HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/12/2015 - WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY AND STORAGE UPDATEDATE:
STAFF:
May 12, 2015
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities water supply reliability and storage projects.
The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) guides the City of Fort Collins Utilities in planning
supplies for the water service area. Staff will present the Utilities current water supplies and demands, key Policy
elements, future water service area needs and provide an update on the Utilities storage projects including
Rigden and Halligan Reservoirs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The Agenda Item Summary and presentation provide an update on the water supply reliability of the City of Fort
Collins Utilities water service area, including an update on the Rigden Reservoir and Halligan Reservoir
Enlargement projects. What questions does Council have regarding the Utilities water supply reliability and
storage projects?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Water Supplies and Demands
The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City
continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, more of the water needs will be met by surrounding water
districts (mostly the East Larimer County and Fort Collins-Loveland Water Districts). All discussion relative to
water supply reliability and storage in this document is only for the Utilities water service area (Attachment 1).
The Utilities main sources of water supply come from the Poudre River and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(“CBT”). On average, Utilities annually uses about an equal amount from these two sources. The Poudre River
supplies, which include senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights and the Michigan Ditch and Joe
Wright Reservoir system, are delivered to the Water Treatment Plant through two pipelines that divert off the
Poudre River. Joe Wright Reservoir, which has an active capacity of about 6,500 acre-feet, is the only storage
reservoir that is fully owned and operated by Utilities. Utilities owns units in the CBT project, which is administered
by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (commonly known as “Northern Water”). These CBT units
are delivered to Utilities out of Horsetooth Reservoir, which is not owned or operated by Utilities. Northern Water
is directed by a Board of Directors that establish policy and strategic direction which is independent from the
Utilities. These policies limit the Utilities’ ability to store excess water in Horsetooth Reservoir for use in later years
(also known as carry over). More information on the CBT System is included (Attachment 2).
The Utilities currently delivers about 25,000 acre-feet per year of treated water to its customers and around 4,000
acre-feet per year of raw water for irrigation of City parks, golf course, etc. through various ditches that run
through the City. Per capita treated water demands, which are measured in gallons per capita per day (“gpcd”)
and exclude large contractual use (such as breweries and certain manufacturing companies), have declined
significantly over the last few decades. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, treated water demands were about 200
gpcd. Following the drought of the early 2000s, such demands have averaged around 150 gcd – which is about a
25 percent reduction in per capita water use.
May 12, 2015 Page 2
The current water supplies for the Utilities are adequate in most years. However, these snowpack driven water
supplies can vary significantly from year to year. Water supply system modeling is maintained to assess how
much demand can be met through certain droughts with the Utilities water supplies, also known as the firm yield
of the system. Currently, the firm yield of the Utilities water supplies is about 31,000 acre-feet per year through a
1-in-50 year drought. Utilities must plan for projected future increases in demand that will exceed the existing firm
yield.
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”)
The Policy (Attachment 4), which was updated and approved by City Council in 2012, provides guidance in
balancing water supplies and demands to help meet future needs. The Policy objective is to ensure an adequate,
safe and reliable supply of water while managing the level of demand for a valuable resource. Key policy
elements around water supply reliability are: 1) continuing the 1-in-50 year drought criterion, 2) maintaining a
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, 3) having a storage reserve for emergency situations equal to 20% of
annual demands and 4) planning for a demand level (150 gpcd) that is higher than the water conservation goal
(currently 140 gpcd). These criteria provide a water supply planning approach that address uncertainties such as
climate change, river administration changes, system outages, competing water rights, etc. A key concern for
Utilities is that its water supplies are highly reliant on CBT project storage. Utilities has very little storage for its
Poudre River water supplies, which restricts its ability to effectively manage these supplies and to meet demands
if the CBT supplies were ever unavailable.
Future Water Supply Needs
The amount of future water supplies needed for the Utilities water service area depends on population and
commercial growth. Utilities currently serves about 133,000 treated water customers. Given changes over time in
demand levels, population projections and other factors, a recent update to the Utilities future projected need has
been conducted. The water service area population is projected to grow to about 178,000 by the year 2065. In
addition, large contractual water use is expected to increase in the future. The Utilities total projected treated
water demand is expected to be about 38,400 acre-feet per year by the year 2065, which is about 7,400 acre-
feet/year greater than the existing firm yield of about 31,000 acre-feet per year.
Additional water supplies for meeting future projected demands will be acquired through the Utilities’ Raw Water
Requirements (“RWR”), which requires developments to provide either water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights
to support that development’s water needs. A main focus for the Utilities is to develop additional storage capacity,
which will allow management of the water rights portfolio that Utilities already has acquired. Operational storage
(e.g., gravel pit storage) is a critical need in order to fully utilize the Utilities’ existing water rights by meeting legal
return flow obligations. In addition, carryover and vulnerability protection storage (e.g., Halligan Reservoir
Enlargement) will allow Utilities to meet the future projected demands and provide a storage reserve for
emergency water shortage scenarios (e.g., CBT outage).
Storage Projects
Rigden Reservoir
Located near Horsetooth Road and the Poudre River, Rigden Reservoir will provide the critically needed
operational storage for Utilities. The project will provide about 1,900 acre-feet of storage, 1,700 acre-feet for
Utilities and 200 acre-feet for the City’s Natural Areas Department (which also has water storage needs). The
reservoir will be gravity filled via two existing, adjacent ditches. Outflows from the reservoir will be pumped to the
Poudre River via an adjacent storm water channel. In addition to meeting return flow obligations, the reservoir will
be able to capture and manage the Utilities reusable effluent from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Although
the reservoir will not be accessible for recreation, the land around the reservoir will become a City Natural Area
and trails will be constructed around it. In addition to building the reservoir, reclamation work was performed on
two adjacent gravel pits owned by Natural Areas, and a future park site will be located west of the reservoir. The
project will be operational in early June 2015 and has cost approximately $14 Million (of which Utilities portion is
about $11.5 Million).
May 12, 2015 Page 3
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
The enlargement of Halligan Reservoir is a project Utilities has been pursuing for many years to provide carryover
and vulnerability protection storage. Halligan is an existing reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre River. The
existing capacity of about 6,400 acre-feet is operated by the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”). Enlarging
the reservoir by 8,125 acre-feet (to a total size of 14,525 acre-feet) would meet the Utilities future demands and
provide a storage reserve for emergencies. This size represents a substantial reduction from previous plans to
enlarge the reservoir to 40,000 acre-feet, which are the result of reduced Utilities needs and withdrawn project
partners.
Utilities believes there are several reasons for enlarging Halligan Reservoir over other potential alternatives.
Halligan is an existing reservoir that already has impacts on the river (compared to a new reservoir) and is a
gravity fed and released system (no pumping is required). Utilities plans to operate the enlarged Halligan
Reservoir in a way that will improve flows in the North Fork of the Poudre River, particularly during low winter
flows. The Halligan Enlargement project has been considered an “Acceptable Planned Project” by the Western
Resource Advocates1. However, there may be certain adverse impacts to enlarging Halligan, including altered
flow and sediment regimes and potential loss of wetlands, stream channel and wildlife habitat. The current federal
permitting process will identify and address environmental consequences of the project and impacts will be
avoided or mitigated.
The Halligan Enlargement project has included several City Council approvals in the last few decades. These
steps have included acquiring interest in the enlargement (Resolution (19)87-161), entering an option agreement
with NPIC to purchase the reservoir and ability to enlarge (Resolution (19)93-164), and approved authority to
exercise the NPIC option agreement, enter agreements with other Halligan participants and proceed with required
permitting (Resolution 2003-121). In addition, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy has been
updated twice (in 2003 and 2012) to affirm the need to pursue the Halligan Enlargement project.
Utilities officially entered the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process in 2006 with the lead
agency being the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”). The permitting process has many steps, but
essentially includes determining the Utilities’ purpose and need for the proposed project (Halligan enlargement),
considering alternatives to the proposed project (including what would happen if no permit were issued, known as
the No Action Alternative), and providing detailed environmental analysis of all alternatives. The Corps must
permit the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to meet the Utilities’ needs. The
LEDPA may not be the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. All this work is compiled in an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), which will be published for public review and comment.
Although the Utilities purpose and need was identified early in the permitting process, it has recently undergone a
review given the length of the permitting process and changes that have occurred in this time. As described
above, the Utilities future water demands (and thus amount of storage required) depend on growth projections, as
well as modeling criteria (e.g., storage reserve factor). Since 2006, the growth projections have changed with a
general decrease in water use per capita, countered by an increase in projected future population. The Corps
independently reviewed the Utilities’ growth projections and future water needs and determined that the amount of
storage required at Halligan does not require adjustments.
In addition to updating the purpose and need, the Corps is currently focusing on the preliminary alternatives to the
Halligan Enlargement project. The Corps determined the alternatives being studied, which are: 1) construction of
gravel pit storage paired with Joe Wright Reservoir reoperations; 2) acquisition of existing agricultural reservoirs
north and east of the City; and 3) expansion of Glade Reservoir. It should be noted that each of these ‘action’
alternatives would require pumping and associated greenhouse gas production, which is not the case at Halligan
Reservoir. In addition to the action alternatives, the Corps and Utilities are working on defining the No Action
Alternative, which will describe what actions would be taken should the Corps not issue a permit to construct the
Halligan Reservoir enlargement or its alternatives. Currently, the No Action Alternative would likely involve
acquiring additional water rights (over what is currently projected to be obtained through RWR), exploring Joe
1 Western Resource Advocates (2011). Filling the Gap, Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water Needs.
Available at: http://westernresourceadvocates.org/water/fillingthegap/FillingTheGap.pdf
May 12, 2015 Page 4
Wright Reservoir reoperations and describing the effects of not meeting the purpose and need (e.g., more
frequent and severe mandatory water restrictions).
The current projected schedule for the Halligan Enlargement project is for the Draft EIS to be released in the
summer of 2016. Once released, the Draft EIS will be available for public review and input. The Corps would
address any public comments in the production of a Final EIS prior to the Record of Decision (“ROD”), which is
expected in 2018. Between the draft and final EIS, Utilities will also work on other, separate permitting
requirements. Upon receiving the ROD, Utilities would work on final design of the project and is projected to start
construction in 2019, with completion around 2021.
The projected cost of enlarging Halligan Reservoir have recently been updated with more refined estimates of
rebuilding at the existing dam location. The total cost (past and future) is approximately $46 Million, which
includes acquisition (about $6 Million), permitting and mitigation (about $14 Million), and engineering and
construction (about $26 Million). Expenses through the second quarter of 2015 have been about $11.3 Million,
with Utilities share being about $6.8 Million. The total estimated cost to Utilities (both past and future) would be
approximately $41.5 Million, leaving about $35 Million in additional funds needed to complete the project.
Although these costs have increased over time, the costs continue to be reasonable compared to other water
supplies. The updated cost per acre-foot of additional firm yield for Utilities is around $5,600, which compares with
about $50,000 per acre-foot of firm yield for CBT supplies. It should be noted the preliminary costs of some of the
alternatives to enlarging Halligan Reservoir could be substantially more (up to four times the cost).
Revenues from RWR cash-in-lieu payments and raw water surcharges from commercial customers that use over
their annual water allotment accrue into the Utilities’ Water Rights Reserve Fund (“Fund”), which is used to
develop the Utilities water supplies. This Fund was used for acquiring Rigden Reservoir. The Fund has been and
will continue to be used to fund the Halligan Enlargement project. The Fund currently has around $17 million, or
about $18 million less than the remaining projected Halligan costs. However, expected growth and related RWR
should provide adequate funds for the project. As mentioned above, the alternatives to enlarging Halligan
Reservoir could cost significantly more and would likely require significant increases in RWR cash-in-lieu rates.
There have been a few events related to Halligan in the last couple of years. In December 2013, diligence for
maintaining a 1985 junior storage water right at Halligan was not filed that resulted in cancellation of that water
right. A new (2013) junior storage water right at Halligan was filed, which is currently in the water court
administrative process. The Utilities has other, more senior water rights to store in the Halligan enlargement that
result in the size of Halligan not changing in order to meet the Utilities’ needs. The outcome of the loss of the
1985 water right will not be clear until completion of the water court and permitting processes. In February 2014,
NPIC withdrew as a participant in the Halligan Enlargement project citing increased permitting costs and exploring
other alternatives. With NPIC in the project, a new dam would have needed to be constructed about 1,000 feet
downstream of the existing Halligan Reservoir dam. As a result of their exit, the existing dam can be
reconstructed at its existing location (which could be no larger than about 15,000 acre-feet total), which is less
costly to Utilities. In January 2015, Utilities mutually separated from the City of Greeley in a joint permitting
process for their proposed enlargement of Seaman Reservoir citing diverging timelines in completing the EIS
process. Utilities will continue to work with Greeley on modeling issues and cost sharing for certain shared
reports.
Next Steps
Quarterly reports on the Halligan Enlargement project will continue to be provided to City Council. Utilities staff will
continue working with the Corps on developing the Draft EIS, which is expected to be released in the summer of
2016. Staff will consider outreach to City Council and the public for the release of the Draft EIS.
May 12, 2015 Page 5
Summary
The Policy provides Utilities guidance for balancing water supplies and demands that help for planning our water
future. Acquiring additional storage capacity continues to be a key Utilities need. The permitting process for the
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement project should result in this needed storage. Utilities advocates for water
conservation coupled with storage for a sustainable water future.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. Northern Water and Colorado Big Thompson Information (PDF)
3. Northern Water Boundaries and Facilities Map (PDF)
4. Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (PDF)
5. Glossary of Water Resources Terms (PDF)
6. Sustainability Assessment for Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update 5-12-2015 (PDF)
7. PowerPoint (PPT)
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
1
1
Northern Water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project Information
This information was collected from the Northern Water website (http://www.northernwater.org/).
Northern Water
Northern Water is a public agency created in 1937 to contract with the federal government to
build the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“C-BT”). The C-BT provides supplemental water to
more than 640,000 acres of irrigated farm and ranch land and about 880,000 people in
Northeastern Colorado.
Northern Water and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation jointly operate and maintain the C-BT,
which collects water on the West Slope and delivers it through a 13-mile tunnel beneath Rocky
Mountain National Park to portions of eight Northeastern Colorado counties. In addition to
operating and maintaining the C-BT, Northern Water collects, distributes and monitors weather
and water quality data, tracks streamflows and reservoir levels, and provides water resource
planning and water conservation information.
Colorado-Big Thompson Project
The Colorado-Big Thompson Project collects and delivers on average more than 200,000 acre
feet of water each year. Most of this water is the result of melting snow in the upper Colorado
River basin west of the Continental Divide. The project transports the water to the East Slope
via a 13.1-mile tunnel beneath Rocky Mountain National Park. C-BT water flows to more than
640,000 acres of irrigated farm and ranch land and 860,000 people in portions of eight counties
within Northern Water boundaries.
The C-BT Project consists of:
12 reservoirs
35 miles of tunnels
95 miles of canals
Seven hydroelectric power plants
700 miles of transmission lines
Board of Directors
The 12-member Northern Water and Municipal Subdistrict boards establish policy and strategic
direction. Directors from the eight counties within Northern Water boundaries are appointed to
4-year terms by District Court judges. The boards hold monthly meetings and planning and
action sessions at Northern Water’s Berthoud headquarters. The meetings are open to the
public.
B
o
x
e
l
d
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
L
o
n
e
T
r
e
e
C
r
e
e
k
C
r
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
W
i
l
d
c
a
t
C
r
e
e
k
P
a
w
ne
e
C
r
e
e
k
Ced
a
r
C
1 of 11
ATTACHMENT 4
2 of 11
1
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 and impacts of having a reliable and high quality water supply
Analyze the economic cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has
to our local and regional economies
The Utility will continue to provide a culture of innovation that finds proactive and creative
solutions in managing its water supplies and demands, which is a dynamic process that evolves
along with changes in data management and technology, legal and political environments,
economic development and water innovation, and as 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.
3 of 11
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
Encourage and promote innovation in water demand management
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.
4 of 11
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.
1.4 Population Growth
Population growth is an important factor in determining the City’s water supply needs, since
increases in population generally increase the need for additional supplies. Population growth
projections and associated water demand are mostly a function of land use planning,
development densities, annexation and other growth related issues that can be affected by City
Council decisions. The Water Utility will continue to work closely with the Current Planning
Department, which provides population projections that may be effected by changes in City
policies related to growth.
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
5 of 11
4
Maintaining awareness of state, national and worldwide trends and adapting as needed to
meet our customer needs
Promoting education, awareness and a culture of innovation among the Water Utility and
others to enable creative responses to future water supply uncertainties
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.
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 150 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
20% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought7,8. This factor provides an
5 The 150 gpcd value is based upon the normalized 2006-2011 average daily use.
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, 20% of annual demand is equivalent to around 3.7 months of average winter demand and
about 1.5 months of average July demand.
6 of 11
5
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.
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.
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.
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.
7 of 11
6
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
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.
8 of 11
7
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
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.
9 of 11
8
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
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 innovative 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
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.
10 of 11
9
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
Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in
a manner that respects other interests and provides a culture of innovation.
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.
11 of 11
1
City of Fort Collins Utilities
City Council Work Session
Water Supply Reliability & Storage Update
May 12, 2015
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 to four single family homes in Fort Collins per year; for
storage comparison the maximum volume of Horsetooth Reservoir is about 157,000 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;
2
operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water); 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
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 or EIS - 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”
GMA – short for Growth Management Area, which is the planned boundary of the City
of Fort Collins’ future City limits
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
LEDPA – short for Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative, which is
what is allowed to be permitted through the NEPA permitting process; see also “NEPA”
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
3
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
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; see also
“Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project”
NPIC - short for North Poudre Irrigation Company; an irrigation company that supplies
water to farmers north of Fort Collins and is the owner of all water currently stored in
Halligan Reservoir
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”
RWR – short for Raw Water Requirements, which requires new development to turn in
water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to support the water needs of that
development; cash is used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s
supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage capacity)
Storage Reserve Factor - refers to a commonly used engineering principle in designing
water supply systems to address short-term supply interruptions; as defined in the Water
Supply and Demand Management Policy, the storage reserve factor incorporates having
20 percent of annual demands in storage through the 1-in-50 drought which equates to
about 3.5 months of winter (indoor) demands or 1.5 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”
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
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, which provides Fort
Collins Utilities guidance in balancing water supplies and demands
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”
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: May 4, 2015
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment (SA) Summary for Water Supply Reliability and Storage
Update
Key issues identified:
Economic
Having a reliable water supply is key to supporting the local economy.
Social
Reliable water supply is a key need for our community.
Community members are being informed on the need for storage and reservoir project updates
through multiple avenues.
Environmental
Development of additional storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Project) will have adverse
environmental impacts.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Halligan Project will describe the
environmental impacts in detail.
Suggested mitigation actions:
Mitigation has not been considered at this point.
Economic , 1.0 Social , 1.0
Environmental
‐1.0
Overall Rating,
0.3
‐4.0
‐3.0
‐2.0
‐1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Sustainability Rating
Rating without mitigation Rating with mitigation
Rating Legend
3 Very positive
2 Moderately positive
1 Slightly positive
0 Not relevant or neutral
-1 Slightly negative
-2 Moderately negative,
impact likely
-3 Very negative, impact
expected
*The Fort Collins SAT was developed by modifying the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis Tool developed by Eugene, Oregon, July 2009. 1
City of Fort Collins SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT)
(November 2014)
Creating a sustainable community
Plan Fort Collins is an expression of the community’s resolve to act sustainably: to systemically, 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.
How to use the tool
The Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT) is designed to inform a deeper understanding of how policy and program choices affect the social
equity, environmental health and economic health of the community. The City of Fort Collins has developed a Sustainability Assessment
Framework that describes the purpose, objectives, and guidelines to assist City Program/Project Managers to determine:
• The process for cross-department collaboration in using the SAT
• Timing for applying a SAT
• When to apply a SAT
• How to document the results of the SAT and present at City Council Work Sessions and Regular Council Meetings
Further detailed guidance is available at: http://citynet.fcgov.com/sustainability/sustainabilityassessments.php
The SAT does not dictate a particular course of action; rather, the analysis provides policy makers and staff with a greater awareness of some
of the trade-offs, benefits and consequences associated with a proposal, leading to more mindful decision-making.
Brief description of proposal
Please provide a brief description of your proposal – 100 words or less
Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update: In order to meet future water demands and provide a storage reserve for emergency situations, Utilities has been
pursuing increased raw water storage for many years. The Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project (“Halligan Project”) would provide this much needed storage,
which has been supported by previous Utilities and City Council actions. Staff is currently working on obtaining a federal permit for the enlargement of Halligan
Reservoir. The permitting process will look at alternatives to the project and provide detailed analysis of the effects of the project.
Staff lead(s):
Please note staff name, position/division and phone number
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
2
Social Equity
Described: Placing priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to civil,
political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a
safe and healthy environment and social services. Eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating the
differences among people. Emphasizing justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all.
Goal/Outcome: It is our priority to support an equitable and adequate social system that ensures access to employment, food, housing, clothing,
education, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy environment and social services. Additionally, we support equal access to services and
seek to avoid negative impact for all people regardless of age, economic status, ability, immigration or citizenship status, race/ethnicity, gender,
relationship status, religion, or sexual orientation. Equal opportunities for all people are sought. A community in which basic human rights are
addressed, basic human needs are met, and all people have access to tools and resources to develop their capacity. This tool will help identify how
the proposal affects community members and if there is a difference in how the decisions affect one or more social groups. Areas of consideration in
creating a vibrant socially equitable Fort Collins are: basic needs, inclusion, community safety, culture, neighborhoods, and advancing social equity.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis.
Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan?
Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of
expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
Proposal Description
1. Meeting Basic Human Needs
• How does the proposal impact access to food, shelter,
employment, health care, educational and recreational
opportunities, a safe and healthy living environment or
social services?
• Does this proposal affect the physical or mental health of
individuals, or the status of public health in our community?
• How does this proposal contribute to helping people achieve
and maintain an adequate standard of living, including housing,
or food affordability, employment opportunities, healthy families,
or other resiliency factors?
Analysis/Discussion
Water meets an essential basic human need. Acquiring additional raw water
storage would support this basic need by helping to provide a reliable water
supply to the community. A reliable and cost effective water supply is
important in maintaining affordable housing, employment and an overall
healthy community.
2. Addressing Inequities and being Inclusive
• Are there any inequities to specific population subsets in this
proposal? If so, how will they be addressed?
• Does this proposal meet the standards of the Americans with
Disabilities Act?
• How does this proposal support the participation, growth
N/A – The development of additional storage should not directly impact specific
population subsets, disabled, youth, etc.
3
and healthy development of our youth? Does it include
Developmental Assets?
• If the proposal affects a vulnerable section of our community (i.e.
youth, persons with disabilities, etc.)
3. Ensuring Community Safety
• How does this proposal address the specific safety and
personal security needs of groups within the community,
including women, people with disabilities, seniors, minorities,
religious groups, children, immigrants, workers and others?
A reliable water supply is key to providing clean water for drinking, cleaning,
and fire protection (among others). These benefits are available to all members
of the community.
4. Culture
• Is this proposal culturally appropriate and how does it affirm
or deny the cultures of diverse communities?
• How does this proposal create opportunities for artistic and
cultural expression?
N/A – The development of additional storage should not directly impact cultural
concerns.
5. Addressing the Needs of Neighborhoods
• How does this proposal impact specific Fort Collins
neighborhoods?
• How are community members, stakeholders and interested
parties provided with opportunities for meaningful participation
in the decision making process of this proposal?
• How does this proposal enhance neighborhoods and
stakeholders’ sense of commitment and stewardship to our
community?
N/A – The development of additional storage does not directly impact
neighborhood needs. See below for how community members are informed.
6. Building Capacity to Advance Social Equity
• What plans have been made to communicate about and
share the activities and impacts of this proposal within the
City organization and/or the community?
• How does this proposal strengthen collaboration and
cooperation between the City organization and community
members?
Community members, stakeholders and interested parties have been informed
of the Halligan Project through many avenues over the years the project has
been pursued, including City Council decisions and updates, website
information, numerous presentations to community organizations, and through
various outreach efforts associated with the 2012 update to the Water Supply
and Demand Management Policy – which included a Community Working
Group.
Social Equity Summary
Key issues: Reliable water supply is a key need for our community. Community members are being informed on the need for storage and project
updates through multiple avenues.
4
Potential mitigation strategies: None considered at this time.
Overall, the effect of this proposal on social equity would be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus X
Rating represents group average
+3 +2 +1 0 ‐1 ‐2 ‐3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
+1
Environmental Health
Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that contribute to
climate change, lower fossil fuel use, decreased or no toxic product use. Prevent pollution, reduce use, promote reuse, and recycle natural
resources.
Goal/Outcome: Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment to ensure long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions necessary for
support of future generations of all species. Avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts of all activities, continually review all activities to identify
and implement strategies to prevent pollution; reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency; conserve water; reduce consumption and
waste of natural resources; reuse, recycle and purchase recycled content products; reduce reliance on non-renewable resources.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for
any one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent
to a proposal - please include them in the analysis.
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action
plan? Has advice been sought from organizations that have a high level
of expertise, or may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Environmental Impact
• Does this proposal affect ecosystem functions or
processes related to land, water, air, or plant or
animal communities?
• Will this proposal generate data or knowledge related to the
use of resources?
• Will this proposal promote or support education in
Analysis/Discussion
The Halligan Project would affect ecosystem functions on the Poudre River. The
federal permitting process will include a detailed analysis of environmental (and
social) impacts. In general, the development of storage will alter flow and
sediment regimes in the river and result in loss of wetlands, stream channel and
wildlife habitat around the reservoir. The level of these impacts will be
5
prevention of pollution, and effective practices for
reducing, reusing, and recycling of natural resources?
• Does this proposal require or promote the continuous
improvement of the environmental performance of the City
organization or community?
• Will this proposal affect the visual/landscape or aesthetic
elements of the community?
described in detail (with lots of generated data related to the use of water) in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as part of the permitting.
Utilities staff has continually tried to educate the community about the
importance of both water storage and water conservation.
Acquiring additional water storage capacity helps provide a reliable water
supply for the community’s landscapes.
2. Climate Change
• Does this proposal directly generate or require the
generation of greenhouse gases (such as through
electricity consumption or transportation)?
• How does this proposal align with the carbon reduction goals for
2020 goal adopted by the City Council?
• Will this proposal, or ongoing operations result in an
increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?
• How does this proposal affect the community’s efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise mitigate adverse climate
change activities?
The proposed Halligan Project would be a gravity water supply facility that does
not require pumping and associated greenhouse gas production. As part of the
permitting process, alternatives to the proposed project must be developed.
The current storage alternatives being investigated would all require some
pumping, which would increase the City’s greenhouse gas production.
It should be noted that additional water storage capacity would help provide a
more reliable water supply considering the potential effects of climate change
on our water supplies, such as more severe droughts, earlier runoff, and
increased outdoor water use due to longer irrigation season from projected
higher temperatures.
3. Protect, Preserve, Restore
• Does this proposal result in the development or modification
of land resources or ecosystem functions?
• Does this proposal align itself with policies and procedures
related to the preservation or restoration of natural habitat,
greenways, protected wetlands, migratory pathways, or the
urban growth boundary
• How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore
important ecological functions or processes?
As mentioned above, the Halligan Project would affect ecosystem functions on
the Poudre River. These impacts would occur around the reservoir, as well as in
the river via altered stream flows. Again, these impacts will be described in
detail in the DEIS.
4. Pollution Prevention
• Does this proposal generate, or cause to be generated,
waste products that can contaminate the environment?
• Does this proposal require or promote pollution prevention
through choice of materials, chemicals, operational practices
and/or engineering controls?
• Does this proposal require or promote prevention of
pollution from toxic substances or other pollutants
regulated by the state or federal government?
• Will this proposal create significant amounts of waste or
The development of additional storage should not directly create waste
products. However, the Halligan Project will result in generated pollution during
6
pollution?
5. Rethink, Replace, Reduce, Reuse, Recirculate/Recycle
• Does this proposal prioritize the rethinking of the materials or
goods needed, reduction of resource or materials use, reuse of
current natural resources or materials or energy products, or
result in byproducts that are recyclable or can be re-circulated?
Water conservation is an important part of Fort Collins Utilities balancing water
supplies and demands. In addition to guiding Utilities in the development of
additional storage capacity, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
set a water conservation goal to manage the use of a valuable resource.
6. Emphasize Local
• Does this proposal emphasize use of local materials,
vendors, and or services to reduce resources and
environmental impact of producing and transporting
proposed goods and materials?
• Will the proposal cause adverse environmental effects
somewhere other than the place where the action will take
place?
The Halligan Project will likely cause adverse environmental effects around the
reservoir, as well as along various sections of the Poudre River. These impacts
will be fully described in the DEIS and avoidance or mitigation will be
considered. Consideration will also be given to using local materials and
services upon construction of additional storage (e.g., Halligan Project).
Environmental Health Summary
Key issues: Development of additional storage capacity (e.g., Halligan Project) will have adverse environmental impacts. The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Halligan Project will describe the environmental impacts in detail.
Potential mitigation strategies: Mitigation strategies will be considered at a later time.
Overall, the effect of this proposal on environmental health would be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus X
Rating represents group average
+3 +2 +1 0 ‐1 ‐2 ‐3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
‐1
Economic Health
7
Described: Support of healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities; focus on development of a diverse economy,
enhanced sustainable practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, creation or retention of family waged jobs.
Goal/Outcome: A stable, diverse and equitable economy; support of business development opportunities.
Analysis Prompts
• The prompts below are examples of the issues that need to be addressed.
They are not a checklist. Not all prompts and issues will be relevant for any
one project. Issues not covered by these prompts may be very pertinent to a
proposal - please include them in the analysis
• Is this proposal affected by any current policy, procedure or action plan? Has
advice been sought from organizations that have a high level of expertise, or
may be significantly affected by this proposal?
1. Infrastructure and Government
• How will this proposal benefit the local economy?
• If this proposal is an investment in infrastructure is it designed
and will it be managed to optimize the use of resources
including operating in a fossil fuel constrained society?
• Can the proposal be funded partially or fully by grants, user
fees or charges, staged development, or partnering with
another agency?
• How will the proposal impact business growth or operations
(ability to complete desired project or remain in operation), such
as access to needed permits, infrastructure and capital?
Analysis/Discussion
Water being an essential need for everyday living, having a reliable water
supply is key to supporting the local economy. As a result of past planning, the
Utilities water supply has been reliable for many years which has attracted
some water intensive industries (e.g., breweries and certain manufacturing) to
Fort Collins. The Halligan Project would provide a continued reliable water
supply that supports business growth.
Acquiring additional storage is a low cost way of providing reliable water
supplies relative to recent increases in water rights prices. Utilities has had a
funding mechanism in place for many years to cover the Halligan Project costs.
2. Employment and Training
• What are the impacts of this proposal on job creation
within Larimer County?
• Are apprenticeships, volunteer or intern opportunities
available?
• How will this proposal enhance the skills of the local workforce?
The development of additional storage (e.g., Halligan Project) will likely not
impact employment directly, except with possible construction work once
permitted which can be considered then.
3. Diversified and Innovative Economy
• How does this proposal support innovative or
entrepreneurial activity?
• Will “clean technology” or “green” jobs be created in this
proposal?
• How will the proposal impact start-up or existing businesses or
development projects?
N/A – The development of additional storage does not directly impact
diversified and innovative economic activity.
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses N/A ‐ The development of additional storage does not directly support or
8
• What percentage of this proposal budget relies on local services
or products? Identify purchases from Larimer County and the
State of Colorado.
• Will this proposal enhance the tools available to businesses
to incorporate more sustainable practices in operations and
products?
• Are there opportunities to profile sustainable and socially
responsible leadership of local businesses or educate
businesses on triple bottom line practices?
develop sustainable businesses.
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy Economic development in Fort Collins is dependent upon having reliable water
supplies.
Economic Prosperity Summary
Key issues: Having a reliable water supply is key to supporting the local economy.
Potential mitigation strategies: None considered at this time.
Overall, the effect of this proposal on economic prosperity will be:
Please reach a consensus or take a group average on the rating, enter an “x” in one of
the following boxes and indicate the overall rating.
Rating represents group consensus X
Rating represents group average
+3 +2 +1 0 ‐1 ‐2 ‐3
Very
positive
Moderately
positive
Slightly
positive
Not
relevant
or neutral
Slightly
negative
Moderately
negative,
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
+1
1
Water Supply Reliability
& Storage Update
City Council Work Session
May 12, 2015
2
Overview
• Current Water Supplies and Demands
• Water Supply and Demand Management Policy
• Future Water Supply Needs
• Update of Storage Projects
– Rigden Reservoir
– Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
3
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
Only planning for
Utilities water
service area
4
City of Fort Collins Utilities
Water Supply - Sources
Poudre River CBT Project
On average, about 50/50 split between these sources
5
Current Water Demand (Use)
• Deliver about 25,000 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
– ~150 gpcd last ten years
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Use (gallons per capita per day - GPCD)
Year
Fort Collins Utilities - Per Capita Water Use
Actual Use Normalized Use
These values do not include
large contractual water use.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1884
1889
1894
1899
1904
1909
1914
1919
1924
1929
1934
1939
1944
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
2009
Runoff (Acre-feet/year)
Year
Poudre River Annual Native Runoff at the Mouth of the Canyon
Total Annual Flow
Long Term Average
Highly variable flows affect
Utilities water right yields
7
2014
2/3rds
of runoff
occurs in 2 months
8
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
EOM Storage (acre-feet)
Water Year
CBT Project End of Month Active Storage Levels
(Granby, Carter, Horsetooth)
Horsetooth Carter Granby Maximum Active Capacity
9
CBT project yields also
subject to variability
10
Current Water Supplies
• Adequate supplies in most years
• Existing firm yield about 31,000 acre-
feet/year through 1-in-50 year drought
• Need to plan for future
11
Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy (updated 2012)
• Guides Utilities in balancing water
supplies and demands
• Policy Objectives
– Ensure an adequate, safe and
reliable supply of water
– Manage the level of demand
12
Key Policy Elements
• Water Supply Reliability
– 1-in-50 year drought criterion
• Shortage Response Plan
– Storage reserve factor
• 20% of annual demand
– Planning demand level
• 150 gpcd: supply system target
• Demand management
– 140 gpcd goal by 2020: water conservation target
13
Why different levels?: Uncertainties
• Climate change
• CBT curtailment
• Michigan Ditch issues
• River administration changes
• Competing water rights
14
Concern: Reliant on CBT Storage
15
Utilities Water Service Area
Future Water Demands/Supplies
• Depends on population and
commercial growth (recent update)
• 2015 Population: ~133,000
• 2065 Population: ~178,000
• Large contractual use increases
– Breweries, manufacturing
• 2065 Total Demand: ~38,400 acre-
feet/year
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
Acre-Feet
Year
Fort Collins Utilities - Historical Demands, Projected
Water Needs and Current Firm Yield
Historical Demand
Projected Water Needs
Current Firm Yield
16
17
Future Supply Plans
• Acquire additional water rights and/or cash
– Raw Water Requirements
• Acquire additional storage capacity
– Operational storage (gravel pits or similar)
– Carryover and vulnerability protection storage
(Halligan Res. or similar)
18
Rigden Reservoir
• Critical for fully utilizing existing
water rights
• Operational in early June 2015
• About 1,900 acre-feet of storage
– 1,700 for Utilities, 200 for
Natural Areas
• Adjacent natural areas and
future park site
• About $14 million cost
19
N
Drake Water
Reclamation Facility
Horsetooth Road
19
Rigden Reservoir
Location Map
20
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
• Enlarged to ~14,525 acre-feet (reduced from
40,000 acre-feet)
– Existing NPIC ~6,400 acre-feet
– Utilities portion ~8,125 acre-feet
• Existing reservoir on the
North Fork of the Poudre
River
Halligan Reservoir
Location Map
21
22 22
23
Why Enlarge Halligan?
• Existing reservoir
• Gravity system (no pumping)
• Improved flows in North Fork
• Meets needs at reasonable cost
• Considered and “Acceptable Planned
Project” by Western Resource Advocates
24
Adverse Impacts of
Enlarging Halligan
• Altered flow and sediment regime
• Potential loss of wetlands, stream
channel and wildlife habitat
• Permitting process will identify and
address environmental consequences
– Impacts will be avoided or mitigated
25
Permitting Process
• Entered NEPA process with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in 2006
• Key: Define purpose and need
– Recently updated
• Detailed environmental and
alternatives analysis
– Must permit LEDPA
– May not be Halligan
26
Preliminary Alternatives
• Halligan Reservoir Enlargement (“Preferred”)
• Glade Reservoir enlargement
• Local gravel pits and Joe Wright reoperations
• Use existing irrigation company storage
• No Action Alternative
Alternatives are subject to change by
the Corps prior to release of the DEIS
27
Current Projected Schedule
• 2005-2018 EIS and permitting decision
– Mid-2016: Projected DEIS release
• 2018-2019 Final design
• 2019-2020 Construction
Schedule subject to change.
28
Halligan Enlargement Costs
• Estimated Project Costs
– Acquisition $ 6 Million
– Permitting & mitigation $14 Million
– Engineering & construction $26 Million
Total $46 Million
• Expenses through 2nd Qtr. 2015 $ 11.3 Million
– Utilities share $6.8 Million
• Total estimated Utilities share $41.5 Million
– $5,600 per acre-foot of firm yield
29
Halligan Funding
• ~$35 Million additional funds needed
• Water Rights Reserve Fund
– Revenues from Raw Water Requirements
(RWR) and Surcharges
– Current fund around $17 Million
• Alternatives could cost up to 4 times this amount
– Would require significant RWR increase
30
Halligan Recent Events
• Dec. 2013: Loss of 1985 junior water right
• Feb. 2014: North Poudre Irrigation Comp. withdraw
• Jan. 2015: Separation from City of Greeley
31
Moving Forward
• Policy provides guidance for planning water future
• Storage continues to be key Utilities need
• Permitting process should result in needed storage
• Advocate water conservation for sustainable water
future
• Next update at release of DEIS (mid-2016)
32
Thank You
construction. These impacts will be described in the DEIS and minimization of
impacts will be considered during construction.
re
e
k
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
a
d
ge
r
C
re
e
k.
B
i
j
o
u
C
r
e
e
k
K
i
o
w
a
C
r
ee
k
Bo
xe
ld
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
Ri
v
e
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
t
. V
ra
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
t
.
V
r
a
in
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
L
ef
t
h
a
n
d
C
r
e
e
k
S
o
u
t
h
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
C
o
a
l
C
r
e
e
k
R
a
l
s
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Cle
a
r
C
r
ee
k
Be
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
So
u
t
h
P
l
a
tt
e
Ri
v
e
r
L
a
r
a
m
i
e
R
i
v
e
r
M
ic
h
i
g
a
n
R
i
v
e
r
I
l
l
in
o
i
s
R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
Cr
e
e
k
W
i
l
l
ow
Cr
e
e
k
N
o
r
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
Fr
a
s
e
r
R
i
v
er
St.
L
o
u
is C
r
eek
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
F
o
r
k
R
i
v
e
r
B
l
u
e
R
i
v
e
r
Estes Park
Granby
Winter
Park
Dillon
Silverthorne
Boulder
Longmont
Loveland
Sterling
MARY'S
LAKE
LAKE
ESTES PINEWOOD
RESERVOIR
CARTER
LAKE
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
Julesburg
Superior
Hudson
Denver Metro
Area
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
So
ut
h P
l
at
t
e
R
iv
er
S
o
uth
P
l
atte
River
S E D G W I C K
P H I L L I P S
L O G A N
W A S H
E L B E RT
A R A P A H O E
A D A M S
M O R G A N
W E L D
L A R I M E R
BOULDER
G I L P I N
J E F F E R S O N
P A R K D O U G L A S
C L E A R
C R E E K
S U M M I T
G R A N D
J AC K S O N
C
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
D
i
v
i
d
e
C
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t
a
l
D
i
v
i
d
e
76
76
70
70
70
36
85
C O L O R A D O
SHADOW
MOUNTAIN
RESERVOIR GRAND
LAKE
C
a
n
a
dia
n
Ri
v
e
r
14
125
FLATIRON
RESERVOIR
66
119
Ara
p
a
h
o
C
re
e
k
B
o
uld
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
C
o
tt
o
n
w
o
o
d
C
r
e
e
k
14 14
34
GREEN
MOUNTAIN
RESERVOIR
287
287
76
34
76
0 5 10 15 20
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
0 5 10 15 20
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
Canal
Pipeline/Conduit
Tunnel
Dam
Power Plant
Pump Plant
Legend
JA Dahlstrom 06/01 revised 04/10
Northern Water
Colorado-Big Thompson Project
Northern Water Boundaries
and Facilities
WILLOW CREEK
RESERVOIR
WINDY
GAP
RESERVOIR
LAKE
GRANBY
GRAND
SHADOW MOUNTAIN LAKE
RESERVOIR Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
Granby
Grand
Lake
WINDY GAP
PUMP PLANT
WATCHABLE WILDLIFE AREA
GRANBY
PUMP
CANAL
WEST PORTAL
SHADOW
MOUNTAIN
DAM
GRANBY
DAM
FARR
PUMP
PLANT
ALVA B. ADAMS TUNNEL
WINDY GAP PIPELINE
WILLOW CREEK PUMP
CANAL & PUMP PLANT
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
Fr
a
s
e
r R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
Ea
st
In
l
e
t
No
r
t
h
I
n
let
N
or
t
h
F
o
rk
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
er
1 0 1 2 3 4
Scale of Miles (Approximate)
64
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
ho
m
p
s
o
n
R
iv
e
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
t.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
er
L
e
f
t
h
a
n
d
C
r
e
e
k
Boulder
Longmont
Lyons
Berthoud
Fort
Lupton
Loveland Greeley
Fort Collins
Windsor
Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
MARY'S
LAKE
Mary's Lake
Shadow Mountain
Reservoir
Green Mountain
Reservoir
Windy Gap Reservoir
Grand Lake
Lake Granby
Willow Creek Reservoir Lake Estes
Pinewood Reservoir
Flatiron
Reservoir
Horsetooth
Reservoir
Boulder Carter Lake
Reservoir
LAKE ESTES
PINEWOOD
RESERVOIR
FLATIRON
RESERVOIR
HORSETOOTH
RESERVOIR
BOULDER
RESERVOIR
ADAMS
TUNNEL
BOULDER CREEK
SUPPLY CANAL SOUTH PLATTE
SUPPLY CANAL
BOULDER
FEEDER CANAL
SOUTHERN WATER
SUPPLY PROJECT PIPELINE
PLEASANT VALLEY PIPELINE
to Fort
Morgan
SAINT VRAIN
SUPPLY CANAL
ST. VRAIN
SUPPLY
CANAL
HANSEN
SUPPLY
CANAL
NORTH
POUDRE
SUPPLY
CANAL
HANSEN
FEEDER
CANAL
BOULDER
FEEDER
CANAL
SOUTH PLATTE
SUPPLY CANAL
East
Portal
HANSEN SUPPLY CANAL
POLE HILL
TUNNEL
OLYMPUS
TUNNEL
RAMS HORN
TUNNEL PROSPECT MOUNTAIN
TUNNEL
RATTLESNAKE
TUNNEL
Superior
Louisville Lafayette
B
o
ul
de
r
Cr
e
e
k
Broomfield
NORTHERN WATER
HEADQUARTERS
S
outh
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
East Slope
Distribution
System
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
R
i
v
e
r
W
h
i
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
A
r
k
a
n
s
a
s
R
i
v
e
r
A
n
i
m
a
s
R
i
v
e
r
US Index Map Colorado Index Map
C-BT Profile Map
WA
OR
MT
WY
UT
NV
CA
AZ
NM
TX
KS
SD
ND
ID
NE
OK
CO
DIXON FEEDER CANAL
Y
a
m
p
a
R
i
v
e
r
34
34
40
125
34
LAKE
GRANBY
Grand
Lake
34
14
34
34
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
NORTH POUDRE
DIVERSION TUNNEL NORTH POUDRE
SUPPLY CANAL
West Slope
Collection
System
40
125
CR 6
CR 6
CR 40
9
40
See inset upper left
Berthoud Pass
Willow Creek
Pass
Milner
Pass
Cameron
Pass
Trail Ridge Road
Eisenhower/Johnson
Memorial Tunnel
See inset lower right
40
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
52
Louisville
Fort Lupton
Estes Park
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
North
Adams
Tunnel
feet in elevation
(approximate)
7,000
6,000
5,000
8,000
9,000
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
R
i
v
e
r
West Slope East Slope
Continental Divide
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
B
o
u
l
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
.
V
r
a
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
B
i
g
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
Map Area
Colorado-Big Thompson Reservoirs
City/Town
Northern Water Boundaries
Southern Water Supply Pipeline
Pleasant Valley Pipeline
Berthoud Headquarters
6,500
HANSEN FEEDER CANAL
N
Erie
CARTER
LAKE
DILLE DIVERSION
TUNNEL
T
r
o
u
b
l
e
s
o
m
e
C
r
e
e
k
Jackson
Reservoir
Empire
Reservoir
Lower Latham
Reservoir
Milton
Reservoir
Boyd Lake
Lake Loveland
Horse Creek
Reservoir
Barr Lake
Cherry Creek
Reservoir
Chatfield
Reservoir
Ralston Reservoir
Standley
Lake
Barker
Reservoir
Gross
Reservoir
Ralph Price
Reservoir
Chambers
Lake
Poudre
Lake
Strawberry
Lake
Monarch
Lake
Seaman
Reservoir
Cobb Lake
Douglas
Reservoir
Windsor
Reservoir
Black Hollow
Reservoir
Terry Lake
Dillon
Reservoir
Williams Fork
Reservoir
Wolford
Mountain
Reservoir
Prewitt
Reservoir
North Sterling
Reservoir
Jumbo Reservoir
( Julesburg Reservoir)
Riverside
Reservoir
287
85
Greeley
Windsor
Rocky
Mountain
National
Park
BROOMFIELD
COUNTY
Broomfield
Lafayette
BOULDER
RESERVOIR
287
Fort Morgan
Denver
International
Airport
36
25
E
W 470
470
470
N
or
th
F
o
r
k
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
NORTHERN WATER
HEADQUARTERS
Berthoud
25
25
Fort Collins
Union
Reservoir
25
402
56
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
Erie
C
h
e
r
r
y
C
r
e
e
k
Kremmling
40
WINDY GAP
RESERVOIR
WILLOW
CREEK
RESERVOIR
Muddy
Pass
S
o
u
t
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
ut
h
P
l
a
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
D
u
c
k
C
r
e
e
k
L
e
w
i
s
C
r
e
e
k
Long Draw
Reservoir
Joe Wright
Reservoir
B
e
e
b
e
D
r
a
w
G
u
n
n
i
s
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
C
a
c
h
e
l
a
P
o
u
d
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
ALVA B. ADAMS TUNNEL
E
470
E
470
14
R
o
a
r
i
n
g
F
o
r
k
T
w
i
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
1