Return Flow
Obligations”
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project - a Bureau of Reclamation project that brings
water from the Colorado River basin to the east side of the continental divide via a tunnel
and the Big Thompson River to several locations including Horsetooth Reservoir;
ATTACHMENT 11
2
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Fort Collins Utilities
currently owns 18,855 units of the 310,000 total units in the CBT project
Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) - volumetric flow rate equal to one cubic foot flowing every
second; for comparison, an average peak flow rate on the Poudre River at the Lincoln
Street gage (downtown) is around 1,900 cfs and a median winter-time low flow rate in
December at the same location is around 7 cfs
CWG - short for Community Working Group; an advisory panel convened by Utilities in
2011 to gather input regarding an update to the Water Supply & Demand Management
Policy
Direct Flow Rights - water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use; see also “Senior Water Rights”
DEIS - short for Draft Environmental Impact Statement; a report detailing the findings of
the NEPA permitting process; report can be reviewed by public for their comments
which are typically addressed in a Final Environment Impact Statement; see also
“NEPA”
ELCO - short for East Larimer County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
FCLWD - short for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Firm Yield - a measure of the ability of a water supply system to meet water demands
through a series of drought years; for the Fort Collins Utilities, this means being able to
meet the planning demand level and storage reserve factor through the 1-in-50 year
drought criterion; see also “1-in-50 Year Drought Criterion”, “planning demand level”
and “storage reserve factor”
gpcd - short for gallons per capita per day; a measurement of municipal water use; for the
Fort Collins Utilities, gpcd is calculated based on the total annual treated water produced
at the Water Treatment Facility for use by all Water Utility customers (minus large
contractual customers and other sales or exchange agreements) divided by the estimated
population of the Water Utility’s service area and 365 days
HSWMP - short for Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
ATTACHMENT 11
3
NEPA - short for National Environmental Policy Act; federal legislation that established
environmental policy for the nation; it provides interdisciplinary framework for federal
agencies to prevent environmental damage and contains “action-forcing” procedures to
ensure that federal agency decision-makers take environmental factors into account
NISP - short for Northern Integrated Supply Project
Northern Water or NCWCD - short for Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD); Northern Water operates the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project and is
involved in several other regional water projects on behalf of their participants
NPIC - short for North Poudre Irrigation Company; a partner in the Halligan Reservoir
enlargement project that supplies water to farmers north of Fort Collins
NWCWD - short for North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used for water supply
planning purposes that is a factor in determining the amount of water supplies and/or
facilities needed; see also “gpcd”
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, the storage reserve factor incorporates having 15 percent of annual demands in
storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to about 3 months of winter (indoor)
demands or 1 month of summer demands
Senior Water Rights - refers to Colorado water law’s use of the “prior appropriation” or
priority system, which dictates that in times of short supply, earlier water rights decrees
(senior rights) will get their water before others (junior rights) can begin to use water,
often described as “first in time, first in right”
Statistically Based Drought Analysis - refers to the 1985 report “Droughts and Their
Effect on the Water Supplies for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado” (referred to as the
1985 Drought Study); the report was done primarily to study the effects of prolonged
droughts and to define them in terms of the probability of their occurrence; synthetic
hydrologic traces were produced based on statistical parameters of the historic data
available, which allowed analysis of numerous artificial drought periods and a
determination of representative droughts with calculated return frequencies; this report
was done in conjunction with water resources experts at Colorado State University
Tri-Districts - the combination of the three regional water districts ELCO, FCLWD and
NWCWD; these districts share the same water treatment plant called Soldier Canyon
Filter Plant, which is located adjacent to Fort Collins Utilities’ Water Treatment Facility
Triple Bottom Line - refers to the Utilities for the 21st Century sustainability initiative to
consider economic, social and environmental aspects in the decision making process
ATTACHMENT 11
4
Water Rights Portfolio - the mix of water rights owned by a water supplier; typically
includes water for direct use, as well as for storage for later use; for the Fort Collins
Utilities, includes City owned water rights, owned and/or converted shares in agricultural
rights, storage rights at Joe Wright Reservoir, and ownership in the CBT project
WSDMP - short for Water Supply & Demand Management Policy
Yield or Water Rights Yield - refers to the amount of water that is produced from a water
right; the yield of water rights vary from year to year depending on the amount of water
available (i.e., low or high river runoff) and the priority of the water right; see also “Firm
Yield” and “Senior Water Rights”
River Flows (2002)
Water Supplies and Demands for Fort Collins Utilities
Significant variation
in water right yields.
Some excess
even in dry year.
Much more
storage required.
42
ATTACHMENT 10
21
Full agreement – 6 votes (In addition, two people who left early provided full agreement
support in writing)
Support with some reservation – 6 votes
Cannot support – 1 vote
ATTACHMENT 6
54
explore long-term rental arrangements with irrigators when
applicable. This is to support the regional food system, encourage
agricultural open space and enhance other benefits provided by
irrigated agriculture. 4.1.2 Instream flow – added part seems
redundant. BR
• Delete “if applicable” at the end of 3
rd
paragraph. 4.1 last sentence –
change to Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow
voluntary contributions …GJ
• Letter from GW/STP This section is still too soft. STP believes that
using the City’s surplus water for instream flows needs to be more of
ATTACHMENT 6
44
43
the lines of the 153 gpcd that it has averaged the past few years. I
understand fluctuations but there is an amount of this included in
153. As improvements are made they should be locked in and we
should not slip backwards. DW
• 2.1.1 Lower 162 gpcd. I don’t think “maintaining existing
ATTACHMENT 6
41
• I like the commitment to 140
gpcd JS
• Comprehensive MF
• N/A JG
• Could be stricter than 8.5%. DM
• The added section! 1.1 This seems like a footnote not a part of a
Policy plan. “This goal …of 197 gpcd.” 1.1 other addition “The peak
daily demand…. peak daily use” (also a footnote)Add s to Gallon in
last paragraph of 1.1. This is redundant because it is stated again
on page 4. BR
• Don’t like the term “reasonable landscape transformation.” Would
prefer “and changes in landscaping.” (Some will be customer driven
– not utility driven.” Phrase in 1
st
sentence of 1.1 “without
considering the effects of climate change upon water demands.
Eliminate. It casts unnecessary doubt on goal. GJ
ATTACHMENT 6
40
Information was provided beforehand
Longer amount of time
Timeline was provided so can anticipate where
the process is going
Good food
Was challenging to hear. Physically separating
the table groups more could have helped.
There is agreement on much of the existing
Policy. Focus on margins where agreement is
needed.
ATTACHMENT 6
30
Urban interface with the Poudre River (3)
Regional cooperation and collaboration (1)
Municipal/agricultural water sharing for agricultural
preservation (7)
Agricultural water use efficiency
Open space and natural areas
*Issues identified during stakeholder interviews and organized by category with results of CWG dot voting
ATTACHMENT 6
19
, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the
Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a
lar, he noted how there are four pieces to
ATTACHMENT 6
6
efficient watering of existing
landscapes.
21.9%
(263)
58.9%
(707)
15.6% (187) 3.2% (38) 0.5% (6) 1,201
The City’s conservation program
should place more emphasis on
(but not force) conversion to xeric
landscapes.
17.0%
(205)
48.7%
(586)
21.1% (254)
10.0%
(121)
3.2% (38) 1,204
The City’s conservation program
should place more emphasis on the
elimination of water intensive
landscapes (such as largely turf
lawns).
19.8%
(238)
36.7%
(442)
24.2% (291)
15.8%
(190)
3.6% (43) 1,204
The City’s conservation program
should place more emphasis on
reducing indoor water use.
10.0%
(120)
39.9%
(480)
32.3% (389)
14.6%
(176)
3.2% (39) 1,204
The City’s conservation program
should place more emphasis on
reducing commercial and industrial
water use.
27.1%
(325)
44.4%
(532)
21.4% (256) 5.3% (64) 1.8% (21) 1,198
answered question 1,208
skipped question 3
ATTACHMENT 4
9
ATTACHMENT 4
6
10.7%
(128)
1.2% (14) 1,193
Any other benefits or drawbacks (please specify)?
120
answered question 1,199
skipped question 12
ATTACHMENT 4
5
landscape design
20.8%
(251)
43.9%
(529)
24.7% (297)
9.3%
(112)
1.2% (15) 1,204
Looks too drab/uninteresting 4.2% (51)
15.9%
(192)
23.7% (285)
40.0%
(481)
16.2%
(195)
1,204
Any other benefits or drawbacks (please specify)?
238
answered question 1,210
skipped question 1
ATTACHMENT 4
4
skipped question 0
ATTACHMENT 4
2
4
ATTACHMENT 3
● Added sentence about mixing source waters to
maintain high quality and collaborating with others
4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water ● Meet the primary needs of municipal customers
prior to providing water for other uses
● Rent the City’s surplus supplies to benefit the
Water Utility ratepayers
Sections 2d and 4 of old policy
● Slightly revised language about priorities
● New paragraph for defining surplus water, how it
may be available (including multi-year
arrangements), and continued rentals
3
ATTACHMENT 3
● Review water rate structures annually for
effectiveness
Section 1c of old policy
● Removed flat rate structure as an option
● Includes need to provide sufficient revenue for
operational and maintenance purposes
● Added paragraph about rate structure review
period
1
ATTACHMENT 3