HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/14/2015 - WATER SUPPLY PLANNING IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREDATE:
STAFF:
July 14, 2015
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Supply Planning in the Growth Management Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review water supply planning by the different water providers in the City of Fort
Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and seek direction from City Council regarding potential options to
water supply planning in the GMA. Stakeholders have recently raised concerns regarding the high cost and
availability of water supply in and around Fort Collins and differences in raw water requirements and development
fees between water providers that serve within the GMA. In addition, City Council has raised questions regarding
the adequacy of water supply planning for projected growth and development within the GMA boundary.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Should Utilities explore options to address water supply needs for all areas of the GMA?
2. Should Utilities explore options to address raw water requirements for Affordable Housing projects in the
GMA?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Residents living within the City of Fort Collins GMA are currently served by one of five water providers:
1. The City of Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities)
2. East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
3. Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
4. West Fort Collins Water District
5. Sunset Water District
The Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD serve the majority of the households within the GMA. Currently, the Utilities
serve approximately 76 percent of households, FCLWD about 16 percent and ELCO about 9 percent. While the
Utilities generally serve households within the GMA, the other water districts also serve areas outside the GMA. A
map of the water service areas for each provider is included (Attachment 1).
New growth and development is primarily occurring in the areas of the GMA served by the Utilities, ELCO and
FCLWD. Consequently, this discussion will focus on these three water providers. Attached are letters from ELCO
and FCLWD that provide additional background on their respective water acquisition policy and water resources
planning (Attachments 2 and 3).
Formation of Water Districts
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, property owners in unincorporated areas north and south of Fort Collins
requested that the City extend water and sewer service into those areas to facilitate development. At that time,
the City determined that such expansion was beyond their financial capabilities and denied requests for service.
Pressure for development in those areas continued to increase. As a result, separate utility districts were formed
to provide services. Urban development continued as did demand for other municipal services. Consequently, the
City has since annexed or included in the GMA areas now served by other water providers.
July 14, 2015 Page 2
It should be noted these Special (water) Districts are quasi-municipal corporations and are considered to be
political subdivisions of the State of Colorado. Their formation and operation are governed by Title 32 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes and other applicable laws. Special Districts have various legal rights and powers,
including the authority to issue bonds, condemn property and levy property taxes.
Water Supply Planning Policies
Each water provider has established policies related to water supply planning. ELCO and FCLWD’s policies are
generally that “growth pays its own way”. Water supplies for new development are acquired as they are needed
through direct purchase of water rights or through dedication by development. In contrast, the City’s current water
supply policy for Utilities dictates a more integrated approach to water supply planning. This is largely driven by
the fact that Utilities, as part of the larger City of Fort Collins organization, has adopted established policies that
dictate a sustainable and integrated approach in alignment with all of its priorities. All water providers in the GMA
have adopted water conservation plans to manage demands as well as focusing on water supply and treatment.
While water supply planning policies for ELCO and FCLWD have remained consistent for several decades, the
Utilities’ approach has evolved over that time. The current policies for each water provider are discussed below.
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Policy)
Following a comprehensive public engagement process, the attached Policy (Attachment 4) was updated and
approved by City Council in 2012. The Policy provides guidance in balancing water supplies and demands to help
meet future needs within the Utilities’ water service area. 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 include:
Water Rights Acquisition
o Acquire supplies before they are needed
o Dedication of water supplies through Raw Water Requirements
o Obtain desirable, diverse sources of water
Water Supply Reliability
o Maintain supply in a 1-in-50 year drought without restrictions
o Maintaining a Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
o Maintain a storage reserve for emergency situations equal to 20% of annual demands
o Acquire supplies to meet an average demand level of 150 gpcd to consider uncertainties in water
supply planning
ELCO and FCLWD Water Supply Planning Policies
Both ELCO and FCLWD provided Utilities staff with information regarding their water supply planning policies.
ELCO’s stated policy is “growth pays its own way”. Elements are incorporated into their raw water dedication
policies for new development that allow ELCO to plan for adequate supply when water rights yield less than
average. FCLWD purchases water rights to maintain a reliable supply through varying climatic conditions as
demand grows. Supply planning models allow FCLWD to project firm yield and to assess the increase in firm yield
from potential acquisitions or the addition of storage. Both Districts consider drought conditions in their water
rights planning to maintain reliability and to provide a firm yield in dry years.
Water Development Fees
All water providers impose water development fees for new development. Water development fees consist of Raw
Water Requirements (RWR) and Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), which typically reflect lot size and type of
development (single family or multi-family).
July 14, 2015 Page 3
Raw Water Requirements
Dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights ensure that adequate water supply and associated
infrastructure (e.g., storage reservoirs) are available to serve new development. FCLWD accepts cash-in-lieu
only, ELCO accepts water rights only (for more than a single lot), and the Utilities accepts both.
Raw water requirements are made up of three components:
Raw Water Dedication or Cash-in-lieu
Each water provider requires anyone requesting water service to either transfer acceptable water rights or
to provide cash payment in lieu of those rights. Each entity determines which water rights are accepted
and/or the prescribed cash-in-lieu rate based on their own needs. FCLWD requires one unit of Colorado-
Big Thompson (CBT) Project water per single family lot, regardless of lot sizes up to 3 acres. FCLWD’s
cash-in-lieu rate is based on the market value of CBT units at $25,000 per unit. ELCO only accepts cash-
in-lieu for single lot development, but requires raw water rights be dedicated to them for developments
with two or more lots. For purposes of comparing fees, ELCO’s cash-in-lieu rate is equivalent to $32,857
per acre-foot, which is based on the market value of CBT water (at $23,000 per unit) divided by the
average yield of that supply at 0.7 acre-feet per unit. The Utilities’ cash-in-lieu rate has remained low at
$6,500 per acre-foot for a number of years. Although the rate has been, in part, based in the past on the
market value of CBT water, it is also related to local water right values (e.g., Southside ditches) and the
cost to acquire additional storage. Staff plans to discuss potential changes to the Utilities’ RWR at the
September 8, 2015 City Council work session.
Conversion (or Credit) Factor
Utilities and ELCO apply a conversion factor to each share or unit of acceptable water rights dedicated.
This value is typically determined by either the historic average number of acre-feet per share or unit the
rights will yield in an average year or by the yield value typically determined in water court. A conversion
factor does not appear to apply to FCLWD, since they only accept cash based on required CBT units.
Water Supply Factor
Utilities and ELCO apply a supply factor, which is a multiplier to projected use that ensures a reliable
supply of water is available for years when water rights yield less than average on a per share or unit
basis that can vary depending on the reliability of the water rights accepted. Utilities’ water supply factor is
1.92, since it mostly accepts Southside ditch rights that can yield significantly less in dry years. ELCO’s
water supply factor ranges between 1.4 and 1.5, since it’s based on less variable water rights (e.g., CBT
units). A conversion factor does not appear to apply to FCLWD, since they only accept cash based on
required CBT units.
Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
PIFs are one-time fees paid by developers or builders for the cost of the utility infrastructure needed to serve a
new development. All water providers impose plant investment fees to ensure that adequate infrastructure is
available to serve its customers.
Comparison of Water Development Fees
The chart below compares water development fees for each water provider:
July 14, 2015 Page 4
Utilities FCLWD ELCO
Plant Investment Fee
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $2,640 $7,000 $7,614
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units
on 1.0 acre)
$16,290 $28,000 $29,360
Raw Water Requirement
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) 0.663 ac-ft 1 CBT unit 0.567 ac-ft
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units
on 1.0 acre)
5.760 ac-ft 4 CBT units 2.580 ac-ft
Cash-in-lieu (per acre-foot) $6,500 $25,000 $32,857*
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $4,310 $25,000 $18,630
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units
on 1.0 acre)
$37,440 $100,000 $84,771
Total Water Development Cost
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $6,950 $32,000 $26,244
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units
on 1.0 acre)
$53,730 $128,000 $114,131
* ELCO only accepts cash for single lots and requires water rights for all other development.
Note that water development fees are approximately four times the cost for a single family development and over
twice the cost for multifamily development for ELCO and FCLWD compared to the Utilities. This difference can be
attributed to several factors:
ELCO and FCLWD base their RWR costs on the market value of CBT units. The Utilities RWR costs are
related to other water rights (e.g., Southside ditches) and other supply needs (e.g., cost of storage).
FCLWD does not consider the size of the lot (up to 3 acres) in determining the single family PIF or RWR.
The Utilities PIFs are based on the actual plant installed and a 10-year projection of what additional plant
infrastructure is needed to serve customers. It is not clear from any publicly available documents how
PIFs are assessed for ELCO and FCLWD.
As noted above, FCLWD and ELCO have different raw water requirements based on their own water
supply needs.
The Utilities allows multi-family developments to use a single tap for domestic and irrigation use. FCLWD
and ELCO require separate irrigation taps for such developments.
ELCO does not accept cash-in-lieu except for single lot development, preferring to receive water shares
to meet RWR. FCLWD accepts only cash-in-lieu of water rights. The Utilities accepts both.
The Utilities’ cash-in-lieu amount has remained relatively low for many years.
Water Supplies and Demands
Water Supplies
The Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD have two main sources of water supply: the CBT Project and the Poudre River.
CBT Supplies
All providers own 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 both the Utilities’ Water
Treatment Facility and the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (which treats water supply for ELCO, FCLWD, and North
July 14, 2015 Page 5
Weld County Water District) out of Horsetooth Reservoir, which is not owned or operated by any of the water
providers.
Although the CBT Project includes a large amount of storage, the Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD have a limited
ability to carry over water in CBT reservoirs for drought protection. Currently, Northern Water allows a 20%
carryover allowance for CBT unit owners, which can only be for CBT project water.
Poudre River Supplies
The Utilities’ Poudre River supplies include senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights and the Michigan
Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir systems. 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 the Utilities. These supplies can be delivered
to the Utilities Water Treatment Plant throughout the year via the Utilities pipeline diversion located at Gateway
Park in the Poudre River canyon.
Completion of the construction of the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP) in 2004 allows ELCO, FCLWD, and the
Utilities (all PVP participants) to receive raw water from the Poudre River to their respective treatment facilities
from April to October. The PVP allows the City of Greeley (another PVP participant) to receive CBT water from
Horsetooth Reservoir to its treatment plant in Bellvue from November through March. Access to the Poudre River
via the PVP provides ELCO and FCLWD with a redundant water supply and seasonal access to Poudre River
supplies.
Annual Demands within the GMA
Annual treated water demands for each water provider are listed in the table below.
CURRENT (2012) UTILITIES ELCO FCLWD TOTAL
Treated water demand
within provider’s entire
service area
25,000 AF 4,000 AF 9,000 AF 38,000 AF
Treated water demand
within the GMA (acre-
feet)*
25,000 AF 3,000 AF 5,900 AF 33,900 AF
* District values in the GMA are rough estimates based on current total District demands and estimated divisions
of their service areas in the GMA.
The current water supplies for all providers are adequate in most years. However, these snowpack driven water
supplies can vary significantly from year to year. A key factor in water supply planning is assessing how much
demand can be met through certain droughts, also known as “firm yield”. For Utilities, firm yield is defined as
being able to meet demands through a 1-in-50 year drought without implementing water use restrictions.
Currently, the firm yield of the Utilities water supplies is about 31,000 acre-feet per year through a 1-in-50 year
drought. ELCO and FCLWD’s firm yield are currently unknown to Utilities staff. However, these districts do
analyze projected yields of their supplies through a series of drought years.
Future Water Supply Needs
The amount of future water supplies needed to serve the entire GMA depends on population and commercial
growth. Growth projections provided by the City’s Planning Department indicate the GMA population is expected
to grow by about 40 percent by 2040, from about 173,000 currently to approximately 245,000 by around 2040.
Currently, Utilities serves about 75 percent of households in the GMA, FCLWD serves about 16 percent and
ELCO serves about 9 percent. By 2040, it is estimated that Utilities will serve about 65 percent of households in
the GMA, FCLWD will continue to serve about 16 percent and ELCO will serve about 20 percent.
Using projected estimates of future demands provided by the Districts and estimated divisions of their service
areas in the GMA, it is projected that Utilities’ water needs will be about 35,200 acre-feet within the GMA by 2040,
July 14, 2015 Page 6
FCLWD will be about 7,200 acre-feet and ELCO will be about 6,900 acre-feet. Therefore, the total projected water
needs in the GMA is expected to increase to about 49,300 acre-feet by 2040.
The Utilities’ water rights portfolio yields about 55,000 acre-feet in an average year, however only about 31,000
acre-feet of that is firm yield. The difference between average and firm yield can be largely attributed to the limited
storage available to the Utilities, as well as ELCO and FCLWD, for their Poudre River water supplies. Limited
storage restricts the ability for all water providers to effectively manage these supplies and to meet demands if
CBT supplies were ever unavailable.
Storage Projects
All water providers must plan for projected future increases in demand that will exceed the existing firm yield.
Storage is an important component of water supply planning for meeting future demands and providing drought
reserves.
Halligan Reservoir Enlargement
The Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project will allow the Utilities to increase its firm yield. The project, in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process since 2006, will provide the Utilities with an
additional 8,125 acre-feet of storage to meet the Utilities’ future demands through 2065 and will provide a storage
reserve for unexpected interruptions in supply. When the project is complete, the Utilities will have 38,400 acre-
feet of firm yield to meet current and future water supply needs.
In 2003, recognizing the need to increase reliability and carryover storage, ELCO and FCLWD joined the Utilities
as partners in the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project. However in 2009, both water providers withdrew from
the project citing concerns about the lack of progress and escalating costs.
Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP)
FCLWD is a participant in Northern Integrated Supply Project, which is currently engaged in the NEPA permitting
process. NISP will provide FCLWD with about 3,000 acre-feet of additional firm yield. ELCO and the Utilities are
not participants in NISP.
Overland Trail Ponds
ELCO and FCLWD are both engaged in a project to develop a gravel mining site located near the Town of
LaPorte on the south side of the Poudre River around Taft Hill Road. This site will serve as gravel pit storage that
allows the Tri-Districts and the City of Greeley to release water back to the River to meet return flow obligations,
exchange for water diverted at the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, or potentially pump water to the Soldier Canyon Filter
Plant for treatment. When completed, the Overland Trail Ponds project will store approximately 4,700 acre-feet of
raw water.
ELCO Policy and Concerns
Recently, some developers within the GMA and ELCO service area have had difficulty in finding the required
water rights for meeting the ELCO RWR. It has been ELCO policy since at least the 1970s that “growth pays its
own way” by requiring developers provide the water rights necessary to support the water needs of that
development (except for single lot developments, which can pay cash). According to ELCO staff, some of these
developers are not familiar with having to acquire water rights and have only had to pay cash in other locations.
For example, FCLWD only accepts cash and Utilities accepts either cash or water rights. Given the recent surge
in construction in this region, the water rights accepted by ELCO (e.g., CBT units) are becoming scarce and
subsequently more expensive.
July 14, 2015 Page 7
History of Collaboration
The Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD have a long history of collaboration. City Council has adopted several
resolutions and ordinances that document this history, primarily as they related to water provider boundaries and
the intention of the Utilities to provide or not provide water service within the boundaries of ELCO and FCLWD.
Raw Water Agreements
The City has entered into agreements with both FCLWD and ELCO regarding the provision of raw water. These
agreements have primarily involved the acceptance of Josh Ames Certificates to satisfy raw water requirements.
Josh Ames Certificates were created under a 1971 agreement between the City and the Josh Ames Ditch
Company. Under the Agreement, the Josh Ames Company conveyed the senior Josh Ames Ditch water right to
the City and, in exchange, the City issued water certificates that were distributed to Josh Ames Company
shareholders. The City entered into agreements which allowed developers to transfer Josh Ames certificates to
ELCO and FCLWD, and subsequently, to the Utilities, in exchange for delivery of a firm amount of raw water.
These agreements benefited all involved parties; however the majority of the risk was placed on the Utilities
because it is required to deliver a firm amount of supply regardless of drought or other water supply conditions.
Some of the noted collaborations evolved out of a conflict in service area boundaries between the City and
FCLWD. Fort Collins Utilities included a portion of developing lands within the boundaries of FCLWD in the
Utilities water service area boundaries. FCLWD desired to continue to provide service to this area. The dispute
over service territory resulted in the City filing a lawsuit under a section of the Special District Act (C.R.S. 32-1-
502) to exclude the disputed area within the City limits from the boundaries of FCLWD. Upon hearing the case,
the Court directed the City and FCLWD to negotiate in attempt to resolve the dispute. This resulted in the hiring of
a consulting firm to evaluate options, which included the City acquiring FCLWD facilities within the City limits or
within the entire District, merging the two entities into a water authority, or maintaining the status quo with
FCLWD’s service area boundary remaining intact.
Discussion regarding formation of an authority progressed as far as establishing a steering committee, evaluating
benefits and costs, and drafting agreements, however a merger never came to fruition. There was agreement to
share facilities to the benefit of all customers. This agreement resulted in several collaborations, including shared
capacity on the 60-inch Westside transmission line, water sales and sharing agreements, and studies on
consolidating treatment systems.
As part of this collaboration, Utilities entered an agreement in 2001 with the FCLWD that allowed developers
within a defined portion of the GMA and the FCLWD to meet RWR through either Utilities or FCLWD - with all
customers billed by the FCLWD. In general, developments with smaller lots (the majority of lots) would meet the
RWR through Utilities. In return, Utilities would provide FCLWD with a fixed amount of water supply each year.
This agreement has provided some risk to Utilities, since it generally results in Utilities providing CBT supplies
and Utilities needing to provide the fixed water supply without consideration for years of water supply shortage. As
a result, this agreement was allowed to expire in 2011. However, uncompleted developments that had already
been annexed can still choose between water providers. The Utilities does include the associated growth in the
FCLWD agreement area in its future water supply planning (e.g., Halligan Reservoir Enlargement Project).
Considerations for Future Discussions
Potential Options for Utilities Addressing Supply Needs in GMA
The Utilities is limited in the amount of firm supply that it can provide without additional storage or more expensive
water rights (e.g., CBT units). Although Utilities has a water rights portfolio that can provide excess yields that are
greater than its demands in average and wet years, most of that water comes from converted irrigation rights that
are only available in the summer months. Additional storage capacity would be required to manage these supplies
so they can be available in winter months. The additional storage Utilities plans to acquire through the Halligan
Reservoir Enlargement Project is only sized to meet projected 2065 water needs in its service area. Adding
additional storage to the project for meeting other (District) demands would most likely create a significant delay in
the permitting process.
July 14, 2015 Page 8
Some potential may exist for Utilities to provide the Districts with yields in excess of demands in certain (wet or
average) years. This would not provide a firm yield to the Districts, but may provide additional supplies that, when
coupled with their other water supplies, may increase their firm yield. However, it most likely would require
additional storage capacity. Utilities would need to work with the Districts to further investigate this potential option
and how it might work within their water supply system. In addition, Utilities would need to investigate potential
risks associated with this option. For example, Utilities water rights may or may not be usable in the Districts
under current decrees without revising those decrees (through water court), which could potentially lead to new
decree conditions that limit the use and yield of those rights. Utilities would also need to consider adequate
compensation to its water enterprise fund. In addition, the Districts would need to consider whether acceptance of
Utilities excess yields would constitute a change to their RWR. It is anticipated that significant time would be
required to further investigate this potential option, consider potential risks and financial implications and negotiate
agreements if applicable.
Affordable Housing
Another potential option for Utilities addressing supply needs in the Districts’ portion of the GMA would be to
consider allowing Affordable Housing projects to meet RWR through Utilities. According to City of Fort Collins
Social Sustainability Department, there are a few, smaller Affordable Housing planned projects in the Districts that
could benefit greatly by reduced RWR. Discussions with Social Sustainability, Utilities and the Districts could
occur to further investigate this potential and consider risks and financial impacts.
Utilities RWR Changes
The Utilities cash-in-lieu rate of $6,500 per acre-foot has not changed since 2001. This is, in part, due to fairly
steady water rights market values until the last few years, especially the water rights accepted by Utilities (mostly
the Southside ditches). The steady rate is also related to the cost of developing additional storage capacity, which
has not been as volatile as the water rights market in recent years. However, given the time since the last update
and the recent increase in value of water rights, potential changes to the Utilities RWR and cash-in-lieu rate is
planned to be discussed at the September 8, 2015 City Council work sessions. More details will be provided at
that time.
CONCLUSION
The cost of providing water supplies in the City’s GMA is likely to continue to increase. Utilities and the Districts
have a long history of working cooperatively on water supply related issues. Continued discussions will be
required to address upcoming issues. Potential next steps include:
Engage with Districts about their RWR policies
o FCLWD - consider changes to size of lots in RWR
o ELCO - consider taking cash-in-lieu of water rights
o Both - consider allowing single tap for multi-family domestic and irrigation use
Continued Utilities discussions with Districts
o Monthly Regional Water Cooperation Committee meetings
Involve City of Fort Collins Planning Department in growth discussions
o Further investigate ELCO water supply needs
Better understand water supply system
Explore options for potentially using Utilities excess water
Consider risks to Utilities
Further explore Utilities providing supply for Affordable Housing projects in Districts’ portion of the GMA
Consider changes to Utilities RWR and cash-in-lieu rates that will be presented at the September 8, 2015
City Council work session.
July 14, 2015 Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map (PDF)
2. ELCO Letter re: Water Dedication Policy and Water Resources Planning (PDF)
3. FCLWD Letter re: Water Acquisition Policy and Water Resources Planning (PDF)
4. Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (PDF)
5. Glossary of Water Resources Terms (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
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 Planning in the Growth Management Area
July 14, 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”
Acre-Foot or Acre-Feet (ac-ft, 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;
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
ATTACHMENT 5
2
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 without the need for mandatory water restrictions; 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”
Legal Return Flows or Return Flow Obligations - refers to legal requirements when
changing water rights from agricultural to municipal use; this process requires obtaining a
decree from Colorado Water Court that involves detailed analysis of the historic
agricultural water use, including the water diversions, amount used by the crops, and the
return flow patterns of the water not used by the crops; terms in the decree to prevent
municipalities from taking more water than was historically taken and replacing return
flows in the right amount, location and time to prevent injury to other water rights
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
3
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”
NWCWD - short for North Weld County Water District; see also “Tri-Districts”
PIFs – short for Plant Investment Fees, which requires new development to pay into the
water treatment and distribution facilities that are in place or planned
Planning Demand Level - level of water use (demand) in gpcd used by Fort Collins
Utilities 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
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”
Water Supply Planning within the
City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area
City Council Work Session
July 14, 2015
Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
1
ATTACHMENT 6
May 12 - City Council Work Session
Water Supply Reliability
and Storage Update
PURPOSE:
- Background on the water
supply planning policies
and processes.
- Update on activities
related to water storage
and reliability.
June 8 - Futures Committee
Water Supply Planning
Policy
PURPPOSE:
- History, present, and
future options;
- Accelerating Halligan
Water Supply Project
Permitting Process
July 14 - City Council Work Session
Water Supply Planning
Policy
PURPOSE:
- History, present, and
future options
Sept. 8 - City Council
Work Session
Water Development Fees
PURPOSE:
Review Raw Water
Requirements and Plant
Investment Fees for new
development; compare with
requirements in
surrounding water districts;
consider potential changes
to Utilities’ requirements.
Water Supply
Discussion Timeline
2
Purpose
Review water supply planning by different water
providers in the Growth Management Area (GMA)
Seek direction for potential options for water supply
planning in the GMA
3
General Direction Sought
• Should Utilities explore options to address water supply
needs for all areas of the GMA?
• Should Utilities explore options to address raw water
requirements for Affordable Housing projects in the
GMA?
4
Agenda
• Background and concerns regarding multiple water
providers in GMA
• Review and compare the City and water district policies
and fees
• Current and future water supply needs within the GMA
• Present considerations for future discussions
5
Background
• The City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) is currently
served by five water districts
• City of Fort Collins Utilities (Utilities)
• East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
• Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
• West Fort Collins Water District
• Sunset Water District
• Focus of today’s discussion on Utilities, ELCO, and FCLWD
• Serve the majority of the GMA
• New development primarily occurring in those areas
6
7
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
Formation of Water Districts
Late 1950s and early
1960s:
Request from developers
extension of water and
sewer service
City determines
expansion beyond
financial capabilities;
denied requests for
service.
Pressure for development
in the area continued to
increase.
Separate utility districts
form to provide service.
Development increases;
the City annexes or
includes area in the GMA
now served by both ELCO
and FCLWD.
8
Stakeholder Concerns
• Development limitations due to raw
water availability and increased cost
• Inconsistent cost and level of service
between water providers
• Redundant and inefficient service
delivery model
• Lack of integrated water supply planning
9
WATER SUPPLY POLICIES
10
• Guides Utilities in balancing water
supplies and demands
• Policy objectives
• Ensure adequate, safe, and
reliable supply of water
• Manage level of demand
• Comprehensive public process
• Directs staff to plan for water supply
needs within Utilities service area;
collaborate with water districts
Water Supply & Demand
Management Policy (updated 2012)
11
City/Districts Comparison
City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Districts (ELCO and FCLWD)
Diverse water rights portfolio that are
available the majority of the year
Rely primarily on CBT, with seasonal
access to Poudre River supplies
Planning based on:
• Reliability (1-in-50 year drought),
• Storage reserve factor (20%),
• Planning demand level (150 gpcd)
Consider dry-years and storage in
planning; specific criteria unknown to City
staff
Acquire supplies before they are needed Acquire supplies primarily as they are
needed
Cash-in-lieu rate last updated in 2001 FCLWD updates cash-in-lieu annually;
ELCO accepts water rights only for > 1 lot
12
WATER DEVELOPMENT FEES
13
Water Development Fees
• Water development fees consist of
• Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
• Dedication of water rights or cash-
in-lieu to ensure adequate supply
for new development
• Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)
• One-time fees for cost of utility
infrastructure needed to serve a
new development
• Development fees typically reflect lot
size and type of development (single
family or multifamily)
14
Utilities FCLWD ELCO
Plant Investment Fee
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $2,640 $7,000 $7,614
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $16,290 $28,000 $29,360
Raw Water Requirement
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) 0.663 ac-ft 1 CBT unit 0.567 ac-ft
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) 5.760 ac-ft 4 CBT units 2.580 ac-ft
Cash-in-lieu (per acre-foot or CBT unit) $6,500 $25,000 $32,857*
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $4,310 $25,000 $18,630
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $37,440 $100,000 $84,771
Total Water Development Cost
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot) $6,950 $32,000 $26,244
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on 1.0 acre) $53,730 $128,000 $114,131
Comparison of
Water Development Fees
* ELCO only accepts cash for single lots and requires water rights for all other development. 15
Reasons for Variance in Fees
• Utilities fees related to local water right
values (e.g., Southside Ditches) and cost
to acquire additional storage
• FCLWD does not consider size of lot (up
to 3 acres) in determining the single
family PIF or RWR
• Utilities allows multi-family developments
to use a single tap for domestic and
irrigation use. FCLWD and ELCO require
separate irrigation taps
• ELCO accepts water rights only; FCLWD
accepts cash-in-lieu only; Utilities
accepts both
16
ELCO Policy and Concerns
• ELCO requires developers provide water rights (not cash)
• “Growth pays its own way” (long-term Policy)
• Developers assume risk of obtaining supplies
• Some developers having difficulty meeting ELCO RWR
• Unfamiliar with acquiring water rights
• Water rights (e.g., CBT) becoming more scarce
• Recent increases in market value of water rights
17
Market Value of Colorado-
Big Thompson (CBT) Project Units
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Year
Price per Unit for Colorado-Big Thompson Project Units
Data provided by Northern Water. 18
Current and Future Water
Supply Needs in the GMA
19
Current & Future Water
Supply Needs in GMA
District values are rough estimates based on current and projected total District demands within the GMA.
25,000
35,200
3,000
6,900
5,900
7,200
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Current (2012) Demand within GMA 2040 ProjectedWater Needs within GMA
Volume, acre-feet per year
Fort Collins Utilities (Water) ELCO Water District Fort Collins Loveland Water District
20
Past Utilities/Districts
Water Supply Agreements
• Distinct water service area boundaries and governance
• Previous boundary dispute with FCLWD
• Resulted in several collaborations
• Utilities has provided limited supplies to districts in past
• Examples: FCLWD Sales Agreement, Josh Ames
Certificates acceptance (both ELCO and FCLWD)
• Generally resulted in Utilities providing CBT supplies
for other water rights (not firmed with storage)
21
Previous Policy Direction
• Utilities has only planned for supplying its Service Area
• Provide firm yield through 1-in-50 drought
• Meeting increased demands would require:
• Additional storage capacity or more expensive
sources
22
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
23 23
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
Firm Yield with Halligan
24 24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Da te
Flow (cfs)
Direct Flow Rights Wa te r from Storage 2008 Actual Demands
30% of Average Poudre
River Flows (2002)
Wa te r Supplies and Demands fo r Fort C ollins Utilities
25
Poor water right yields
in dry years; lowers
firm yield.
Utilities Supply and
Demand in a Dry Year
25
Lots of storage
required to meet
demands.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Da te
Flow (cfs)
Direct Flow Rights Wa te r from Storage 2008 Actual Dema nds
130% of Average Poudre
River Flows (1986)
Wa te r Supplies and Demands fo r Fort C ollins Utilities
Direct flow rights in excess
of demands (unusable
without storage).
Storage required
to meet demands.
26
Utilities Supply and
Demand in a Wet Year
26
Potential Options
• Providing excess Utilities water rights in wet years
• Need to analyze how it might fit with Districts’ water
supply systems
• Would likely require additional storage
• May require changes to Utilities water rights that
could put them at risk
• Would need to be acceptable to Districts
• Significant time required for further investigation
• Utilities provide water for Affordable Housing projects in
Districts portion of GMA
• Planned projects with small amount of demand
27
Considerations
For Future Discussions
• Utilities and Districts have extensive history of collaboration
• Several IGAs to share supply, treatment, and
transmission of raw/treated water
• Past collaborations may serve as models
• Utilities limited in providing firm supply to Districts
• Storage/permitting process constraints
• Potential water rights use constraints
• Opportunities exist to address affordable housing
development
28
Potential Next Steps
• Engage with Districts about their RWR policies
• Continued Utilities discussions with Districts
• Regional Water Cooperation Committee (RWCC)
• Further investigate ELCO water supply needs
• Further explore Utilities providing supply for Affordable
Housing projects in Districts
• Consider changes to Utilities RWR (Sept. 8 work session)
29
General Direction Sought
• Should Utilities explore options to address water supply
needs for all areas of the GMA?
• Should Utilities explore options to address raw water
requirements for Affordable Housing projects in the
GMA?
30
Thank You
31