HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/13/2015 - DITCH AND RESERVOIR COMPANIESDATE:
STAFF:
October 13, 2015
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager
Kevin Gertig, Utilities Executive Director
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Ditch and Reservoir Companies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback from City Council regarding opportunities for the development of a
broader master plan for ditches in the City. Staff will provide general information on ditch companies operating in
Fort Collins and seek feedback regarding a summary of the findings of a ditch company Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Staff will also provide an update on progress related to Budgeting
For Outcomes (BFO) Offer 130.1, “Arthur Ditch Master Plan and Alternative Analysis”.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What input does City Council have on the ditch company SWOT analysis conducted by City staff?
2. Does City Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes related to ditches operating in and
around the community?
3. What other feedback does City Council have regarding the information presented?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In the 2015/2016 Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) process, City Council approved BFO Offer 130.1 related to the
Scoping of a Ditch Master Plan and Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis. This offer included the commitment to
develop a scope for a master plan for ditches in the City. The project included a commitment to develop a
baseline assessment of the business needs of the subject ditch companies as well as the opportunities to
preserve and enhance the values and community safety needs associated with ditches. (Some of the subject
ditch companies also operate reservoirs, and may thus be described as “ditch and reservoir” companies.
However, these materials refer to all companies as “ditch companies.”) This discussion will provide Council with
an understanding of the history, functions and business needs of ditch companies. It will also provide information
related to a SWOT analysis conducted by City staff and articulate next steps related to ditch companies.
History of Area Irrigation Ditches
Ditch companies (also known as canal, irrigation, irrigating, or reservoir companies) generally formed in the late
1800s and early 1900s for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating, ditch systems to transport
water, generally for irrigation. Early farmers realized they needed to construct and maintain longer canals and
storage reservoirs to irrigate land farther from the river. They pooled their resources, forming the first ditch
companies in and around Fort Collins. Numerous ditch companies were established around the turn of the
century, including the Water Supply and Storage Company, the North Poudre Irrigation Company, the Larimer
County Canal #2 Irrigating Company, and the Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company. These and other ditch
systems helped make irrigation possible and served as an economic catalyst for development in northern
Colorado. Today, there are nineteen ditch companies operating within the City’s Growth Management Area
(GMA) boundary. A map of local ditches is attached (Attachment 1).
October 13, 2015 Page 2
City Acquisition of Ditch Company Shares
The City’s first municipal water supply was provided by the Fort Collins Irrigation Canal, later called the Town
Ditch, and presently, the Arthur Ditch. In 1882, Fort Collins built their first water treatment plant on the City Ditch,
now known as part of Larimer Canal No. 2. As the City continued to develop and the need for municipal supplies
increased, the City began acquiring ditch company shares with the intention of converting those shares for
municipal use. The City’s Water Utility began acquiring ditch company shares in the 1960s through its raw water
dedication requirements for new development with the intent that most of the irrigation water would be converted
to municipal use. The Water Utility now holds considerable stock in a number of ditch companies and share
ownership continues to increase through raw water dedication. Other City departments, primarily Parks, Golf, and
Natural Areas, have also acquired ditch company shares, to meet their raw water needs. The City currently owns
shares in sixteen ditch companies with majority share ownership in five of those companies. A chart showing the
current share ownership in local ditch companies is attached (Attachment 2).
Ditch Company Structure and Operations
Each ditch company is unique, based on its ditch system, the specific laws under which it was formed, the policies
it has adopted and employs, and its history. For instance, some ditch companies operate a single ditch, whereas
others operate vast ditch systems with numerous ditches, reservoirs, and laterals; some were formed in the late
1800s under certain laws, whereas others were formed later after the State of Colorado Legislature passed
different corporate statues; some have detailed written policies and rules and regulations, whereas others operate
more informally; and many have been the subject of various issues over their existence that have shaped the
current form. Generalizations about ditch companies should thus always be understood with the caveat that any
particular issue must be considered in light of the specific company involved. With that said, the following is
generally true regarding ditch companies.
Ditch Company Structure and Corporate Operations
Ditch companies operate as private special purpose corporations formed under various State of Colorado
corporation laws. A person or entity becomes a shareholder in a ditch company by purchasing stock, which
provides the holder with a pro rata interest in the ditch company’s assets (including the water rights) and rights to
certain services of the organization, such as the delivery of water and the use of structures maintained by the
company. Shareholders thus have property rights in the water and the assets of the ditch company.
Ditch companies are typically managed by an elected board of directors. Directors are typically elected from the
shareholders. Their duties are defined in the company’s bylaws and are also governed, to some extent, by the
State of Colorado’s corporation laws. Bylaws usually require directors to perform their duties in a manner the
director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the company, which is generally consistent with the
State of Colorado’s laws. A ditch company manager and other employees usually manage the day-to-day
operations of the company. Most companies employee one or more ditch riders, who ensure the physical
maintenance of the ditch and diversion structures and open and close head gates during the diversion season.
Several City employees serve on a ditch company Board of Directors. A list of board members is attached
[ATTACHMENT 2].
Ditch company shareholders must pay annual assessments, which help pay for construction, operation, and
maintenance of ditch company assets. Assessments are set annually and are levied through a shareholder
majority vote. In return for annual assessment fees, shareholders receive their share of the water and proportional
voting rights. The City currently pays over $1 million in annual assessments on its approximately 5800 shares of
ditch company stock. A list of annual assessment fees is attached (Attachment 3).
Ditch Company Water Rights and Water Deliveries
Ditch companies operate under Colorado water law and the prior appropriation doctrine. The companies hold the
water rights and are the appropriators of water from the streams. Each company determines the amount of water
that can be diverted from the river in a given year. The company water is then divided among the shareholders
based on their ownership of the company. The share deliveries can be allocated based on volume or based on
flow.
October 13, 2015 Page 3
The allocation of water per share in the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) system is determined each
season by the board of directors and is typically based on the water supply outlook for the upcoming irrigation
season. Factors such as snowpack, current reservoir levels, and climate predictions are considered when setting
the annual allotment of water per share. Estimates are usually conservative so NPIC can be certain it can deliver
the amount of water anticipated, however allocations may be increased as the season progresses.
The City currently bases its water rights conversion factors for satisfaction of raw water requirements (RWR) on
the City’s analysis of average yields per ditch company share. A list of the average yield per ditch company share
and the total average yield is attached [ATTACHMENT 4].
The City does make some of its ditch company shares and water available for seasonal rental for use by local
farmers. This is in part due to legal constraints, which require that the water be used on land served by a given
ditch company system unless otherwise changed by a court decree. In addition, in average and wet years, the
City may have excess water after its treated and raw water demands have been met. In most years there is
excess water that can be rented to other water users. The City’s rental rates are set annually by City Council.
City/Ditch Company Relationship
The City’s relationship with local ditch companies is important because it impacts not only our local water supply,
but achievement of other City objectives, primarily the sense of place and outdoor environment in our community.
The City and these local ditch companies are mutually dependent. The City’s significant ownership in ditch
companies funds, through assessments, much of the maintenance and repair of the ditch systems in the
community. In addition, the Water Utility’s surplus raw water rental program supports local farmers, the majority of
which are located outside of the city.
The City relies on the ditch companies as well. Ditches and associated reservoirs support City strategic
objectives; including meeting the community’s water supply needs, providing opportunities for nature in the City,
supporting open spaces, and providing recreational opportunities for citizens. This diversity of needs now met by
ditches has increased the complexity and level of conflict regarding how ditches and ditch companies operate.
This is further complicated by the fact that many ditch companies exist for the limited purpose of delivering water
to shareholders, and ditch companies often only meet the City’s strategic objectives as an incident to the ditch
company’s purpose of water delivery.
SWOT Analysis
City staff recently conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis in effort to
explore the relationship between the City and ditch companies. A SWOT matrix is attached (Attachment 5).
The following are some key highlights from the SWOT analysis:
Strengths/Opportunities
Ditch company water is an important water source for meeting the City’s current and future water needs.
Ditch company assets serve as community amenities and may be leveraged to meet multiple community
interests.
Significant share ownership and representation on many ditch company boards provides the City an
opportunity to influence, but not dictate ditch company operations and policies.
Ditch company board representatives play a key role in communicating City interests to ditch companies.
Significant opportunities exist to improve communications between ditch companies and the City.
Opportunities exist to partner with ditch companies and State agencies to improve instream flows, create
wildlife habitat, and modify diversion structures to improve fish passage.
Opportunities exist to leverage current collaborative efforts. For example the City’s Stormwater Utility partners
with ditch companies to clean debris from headgates along the river and from ditches on City property to
mitigate flooding hazards.
October 13, 2015 Page 4
Weaknesses/Threats
Boards function so that one board member equals one vote, not based on percentage of share ownership. In
addition, bylaws and Colorado law require board members to represent the interests of the company as
whole, not individual interests. Citizens may not understand the complexity of this relationship.
What is in the best interest of all shareholders of a ditch company may be in conflict with or compete with
other varied City interests. For example, while tree removal along a ditch or reservoir may reduce water loss
in the ditch, it also conflicts with community values regarding adequate tree canopy and wildlife habitat.
Ditch companies may see the City as acting in its own best interests and not in the best interests of all
shareholders, creating distrust among parties and inhibiting a willingness to form partnerships.
Ditches and their associated activities are exempt from Land Use Code requirements, thus limiting the City’s
land use authority over ditches.
The purchase of ditch shares by other water providers may remove water from ditches that support the City’s
interests.
Preferred Outcomes
As part of the SWOT analysis, staff identified preferred outcomes. These outcomes may serve as a starting point
for future discussions regarding development of
The City collaborates with ditch companies to effectively communicate issues/activities that are of community
interest and concern and maintains good relationships with ditch company boards and shareholders.
There is safe and compatible use of ditch company assets for both citizens and shareholders.
Ditch companies and their shareholders recognize ditches as a community asset and the multiple values they
serve.
Ditch company assets provide increased recreational opportunities and connectivity for wildlife and citizens.
Maintenance responsibilities are clearly delineated and do not impair the ability to meet other City objectives.
The City engages in the proper analysis of risks and liabilities in order to make informed decisions managing
the costs of achieving identified outcomes and objectives.
A valuation study may demonstrate the City’s return on investment for investing in the ditch system.
Identify and deliver minimum flows through key designated instream flow reaches through town.
Develop key partnerships that lead to creating value for all stakeholders and to address issues of mutual
concern.
Maintain a balance between a diversity of needs.
ARTHUR DITCH ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis is to evaluate short and long-term courses of action for
maintenance of the Arthur Ditch from Wood Street to Laurel Street. A map of Arthur Ditch is attached
(Attachment 6).
The Arthur Ditch was put underground in a concrete culvert through Fort Collins from Wood Street to Laurel
Street around 1933. The culvert passes through approximately 67 private properties and crosses the right-of-way
in 26 separate locations. The City has responsibility for the right-of-way crossings and, due to the age and
condition of the structure; many of these have been replaced recently.
Desired outcomes from the Analysis include: clarifying future City responsibilities; increased understanding of the
location and condition of the structure; development of a long-term plan to maintain the facility.
The City will begin the process of hiring a consultant in the 4th quarter of 2015 with the study to be completed in
2016.
October 13, 2015 Page 5
NEXT STEPS
Staff will review the preferred outcomes generated by the SWOT analysis as well as input from City Council and
assess both the feasibility and impact of related actions. This assessment will be the basis of future discussion
and the foundation for future policy development and master planning related to ditches.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Local Irrigation Canals Map (PDF)
2. City Ownership and Board Representation (PDF)
3. Ditch Company Annual Assessments (PDF)
4. Ditch Company Average Yield per share (PDF)
5. Ditch Company SWOT Analysis (PDF)
6. Arthur Ditch Map (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Boyd Lake
Horsetooth Reservoir
Terry Lake
Long Pond
Fossil Creek Reservoir
North Poudre Res No 6
Cobb Lake
Windsor Reservoir
Annex No 8
Cache La Poudre River
Rocky Ridge Lake
Warren Lake
Curtis Lake
Water Supply Res No 2 & 3
Donath Lake
Kluver Reservoir
Elder Reservoir
Seaman Reservoir
Lindenmeier Lake
Claymore Lake
College Lake
Richard's Lake
Kitchel Lake
Duck Lake
Timnath Reservior
Water Supply Res No 4
Dixon Reservoir
Lake Sherwood
Robert Benson Lake
Mountain Supply Reservoir No 9
Parkwood Lake
Mountain Supply Res No 10
Lee Lake
City Park Lake
Portner Reservoir
Harmony Reservoir
/
Fort Collins Area Irrigation Canals
Legend
City Limits
GMA
Area Streets
Ditches
Arthur Canal
ATTACHMENT 2: CITY OWNERSHIP AND BOARD REPRESENTATION
DITCH COMPANY*
ACTIVE
COMPANY
SHARES
TOTAL
CITY
SHARES
PERCENTAGE
OWNED BY
CITY
BOARD
REPRESENTATION
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 10000 3563.75 35.6% Carol Webb
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 255 195.343 76.6% Bill Whirty
Trilby Lateral 18 6.333 35.2% None
Arthur Irrigation Co. 1496.945 657.2458 43.9% Mark Taylor
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 146.5068 104.2117 71.1%
Mike Calhoon
Doug Jardine
Donnie Dustin
New Mercer Ditch Co. 141.3015 78.78075 55.8% Mike Calhoon
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 225 167.975 74.7%
Mike Calhoon
Doug Jardine
Donnie Dustin
Sherwood Reservoir Co. 470 82 17.4% Mark Taylor
Sherwood Irrigation Co. 11.70671 2.695 23.0% Mark Taylor
Water Supply and Storage
Co. 594.4 26.667 4.5%
None
Box Elder Ditch Co. 64 5 7.8% None
Louden Irrigating Canal
and Reservoir Co. 600 3.75 0.6% None
North Louden Ditch and
Reservoir Co. 20.12 3.75 18.6% None
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. 259.5 5.5 2.1% None
Sand Dike Ditch 26.5 6 22.6% None
Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Co. 1419 1 0.1% None
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co. 69.375 0.0625 0.1% None
Dixon Canyon Reservoir
Co. 1000 830 83.0%
Mike Calhoon
Rick Jordan
Buckhorn Highline Ditch 180 29 16.1% None
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
(CBT) Project water, or 6.1% of the total 310,000 CBT project shares.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3: DITCH COMPANY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FEES
DITCH COMPANY*
TOTAL CITY
SHARES
2015
ASSESSMENT/
SHARE
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT FEE
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 3563.75 $200 $712,750
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 195.343 $185 $36,138
Trilby Lateral 6.333 $250 $1,583
Arthur Irrigation Co. 657.2458 $20 $13,145
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 104.2117 $350 $36,474
New Mercer Ditch Co. 78.78075 $450 $35,451
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 167.975 $500 $83,988
Sherwood Reservoir Co. 82 $160 $13,120
Sherwood Irrigation Co. 2.695 $1500 $4,043
Water Supply and Storage
Co. 26.667 $2900 $77,334
Box Elder Ditch Co. 5 $350 $1,750
Louden Irrigating Canal
and Reservoir Co. 3.75 $310 $1,163
North Louden Ditch and
Reservoir Co. 3.75 $200 $750
Lake Canal Reservoir Co. 5.5 $300 $1,650
Sand Dike Ditch 6 $180 $1,080
Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Co. 1 $350 $350
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co. 0.0625 $100 $6
Dixon Canyon Reservoir
Co. 830 $10 $8,300
Buckhorn Highline Ditch 29 $15 $435
TOTAL ASSESSMENT FEES $1,029,510
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
(CBT) Project water, or 6.1% of the total 310,000 CBT project shares. The 2015 assessment on CBT
shares was $21.46 (weighted). The total 2015 assessment fee for CBT was $404,628.
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4: DITCH COMPANY RAW WATER YIELD – WATER SUPPLY
DITCH COMPANY*
TOTAL CITY
SHARES
AVERAGE ACRE-
FEET/SHARE TOTAL ACRE-FEET
North Poudre Irrigation
Co. 3563.75 5.00 17819
Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Co. 195.343 39.74 7763
Arthur Irrigation Co. 657.2458 3.442 2262
Larimer County Canal No.
2 Irrigating Company 104.2117 42.687 4448
New Mercer Ditch Co. 78.78075 30.236 2382
Warren Lake Reservoir
Co. 167.975 10.00 1680
AVERAGE ANNUAL ACRE-FEET YIELD 36354 AF
*While not a ditch company, it should be noted that the City owns 18,855 units of Colorado-Big Thompson
Project water, which yield on average a total of 13,199 acre-feet, or 0.7 acre-fee per CBT unit.
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5 – DITCH COMPANY SWOT ANALYSIS
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
Ditch Company
Communications:
Communications between the
City and Ditch companies
generally do not meet the needs
of City Leadership
Holding majority shares gives
City an ability to influence how
the Board communicates key
issues.
Many boards meet only
once per year, thus limiting
timely communication of
key issues.
Limited financial and
human resources of ditch
companies
Representation on Ditch Boards
provides an opportunity to share key
issues with City Leadership.
The City has significant resources that
may be leveraged to assist ditch
companies with implementing better
communication tools.
Ditch companies may see the City has
acting in its own best interests and not in
the best interests of all shareholders,
creating a desire to withhold information.
Political astuteness of current ditch board
members
The City collaborates with ditch
companies to effectively
communicate issues/activities that
are of community interest and
concern.
City reps on ditch company boards
are provided with a clear
communication process
Resources to develop a
communication process for ditch
board members.
Resources to offer to ditch boards
to facilitate better and timely
communication.
Water Supply:
Ditch company water is an
important water source for the
Utilities' treated water
customers, as well as the City's
parks, golf courses, schools,
homeowners associations (HOAs)
and some local businesses.
Utilities has obtained several
water rights decrees allowing
for the diversion of irrigation
share water for treatment and
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
Company Assets:
Is there a way to provide
additional recreational activities
in the City utilizing ditch and
reservoir assets, including trails
and connectivity?
through town, typically
bordered by an access road.
Ditches and reservoirs
contribute to a sense of place
and support Nature in the City.
Ditches and access road
increase connectivity between
natural features and parks.
restrict use of ditches and
access roads for recreational
use.
The City may have to pay
carriage and maintenance
costs if the City is receiving
a benefit from ditch
company assets.
Surface rights can be leased for
reservoirs.
Partner opportunities may be available
with ditch companies and Parks and
Wildlife.
liability issues for the ditch company.
Water quality issues may impair public
uses.
Increased recreational opportunities
and connectivity for citizens
Safe and compatible use of ditch
company assets
Add to the City’s trail inventory
Staff time to research appropriate
sites.
Staff/attorney time to draft and
negotiate agreements
Property Issues:
Several areas throughout town
don't have any record of
property owners along the length
of the ditches
Property is potentially available
for use by the City.
No knowledge of where
ownership lies
Such lands could be used for
recreational trails and Nature in the
City connectivity
Staff has knowledge of existing hazards in
these areas that are a liability.
Enhanced safety compared to
current conditions.
Determine which party retains
maintenance responsibilities.
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
such as roads)
Instream Flow:
Ditch diversions reduce flows in
the river within the urban reach
and ditch diversion structures
create barriers to aquatic species,
The protection of minimum
flows, especially during critical
periods of the year is key to
sustaining a healthy and vibrant
river corridor through the City.
Key diversion structures and
seasonal dry-up/low flow
points have already been
identified.
Engineering firm is under
contract to design preliminary
structural modifications.
NAD and Colorado Water
Trust are developing a
partnership to engage ditch
companies and
fund structural modifications
Ditch diversions create low
flow and dry-up points
within the river, and impede
recreation activities.
Opportunities exist to collaborate with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and
Colorado Water Conservation Board to
identify an instream flow reach through
Fort Collins.
Work within the conservation,
agriculture, and water community to
identify opportunities to deliver water
through sharing agreements,
modifications to diversion operations,
and water delivery agreements.
Identify potential modifications to
diversion structures that allow for fish
and flows to bypass and allow for water
measurement past the structure.
No unappropriated water remains for an
instream flow appropriation.
Ditch companies are not obligated to work
with the City. All efforts will be incentive
based and cannot injure ditch companies or
their associated water rights.
Long term effort that may take several
years to accomplish goals.
Identify and deliver minimum
flows through key designated
instream flow reaches through
town.
Modify diversion structures from
the Canyon mouth to 1-25 to allow
fish and water to bypass the
TOPIC STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS PREFERRED OUTCOMES
RESOURCES
AVAILABLE/NEEDED
limited available
conveyance for storm runoff
when storm events occur.
cause water quality issues
Arthur Ditch
Wood St
S Shields St
Laporte Ave
SCollegeAve
N Howes St
N College
A
ve
W Laurel St
E Mountain Ave
E Vine Dr
E Mulberry St
S Mason St
W Mountain Ave
W Mulberry St
N Mason St
Jefferson St
S Howes St
W Vine Dr
N Shields St
Remington St
³I
City of Fort Collins
Arthur Ditch
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
³ Feet
ATTACHMENT 6
1
Ditch and Reservoir Companies
Carol A. Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
5-24-15
ATTACHMENT 7
Ditches Discussion Timeline
2
Council
expresses
interest in
more
information
on ditches
2013
Council approves
2015/2016 BFO
Offer 130.1 –
Ditches Master
Plan and Arthur
Ditch Alternatives
Analysis
2014 2015
Jan 2014 -
Realignment of
ditch board
representatives
Staff conducts
ditches SWOT
analysis
2016
Jan/Feb -
ditch
Company
annual
meetings/
board
elections
2017
Oct. 2015
Council
Work
Session
Future Council
discussions
Complete
Arthur
Ditch
analysis
Direction Sought
1. Does Council have input on the ditch company SWOT* analysis?
2. Does Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes
related to ditches operating in and around the community?
3. What other feedback does Council have regarding the information
presented?
SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
3
Presentation Agenda
• Ditch Company 101
• City/Ditch Company
Relationship
• SWOT Analysis
• Arthur Ditch Alternatives
Analysis
• Preferred Outcomes
4
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch
Ditch Company History
• Formed in late
1800s/early 1900s
• Primary function – deliver
water for irrigation
• Catalyst for economic
growth
5
Irrigation Ditch Construction – Photo courtesy of Colorado State
University; Ralph L. Parshall Collection, Water Resources Archive.
Ditch Company Structure
• Private special purpose
corporations
• Shareholders
• Pro rata interest
• Proportional voting
rights
• Board of Directors
• Manager/Employees
6
Larimer Canal No. 2
Ditch Company Water Rights
• Operate under Colorado Water
Law
• Ditch companies hold water rights
• Water divided based on number
of shares owned
7
Reservoir Ridge Natural Area
City Water Supply and Ditches
• Fort Collins Irrigation Canal “Town
Ditch” = City’s first water supply
• 1882
• First Water Treatment Plant on
City Ditch
• 1960s - present
• Acquisition of ditch shares
through raw water dedication
• Conversion to municipal use
8
Fort Collins Water Works, 1909. Photo courtesy of Fort
Collins Local History Archive.
Ditches in Fort Collins Today
• 19 ditch companies operating in GMA
• City owns about 5800 shares of stock in 19
companies (16 in GMA)
• Utilities, Parks, Golf, and Natural
Areas
• Majority shares in 5 companies
• Board representation for 9 companies
• Over $1 million in annual
assessments in 2015
9
10
City/Ditch Company Relationship
• City owns considerable shares
• Funds operations
• Surplus water for rental
• Board representation
• Ditch companies
• Deliver water to meet City
needs
• Support City strategic
objectives
• Mutual purpose vs. competing
interests
11
Warren Lake
SWOT Analysis
Raw water resource
Share ownership
Board representation
Community interests
Existing partnerships
Primary purpose vs.
coincidental benefits
Competing interests
Lack of trust
Limited land use
authority
Safety
12
Arthur Ditch Alternatives Analysis
• Arthur Ditch was put underground in the 1930s from Wood Street to
Laurel
• Condition has rapidly deteriorated recently @ right of way crossings
• Collaborative Project will:
• Identify responsibilities and challenges with the facility
• Ensure that future projects are aligned
• Completed in 2016
• Outcome will likely result in 2017-18 BFO offers
13
Preferred Outcomes
Safe and
Compatible
Use
Recreation and
Connectivity
Roles and
Responsibilities
Risks/Liabilities
Analysis
Partnerships
Balance
Diverse Needs
14
Fossil Creek Park
Next Steps
• Frame SWOT analysis in terms of feasibility/impact
• Engage Council in future discussions
• Continue to develop and evolve policy related to ditches
• Goal = strategic, purposeful approach
15
Direction Sought
1. Does Council have input on the ditch company SWOT* analysis?
2. Does Council have input on opportunities and preferred outcomes
related to ditches operating in and around the community?
3. What other feedback does Council have regarding the information
presented?
SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
16
17
Rigden Reservoir Questions?
structure.
Install water measurement devices
on key structures to administer
instream flow.
Develop key partnerships that lead
to ecologically valuable river flow
through the urban reach.
Financial resources to design and
construct structural modifications
to key diversion structures.
Incentives - to develop a variety of
water sharing agreements
Legal support to develop and
implement agreements to insure no
injury to water rights.
Data to develop a minimum
instream flow has been collected by
CPW, NAO, and CWCB. The
Flows Committee of the Poudre
Runs Through It is working on
several water delivery mechanisms.
Local Agriculture:
Local agriculture depends on
water owned by the City and
rented back to the agriculture
community.
In most years, the City has
surplus water that can be rented
to the agriculture industry.
The Water Utility owns shares
in ditch companies that are still
highly productive for
agriculture - such as the North
Poudre Irrigation Company
(NPIC) and the Water Supply
and Storage Company
(WSSC).
Annual costs of ditch share
ownership by Utilities are
offset by renting surplus water
to agriculture.
In drought years, the City
may not have surplus water
available for rental by the
agriculture industry.
Consequently, the water
supply for local farms is
interrupted, negatively
impacting the industry.
Water sharing arrangements with
farmers are being explored to provide
additional supplies for the Utilities
during severe droughts
Agriculture can help create separator
zones between Fort Collins and other
cities.
Local agriculture provides locally
produced food for Fort Collins
residents (e.g., farmers markets).
Municipalities and water districts are
continuing to buy shares in ditch
companies to provide water for projected
growth, resulting in Jess water under the
control of farmers and decreasing
farmlands.
The highly productive ditch companies
(e.g., NPIC and WSSC) must maintain
their water
supply systems to deliver water to farms,
which also maintains the yield of the water
rights that can be used through the City's
ownership. These use and maintenance
actions often
involve things that may conflict with City
values, such as the reduction of flows in
the Poudre
River and removal of trees.
A balance between agriculture and
municipalities is maintained.
An understanding by City leaders
and citizens of the operation and
maintenance needs of the ditch
companies that provide some of the
City's supplies and support local
agriculture.
Better communication around the
operations, maintenance and needs
of local agriculture.
Stormwater Drainage:
Ditches could be utilized to
convey stormwater runoff and
mitigate flooding.
Certain larger irrigation canals,
when not being used for water
supply, can provide stormwater
runoff capacity in storm events
that reduces the potential for
flooding along waterways.
Stormwater conveyance and
water supply are different
and distinct efforts.
Storm runoff can result in
substantially higher peak
discharges than the flow for
which a ditch was designed.
When ditches are being used
for their primary purpose of
water supply, there is very
Acquisition of ditches would give the
City more control over their use,
maintenance and appearance and
responses to citizens regarding
complaints and issues.
Increased communications with
irrigation companies would develop
improved understanding of concerns
which in turn should improve
coordination of activities and complaint
resolution.
Capacity and conveyance in irrigation
canals varies along their length.
Stormwater runoff from large storm events
could result in spills at numerous locations
along canals which could result in flooding
of private and public property.
The City would have increased liabilities
(i.e. legal, maintenance standpoint,
flooding spills).
Contributing additional storm water could
Establish a system where increased
accountability and consideration of
City, citizen and community
concerns is provided.
Develop partnerships and
agreements with each of the ditch
companies address issues of mutual
concern.
Funding
Staff time
Determine liability issues.
Money to pay for City's portion of
tree work
Time for research of property
ownership
Staff time to draw up agreements.
Risk and Liability Issues:
The City may be liable for
hazards created by ditches.
Risks and liabilities are closely
tied to the City's role(s): a
shareholder, a Board member,
owner of water rights or other
interests, owner of land, as a
governmental authority.
Risks must be analyzed on a
case/case basis.
The City has the opportunity to actively
and proactively identify, analyze, and
manage such risks and liabilities.
If the City fails to properly identify,
analyze, and manage such risks and
liabilities, significant financial risk
or harm, or harm to water resources could
result.
T City engages in the proper
analysis of such risks and liabilities
in order to make informed
decisions managing the costs of
achieving identified outcomes and
objectives.
When a specific issue with a
specific ditch arises,
additional information with be
needed, as well as time and
resources, in order to engage in the
proper
analysis or such risks and
liabilities.
Ditches and the Land Use Code:
Ditches and their associated
activities are exempt from
Land Use Code requirements.
The Land Use Code does
recognize the value of ditches
that serve as wildlife corridors
by requiring a 50 foot setback
from the top of bank of the
ditch to buffer the ecological
function provided by the ditch
from the development.
Ditches and their associated
activities, as a historically
agricultural land use, are
exempt from Land Use
Code requirements.
Buffers could be expanded to include
irrigation ditches not acting as wildlife
corridors (but consider a smaller buffer,
e.g., 25')
Have ditches at least remain open (day
lighted) instead of being
undergrounded (see NIC Policy
LU6).
Loss of connectivity that ditches provide
No legal authority in the Land Use Code to
enforce the opportunities listed above
Would require$ to finance/incentivize
achieving these values/results, e.g.,
acquiring easements (whether time bound,
e.g., 5-20 years, or permanent)
Attempts to consolidate ditches, e.g., via
diversions may have competing values
Water delivered by the ditches creates
significant ecological benefits. If we lose
ditches, we lose these values
Ditches recognized for the multiple
values they serve
Ditches provide connectivity, not
only for wildlife but also for people
(where appropriate)
Public engagement- where are the
priority ditches, where can ditches
fill the gap, etc.
For ditch companies and property
owners if we incentivize this -what
would be most appealing?
Time
Ditches and Nature in the City:
Ditches serve as an informal
connection point throughout the
City, offering opportunities for
access for people and habitat for
wildlife.
One of the most important
issues to arise from Nature in
the City is connectivity, both
for people and for wildlife.
Ditches provide model
connectivity for mammals,
"herps" (amphibians, reptiles,
etc.) and other species that
need connected corridors (as
opposed to birds and butterflies
which can navigate barriers
Legal precedents limit
opportunities to require
ditch companies to provide
connectivity.
Vegetation management within the
ditch (timing, specific practices such as
dispersal of nonnative plants, etc.) can
improve to support nature in the City.
Identification of ditches in the City that
have the highest wildlife values and
potential access – prioritize efforts
there
Need to also understand how ditches are
meeting the life history needs for some of
these species.
Vanishing ditches and conversion of water
rights take water out of ditches. Without
water, corridors are less valuable.
Ditches recognized for the multiple
values they serve and prioritized
based on value
Ditches provide connectivity, not
only for people but also for people
(where appropriate)
Ecosystem services valuation study
(Citywide) that shows the ROI
(return on investment) for investing
in the ditch system.
Financial resources to conduct the
mapping and analyses
Incentives -to encourage
understanding, best practices, etc.
A person (and an advisory team) to
coordinate these efforts, e.g.,
wildlife management on private
lands.
use by Utilities customers.
The decrees specifically
describe flowrates for the water
remaining in the ditch and for
the water to be used by the
Utilities on a per share basis
making operations easily
understood and legally
protected.
Raw (untreated) water
deliveries through irrigation
ditches provide low cost water
for the City's parks, golf
courses, schools and HOAs.
Utilities works cooperatively with the
ditch companies within the Poudre
basin to trade water and use company
facilities to assist in providing a reliable
supply of water for the Utilities
customers.
Agreements with the Water Supply and
Storage Company provide cooling
water for Platte River Power
Associations Rawhide Energy Station.
Utilities plans on dry year yields such
that surplus water is available for use
by local irrigators in many years,
providing City revenue that helps offset
assessment costs of ditch share
ownership and supporting local
agriculture.
Other entities are purchasing ditch shares
with the intent of removing the water from
the ditches.
Adequate protections need to be
incorporated in the change-of-use decrees
to protect the City's interests in the ditch
companies.
Maintaining good relationships
with the ditch companies' boards
and shareholders.
Communicating with ditch
superintendents to appropriately
account for water supplies within
the ditch.
Continued communications with
ditch companies about the City's
raw and treated water supply needs.
Continued attention toward
conversion of local ditch company
shares by others.
Water Quality:
Ditch company operations can
cause water quality impacts and
impair beneficial uses of local
water bodies.
City stormwater permit
provides the authority to
regulate discharges of
pollutants into local waterways,
including irrigation ditches.
Significant share ownership
and board representation gives
the City influence over how
ditch companies may address
water quality issues.
Ditch companies have
historically focused on
water delivery and not
ancillary issues such as
water quality. This culture
of ditch companies and
ditch boards is difficult to
influence.
The EPA's "Waters of the US"
rulemaking could expand the definition
of waters of the U.S. to include ditches.
The City may be able to offer financial
resources to ditches to protect and
maintain water quality,
The City may use political and cultural
capital to influence ditch companies
and their boards to expand the focus of
their operations to consider ancillary
benefits such as water quality.
Water law generally requires that water
rights cannot be injured to address water
quality.
This makes it difficult to enforce water
quality requirements on ditches.
Impairing agriculture use in favor of water
quality could be politically unpopular.
Impaired water quality in ditches can
impair water quality in local waterbodies,
causing negative impacts to beneficial uses
such as recreation and aquatic life.
The City is able to collaborate with
ditch companies to protect water
quality.
Ditch companies and their
shareholders recognize ditches as a
community asset and are willing to
invest in protecting water quality.
Potential financial resources that
we may utilize to cost share or
provide in-kind support for water
quality protection and
improvements with ditch
companies.
Mosquito Issues:
Stagnant/slow flow water in
ditches becomes breeding habitat
for mosquitoes.
Share ownership and Board
representation provide an
opportunity to communicate
with ditch companies regarding
management to reduce
mosquito breeding habitat.
Breeding habitats can be reduced with
small changes to ditch operations and
larvacide applications
Inspections and application of mosquito
larvacide can be timed more closely to
improve effectiveness
Unexpected water running in ditches, i.e.
rainfall, calls for water, emergency
responses.
Access issues.
Solid communication between the
ditch rider and the mosquito control
contractor.
Reduction of breeding sites in
irrigation ditches.
Contact information for both ditch
rider and mosquito control
contractor.
Recreational Uses of Ditch There are miles of ditches Ditch companies typically Public use of ditch company assets creates Funding
ATTACHMENT 5
Arthur Irrig. Co.
Arthur Lateral
Box Elder Ditch Co.
Boxelder Ditch
Box Elder Ditch Co.
Cache La Poudre Inlet Ditch
Little Cache La Poudre Irrig.
Coy Ditch
Coy Ditch Co.
Dixon Lateral
Warren Lake Reservoir Co.
!!!
Dixon Reservoir Ditches
Dixon Canyon Reservoir Co.
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet
North Poudre Irrig. Co.
Jackson Ditch
Jackson Ditch Co.
Lake Canal
Lake Canal Reservoir Co.
Larimer County Canal
Water Supply and Storage Co.
Larimer County Canal No. 2
Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrig. Co.
Larimer and Weld Canal
Larimer and Weld Irrig. Co.
Little Cache La Poudre Ditch
Little Cache La Poudre Irrig. Ditch Co.
Mail Creek Ditch
New Mercer Ditch Co.
New Mercer Ditch
New Mercer Ditch Co.
North Louden Ditch
North Louden Ditch Co.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Co.
Sand Dyke Ditch
Lake Canal Reservoir Co.
Sherwood Lateral
Sherwood Irrig. Co.
Taylor and Gill Ditch
Taylor and Gill Ditch Co.
Trilby Lateral
Trilby Lateral Co.
North Poudre Irrig. Co. Ditches
05 2.5
Miles
Note: This list includes City owned ditch companies and major ditches/laterals
that are within the City of Fort Colins. It is not comprehensive and may not include
all ditches, laterals, or other conveyance structures. Updated: 9/29/2015
ATTACHMENT 1