HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/01/2016 - RESOLUTION 2016-023 APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN UPDAAgenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 1, 2016
City Council
STAFF
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager
SUBJECT
Resolution 2016-023 Approving and Adopting an Updated Water Efficiency Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan (Plan), the draft of which was presented to
Council at the October 13, 2015 work session. The Plan will replace the existing 2009 Water Conservation
Plan. Based on feedback from the City Council October 13, 2015 work session and the completed public
comment period ending January 15, 2016, which included presentations to City boards and select community
organizations, staff recommends the approval and adoption of the Plan which includes the following:
A new water efficiency goal of 130 gallons per capita per day by the year 2030
New water efficiency metrics of total gallons saved and participation as the key metrics of water
conservation performance
A focus on programs, projects, and events that:
o Leverage smart meter system capabilities and data
o Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
o Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
o Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
o Increase community water literacy.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Fort Collins Utilities Water Efficiency Plan, attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A, reflects the role of the
community’s conservation efforts in supporting and ensuring the efficient and beneficial use of water
resources. The Plan provides a conservation goal of 130 GPCD by 2030, as well as indicators for use in the
prioritization of decision making, programs and services related to water use. The Plan can also support
citywide conservation efforts as it includes plans to expand partnerships with other water districts that serve
City residents and business and partnerships with other community and organizations in Northern Colorado.
The State of Colorado Water Conservation Act of 2004 (House Bill 04-1365) requires entities that provide retail
water and have total annual demands of 2,000 acre-feet or more to submit an updated Water Efficiency Plan to
the State at least every seven years to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). An entity’s plan is
required to include sections on water supplies, historic water demands and demand management activities,
the planning process and goals, selection of activities, implementation and monitoring, and adoption and
approval.
The history of formal water conservation in the Utilities dates to 1977 with the creation of a part-time water
conservation officer. The first Water Supply Policy was developed in 1988 and dictated that “water
conservation education programs be continued and enhanced to as to encourage efficient water use.” In 1992
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 2
a dedicated Water Demand Policy was adopted by City Council; this Policy outlined 12 key measures to guide
the expansion of the water conservation program. The first combined Water Supply and Demand Management
Policy (WSDMP) was created in 2003 and most recently updated in 2012. In response to the 2004 Water
Conservation Act, the first formal Water Conservation Plan was developed in 2009 and it was approved by the
CWCB in 2010. This proposed Plan is an update to the 2010 Plan, with a wording switch from “Conservation”
to “Efficiency” to reflect changes at the State and industry level.
Currently, the 2012 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Policy) sets a planning demand level for
determining supply system needs. This Policy then defers to the current Plan for the conservation goal. The
current planning demand level is 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), and the 2010 Water Conservation Plan
had set a conservation goal of 140 gpcd by 2020. Note that the planning demand level is purposely set higher
than the conservation goal to account for inherent uncertainties in water supplies and to ensure a certain level
of system reliability. The City of Fort Collins Utilities does not provide water service to all customers within the
city limits, nor the Growth Management Area. There are a number of water districts such as East Larimer
County Water District and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District that provide service to a portion of Fort Collins’
residents and businesses. Utilities currently provides some water conservation programs to residents in the
water districts and, as noted above, the Water Conservation team hopes to expand these offerings and
partnership in the future.
Council reviewed the draft 2015 Water Efficiency Plan update at the Council’s October 13, 2015 work session.
During the work session, Council indicated support for the proposed 2015 Water Efficiency Plan and for
bringing the Plan for Council adoption following additional community engagement and analyses. (Attachment
1)
The Plan provides goals, indicators, and implementation principles that will guide and prioritize activities
undertaken by the Fort Collins Utilities Water Conservation Team. The proposed Plan aims to support and
promote the conservation ethic of Fort Collins and ensure the efficient and beneficial use of water resources in
support of the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. The Plan update was timed to support the
BFO process and the Plan aligns with related efforts including the Colorado Water Plan and the Fort Collins
Climate Action Plan Framework. An example of potential related work is the water-energy nexus-efforts and
climate adaptation efforts in alignment with Climate Action Plan. Water Conservation will also work to
implement the Plan by expanding partnerships with the other water providers in the Growth Management Area.
The Water Efficiency Plan includes the following chapters:
1. Profile of Existing Water Supply System
2. Profile of Water Demand and Historical Demand Management
3. Integrated Water Supply and Demand Management Planning
4. Selection of Water Efficiency Activities
5. Implementation and Monitoring
If approved and adopted, a sixth chapter will detail the process for the CWCB.
Key elements of the Plan update include:
Goal: The overarching goal is proposed to change from 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by the year
2020, to a goal of 130 gallons per capita per day by the year 2030. This reflects a reasonable and
achievable goal, given the current trend in gpcd supported by the City’s water conservation programs. As
per CWCB requirements, this Plan will be updated at least every 7 years and thus the 2030 goal serves as
a guide post, as the previous Plans’ goals have. In addition to this goal, Water Conservation staff is
recommending new approaches, discussed below in the “Key addition” section below.
Areas of Opportunity: A new addition in the Plan is the identification of areas of opportunity for expansion
of the City’s water conservation program. These were selected for their significant water savings potential,
the potential scope of customer impact, and in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan Outcomes and
Strategic Objectives. These areas will be used to guide the expansion and direction of current programs
and will also be used to develop new programs and activities. The objectives are to (1) leverage Advanced
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 3
Meter Fort Collins system capabilities and data, (2) promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency,
(3) encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes, (4) expand
commercial and industrial sector strategies, and (5) increase community water literacy.
Implementation Principles: Another new feature of the Plan is a set of three implementation principles.
Staff believes that these principles will help to improve the effectiveness of the City’s programs and keep
our actions in alignment with the City’s Strategic Plan. The three principles are: (1) employ sophisticated
data-driven processes and decision making, (2) cultivate new and bolster existing community and
statewide partnerships, and (3) coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City.
Key addition to the Plan since the October 13, 2015 work session - these reflect the response to public input
and other research:
New water efficiency indicators and an evolution toward use of total gallons saved and participation as the
key metrics of Water Conservation activities’ performance. The Plan now incorporates a path toward use
of residential indicators like GPCD or GPHD (gallons per household per day), as well as a commercial
sector indicator that will be developed in conjunction with the local stakeholders. The Plan also outlines a
path toward use of total gallons saved and program participation as the key performance metrics of water
efficiency activities. These are being added because City and Utility leadership have asked for clearer
metrics related to Water Conservation programs. This metric provides good clarity and is a more direct
measurement of the impact of water conservation programs. Some brief points related to this change:
o It is difficult to link water conservation activities to a metric like gallons per capita per day (GPCD),
because GPCD encompasses every single water use throughout the entire water service area. A
GPCD metric not only reflects water conservation activities but also other factors, like new
businesses, new babies, basement leaks, forgotten hoses, home expansions, and thousands of
other activities. GPCD is therefore also quite difficult to compare across utilities.
o Public comment revealed that individual customers are not able to relate their individual behavior
to a communitywide metric like GPCD therefore a measure is needed that is relatable.
o A memo from Save The Poudre suggested a significantly more aggressive GPCD goal, citing
research on other southwestern cities. This research was mostly discussing single-family
residential GPCD, which is why other cities appear to be more conserving than the City’s 130
GPCD goal. This is further discussed in the Community Engagement Summary.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The Policy provides direction for the development of programs and services to meet the updated goals. These
goals will be the basis for the development of BFO offers for 2017/2018 and beyond. The Plan’s impact on City
and Utilities financial resources will be determined by the City budget process.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff presented the structure, concepts and goals of the draft Water Efficiency Plan Policy with five boards and
commissions. These included:
Water Board: April 2, 2015, October 1, 2015, February 4, 2016, February 18, 2016
Energy Board: June 4, 2015
Planning and Zoning Board: June 5, 2015
Parks and Recreation Board: June 24, 2015, January 26, 2016
Natural Resources Advisory Board: July 15, 2015, October 21, 2015
All comments received and notes from meetings are included in Attachment 2. The Natural Resources
Advisory Board submitted formal memorandums to Council and the Parks and Recreation Board submitted a
memorandum to Water Conservation Staff regarding the draft Water Efficiency Plan update, included in
Attachment 2.
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 4
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Community Engagement Summary:
Staff has been performing extensive community engagement. A Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory
Group was created to provide input on the conservation goals and activities. This group met seven times
throughout the summer of 2015 to discuss various aspects of the Plan. Members of this group included:
Water Resources Engineer
5 Water Board members
Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager
Water Resources Manager
Economic Health Director
Environmental Planner
Strategic Financial Planning Manager
Water Conservation Manager (retired)
Water Conservation Intern
Utilities Customer Connections Manger
Community Engagement Specialist
Utility Rate Analyst
Water Conservation Specialist
Customer Accounts Manager
City Forester
Staff has also met with the public through several community organizations:
CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation at a community issues forum, April 15, 2015
Northern Colorado Home Builders Association’s newsletter, summer 2015
Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, September 10, 2015
Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local chapter of Trout Unlimited, September 16, 2015
Save the Poudre, October 1, 2015
Utilities Key Accounts Meeting, November 4, 2015
Poudre Heritage Alliance executive staff presentation November 18, 2015. Materials also provided to
entire board.
Odell Brewing Company, January 13, 2016
State Senator Kefalas, January 22, 2016
Downtown Development Authority -- materials requested by January 20, 2016 in lieu of a presentation
(presentation originally scheduled for their December 10 meeting, but would have had to have been
pushed to a meeting beyond this March City Council session).
Public and board comments are summarized in the Water Efficiency Plan Community Engagement Summary
(Attachment 2). Save the Poudre member Gary Wockner provided a formal public comment memo to City
Council on January 15, 2016, which is also included.
The public comment period was open from November 2, 2015 to January 15, 2016. This involved a survey and
public comment forum on a Utilities website with the draft of the Plan. Posters were hung around town and
staff ran social media ads to encourage visits to the website. 11 people provided extensive comments via the
online forum. 398 unique people visited the website during this period, though social media had thousands of
impressions on viewers so thousands of people are at least aware that the Plan is being updated.
The Coloradoan published an article on November 15, 2015 on the Water Efficiency Plan after speaking with
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager. Twelve people posted a total of 15 comments in response to the
Coloradoan article.
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 5
All comments received are included in the Community Engagement Summary (Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Work Session Summary, October 13, 2015 (PDF)
2. Community Engagement Summary (PDF)
3. Sustainability Assessment Summary and Tool (PDF)
4. Water Board minutes, February 18, 2016 (draft) (PDF)
5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 29
2015 Water Efficiency Plan Community Engagement Summary
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW: ...................................................................................................... 2
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP ......................................................................... 3
PRESENTATIONS TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS ........................................... 3
PRESENTATIONS TO CITY BOARDS ..................................................................... 7
Water Board ...................................................................................................................................................7
Energy Board..................................................................................................................................................7
Planning and Zoning Board.........................................................................................................................8
Parks and Recreation Board .......................................................................................................................8
Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB).............................................................................................10
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ............................................................................. 13
Summary notes from the public comment period: ..............................................................................14
Full Comments and Results from the Public Comment Survey: .........................................................15
Survey Question Summaries ......................................................................................................................20
Comments posted on the Coloradoan website...................................................................................26
ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS RELATED TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .............. 29
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 29
OVERVIEW:
The 2015 Water Efficiency Plan (update from the 2010 Water Conservation Plan) was
developed with input from a technical advisory group over the course of seven meetings. This
19-member group included Utilities and City staff as well as Water Board members. While the
group was advisory and not determinative in nature, significant time and energy was put into
discussing conservation measures and approaches to conservation. Additional information on
this effort can be found in the “Technical Advisory Group” section.
Water Conservation staff also provided information to several community businesses and
organizations. These are listed below and more information can be found in the “Presentations
to Community Organizations” section.
x CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation at a community issues forum, April 15, 2015
x Northern Colorado Home Builders Association’s newsletter, summer 2015
x Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, September 10, 2015
x Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local chapter of Trout Unlimited, September 16, 2015
x Save the Poudre, October 1, 2015
x Utilities Key Accounts Meeting, November 4, 2015
x Poudre Heritage Alliance executive staff presentation November 18, 2015. Materials
also provided to entire board.
x Odell Brewing Company (Sustainability Team), January 13, 2016
x State Senator Kefalas, January 22, 2016
x DDA -- materials requested by the (January 20, 2016) in lieu of a presentation
(presentation originally scheduled for their December 10 meeting, but would have had to
have been pushed to a meeting beyond this March City Council session).
Water Conservation staff reached out to several of the City Boards and Commissions
throughout the Plan development process. Staff ultimately presented to five Boards, and met
with three of those Boards multiple times. Additional information from these meetings can be
found in the “Presentations to City Boards” section.
x Water Board: April 2, 2015, October 1, 2015, February 4, 2016, February 18, 2016
x Energy Board: June 4, 2015
x Planning and Zoning Board: June 5, 2015
x Parks and Recreation Board: June 24, 2015, January 26, 2016
x Natural Resources Advisory Board: July 15, 2015, October 21, 2015
Water Conservation staff held a formal public comment period. The public comment period was
open from November 2, 2015 to January 15, 2016, and involved a survey and public comment
forum on a Utilities website with a draft of the Plan. Posters were hung around town and Utilities
ran social media ads to encourage visits to the website. 11 people provided extensive
comments via the online survey/forum. 398 unique people visited the website during this period,
though social media had thousands of impressions on viewers so thousands of people are at
least aware that the Plan is being updated.
The Coloradoan published an article on November 15, 2015 on the Water Efficiency Plan after
speaking with Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager. 12 people posted a total of 15
comments in response to the Coloradoan article. More information, along with the extensive
public comments, is provided below in the “Public Comment Period” section.
Page 3 of 29
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
Team members included:
x Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer
x Alexander Maas, Water Board Member
x Brett Bovee, Water Board Member
x Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
x Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager
x Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
x Katy Bigner, Environmental Planner
x Lance Smith, Strategic Financial Planning Manager
x Laurie D'Audney, Water Conservation Manager (retired)
x Lea Pace, Water Conservation Intern
x Lisa Rosintoski, Utilities Customer Connections Manger
x Michelle Finchum, Community Engagement Specialist
x Peter Mayer, Water DM (consultant)
x Randy Reuscher, Utility Rate Analyst
x Rebecca Hill, Water Board Member
x Renee Davis, Water Conservation Specialist
x Steve Malers, Water Board Chair
x Tiana Smith, Customer Accounts Manager
x Tim Buchanan, City Forester
This group met on seven occasions, where each meeting had a specific focus. Extensive notes
from these meetings are available upon request. The topics for each meeting were:
Meeting 1: Water supply & storage; potential water efficiency goals
Meeting 2: Scenarios based on water efficiency goals
Meeting 3: Commercial impacts; current and potential conservation activities
Meeting 4: Revenue effects from lower demand
Meeting 5: Tree and landscape impacts; landscape survey results
Meeting 6: Scenarios based on water efficiency goals, identification of conservation
activities.
Meeting 7: Continued identification and discussion of conservation activities.
The Technical Advisory Group not only heard for expert City staff, but also provided input on
potential metrics and possible conservation activities. Several consistent themes came out of
this process:
x Help customers understand their water use patterns. Informed choices are the starting
point for choosing efficiency.
x Work with the brewers and other water-intensive large commercial customers. The
brewers in town are very environmentally forward thinking. Supporting them and
challenging them to do more is an important role for the conservation team.
x Outdoor water use, which is consumed water, is an area where we affect change.
PRESENTATIONS TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Page 4 of 29
x Staff worked in collaboration with CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation at a community
issues forum in April 2015. This meeting had diverse topics on the agenda and as such
provided broad outreach. This was a good chance to engage beyond the usual water-
focused audiences. Twenty two community members were present. Here is a brief
summation of the table discussions:
What types of water conservation activities (education, incentives, regulations) should the
City consider in the Water Efficiency Plan?
x Community members at one table talked about getting more people involved in
conservation. Home energy and water reports mentioned as a positive.
x Community members at a different table discussed challenges of getting services to
multifamily and the importance of educational programs.
x Community members at a third table talked about landscape and xeriscape (including
concerns about xeriscape’s carbon footprint) and using Stormwater.
What are the challenges that prevent residents from installing Xeriscape?
x Knowledge and cost were cited by one table.
x Another table mentioned learning a little about xeriscape from the presentation given at
the forum. High costs were also noted.
x Third table mentioned rock installations can contribute to the heat island effect.
How can we work as a community to transform high water-using landscapes to Xeriscape?
x Labor price is hard. Get youth corps trained?
x One table participant said landscapes should not be transformed to xeriscape.
Third table did not get to the question.
x Northern Colorado Home Builders Association’s newsletter carried information and a link
to the Water Efficiency Plan website and online survey.
x Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, September 10, 2015
o ALCC provided a letter of support on September 29, 2015 – letter is included at the
end of this document.
x Rocky Mountain Fly Casters, a local chapter of Trout Unlimited, September 16, 2015
o Are we doing anything to “police” large commercial users with sprinkler systems
running during rain?
Talked about how we address large commercial landscapes: Plan review for
new construction; rain sensor requirement; rain sensor rebate (for
residential); and anticipated growth of sprinkler audit program into
commercial sector.
o How do we compare to California cities on GPCD?
Responded with clarification about how GPCD includes LCU and as such is
hard to compare, but that our single-family numbers are pretty good for
nearby towns. Reiterated that this comparison is apples to oranges.
o How does my toilet running waste?
Responded with: lots! Toilets can have high flow rates and silent leaks can
run for longer periods. Discussed tank dye test and flapper replacement.
Page 5 of 29
x Save The Poudre, October 1, 2015
o Questions about state’s requirements for plans.
Staff explained state requirements and how we’re meeting those
requirements.
o Expressed a desire to have graywater included in the plan’s activities.
o Expressed support for how water conservation goal has decreased over the years.
o Gary Wockner of STP provided a memo to City Council on January 15, 2016. This
memo is attached at the end of this document.
x Water Conservation Staff presented the Water Efficiency Plan draft to several local
businesses at the Utilities Key Accounts semi-annual meeting on November 4, 2015. A
follow-up email encouraged all of the commercial and industrial customers to visit the
website and take part in the public comment period.
x The Water Efficiency Plan was presented the Poudre Heritage Alliance on November 18,
2015. An electronic copy of presentation was made available to the group with a request to
distribute to their board. The board was encouraged to comment through the website.
x Odell Brewing Company (Sustainability Team), January 13, 2016
Notes:
o Question about storage and the role that conservation plays in developing these
long-term large project. This conversation started with a discussion of the “use it or
lose it” myth. We discussed the options for agriculture and what CO as a state is
looking at (e.g. flexible market mechanisms to provide an alternative to “buy and
dry”).
o How can we support more of a conservation ethic?
o Asked about wasting water? How can people report this? Is there a way we can have
City people who are already on the ground report any issues they see. People like
police, parking citations, other property citations, electricity crews, etc.
o One employee brought up an example of a soccer field that is so over-watered that it
gets muddy and actually ruins the field/turf. What are we doing to lead by example at
City-maintained properties?
o Greywater was brought up and where regulations stand with that. We discussed
state Reg 86 and what FC needs to do to allow it in our jurisdiction (still needs a local
ordinance).
o What can we be doing to encourage the landscape professionals to be installing
more efficient, effective systems? Can we give them a tax break or other incentive?
o Partnering opportunities. This year they’re partnering with Parks and Rec for their
50th anniversary – pilot size (14 kegs) of a beer for an event later this year. They’ve
done coupons in partnership – those that attend an event get a free beer coupon.
Perhaps Odells can hand out free water efficient equipment to people who visit the
tap room?
x State Senator Kefalas, January 22, 2016
o Why efficiency?
Staff: reflect how water is used (e.g. graywater)
o How do programs affect change to goal?
Page 6 of 29
Staff: programs help change use but hard to link to goal, so we're planning on
indicators
o Do you have xeric requirement for res and commercial?
Requirement for commercial is overall landscape water use
Incentives for residential
o How do districts and utilities work together?
Sprinkler audit program is good, but we’d like to do more
o How does gpcd compare to other cites?
Difficult to compare apples to apples
o How about state reporting, any standardization
No.
o How about land use planning?
Foundation for Water Education article on land use and water conservation.
o Leak program mentioned by staff
o How about land use work with Larimer County?
We will look into it, while being thoughtful about Utilities’ service area
Page 7 of 29
PRESENTATIONS TO CITY BOARDS
Boards visited include:
Water Board: April 2, 2015, October 1, 2015, February 4, 2016, February 18, 2016
Energy Board work session, June 4, 2015
Planning and Zoning Board, June 5, 2015
Parks and Recreation Board, June 24, 2015 and January 27, 2016
Natural Resources Advisory Board, July 15, 2015 and October 21, 2015
The Parks and Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board both provided
letters of support. These are included at the end of this document.
Water Conservation staff also reached out to Economic Advisory Commission and the Land
Conservation Stewardship Board. These boards felt our plan was outside their scope, but
expressed that if Council directed, they would welcome a presentation.
Minutes from the Board meetings are included below. Note that some presentations were at
Board work sessions, where often there is no City staff available to keep and publish minutes.
WATER BOARD
Water Board was presented to several times, general just to be kept abreast of the
developments in the Water Efficiency Plan update process. Note that four (of 11) Water Board
members participated in the Technical Advisory Group described above.
April 2, 2015 was a work session – no minutes kept.
October 1, 2015 was a work session – no minutes kept.
February 4, 2016 was a work session – no minutes kept.
February 18, 2016 – minutes forthcoming.
ENERGY BOARD
Discussion Highlights - June 4, 2015
Board members commented on the amount of energy required for water, and Ms. Davis
replied that Fort Collins’ trans-basin water comes from a high elevation to a lower
elevation, in contrast with California, which uses a lot of energy to pump water over
mountains.
A board member inquired about the ratio of residential to commercial customers. Ms.
Davis replied it’s about an even share of the volume of water delivered. Washing
machines have become more efficient, and toilet efficiency is taking another step:
starting in 2016, state regulations will require that common water-using products (such
as toilets and showers) sold in
Colorado must meet WaterSense standards. Commercial water conservation is also
focused on efficient toilets.
A board member inquired about untreated water. Ms. Davis replied that staff is also
reviewing outside water use, but untreated water is not included in the Water Efficiency
Plan. She mentioned the City’s Parks Department does a lot with untreated water.
Page 8 of 29
A board member inquired what the target should be in the next few years if the goal by
2020 is 140 GPCD. Ms. Davis replied it’s delineated by the Water Supply and Demand
Policy; 150
GPCD for supply. Fort Collins’ usage was 143 GPCD last year, so we’re doing well and
are very close to achieving the 2020 goal.
Ms. Rosintoski offered to have Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin present the
Water
Supply and Demand Policy in reply to a board member who mentioned reading the book
Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water by Mark Reisner years
ago, and commented on his monthly water bill. The board member estimated paying $60
for infrastructure, and $5 for water, and speculated that even if he doubled his household
water use, he’d pay $10 for water. He commented that he doesn’t use a lot of water
because he doesn’t want to waste water, but his neighbor’s attitude is that if the City
wanted everyone to use less water, they’d charge more for it as an incentive to
conserve.
A board member expressed interest in hearing a presentation by Mr. Dustin and learning
about what drives the cost of water here; the member mentioned Fort Collins is lucky to
get some of its water from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Ms. Davis pointed out
that CBT shares have come very expensive.
A board member commented on not wanting to see water use curtailed because of an
increased population but rather simply because we’re located in the arid west.
Mr. Phelan commented on staff’s attempts to promote water conservation when already
engaged with customers on other issues. Ms. Davis mentioned rebates provide
incentives; the City offers rebates on clothes washers and dishwashers. Some clothes
washers used to require 40 gallons per load; they now use 12 gallons. Older toilets used
seven gallons to flush.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
June 5, 2015 presentation was a work session – no formal minutes kept.
x Questions and answer with the board included a conversation of WaterSense fixture
requirements and staff explained that Colorado is not the first state with such
recommendations.
x Water Conservation staff asked about green building codes, and Planning staff said a
code review was pending in the coming year. Water Conservation staff expressed
interest in participating.
x Planning and zoning board member expressed interest in requiring rain sensors. Water
Conservation staff voice support for requirement and incentives for rain sensors.
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Discussion Highlights - June 24, 2015
Board – Can the public get information on issues at our residences so we would know if
there was an issue like an underground leak?
Page 9 of 29
o Staff – Yes, there are ways to flag information with a new tool called Monitor My Use
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/sustainability-leadership/advanced-meter-fort-
collins/monitor-my-use and Utilities also calls if we see something unusual.
Board – Are the City Pools on this system?
o Staff – They may be already on this through Operations Services, but if not we would
be able to get them setup and we can help with an assessment.
Board – Is there a bonus for residents that really conserve?
o Staff – Probably not, because you pay for delivery of water, not volume, so rates
tend to go up with conservation. That’s why we want to focus on water efficiencies.
Board – What are some upcoming changes?
o Staff – Mostly there is a shift from the focus being indoor conserving to a focus on
outdoor efficiencies.
Board – Will you come back when there’s a final draft of the Plan?
o Staff – Sure, there’s no need for the P&R Boards approval or recommendation, this
was just informational to get the word out, but I would be happy to come back.
Discussion Highlights - January 27, 2016
Jessica: 130 gallons per day – per person?
o 130 is amount of water treated divided by number of service people: a person usually
uses about 50 gallons a day
o Maybe adding a residential goal to divide per service area per day (80-90 gallons per
day)
Bruce: Do we have goals for businesses?
o No, we do not have goals yet, but there are benchmarks for industries; breweries
have a set amount to conserve per their brewing batches; other businesses have
benchmarks as well but we have not done a great job at applying those but will work
towards those in the future
Jessica: businesses based on the number of employees?
o It depends because you have to take into account what the industry it is. Brewery
isn’t staff driven, but offices are.
Scott: Are we talking about raw water or
o Mike: we try to require raw water for delivery.
o Raw water is the conservation method
Kenny: what percent goes to irrigation?
o About 40% residential; world average is 50% for arid west in residential; FC does
better because of the programs water utilities provide for water audits
o Efficient water application to still make lawns look good – Mike add west Nile
awareness to that program
Scott: treated and raw water – isn’t raw water still hurting the conservation effort?
o Our conservation effort is actually tied to the utilities water which is what comes
through the plant; statewide – agree, big picture wide; from what we use our money
will not be raw water; remove trees around ditches to improve raw water; piped and
line the ditches – if working on ditches utilities would help
Kelly: how were 130 established? Comparable communities?
o Every community figures number differently; Difficult because communities are also
commercial driven; we would have to simply go into single family homes; works with
Loveland because FC tries to lead the pack for new measures
Jessica: do you work with ELCO?
o We would love to work with them more.
Kenny: 90% of our water is raw…would this effect our planning?
Page 10 of 29
o No. We have continuous consumption but we could do an audit of usage with rec
centers.
Bob: Have we looked at Rec Centers?
o No, but we should after pass city council.
Jessica: Council recommendation for 130 gallon? – do you need a letter?
o Yes and getting more support for implementations. Letter would be great.
Any comments: Kenny: did sprinkler audit which helped him with preventing over-watering.
Ragan: Any involvement with ditches or recommendations?
o Renee: No, we focus on treated water. If you want to add ditches, we would like to
help and discuss that issue.
Ragan: How many wells?
o Renee: Do not know but water supply may.
o Mike: Roselawn cemetery use underground wells –
o Renee: funded off of people who pay water rates which is why we focus on that
treated water.
Jessica will get a letter drafted and sent to Renee and board for approval.
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD (NRAB)
NRAB Discussion Highlights - July 15, 2015
x What is lowest per capita use possible?
o Gallons per household per day for single family residential: with all Water Sense
fixtures for indoor use, could get down to 40 gallon/capita/day. Fort Collins is at
about 80 right now. There is also residential outdoor, commercial, etc. and need
efficiency throughout.
o City is not all covered by Water Sense fixtures. Fort Collins is good with high
efficiency washers. Many toilets still need to be changed out. This is why
conservation has focused on rebates. As of 2016 will not be able to buy products not
Water Sense labelled in Colorado.
x Good sense of how yard water is used? Vision for reducing that?
o Yes, and action in place. Series of conservation measures in place. Big tools have
been rebates. Outdoor use for commercial and residential, encouraging smart
watering, and reducing lawn, getting rid of leaks, etc. Have commercial programs
including custom rebates. Just finished project with CSU on laundry.
o Needed balance: Surveys, people love how Fort Collins looks now. Get nervous
about conservation. Balance of parks and trees with xeriscaping. Have free sprinkler
audit program (200 residential audits annually). Have xeriscape design assistance
program with rebate. Also do hardware replacement. New construction requirements
as well. Permitting process that inspects sprinkler design plans. Have estimate
models of use and working to improve them.
x Does vision include grey water?
o Yes. Has been approved by state, but need plumbers trained and ordinances in the
City. Not sure will ever do rebates on grey water. Residential, hard to make
retrofitting cost effective as creating second plumbing system. New construction
focused. Best for larger scale projects such as dorms.
o Separate system for non-treated water for outdoor use. • Health issue. State health
department regulations.
x Reuse of treated water?
o City has reuse in place already. Rawhide is reuse for City service area.
Page 11 of 29
x Goal of 140 gallons/capita/day is not an aspirational future goal since already attained.
o Need to balance new goal with rates. In development.
x At certain level of conservation putting utility at financial risk.
o More you use, more you pay. But what Utility provides is pipes. Paying for the
service. Those are fixed costs. Rates have to be adjusted to cover fixed costs.
x Have someone to look at own system inefficiencies?
o Yes. Water Loss Specialist. Looking for leaks, etc. Want AMIs in various locations to
find leaks in system. Leakage is around 6-7% annually. Other communities are up to
50%.
x Is water fairly valued? Too cheap, too expensive? If cost of rate is infrastructure, not so
much for water, isn’t is harder to make market function properly.
o New manger is an economist so will be determined. Many costs are fixed. Inclining
locked rate structure. Economic signal to user about use. Study of inclining rate
structures showed Fort Collins has shallow increase. Not a strong price signal.
x Decline in per capita use, coming less from financial sense as from right thing to do. Have
environmentally conscious citizenry, but at what point does that drop off.
o Also cost effectiveness. Are people going to replace appliances if doesn’t make
financial sense with water bill.
o People do care, but don’t understand own use.
x Suppose had goal of 120 gallons per capita per day. Would we still need to build Halligan?
o Water supply and demand management policy sets two goals: 140 for conservation
and 150 for supply goal. Try to get a supply that is more robust than what you need.
Already have enough water rights for projected growth, but with climate change need
storage. Water goes away. Having water when we need it versus timing of when can
get water. Don’t need to buy more water rights.
x Would you be able to identify ballpark number at which would not need more storage?
o Would need to change how use water seasonally. Conservation does not eliminate
need for this particular reservoir. It is about timing and ability to store, not volume.
o Someone should know that number. Should not split conservation from water
storage planning.
x Hard to compare to other cities as what is included in numbers differs from place to place.
Also, Fort Collins is drive-in community. Number shows that our use is going down, but hard
to compare to other communities.
x Would like to change goals for breweries water use as well.
o Economies of scale. Industry that has made Fort Collins famous, but exporting our
water. Ex: California drought, can still buy Sierra Nevada beer. Hard balance
between encouraging industry that brings revenue and employment, but exports
water.
o Does it make sense environmentally? Breweries want our water as it is top of water
shed. Doing more targeted outreach to breweries.
o Want to develop better metrics and benchmarks for commercial and residential.
NRAB Discussion Highlights - October 21, 2015
x Does staff envision 130 gpcd being the lowest possible?
o Always changes in building standards, regulations that could be implemented for
outdoor use, changing technology, behavioral component, etc. These are factors that
could change our goals.
x American Water Resources had meeting in Denver. Speaker suggested lowest use possible
is around 70 gpcd, but with business included is 117 gpcd.
Page 12 of 29
o Residential is at 91 gpcd. Also hard to compare across communities due to
differences in businesses. Looking for metrics by sector.
o Approaches needed to meet goals are different for different sectors.
x Water district is required to submit report to state every seven years?
o Requirements for entities that provide water include showing that we measure
current supply, demand, projections, etc.
x City comes up with own conservation methods?
o Certain activities found in a strong plan, such as meters, children’s education,
rebates, audits, etc. Many resources available through that entity.
x Suggestion for reaching out to adult community: when register to vote is a good time, when
move get a little packet.
x What are main factors keeping the proposed goal somewhat high and extending the timeline
to 2030? Why not more aspirational goal?
x Try to set a goal that is optimistic and realistic. Also must consider changing and growing
population. Goal is beyond the time we will update, so if see moving faster than anticipated
would set new goal.
x Would it change your actions to have a more aspirational goal?
o Department tries to put forward programs that customers want, will participate in and
that benefit them. Limited by resources (time, funds, bandwidth). Do really well with
what we have.
x If City Council said 120 gpcd, would you ask for higher budget?
o Yes.
x Explanation of being able to move goals, could easily work the other way. Could you set the
goal for a shorter timeframe? In education outreach those are numbers public sees. CAP
and Zero Waste are aspirational goals. Seems like not as aspirational here. In water
conservation have always exceeded goals. In a time where tech is changing rapidly, some
things will change just as result of tech change. Ex: low flow toilets.
x Yes, have exceeded goals, but there is also plateauing happening now.
x Overall water consumption should decline as reach goals.
x With population growth, overall use goes up.
x What is plan for excess water?
o Growth pays for self in terms of water: rights or cash in lieu. Conservation plan does
not encourage growth. Supply and demand go hand in hand. Have efficiency goals
so that with changing climate have resiliency in supply and demand systems.
x Sought input from real estate?
o Yes. Did not hear back from Board of Realtors. Meeting with DDA.
x Lessons from California?
o Crisis is never wasted.
x Changing laws for cisterns, grey water, reuse, etc.?
o Some businesses have recycling on site, have reuse of effluence with PRPA, but
limited with return flow rights. Have maxed out reusable supply. State regulation to
allow grey water, but need local ordinance. On list to move that forward.
x Thought on Net Zero water?
o Not sure what it means/looks like for our community.
o Has some neat elements. Hitting ground in Fort Collins with FortZED. Aspirational
things in our back pocket. Ex: breweries that are conservational minded—can they
offset by working with neighborhood? When scale up to city bump against return flow
issues. Can take your property, analyze, reduce use, and offset. Includes
Stormwater.
Page 13 of 29
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
A webpage has been created for the Water Efficiency Plan. This page detailed the process and
included a survey. Public was directed to the webpage and survey at various engagement
meetings. Comments and other notes are in no particular order and should not reflect any sort
of prioritization.
Media contacts
November 10, 2015
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
Liesel Hans spoke with Jacy Marmaduke, Coloradoan, about the Water Efficiency Plan update
and the public comment period. Liesel and Jacy talked about the new water conservation goal
and how the update is different from the previous plan, including the outlined five areas of
opportunity for increasing water efficiency. Liesel told Jacy that the public comment period is
open until January 15th and we look forward to hearing the community's feedback. Article is
expected to run on Thursday.
x Coloradoan article “Rate changes among water conservation strategies” was published
on November 15, 2015
November 11, 2015
WATER CONSERVATION
Renee Davis spoke with Catherine Sweeney, The Greeley Tribune, about landscaping and
xeriscape. Catherine said her article was focused on Greeley's plan, but she was checking with
other water providers to see what is being done. Staff talked about how about half of water use
goes to landscaping, how lower water use plantings can help this and what Fort Collins is doing
in terms of xeriscape incentives. Staff also mentioned that Aurora and water agencies in
California and Nevada had turf replacement programs. The article is expected to run Sunday.
x Greeley Tribune article “Not zero, xeric: Greeley officials to present plan to reduce
landscape water use” was published on November 14th, 2015
Total public comment period interactions:
x 11 people provided comments via the web survey.
x 12 people posted a total of 15 comments in reaction to the Coloradoan article.
x There were 466 total Water Efficiency Plan website visits, with 398 unique visits to the
website.
x The Facebook ad reached a total of 13,196 people, had a total of 25,963 impressions,
and generated 333 website clicks,
x The Twitter ad made 7,218 impressions and generated 26 website clicks.
Page 14 of 29
SUMMARY NOTES FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
People support and encourage:
x AMI for leak detection, identifying irrigation system inefficiencies, and crafting more
personalized data/messages.
x Ensuring that the City is leading by example. This includes reducing our water system
losses.
x Acknowledging that each property is unique and thus water use and the potential for
water savings is unique.
x Ensuring that price signals and incentives are strong enough to motivate efficient
choices. When prices and incentives are low, there is less motivation to make changes.
x Promoting landscapes that are water-efficient while also hospitable to wildlife, beautiful
to look at and enjoyable to live in/near.
x Exploring the possibility of graywater systems and rain barrels.
x Identifying new and innovative ways to educate our community.
x Water conservation and efficiency!
People are concerned by:
x The lack of sub-metering in multi-family units, which either results in the water bill being
lumped in with rent or being equally split among tenants. This eliminates any incentive
for an individual to conserve.
x Watering while precipitation is occurring, or within a day or two of significant
precipitation.
x Residents and businesses that are new to Colorado and may not be aware of native
landscape options and appropriate watering needs in a semi-arid climate, or how an
irrigation system works.
x Complacency. It is often easy to stay with the status quo, which is why we may not see
changes on existing properties even where it seems to make sense. This implies that if
we can do more to encourage efficient structures and landscapes in new development
then we’re ensuring greater water efficiency from the get-go.
x Only having a community-wide water conservation goal. It is hard for a resident to
understand how their actions contribute to a goal that includes all water use – the goals
need to be relatable and transparent. Customers want to know if they are doing their
part.
x Population growth. It needs to be clear that conservation is not a tool to support growth,
but rather that new development must provide new water supplies. The community
wants to see that we are acknowledging the limits of our environment.
x How our programs, policies, and prices affect at-risk populations.
Page 15 of 29
FULL COMMENTS AND RESULTS FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT SURVEY:
Comments on our Five Areas of Opportunity:
Area of Opportunity 1: Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
x Makes good sense to me.
x Meters don't work for a lot of people, especially renters. I don't care what my neighbors
are doing in comparison to me that I receive in a separate envelope, even though I have
a paperless a/c for my electric. The problem with multi-family apartments is that they
split the bill across all the units. This is unfair to the person who turns the tap off when
brushing teeth or does any conservation - there is no reward for doing this as they are
charged the same amount as someone who constantly washes dishes, runs the tap etc.
A better incentive is to offer rebates for individual reduction and reports of water leaks
(taps, toilet constantly running).
x This area provides real time feedback to people both with leak detection and ability to
see how their efforts are making a difference, and provides financial incentives for
conservation.
x This area probably has the greatest potential for water use reduction. Needs to target
commercial customers, especially their irrigation systems.
Area of Opportunity 2: Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
x I think it would be productive to take a comprehensive look at the total environmental
impact of this strategy. We are seeing many people replace vegetation with rocks. This
results in much hotter surfaces and that can lead to higher electric use for air
conditioning. Are we encouraging a rational trade-off?
x gray water systems
x Please provide more accurate water use comparisons for folks with lots larger than a
quarter acre. The online tool is useless for our neighborhood with its half and acre sized
lots.
x City really needs to look at themselves. Sprinklers on when it is raining was something
that happened this past summer at city facilities. Sprinkler head adjustment (not
watering the concrete). Corporate lush landscaping e.g. Woodward needs to be
downsized or xeriscaping.
x We generally, are in support of the proposed plan and have made several changes to
our residential property including a sprinkler system, dry stream bed in front. Our
concern: we have lived in our home in Woodwest (Midtown), for 31 years and have a
large lot. The outer edge(8 feet in depth), has bushes and rock, so isn't irrigated,
including a back corner portion where wild plum bushes are maintained, not irrigated.
Our garden space consists of 2 raised bed boxes 4 feet x 8 feet, which we will be doing
drip irrigation next year..We do use the sprinkler system, at 20 min. a zone to water the
lawn, and water every 3 days, We do this to keep our lot, including landscape, trees and
shrubs, in good shape and to maintain the value of our property. Since our lot is large it
appears we consume a lot of water; and we can assure you it is not the case. Since the
city has adopted this plan, we feel no consideration has been given to the home/property
owner regarding lot size. (Our home was built in 1974.) We would like to see this
concern addressed.
x This seems to be the place we can make the most difference for existing developed
property and city owned facilities.
Page 16 of 29
x The best way to do this would be to double the price of water. Then people would take
water conservation seriously. The current pricing model seems to overly charge for
stormwater and undercharge for water and wastewater.
x By now, most people probably know that the sidewalk doesn't need to be watered and
that they probably don't need to water during a downpour. But they either don't give a
sh*t because they figure, hey, it's my money and I'll waste it if I want to; or they can't
figure out how to run their sprinkler system; or they expect other people to conserve
water to make up for what they waste. That said, most of the sidewalk-sprinkling I've
seen around town has been on commercial properties where sprinklers are on during
downpours on the weekends or where the sprinkler heads aren't adjusted properly and
are spraying up into the air. One area where education might help, though, is how
much/often people need to water. I was taught that in Colorado we should water a
couple/few times a week for maybe 30 minutes an area (depending on what your
sprinkler puts out). But I see people watering every day for just a short time, which
doesn't seem right. Maybe we need a "check your sprinkler day" where we all run out
with tuna cans and put them on the lawns to check our watering -- because otherwise,
we're all too busy to remember to do that, and before you know it, it's November already
and another year has gone by. Also, I suppose with the number of people who have
moved here from other areas (say Iowa where people probably don't even own
sprinklers), maybe an insert in the utility bills that are sent out to new homeowners would
help. Xeriscaping is a good idea, as long as people understand that doesn't mean to rip
up their lawn and just throw a bunch of rocks in their yard, which will just heat up the
neighborhood. Many people have probably gotten at least a little of the xeriscaping
message, they're just busy and again, it gets to be November and there they are.
x Partner where appropriate with the Nature in the City program, to collaborate on
converting from less water efficient landscapes on residential, commercial, and city
properties to more efficient (and ideally more beneficial for wildlife) species.
Area of Opportunity 3: Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning
and building codes
x The whole area of water plant investment fees and raw water turn-over requirements
needs to also be considered.
x gray water systems, rain barrels allowed
x Older multi-family units, especially built in 1970's still have those original fixtures
including non-efficient toilets. Can offer rebates to install water efficient appliances.
x The examples set for new development will show what is possible, and perhaps with
education and outreach create incentives for existing property owners to make a
change.
x The majority of our water use is for irrigation, agricultural, commercial and residential.
Why focus on the building when there is a greater opportunity on the farm or property.
This means improving the efficiency of our ditches.
x I imagine new construction tries to conserve water, but what about when a property is
sold? It's probably easier to just keep the old lawn/sprinkler system you've got than to
xeriscape or spend money on something new. Any incentive to businesses to
xeriscape/conserve/check their sprinkler heads and/or turn off the system on the
weekends during a downpour?
x Planning will be looking into updates of land use and building codes in 2016 to look at
opportunities to clarify options to integrate natural features in new development. We
should work together closely to make sure these codes are mutually beneficial.
Page 17 of 29
Area of Opportunity 4: Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
x I assume knowledgeable services would be valuable and appreciated.
x no more brewers...sending our water out of town
x Have a group dedicated to ideas to save in the commercial sector. Investigate how
other communities tackle this problem.
x This is a win for the city and for the business if done well.
x Yes, along with increased enforcement. You can put all the rules you want on the books
but they need to be enforced. Otherwise they are just words.
Area of Opportunity 5: Increase community water literacy
x I see knowledge and understanding as valuable.
x Work with expeditionary schools who have already implemented this in the classroom
(Polaris ELS). The majority of FTC residents do not need more messages, believe me
there are too many and most are already aware of water conservation. Absent landlords
who buy properties as investments and do not fix leaks should be fined.
x I think the city should provide a reliable, affordable, referral list of landscape contractors
and/or materials. It would help if there was a tax or discount incentive (Why not both?)
included.
x This is where stories and data can inspire people and businesses to put this on their
investment plans, and be a part of adapting to the challenges of living in an arid area.
x In general Ft. Collins Utilities needs to make their bills more educational in nature. With
the current statements I'm guessing people don't really look at their bills. From a
commercial standpoint it is very obvious that this isn't a priority of FCU.
x With the increased population, the requirements with water rights for downstream users
and such, it makes sense to keep water conservation somewhat in the forefront so that it
becomes second-nature to folks; on the other hand, many people are very busy and
worried about money and their jobs and a zillion other things, and xeriscaping their yard
is just one more thing to do. So maybe this can be a periodic reminder instead of a
constant reminder? Also, you don't deal with farmers and potential areas of waste with
irrigation agriculture, but it might help to remind city folks who complain about how much
water agriculture uses that, well, we kinda have to get our food from somewhere. :)
x The NIC Strategic Plan identifies as policies in the plan to help provide resources to
landscapers, homeowners, etc. to help them choose appropriate landscaping
components from both a water efficiency stand point, but primarily from a wildlife habitat
perspective. With Utilities existing resources toward this end, there are opportunities to
partner with the NIC program to accomplish both goals.
Additional Comments:
x The issue of demand "hardening" needs to be taken into account. Our water supply
varies substantially year to year and there is real value in a less "hardened" demand for
water use. Much of this effort seem contrary to that fact. Including industrial and
commercial water use in the average use goals is inappropriate. Beer production and
electronic wafer fabrication are two important manufacturing activities in Fort Collins. As
they grow in their businesses it reflects poorly on the communities success in water
conservation measurements. This contradiction is based on an error in the goal setting
process. Commercial and Industrial uses must be removed from the per capita use
goals for them to be meaningful.
x Will be seen as 'big' government intruding into people lives, might not get much buy-in
(same as 'smart' meters). Planning & development costs for water need to be paid by
the developer and not forced back on the tax paper. Summit on Prospect should never
Page 18 of 29
have been allowed on that site and they will be handed a tax package to fix the parking
issues that should have been addressed in the planning stages. At what point do we
realize that you cannot keep adding to the population and that water is not infinite.
Change the laws and allow people to collect rainwater like they do in other countries,.
x Nice job. I enjoyed reading this, and am proud to live in Fort Collins where these types of
plans can really be implemented by staff and community working together.
x I think tackling the infrastructure will show residents that FCUs committed to conserving
water. By ignoring that problem I tend to think this is a feel good strategy without any
backbone behind it.
x My 88 year old dad and 87 year old mother live in a patio home. They have 2 small
courtyards. They each take a shower once a week, do 2 loads of laundry, run the
dishwasher once a week. Other than drinking and cooking that is it. My mother won't
take a shower more often because of the letter the city of fort collins sends her telling her
she uses more water than her neighbors. I do not believe this is true and plan on
investigating these letters that are sent out. The same is true for electricity. She now
won't run lights or she let bulbs burn out so that she won't use electricity. My father is on
an oxygen machine because of his severe COPD. The lighting issue is not safe for
them. I don't know how you can expect people like them to reduce their usage when
they would have to light candles and not drink water. Your letters are creating a safety
hazard for this at risk population and I feel you should address it.
x Yay! Thanks for our previous toilet rebate. We put in a dual-flush toilet when our 1989-
era toilet died a couple of years ago. It seems to work fine, but it's in the back bathroom
and we don't use it all that much. We need to replace our other old toilet soon, and will
probably go dual flush. We're just hoping it doesn't clog since it will be the workhorse in
the house. Maybe you could put out a lighthearted note in the utility bill letting people
know that, in theory, WaterSense toilets will do the job? I suppose if WaterSense toilets
become mandatory, though, people won't have a choice. So, I don't know if we have a
problem in this area, but maybe you could remind people not to use those wipes that
seem to clog sewer lines in other cities. Sorry, I rambled, but that pretty much covers it,
I guess.
x If there is to be a stated goal, e.g., 140 gallons per person or less on a daily basis (which
is fine), it would be so helpful if I could know if I or my household is succeeding in
meeting this goal. My billing statement could clearly show my current gallons per
household (or persons) NOT just for the most recent month, as is done curently but my
average for the last 12 months. It would be a real motivator to conserve if I was
comparing apples to apples. Instead, I had to manually calculate it to see that I am under
the proposed 140 gallons per person per day - which makes me think this is a
reasonable goal (and actually should be stricter/more conservative because I think I
could do better). Also, please remind people that sprinkler audits are available and free
(in newspaper articles, on their bill, in City News, etc. Thanks.) I would like to request
that there be more options from the City of Fort Collins (subsidies, incentives, programs,
discounts) to remove typical grass lawns to install pavers and/or drought-tolerant
planting beds. I've removed a third of my grass lawn, would like to do more, but it is
currently cost-prohibitive. The xeriscape landscape clinic with landscape designers you
had a few years ago was great. Lastly, it would have been helpful to have more specific
questions asked in this questionnaire to get my feedback. I did read the draft - I did not
memorize it. Thanks.
x The Nature in the City team is interested in partnering on applicable efforts that have
overlapping goals as the WEP, so we'd like to provide feedback in a couple key areas of
the to ensure that we can align the goals of both plans. I will follow up with Liesel Hans
Page 19 of 29
to discuss more. Thanks, Justin Scharton Project Manager Nature in the City Natural
Areas Dept.
x Please provide any additional comments you have about water efficiency in Fort Collins.
For example, what other types of water conservation programs would you like to see?
How would you like to be notified about water efficiency opportunities?
x I think tiered rates are discriminatory against large families and in favor of multifamily
dwellings. More rational thought needs to be given to this pricing strategy.
x I'd like to use the Monitor My Use - but my very large lot size is not represented.
x It is good to see the city lead by example replacing median planting along Horsetooth
and Lemay with low water use plants.
x I think FCU needs to think of a better metric than GPD per capita. I just don't relate to a
number that I have very little control over. How about a number for residences that
would contribute to reaching 130 gpd? Somehow your customers, no matter who they
are, need to recognize when they're doing well or not so well. Would it be possible to
calculate irrigation per square foot for businesses so they better understand how much
water they are using?
x For us, the water efficiency/energy efficiency thing in the mail comparing us with
neighbors doesn't really help. We're already fairly frugal. Info about how to look for
leaks might help, though.
x I would like to be challenged more by the City to conserve. Such as a voluntary
restriction program, with whatever actions would be suggested during a drought period
(e.g., I think we had certain days we were allowed to water our lawn and plants based on
our street address ending in an odd or even number). I would like more encouragement
to water during certain hours of the day if that would help, as just one example. Maybe
there is a signup or pledge program, with a sticker for my door or a small sign to post in
my planting bed that indicates I have pledged or signed up (to encourage my neighbors
to get on board). Thank you for asking. Now push us to do the right thing!
Page 20 of 29
SURVEY QUESTION SUMMARIES
Eleven people took the online survey. Of these eleven, only ten provided a complete set of
answers (including demographics) and thus some of the total responses will only sum to ten for
a given question. Some questions had a “select all that apply feature”; for these questions the
total number of responses will total more than eleven. Only three survey respondents provided
contact information.
1 1
2
3
4
(blank) Not important A little
important
Important Very important
How important is it that Fort Collins
Utilities provides programs to
encourage water efficiency?
1
2
3
2
1
2
(blank) Far too little Somewhat
too little
Just the right
amount
Somewhat
too much
Far too much
In regard to water efficiency, the City
of Fort Collins is doing:
Page 21 of 29
3
2
1
0
1 1
2
1
0
2
0
3
2
1
Which Fort Collins Utilities water conservation
programs have you participated in? (select all
that apply)
Other - Write In comments:
- needs to be expanded to county residents
- didn't know about the rebates when moved here 14 years ago and replaced many items. Also
8
9
5
6
8
2
5
In what ways do you conserve water? (select all that
apply)* Other-Write In responses:
-irrigation based on soil
need; not timer
-turn tap off when brushing
teeth
-manually shut off and
adjust lawn sprinklers to
match weather
-we're still hose draggers, so
we don't water when it
rains. :)
-special low-flow shower &
faucet heads, front-loader
washing machine, sprinkler
audit, maintain existing &
added new shade trees
*Answers from 10 of the 11 survey respondents who
said that they conserve water.
Page 22 of 29
5
6
9
2
To save money Because it's
the right thing
to do
Because it
helps the
environment
Other - Write
In
Why do you conserve water? (select
all that apply)*
*Answers from 10 of the 11 survey respondents who
said that they conserve water.
Other - Write
In responses:
- it's a
challenge
- I am greatly
bothered by
how little
water now
reaches the
(Baja?) bay
area in
Mexico.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Turf (grass) Plantings (shrubs,
flowers, garden, mulch,
etc.)
Hardscaping (gravel,
walkway, rock river bed,
etc.)
Min, average and max values: What percent of
your yard is made up of the following
landscaping options?*
*A respondant's answers were required to sum to 100%.
Page 23 of 29
4
1
0
4
1
How do you water your landscape?
7
3
No Yes
Would you be willing to pay an additional
monthly amount on your water bill to support
greater water efficiency in our community?
Respondents saying "Yes" provided amounts from $1-10/month
Page 24 of 29
0
2
1
0
4
1
2
I check my
water use
multiple
times per
month
I check my
water use
once a
month
I only look
when the bill
is high
I've logged
on once or
twice
I don't use
this tool
No, but I
would like
more
information
I don't know
about this
service
Do you access online information about
your water use through the customer web
portal Monitor My Use?
1
2
6
1
Please select the category that includes your
age.
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Prefer not to answer
Page 25 of 29
7
1
2
Do you own or rent
your primary
residence in Fort
Collins?
Own
Rent
I am not a resident
of Fort Collins
Prefer not to
answer
7
1
2
Please describe your
primary residence in
Fort Collins
Single-family home
Duplex
Multifamily/apart
ment
I am not a resident
of Fort Collins
Prefer not to
answer
5
1
1
3
Do you work in Fort Collins?
Yes
Yes, I am a business
owner in Fort Collins
No, I work outside of
Fort Collins
No, I am a student
No, I am retired
Page 26 of 29
COMMENTS POSTED ON THE COLORADOAN WEBSITE
0 0 0
1
4 4
1
Less than
a high
school
degree
High
school
graduate
Vocational
education
Some
college
College
graduate
Post
graduate
degree or
study
Prefer not
to answer
What was the last grade in school
you had the opportunity to
complete?
3
2 2 2
1
0
1
2
3
Please enter your zip code
(80550
-
Page 27 of 29
(in reaction to the Coloradoan Article published on November 15, 2015)
Glen Colton
x Conservation of water is good when it is used to keep water in rivers or during a severe
drought to reduce usage temporarily. However, when it is used to reduce usage by
existing residents only to "free up" water for new customers, it is a questionable and
potentially dangerous strategy. For example - lets say that the city is able to get
customers to reduce per capita consumption by 9% by 2030. That would be quite an
achievement that takes a lot of effort and sacrifice by many customers. If, at the same
time, population increases by 30% or so (as is projected), total water usage would still
go up, as the savings in per capita usage is more than offset by the population
increase.So, what will have been achieved? Tens or hundres of Millions of $ will be
spent on low flush toilets, shower heads, better sprinkler systems, and other ways to
save water. Water rates will go up and people will be asked/told/priced out of the ability
to have lawns, wash cars, etc. Just look at what is happening in California.With usage
down and conservation measures implemented, there will be less ability to address
future droughts and water shortages, as we've already taken advantage of the "low
hanging fruit" measures. In fact, things will be worse off as we will have many more
customers/consumers of water.There are many limits to growth - and water is one of
them. An alternative to evermore stringent water conservation measures would be to quit
issuing building permits for more growth - residential, business, commercial. We need to
recognize there are limits and stop growing beyond the carrying capacity of our region --
which we probably have already exceeded.
x Like · Reply · 3 · 19 hrs
Pete Bonner ·
Fort Collins, Colorado
x Glen, I agree, the city wants us to cut back so they can sell our water to outsiders and
beer companies. We've paid for our infrastructures and the city want to make these
infrastructures available to outsiders.
x Like · Reply · 2 · 17 hrs
Chris Emmerich
x Limiting growth and conserving water are two different issues. The city's desired
reduction in per capita water usage is not going to directly cause the city to grow more.
Ft. Collins could stop issuing new water permits and it would still be benecial to reduce
per capita water uses. The less a stable population uses in a summer, the more water
will be available in the reservoirs to carry over for next year.
x Like · Reply · 16 hrs
Walter Plinge ·
Supreme Leader at Self-Employed
x Glen you are so right: when conservation is combined with growth it only makes us more
at-risk when droughts come.
x Like · Reply · 5 hrs
Bill Van Eron ·
Global eMarketing Manager at Agilent Technologies
Page 28 of 29
x This is an interesting article as I support conservation so items like the city incentifying
residents to switch from bluegrass to xeroscaping are well intended ideas. Making them
work (awareness, examples and citizen adoption) requires professional marketing and
that is often where things collapse big time. I see - as a victim - how the city is unfair with
how it asesses water usage and fees. How many of us are tired of getting the same city
sponsored water use mailers stating we use more than our neighbors. Comparisons are
never fair. Some have bigger families, live and work at home or gone all day, have
bigger or smaller yards. So yeah - all things being equal, I love comparisons but the
multi-tiered water rates and energy use rates are moronic at best. What about the impact
of a city wanting to grow beyond its means on water and energy costs? How is that
accounted for? What about the impact on young families struggling to makeends meet,
raise a family and retirees trying to manage set incomes and deal with raising home
taxes, water and energy costs...why, because our city wants to grow exponentially fast?
I keep hearing about surpluses in moneys collected by the city but there is no suplus in
how to spend it smartly.
x Like · Reply · 3 · Nov 15, 2015 10:32am
Ken Martin ·
Fort Collins, Colorado
x Well said, Bill!
x Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hrs
Cody Landry
x There are a lot of things with this. First is raising the rates is essentially a tax on
homeowners in Fort Collins. Secondly, the commercial use of water doesnt seem to be
taken into account. Example: How many gallons of water does it take to make all that
beer we are so famous for? How many gallons of water are being spent on commercial
landscaping? I agree that we can save some water here, but the continual raising of
rates seems to be nothing more than a tax to increase the budget of Fort Collins Utilities.
We need to put a stop to this runaway collections of taxes by the city of fort collins
utilities. Next year they will be talking about how much more our electricity needs to go
up because they need some new pickups and a raise.
x Like · Reply · 2 · Nov 15, 2015 12:34pm
Andrea Agnew ·
Fort Collins, Colorado
x Commercial users pay much more for their water, same with electrical.
x Like · Reply · 19 hrs
Cody Landry
x Hi Andrea. I understand that commercial interests pay a bit more but it doesnt mean that
a regressive rate increase should be arbitrarily put in place to push an agenda. The
proposed rate increase is essentially a tax on water. A resource that we all need to
survive regardless of whether we have lawns or not. This 'tax' is going to hurt people
who are on fixed incomes or those who dont have the money to replace their toilets,
lawns showerheads etc. I would suggest that not one lawn in the Ketcher subdivision, or
any of the other wealthy subdivisions, apartment complexes, shopping centers etc will
be anything but remain lush green grass. I will also suggest that almost every lawn in my
neighborhood will turn brown, and the trees will die because the people that own their
homes will water a lot less and those who are renting will not water at all. We have
Page 29 of 29
lowered our water usage a lot in the 25 years I have been here and our reward is to
have a board tell us that they are going to significantlly raise our rates.
x Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Andrea Agnew ·
Fort Collins, Colorado
x Cody Landry it is a tax. I am not disagreeing with you. I just wasnt sure that you realized
a bigger share will be put on businesses and that will over time cause increases in costs
passed onto customers. Especially by smaller businesses.
x Like · Reply · 18 hrs
Cody Landry
x i agree. but that takes me back to my point that there is a finite pool of water. The city
can sell it to me for a few dollars or they can sell it to the brewers and oil and gas
industry for more, better to force me to pay more and use less so they can sell the water
at a higher rate? only the rich can have grass the rest of us should be happy that we
have water to drink? oh and whatever happened to the lost water rights and the lawfirm
that lost them??
x Like · Reply · 15 hrs
Andi Robertson ·
Works at Starbucks
x System losses equal 7% of the total! Work on that and then get back to me.
x Like · Reply · 1 · Nov 15, 2015 9:51am
Will Wallingford ·
Fort Collins, Colorado
x That horse metaphor kinda got away from me at the end, didn't it? Heh
x Like · Reply · 3 hrs
Andrew Fox
x Seems like the number of gallons per person per day should need to account for the
number of people living in apartments vs single family homes.
x Like · Reply · Nov 15, 2015 11:12am
Bernie Koppenhofer ·
Defiance College
x I fully support this water conservation plan.
x Like · Reply · Nov 15, 2015 7:47am
ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS RELATED TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
1660 S. Albion St., Ste. 831 Denver, CO 80222 ph: 303 757-5611 fx: 303 757-5636 www.alcc.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________
September 29, 2015
Renee Davis
Water Conservation Specialist
City of Fort Collins Utilities
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Ms. Davis,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide stakeholder input on the city’s water conservation
plan. ALCC appreciates the chance to give industry perspective and insight on our state’s most
precious natural resource. This letter serves to summarize several key points that we would
like the city to consider during the update phase of the plan, as follows:
Holistic approach to Xeriscape. ALCC and the Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCO) support
a holistic approach to Xeriscape that in addition to emphasizing plant selection recognizes the
role that landscape management plays in water conservation. Any plant type can be
overwatered or watered inefficiently—our view is that all landscapes need to be managed
efficiently, according to the needs of the plants. Xeriscape addresses each step of the
landscape cycle from first design all the way through to how the site is maintained in
perpetuity. Opportunities for landscape water conservation include both landscape
characteristics with lower water requirements and efficient irrigation designs/installations and
water-efficient irrigation management. In essence, the design, installation and management
are the components incorporated into Xeriscape, which is also emphasized in GreenCO’s Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Demand reduction for urban landscapes will not be achieved by
simply “changing plants”, but also by changing behavior. We recommend that Xeriscape be a
key foundation in the city’s conservation plan as an important foundation for outdoor water
use and conservation.
Water budgeting. ALCC and GreenCO are long-time advocates water budgeting, which is a
primary practice included in the BMP manual and on-line tools (e.g., water budget calculator).
Water budgeting provides an equitable allocation of water for both indoor and outdoor use, a
strategy to allocate water based on the conditions in the landscape, and can be used by local
governments to design rate structures. Smart metering, which provides consumers real-time
consumption data, is another practice the industry fully supports; as technology improves with
metering, better informed, conservation-oriented water use decisions can be made in homes
and businesses. Additionally, improved data sets obtained through advanced metering
(separating indoor and outdoor) can be used to refine demand for both indoor and outdoor
water use.
Incentives for outdoor water conservation measures. We support incentivizing both
residential and commercial property owners to help offset the cost of renovating existing
landscapes and upgrading the irrigation systems and technology. Proper landscape design,
appropriate plant selection, efficient irrigation design and installation and proper ongoing
maintenance are crucial for the sustainability of Colorado’s built landscape. ALCC can help
identify which incentives will reap the most water savings and where the city can direct their
rebate programs to realize a better return on investment. We have several case studies on
incentive partnerships between water providers, property owners and landscape companies
that provided both significant financial and water savings.
Partnerships. ALCC’s established partnership with the city can continue as we work together
on conservation incentives, continuing technical education on water management for the
industry, outreach and education of the public, and on sound city water policy to help meet
water shortages. We envision further collaboration between the industry and the city, as well
as other water providers in the region. With regard to training and education within the Green
Industry, we encourage the city to first consider existing certification and training programs
developed from within the industry—leveraging these programs, rather than duplicating work
already done or embarking on independent efforts. We would like to review the various
training programs offered through ALCC, GreenCO the Irrigation Association, Colorado State
University Extension, and others with water conservation staff.
Expanded Water Reuse. We join other business groups in encouraging expanded water reuse
throughout the state for agricultural, industrial, and municipal use. State and local policies and
regulations should continue to reduce barriers to and encourage the use of reclaimed water
and gray water for landscape irrigation, as well as other uses. (This also includes rainwater
harvesting.)
To help convey the quantitative benefits of landscape BMPs, both within the industry and for
water providers, GreenCO and ALCC have recently undertaken a study to further quantify the
benefits of landscape water conservation practices that incorporated normalized water savings
from the literature, engineering calculations to quantify the relative benefits of specific
practices, and a demand model applied at the basin scale (using the South Platte Basin as an
example). An Executive Summary of this report is attached, summarizing key findings and
providing a series of recommendations for policy makers.
We look forward to working in collaboration on the city’s water conservation plans.
Sincerely,
Kristen S. Fefes, CAE
Executive Director
cc: Tammy DiFalco, ALCC Membership Manager
Nate Caldwell, Foothills Landscape Maintenance
Zak George, Zak George Landscaping
January 15, 2016
To: City of Fort Collins Utilities and City Council
From: Save The Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
RE: Comments on Water Efficiency Plan
Hello Mr. Gertig, Atteberry, Stokes, and City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft “Water Efficiency Plan” posted here on
your website: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/water-efficiency/water-efficiency-
plan/ We applaud the City for its leadership in water conservation and efficiency, and in protecting and
restoring the Cache la Poudre River which is the source for the majority of the City’s water.
Over the last two decades, Fort Collins has continued to grow and go through a demographic shift, a
cultural shift, and a housing shift. Respectively, the population is somewhat younger, more affluent,
more conservation minded, and is increasingly living on smaller plots of land or in attached housing. As
Fort Collins continues to build out, the new housing units will continue to be more of the same that use
much smaller amounts of water rather than single family homes on large lots, especially in the City
Water Utility’s service area. These and other factors – including the City’s past and current water
conservation programs – have combined to dramatically decrease the water use rates in the city, and
these factors will continue to drive down water use rates in the future.
The Water Efficiency Plan proposes a water use rate for 2030 of 130 gpcd. In our opinion, this is much
too high. Other cities throughout the arid Southwest U.S. already have water use rates below 130 gpcd,
and Fort Collins is poised to not just follow that trend but should have an aspirational goal to help lead
it. Save The Poudre makes two recommendations:
1. We support a 2030 water use goal of 100 gpcd.
2. The “five key areas of opportunity for greater water efficiency” identified in your plan are on the
right track. In addition, we encourage you to add a sixth area: “Educating citizens about the
source of Fort Collins’ water – the Cache la Poudre and Colorado Rivers – and about the
ecological health of those river systems.”
Please let us know how Save The Poudre can help you achieve these two recommendations.
Thank you,
--
Gary Wockner, PhD, Director
Save The Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper
PO Box 20, Fort Collins, CO 80522
970-218-8310
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
DATE: February 9, 2016
SUBJECT: Sustainability Assessment (SA) Summary for the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan
The proposed document is titled Water Efficiency Plan (WEP) and is an update to the 2010 Water Conservation
Plan. This Plan has been developed by the Water Conservation Team in Fort Collins Utilities and pertains to the
Utilities water service area. The document provides historic information on the water supply system, water demands,
the conservation goal, the proposed activities suggested to support the water conservation goal, how progress will be
monitored, and the process of the adoption of the plan (once the process is complete).
Key issues identified:
x Social Equity: Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are largely neutral on
social equity. On a basic level, conservation enhances supply, helping provide this basic need
more reliably. Conservation and efficiency can help individuals lower their utility bills. All
conservation programs are open to all economic and social classes; low-income customers are
offered additional support through various programs including the Larimer County Conservation
Corps.
o Moving forward, Water Conservation must maintain the commitment to support low-
income and otherwise constrained/at-risk/underserved customers with conservation and
efficiency measures. Equity among commercial and residential customers is also
important.
x Environmental Health: Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are
environmentally positive. A conservation ethic is a necessity in Fort Collins’ climate (semi-arid)
region environment. Water Conservation and efficiency planning help make the Utility and the
Fort Collins community more resilient, responsive and adaptive.
o The WEP and Water Conservation activities result in a plethora of environmental
benefits, including both a more resilient water supply and water use that better aligns
with the semi-arid climate of the Fort Collins region. The key issues brought up by the
SAT include expanding Water Conservation’s partnerships with other City efforts and the
local professional and business community.
Economic , 2.0
Social , 1.0
Environmental
3.0
Rating
Average, 2.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Sustainability Rating
Rating
Average, 2.0
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
ATTACHMENT 3
2
x Economic Prosperity: Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are moderately
economically positive. Innovation around water conservation is and should continue to be a local
strength. Water Conservation can enhance this by partnering with the Innovation Water Cluster
and commercial customers. Water Conservation provides and encourages a variety of training and
employment efforts. Conservation activities can also stimulate local economy. For example,
landscape transformation can be a boon to landscaping companies, which are mainly local
businesses.
o Water efficiency plans a role in economic prosperity for many parts of the community. If
necessity is the mother of invention then conservation is the sister of innovation.
Conservation can help customers save money on utilities. Conservation’s landscape
programs are a boost the local landscaping sector.
Suggested mitigation actions:
• The WEP itself is a mitigation plan focused on strategies that support the efficient use of our
invaluable natural resource: water. The WEP and Water Conservation’s efforts can mitigate the
above issues by expanding our efforts and tactics to reach all customers more equitably and
easily.
• As noted in the social summary, the WEP is an environmental and climate mitigation Plan. A
strategy to better enhance the already positive effects include more partnering with other City
programs/efforts. The WEP and Water Conservation activities ought to include exploring the
possibility of connecting conservation with in-stream flows for river and ecosystem health.
• Rate changes are driven by multiple factors, but declining water use can relatively increase rates
in the short run. Rates are to be determined with care and demand analysis. The communication
of rate changes and other financial impacts is key. Partnering with the local business community
will help Water Conservation to continue to be economically positive in the Fort Collins
community.
*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
The proposed document is titled Water Efficiency Plan (WEP) and is an update to the 2010 Water Conservation Plan. This Plan has been
developed by the Water Conservation Team in Fort Collins Utilities and pertains to the Utilities water service area. The document provides historic
information on the water supply system, water demands, the conservation goal, the proposed activities suggested to support the water conservation
goal, how progress will be monitored, and the process of the adoption of the plan (once the process is complete).
Staff lead(s):
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Manager/Utilities, 970-221-6877
Renee Davis, Water Conservation Specialist/Utilities,970-221-6109
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.
x 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. 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 efficiency and conservation efforts are not aimed at eliminating
water use for basic human needs. In fact, the activities allow people to
continue to use water in ways that support their needs and wants; the
activities simply encourage people and businesses to do it more
efficiently, through technological, behavioral or structural changes.
By helping customers to understand their use, through tools like Monitor
My Use and services like the Continuous Consumption outreach
program, we help customers to use less water, pay smaller water bills,
have higher standards of living, and have safer living environments.
Water conservation helps our water supply system to be more resilient to
varying climate conditions (i.e. water supply). When our system is more
resilient and efficient, there is less risk to supply the community with the
water to meet basic human needs.
While water rates utilized a conservation-orientated rate structure, our
rates are relatively affordable compared with other communities on the
Front Range. Furthermore, without any conservation efforts, rates would
likely be significantly higher as total water use would be higher and
3
larger, more expensive capital projects and maintenance would be
required. Greater efficiency (and thus lower water bills) combined with
affordability can help customers avoid shut-offs or other penalties.
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
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.)
Our partnership with Larimer County Conservation Corps (LCCC) is a
direct install program focused on helping multi-family and low-income
residents increase the energy and water efficiency of their homes at no
cost to the resident.
See additional notes above related to low-income populations in “1.
Meeting Basic Human Needs”. The SAT team suggested that Water
Conservation continue to explore the best approaches for reaching low-
income customers (this is a current working effort within Utilities).
While Water Conservation Programs are not discriminatory (i.e. all
customers can participate), more work could be done to market and
make programs more accessible for those who have a language other
than English as their primary language.
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?
Water is an invaluable asset and resource for the Fort Collins
Community. Water Conservation activities help to ensure water security
by ensuring long-term resiliency in our water supplies.
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?
There is a Colorado culture that is focused on the appropriate use of and
respect for natural resources. Colorado, including Fort Collins, has a
unique sense of place which includes the aesthetically pleasing
landscapes. Water Conservation activities help the community to more
efficiently use water in support of these landscapes, an effort that can be
further supported in partnership with Natural Areas/Nature in the City and
the Parks Department.
The WEP’s area of opportunity “Increase community water literacy” will
help to educate new customers, who are new to Colorado and our
climate. These efforts will support the Colorado culture described above.
This water literacy effort includes identifying new and creative
approaches to adult education, which may include using art to express
and experience water conservation messages.
4
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?
Part of the plan development process included a public comment period,
which was open from October 15, 2016 to January 15, 2016. We
received comments through a special webpage on the WEP draft. There
was also a Coloradoan article on the WEP that elicited comments from
the public. Nearly # people visited the website, though did not provide
comment through the survey.
Water conservation and efficiency activities are often designed with
public input; for example, the new xeriscape program involved meeting
with past participants to gather feedback and identify improvements for
the next program. Several programs, like the sprinkler audit program,
have a customer satisfaction survey after the appointment to gather
feedback. This feedback has been used to improve the training of staff,
messaging and reports, and has inspired us to find ways to connect
customers with the necessary community professionals to resolve
identified water inefficiencies (leaks, broken sprinkler heads, etc.).
We continue to hear that there are customers who want to be water-wise
and to help their neighborhood and community be water-wise. For
example, a condominium association property manager recently
expressed concerns about water use. Staff provided data analysis,
recommendations and some hardware to help these neighbors with
conservation.
The SAT team noted that many current Water Conservation Efforts
address a change to existing fixtures, landscapes, etc. This creates an
underlying different between our offerings for old neighborhoods vs. new
neighborhoods. The WEP includes an area of opportunity focused on
water use and development, which will include identifying how we can
better support water efficiency in new development. This may include
new development codes and/or incentives at different scales
(homeowner, developer, etc.).
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?
Part of the WEP development process has included a technical advisory
group, which brought together several experts across the City
organization to ensure consideration of a wide range of possible impacts
and ideas were included in the WEP. Water Conservation staff also met
with several of the City Boards and Commissions, as well as a number of
community groups. The Plan was brought to a City Council work session
in October and information, including a full draft, was posted to the City
website.
5
Water Conservation reached out to the commercial sector while
developing this plan. Information on the plan was given to the Downtown
Development Authority, Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado,
a major local brewery. Information on the WEP was also presented to
several other businesses at a Utilities Key Accounts meeting
After the draft is complete and finalized, Water Conservation staff intends
to update the website to reflect the final version and send the final
document to all of the stakeholders involved throughout the process.
The WEP requires that the City, the business community, and our
residents all take action to ensure continued success in water
conservation. The City needs to lead by example, which will require
cooperation across several City departments. The City also needs to
enable water customers to be successful in terms of water conservation;
this may include developing new tools and activities to meet the needs
and preferences of our community. Collaboration will be key; water
conservation is certainly a two-way street.
Social Equity Summary
Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are largely neutral on social equity. On a basic level, conservation enhances supply,
helping provide this basic need more reliably. Conservation and efficiency can help individuals lower their utility bills. All conservation programs are
open to all economic and social classes; low-income customers are offered additional support through various programs including the Larimer
County Conservation Corps.
Key issues: Moving forward, Water Conservation must maintain the commitment to support low-income and otherwise constrained/at-
risk/underserved customers with conservation and efficiency measures. Equity among commercial and residential customers is also important.
Potential mitigation strategies: The WEP itself is a mitigation plan focused on strategies that support the efficient use of our invaluable natural
resource: water. The WEP and Water Conservation’s efforts can mitigate the above issues by expanding our efforts and tactics to reach all
customers more equitably and easily.
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
X
Environmental Health
Described: Healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Decreased pollution and waste, lower carbon emissions that contribute to
6
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
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?
Analysis/Discussion
The Plan outlines multiple approaches to reducing average water
demands, in part by measures to reduce use and in part to increase the
efficiency where water is still used. The activities are designed to ensure
that the community is more resilient to future drought conditions. The
outdoor efficiency programs are in part designed to encourage
landscapes that are drought tolerant, habitat friendly, and favor the use of
native species.
This Plan requires consistent improvement as new frontiers of efficiency
become possible and feasible. The City does and will continue to lead by
example as we cannot ask our community to improve without showing
that we, too, prioritize the efficient use of water.
Over time, the Plan may result in changed landscapes, more in line with
xeriscape principles including native species and low- water needs
plants, and thus may look different than more traditional turf-based
landscapes.
These changes will require greater education around installation and
maintenance of xeriscape landscapes and how to maintain trees, which
have several benefits, when the landscape below the canopy changes.
The WEP includes educational efforts on xeriscape and other water-
efficient practices for our community. Water Conservation wants to
7
ensure the efficient use of our natural resources, which includes
education, incentives, and programs for a any type of landscape. This is
a natural space for partnering with the Nature in the City efforts.
As the community utilizes water more efficiently outdoors, there will be
less run-off which is water that goes directly to storm drains and may
include oils, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials that negatively
impact waterways. Ensuring that water applied to the landscape stays on
the landscape allows the green infrastructure to filter and clean the water
before it reaches larger waterways. Designing for the water that naturally
falls onto a property helps this effort, too (e.g. in line with Net-zero water
research efforts).
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?
Climate change and our climate patterns in general will certainly result in
periods of drought. By implementing water conservation activities and
encouraging water efficient choices (i.e. adapting to our changing and
varying environment), our community is set to be more resilient to those
drought conditions.
Given the range in water supplies our community can and will
experience, conservation in any year can help to maintain storage
reserves, which help support the community’s water needs during dry
years. Conservation/efficiency tactics and storage projects are
complementary efforts.
Becoming a community that demands less water means that Utilities
needs to treat less water, both in terms of water and wastewater
treatment. By treating less water we use less electricity and generate
fewer GHG emissions.
Water efficient efforts that reduce the use of hot water (like more efficient
showerheads, dishwashers, water heaters) will directly reduce the
demand of electricity and natural gas, and in turn will also reduce the
GHG emissions.
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
If anything it will increase the amount of landscape hospitable to
pollinators and other wildlife.
Ecological functions? River health?
8
urban growth boundary
• How does this proposal serve to protect, preserve, or restore
important ecological functions or processes?
Water Conservation activities can also support more green infrastructure
and low-impact development. See more in section 1 “Environmental
Impact”, above.
The SAT team identified that Water Conservation ought to better explore
and identify the connection between conservation and in-stream flow,
which will require understanding when and where the river ecosystem
could benefit from increased flows.
Xeriscape landscapes can help to provide habitat and provide the right
landscape for the right place (e.g. for pollinators). This is an area where,
through our landscape programs and education efforts, Water
Conservation can partner with Natural Areas/Nature in the City to identify
landscapes that could be higher priorities for habitat benefits, including
the development and expansion of key habitat corridors.
One potential negative impact of being more efficient (i.e. fewer leaks,
better sealed up) is that it could reduce the benefits to the natural
systems. Inefficiencies may actually provide opportunities to wildlife.
Water Conservation believes that given the other benefits, including
natural system benefits, that this is a negligible impact. Furthermore,
leaks result in infrastructure and property damage.
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
pollution?
The WEP emphasizes more efficient landscape watering practices.
Overwatering and watering during a precipitation period result in
increased run-off, which is water that ultimately takes fertilizers,
pesticides, oil, and other potentially harmful substances directly into
storm drains from streets, driveways, roofs, and landscapes. By
educating customers and implementing programs that reduce run-off (as
well as the over-use of fertilizers or pesticides), we can reduce water
pollution and improve water quality. Our proposed landscape activities
like the sprinkler audit program, the xeriscape program, adult and
children’s’ education classes, and the irrigation equipment rebates all
support reductions in pollution. Furthermore, xeriscape education will
lead to customer using fewer chemicals on their landscapes.
In general, the WEP promotes water conservation. When the community
uses less water, then we treat less water and less wastewater. Less
treatment means fewer chemicals and energy (and thus pollution) are
needed.
9
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?
The WEP includes activities that encourage replacement of materials and
also the recycling of those materials. For example, we require that
customers recycle their old toilet in order to get a rebate for their new,
water-efficient toilet. As part of our new xeriscape program, customers
will be provided information on composting and recycling of unwanted
landscape materials. Other water-efficient changes are simply
adaptations to existing infrastructure (like an aerator on a faucet) or are
behavioral changes, which do not result in additional waste. This is an
area where Water Conservation can better partner with the City’s
Environmental Services efforts.
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?
Conservation activities may require customers to employ a professional
or purchase new products or materials. We are increasing our efforts to
ensure that customers have access local professionals and local
businesses that can support water-efficient practices. See more on this in
part 2 of the Economic Health section. The WEP efforts should also
involve encouraging more water efficient choices, from irrigation
equipment to xeric plant material, in stock in local suppliers.
Environmental Health Summary
Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are environmentally positive. A conservation ethic is a necessity in Fort Collins’ climate
(semi-arid) region environment. Water Conservation and efficiency planning help make the Utility and the Fort Collins community more resilient,
responsive and adaptive.
Key issues: The WEP and Water Conservation activities result in a plethora of environmental benefits, including both a more resilient water supply
and water use that better aligns with the semi-arid climate of the Fort Collins region. The key issues brought up by the SAT include expanding
Water Conservation’s partnerships with other City efforts and the local professional and business community.
Potential mitigation strategies: As noted in the social summary, the WEP is an environmental and climate mitigation Plan. A strategy to better
enhance the already positive effects include more partnering with other City programs/efforts. The WEP and Water Conservation activities ought to
include exploring the possibility of connecting conservation with in-stream flows for river and ecosystem health.
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,
10
Economic Health
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 efficiency improvements allow residents and businesses to have
the same or better quality of life and level of production at lower costs.
This helps strengthen existing businesses, attract new businesses, and
maintain reasonable costs of living in a time where this is of particular
concern.
Water Efficiency Plan activities are funded entirely by water rate-payer
funds. Though, some of the water conservation events and programs
partner with other City departments and/or local businesses. By
partnering, both entities are able to achieve more together at a lower cost
(rather than doing similar things separately).
Water efficiency improvements optimize the value and usefulness of new
water supplies and infrastructure (e.g. storage). Sustained conservation
allows the water resources team to confidently plan for less supply, which
means that storage projects, treatment plants, etc. need to be designed
for less capacity than in a world without conservation activities. This
leads to significant financial savings for the City, its residents and its
businesses.
The WEP and its activities -- including those that encourage new,
efficient appliances, landscape changes, irrigation efficiencies -- will
require purchases and employment of local contractors. Water
Conservation’s efforts have begun and will continue to help connect
customers with qualified professionals motivated to make reliable,
efficient changes (more in #2 “Employment and Training” below).
11
Fort Collins Utilities serves about 75% of the City of Fort Collins
community. The WEP includes enhancing and expanding partnerships in
the community, including with the neighboring water districts within the
City limits (ELCO, FCLWD). Currently Fort Collins Utilities partners with
the districts on the sprinkler audit program, but the WEP efforts should
include helping to expand the water conservation and efficiency
opportunities to residents in the neighboring districts’ service territories.
The SAT team did not that in a short-run sense, since most of water
costs are fixed, that conservation can lead to relatively higher rates.
However, costs would be significantly higher without conservation. This is
an issue that could benefit from better messaging, communication and
education support.
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?
Water Conservation hires four to five seasonal interns to support and
implement the sprinkler audit program. We currently have volunteer
intern positions intermittently throughout the year. LCCC hires several
corps members to support our water and energy efficiency direct install
program. As we scale up programs, like the sprinkler audit program, we
will need to hire more staff – some will be seasonal but our efforts would
also be more effective with additional full-time staff.
A current effort includes the new landscape contractor training program,
which is a program for landscape professionals that will involve yearly
trainings on the latest in water-efficient practices and keep our
professional community up-to-date on City activities. Customers who are
looking for professionals will also have easier access to knowledgeable
and reliable professionals through the Trade Ally feature of Efficiency
Works. We hope that these efforts will increase the skills of professionals
and help customers to find professionals who support water-wise
practices.
Encouraging and incentivizing new water-efficient technologies and
landscapes leads to increased purchases in the community, increased
economic activity, and in-turn greater employment and economic health.
Another effort can include educational and training for property managers
or multi-family or multi-business spaces. The common areas are more
likely to be neglected (over-watered, under-maintained) and Water
Conservation can do more to encourage proper care of these areas and
achieve water savings.
12
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?
A strong water-conservation program supports and requires innovation.
Water efficiency:
x Promotes a conservation ethic – which is aligned with many of
the progressive businesses in our community
x Help businesses save water – lower costs for a critical input for
many businesses.
As the activities of the WEP encourage water efficiency, the industry will
continue to develop innovative solutions that maintain quality of life and
productive business processes/products. Fort Collins has a culture of
innovation (e.g. Colorado Water Innovation Cluster), which will help to
support these types of developments. By providing incentives for water-
wise landscape choices, new products and different skills will be required
in the landscape industry.
4. Support or Develop Sustainable Businesses
• 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?
Rely on the purchase of devices and materials from local businesses
including labor from plumbers, landscapers, and other professionals.
WEP projects and programs incorporate a variety of strategies for
businesses to be more sustainable in their water use. These strategies
range from rebates and incentives, to custom projects and consults, to
opportunities to partner with their customers to increase education and
awareness.
By working through various commercial projects and partnerships,
including ClimateWise efforts, we promote the efforts of businesses
making efficient choices. The businesses are committed to being
sustainable and socially responsible.
As noted above in section #3 “Diversified and Innovative Economy”, the
WEP and the challenge to be more water-efficient can encourage new
and efficient products and processes that are ultimately more sustainable
(e.g. brewery re-use of water throughout process to reduce total water
use).
5. Relevance to Local Economic Development Strategy Entrepreneurial friendly town, innovation economy, innovation water
cluster
As noted in the Social section of this SAT, Water is an invaluable asset
and resource for the Fort Collins Community. The business community’s
health and development is reliant upon secure and reliable water
13
supplies, which Water Conservation activities within the WEP can help to
promote and support.
Economic Prosperity Summary
Water conservation and the Water Efficiency Plan Update are moderately economically positive. Innovation around water conservation is and
should continue to be a local strength. Water Conservation can enhance this by partnering with the Innovation Water Cluster and commercial
customers. Water Conservation provides and encourages a variety of training and employment efforts. Conservation activities can also stimulate
local economy. For example, landscape transformation can be a boon to landscaping companies, which are mainly local businesses.
Key issues: Water efficiency plans a role in economic prosperity for many parts of the community. If necessity is the mother of invention then
conservation is the sister of innovation. Conservation can help customers save money on utilities. Conservation’s landscape programs are a boost
the local landscaping sector.
Potential mitigation strategies:
Rate changes are driven by multiple factors, but declining water use can relatively increase rates in the short run. Rates are to be determined with
care and demand analysis. The communication of rate changes and other financial impacts is key. Partnering with the local business community will
help Water Conservation to continue to be economically positive in the Fort Collins community.
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
X
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes - February 18, 2016
Water Efficiency Plan (WEP)
(Attachments Available Upon Request)
Water Conservation Manager Liesel Hans gave a presentation on the Water Efficiency Plan
(WEP) at the Water Board February 4 Work Session. She summarized the update process, which
began in early 2015 and included a technical advisory group, community engagement, and Water
Board input. Staff presented to City Council at the October 13, 2015 Work Session, in which
Council indicated support for the plan and adoption by resolution at an upcoming Council
Meeting. WEP is an agenda item at the March 1 regular City Council session. The plan will
replace the 2010 Water Conservation Plan.
Board Member Steve Malers moved that the Water Board recommend City Council
approve and adopt the 2015 Water Efficiency Plan.
Board Member Alex Maas seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously, 11-0.
ATTACHMENT 4
Updated Water Efficiency Plan
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 5
Utilities Planning
2
1988
Water
Supply
Policy
1992
Water
Demand
Policy
2003
Water Supply
and Demand
Management
Policy
2010
Water
Conservation
Plan 2015
Water
Efficiency
Plan
City Strategic Plan
Climate Action Plan
Colorado Water Plan
Progress
Presented at
City Council
Work Session
Outreach and
Finalization of
Draft Plan
Return to City
Council for
Resolution
3
Oct 13, 2015
March 1, 2016
Next Steps: Document the adoption and approval process
and submit to the Colorado Water Conservation Board
Community Engagement
• Technical Advisory Group (19 members)
• Presented to 5 City Boards (multiple visits per Board)
• Presented to 9 community organizations
• Formal public comment period 11/2/2015-1/15/2016
• Website & Survey
• Coloradoan article (11/15/2015)
Additional details and comments in
the Community Engagement Summary
4
RD3
Slide 4
RD3 Should we add WEP TAG; it was a lot of time from Water Board and staff?
List the 9 community organizations
Mention Community Issues Forum hosted by Center for Public Deliberation at CSU
Renee Davis, 2/17/2016
Staff recommendations
• A new water efficiency goal of 130 gallons
per capita per day by the year 2030
• New water efficiency measures focusing on
total gallons saved and participation as the
key metrics of Water Conservation
performance
• An increased focus on programs, projects,
and events in five identified areas of
opportunity
5
Council Meeting Outcomes
Staff recommends adoption of
Resolution 2016-023 Approving and Adopting an
Updated Water Efficiency Plan
6
-1-
RESOLUTION 2016-023
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN UPDATED WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates Fort Collins Utilities, which includes a water
utility that, among other things, provides water at retail to domestic, commercial, industrial, or
public facility customers that have a total annual demand of 2,000 acre-feet or more; and
WHEREAS, the City has a long-running commitment to the efficient use of the City’s
water resources, dating back to 1977 and continuing through the present day; and
WHEREAS, Section 37-60-126 of the Colorado Revised Statutes concerns certain
requirements for the City’s development, adoption, and implementation of a water efficiency
plan approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”); and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the CWCB approved the City’s current water efficiency plan,
known as the Water Conservation Plan, dated February 12, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Section 37-60-126 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City
review and update its water efficiency plan no less frequently than every seven years; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities has reviewed and updated the Water Conservation
Plan and has proposed for Council approval and adoption an updated plan, known as the 2015
Water Efficiency Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (“Updated Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Updated Plan is consistent with the City’s goals and objectives, with the
benefits to the City including the following: lower per capita water use; delaying or avoiding
significant capital costs for Fort Collins Utilities; otherwise lower water bills for customers of
Fort Collins Utilities; further development of a conservation ethic; demonstration of a
commitment to sustainability; support of economic health; enhanced resilience during drought
periods; preparation for and adaptation to potential effects of climate change; and potential
provision of water for other beneficial purposes such as agriculture, ecosystem services,
recreation, and aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the Updated Plan meets the requirements of Section 37-60-126 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes and is ready to be submitted to the CWCB for its review and
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Updated Plan is hereby approved and adopted.
-2-
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby directed to submit the Updated Plan to
the CWCB pursuant to all legal requirements.
Passed and adopted on at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
1st day of March, A.D. 2016.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
2015
Water
Efficiency
Plan
EXHIBIT A
i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... v
Acronym List .......................................................................................................................................
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Profile of Existing Water Supply System ...................................................................................2
1.1 Overview of Existing Water Supply System .................................................................................. 4
1.2 Water Supply Reliability ................................................................................................................ 8
1.3 Supply-side Limitations and Future Needs ................................................................................... 9
2.0 Profile of Water Demand and Historical Demand Management .............................................. 11
2.1 Demographics and Key Characteristics of the Service Area ....................................................... 11
2.2 Historical Water Demands .......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Past and Current Demand Management Activities .................................................................... 19
2.4 Demand Forecasts....................................................................................................................... 20
3.0 Integrated Water Supply and Demand Management Planning ............................................... 23
3.1 Water Efficiency and Water Supply Planning ............................................................................. 24
3.2 Water Efficiency Goals ................................................................................................................ 27
4.0 Selection of Water Efficiency Activities .................................................................................. 30
4.1 Summary of Selection Process .................................................................................................... 30
5.0 Implementation and Monitoring ........................................................................................... 35
5.1 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 36
Glossary........................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendix A: Materials related to Chapter 1 ..................................................................................... 41
Appendix B: Materials related to Chapter 2 ...................................................................................... 43
iii
Appendix C: Materials related to Chapter 3 ...................................................................................... 51
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Raw Water Yield in 2014 ................................................................................................................................ 6
Table 1.2 Water Supply Limitations and Future Need ................................................................................................... 9
Table 2.1 Treated Water Use by Customer Category .................................................................................................. 14
Table 2.2 System Water Loss Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table 2.3 List of Current Water Conservation Activities .............................................................................................. 20
Table 4.1 Areas of Opportunity ................................................................................................................................... 32
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Water Service Area and surrounding Water District boundaries ................................................................ 3
Figure 1.2 City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply System Map ................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.1 Treated water use and population ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.2 Average daily treated water demand ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.3 Water use by customer category, 2010-2014 average ............................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4 Water use in gallons per capita per day and weather data ........................................................................ 16
Figure 2.5 Estimated indoor and outdoor use, 2010-2014 average ............................................................................ 17
Figure 2.6 Treated water demand, historic planning levels, and population ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3.1 Water efficiency goals, demand and population ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 3.2 Historic GPCD and New Conservation Goal ................................................................................................ 29
ACRONYM LIST
AF Acre Foot (equals 325,851 gallons)
AMFC Advanced Meter Fort Collins
BFO Budgeting for Outcomes
BMP Best management practice(s)
C-BT Colorado-Big Thompson
CAP Climate Action Plan
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
ELCO East Larimer County Water District
FCLWD Fort Collins - Loveland Water District
GMA Growth management area
GPCD gallons per capita per day
LCU Large commercial users
MG Million gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
NCWCD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District or “Northern Water”
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NPIC North Poudre Irrigation Company
PRPA Platte River Power Authority
RWR Raw water requirement; requirement to provide water for any new development that
occurs within the Utilities water service area
SWSI Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative
TAZ Traffic analysis zone
WEP TAG Water efficiency plan technical advisory group
WSDMP Water Supply and Demand Management Policy, 2012
WSSC Water Supply and Storage Company
WTF Water Treatment facility
WFCWD West Fort Collins Water District
WQA Winter quarterly average (Dec, Jan and Feb use)
Draft: February 17, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Utilities has a strong commitment to ensure the efficient use of its natural
resources. The Utilities’ Water Conservation Program is nearly 40 years in the making and has resulted in
lower per capita water use, even as population has grown significantly. These programs have benefited
the Utilities by delaying or avoiding significant capital costs and have benefited customers through
reduced water bills. The additional benefits to the City and the community include development of a
conservation ethic, demonstration of a commitment to sustainability, support of economic health,
enhanced resilience during drought periods, preparation for potential effects of climate change, and
provision of water for other beneficial purposes such as agriculture, ecosystem services, recreation, and
aesthetics.
This Water Efficiency Plan (WEP) is an update to the Water Conservation Plan approved by the Colorado
Water Conservation Board in 2010. “Water efficiency is doing more with less – not doing without” – the
term “efficiency” has replaced “conservation” because efficiency includes conservation and is a more
appropriate term for the range of tactics needed in Colorado.1 The 2010 Plan set a goal of 140 gallon per
capita per day (GPCD) by the year 2020. This updated Plan proposes a new goal of 130 GPCD by 2030.
The GPCD in 2014, normalized to account for weather, was 143 (without weather-normalization, GPCD
was 139); for reference, the normalized GPCD in 2001 was 198.
Efficiency and Conservation activities
Fort Collins Utilities has a robust water conservation program with activities that touch on many
different uses and affect the entire community. The Water Conservation team will continue to build on
existing programs and develop new approaches to conservation. Programs will be evaluated for
effectiveness in water efficiency, customer service, and technical excellence. The overall mission is to
cultivate a water efficient, adaptive, and knowledgeable customer base through education and cost-
effective water efficiency programs while supporting the City’s Strategic Plan and its social,
environmental, and economic health.
The Water Conservation team has identified five key areas of opportunity for greater water efficiency:
x Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
x Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
x Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
x Expand commercial and industrial strategies
x Increase community water literacy
Actions will be guided by the following implementation principles:
x Employ sophisticated data-driven processes and decision-making
x Coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City
x Cultivate new and bolster existing community and statewide partnerships
1 http://cwcb.state.co.us/water-management/waterEfficiency/Pages/main.aspx
2
Plan Development Process
The content and organization of this plan was developed using the Colorado Water Conservation
Board’s municipal water efficiency plan guidance document, as it is a state requirement to submit an
updated Plan every 7 years. This plan was developed with input from the community and a technical
advisory group: Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory Group (WEP TAG). The WEP TAG included
Utilities and City staff as well as Water Board members. A draft of this WEP was presented to City
Council at the October 13, 2015 work session and received positive feedback. Following this
presentation, Water Conservation staff held a public comment period and performed additional
outreach activities. The next steps include a return to City Council for resolution and ultimately
submittal to the CWCB.
Note: this document includes several technical terms and abbreviations. An acronym list is provided
after the table of contents for reference and a glossary is included at the end of the document to
provide additional technical detail.
1.0 PROFILE OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The City of Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of Denver in Larimer County, nestled between the Rocky
Mountains foothills and the Eastern Plains of Colorado. Horsetooth Reservoir borders Fort Collins to the
west and the Cache la Poudre River winds its way through north Fort Collins before reaching the South
Platte River to the east of Greeley, CO.
The Fort Collins Utilities service area boundaries for water do not perfectly match the Fort Collins city
limits.2 Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) and East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
provide water to some areas within the city limits and will most likely serve additional city residents in
the future.3 Furthermore, Fort Collins Utilities provide water service to some customers beyond the city
limits; this is primarily northwest of Fort Collins, including providing wholesale water to West Fort Collins
Water District (WFCWD). Figure 1.1 shows the Utilities service area and the neighboring water district
services areas with respect to the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) and the official city
limits. Fort Collins Utilities currently serves about 75% of Fort Collins’ residents and businesses.
Note that this Chapter contains an abbreviated set of information on the Water Supply System; for a
more detailed account, see the City of Fort Collins’ Water Supply and Demand Management (Policy)
Report (dated April 2014)4. The updated Policy, which was approved by City Council in late 2012, serves
as a guide for the Fort Collins Utilities to 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 customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.
2 Fort Collins Utilities is an enterprise and does not receive funds from the City of Fort Collins general fund. Water
Conservation is entirely funded by the Water Fund.
3 The Fort Collins Utilities service area is landlocked by neighboring water districts. There will be little new
development and mostly re-development of existing properties within the service area boundaries. Most land
available in Fort Collins for new development is outside of the water service area. This Plan only applies to the
Utilities’ water service area except where noted, such as collaboration with neighboring water districts.
4 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-supply-demand/
3
Figure 1.1: Water Service Area and surrounding Water District boundaries
4
1.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The Fort Collins Utilities’ water sources are surface supplies. The Utilities water supplies come from two
major systems: the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) Basin and the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT)
Project, often referred to as “Horsetooth Water”.5 The City’s water supply and treatment system
consists of several key facilities, which are illustrated in Figure 1.2 and include the Poudre River
diversion structure and pipelines, Joe Wright Reservoir, Michigan Ditch, Horsetooth Reservoir, the
Water Treatment Facility, the Mulberry Reclamation Facility, and the Drake Reclamation Facility.6 Figure
1.2 includes Halligan Reservoir, which is currently owned by Fort Collins Utilities but operated by the
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). A discussion of the Halligan Water Supply Storage Project is
located in the “Storage” portion of the System Reliability section below. The City’s Water system
contains approximately 540 miles of pipeline and 34,298 connections. In addition to treated water, the
City diverts about 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet of raw water to irrigate City parks, golf courses, a cemetery,
greenbelt areas, some school grounds, and for the purposes of meeting some contractual raw water
delivery obligations. In 2014, the City of Fort Collins Utilities supplied 7.4 billion gallons of water to
approximately 130,200 people.7
From the beginning of the City of Fort Collins Water Utility in the 1880s up to the early 1960s, the City
depended primarily on direct flow rights to the Cache la Poudre River (Poudre River) to satisfy its water
demands. Direct flow rights are water rights that can be taken for direct use, as opposed to storage
rights that can be taken for later use. The first water right was obtained in 1889 and four other senior
direct flow rights were obtained in the early 1900s; these currently allow the Utilities to divert an
average of 11,300 acre-feet of raw water annually. In the late 1950s, the Utilities acquired its first 6,000
units of Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project water. To date, the Utilities owns about 18,855 units of
CB-T water. In addition to these two major sources of water, the Utilities began to acquire shares of
several local irrigation company stocks starting in the 1960s, in part to expand the Utilities’ water supply
portfolio and in part as developers turned over the water rights from lands they were building over in
order to satisfy the raw water requirements for new development.8
5 Horsetooth Reservoir borders the City of Fort Collins and is an East Slope terminal reservoir in the C-BT system.
For more information on the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which is operated and maintained by Northern
Water and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, please see: http://www.northernwater.org/WaterProjects/C-
BTProject.aspx
6 The Water Treatment Facility chemically treats up to 87 MGD (million gallons per day). The Mulberry Water
Reclamation Facility employs physical, biological, and chemical processes to treat up to 6 MGD. The Drake Water
Reclamation Facility employs similar processes and treats up to 23 MGD of wastewater.
7 One acre-foot of water is equivalent to 325, 851 gallons of water. 7.4 billion gallons of water is approximately
equal to 22, 710 acre-feet of water.
8 The use of “City” vs. “Utilities” may be confusing in this section. Nearly all water rights are in the name of the City
of Fort Collins; however, the majority of the water rights are utilized and administered by Fort Collins Utilities. The
Parks Department and the Natural Areas Department also use some of the water rights and are responsible for
them. The districts (ELCO and FCLWD) serve some residents and businesses within the Fort Collins GMA, however,
they each have their own water rights.
5
Figure 1.2 City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply System Map
6
Table 1.1 shows the average annual yield of the Utilities’ various water sources. For more detailed
information on each supply source, see Appendix A. The Utilities’ average annual raw water yield as of
2014 is approximately 75,245 acre-feet, but the actual treatable average annual yield is closer to 55,000
acre-feet per year. The treatable water right yield is lower due to legal constraints, such as agricultural
rights that have not been converted for municipal use, ditch losses, water right volumetric limitations
and return flow obligations. The Utilities’ modeling has shown that the current firm yield of its system is
approximately 31,000 acre-feet per year.9 During the summer months, however, much of the Utilities’
water rights yield more water than the demands of the service area customers. Both the raw water yield
and treatable yield are reduced in dry years, requiring more storage water to meet demands.
Table 1.1 Raw Water Yield in 2014
Source acre-feet
Poudre River Direct Flow 11,300
Joe Wright-Michigan Ditch 5,500
Northern Water (CBT) 14,330
North Poudre Irrigation Company10 19,850
Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company 7,760
PRPA Reuse Plan 2,310
Southside Ditches11 10,760
Water Supply and Storage Company 2,240
Miscellaneous12 1,195
Average Raw Yield Total 75,245
Note: Yields are the approximate average annual yields and are
not representative of a dry year conditions and do not reflect
other constraints of the system.
9 This assumes a 1-in-50 year drought; Firm yield is commonly determined by calculating the maximum constant
annual demand (quantity of water) that can be met with the available supply during a specified multi-year
hydrologic period.
10 These sources are only partially available for municipal use.
11 The Southside ditches refer to Arthur, Larimer No. 2, New Mercer, and Warren Lake irrigation companies.
12 These are relatively small contributors to the overall raw yield and include shares in Chaffee Ditch, Boxelder
Irrigation Ditch Company, Lake Canal Company, Louden Irrigating Canal and Reservoir Company.
7
Reusable Supplies:
An important part of the City’s water supplies are sources that are reusable. Typically, this is water that
is imported from another basin or comes from specific in-basin sources that may be totally consumed
through succession of identified uses. For Fort Collins, this includes much of the Michigan Ditch and Joe
Wright Reservoir water and portions of the Southside Ditches water that has been converted from
agricultural use to municipal use.
A sizeable portion of the Utilities treated water supplies are reusable.13 Much of this is used as part of a
Reuse Plan which involves the City, Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) and Platte River Power
Authority (PRPA) 14. Reusable sources owned by the City and WSSC are used Utilities’ customers and the
reusable effluent is used by PRPA at their Rawhide Power Plant facility. In turn, PRPA provides Windy
Gap water to the City.
Raw Water Requirements:
Developers are required to provide water for any new development that occurs within the Utilities
water service area. The amount is determined by the Utilities; the developer is assessed a raw water
requirement (RWR) for any new development that occurs within the service area. This practice originally
began in the 1960s when two acre-feet per acre of land developed was required. Because water use
varied considerably depending on the type of use for any given area, a study was done in 1983-84 to
develop the existing method of assessing the RWRs, which attempts to more closely assess the
requirements based on actual use.
The formula for residential development considers the density, and an estimate of indoor and outdoor
use. The RWR is calculated by multiplying the water use estimate by a “water supply factor” that is used
to reflect the variability in supply and demand from year to year as well as other unaccounted for water
use.15 Non-residential requirements are based on tap size. Water use is analyzed for all non-residential
customers for a given tap size and the requirements are based on those results. Since there is a lot of
variability within each tap size, a raw water surcharge is assessed for any annual use exceeding an
annual allotment.16
Developers and builders may satisfy the RWR by either turning over water rights acceptable to the City
or paying cash in-lieu-of the water rights. The City uses in-lieu payments to purchase additional water
rights or implement other means of increasing the firm yield of the Utilities’ water supply, such as
developing storage capacity. The in-lieu fee is evaluated and, if needed, revised to reflect the costs
associated with developing the required water supplies (e.g., market price of water rights).
13 This refers to the total amount of water used, not to the total amount of water feasibly available in a given year.
14 2012 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2014 Report).
15 The current water supply factor is 1.92. This equation is used to determine the residential RWR is as follows:
RWR = 1.92 x [(.18 x Number of Dwelling Units) + (1.2 x Net Acres)]
16 Requirements vary from .90 acre-feet for a 3/4 inch meter to 9.60 acre-feet for a 2-inch meter. For larger
meters, the RWR is based on an estimate of water use.
8
1.2 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
Fort Collins Utilities is responsible for providing an adequate and reliable supply of water to its
customers. The planning criteria describe the water demand that can be reliably served under specified
drought conditions and the margin of safety the Utilities should have in place to address unforeseen
circumstances.17 The three main planning criteria used to develop the City’s water supply system are 1)
the drought criterion, 2) the storage reserve factor and, 3) the planning demand level. These criteria
determine the amount of water supplies and facilities the Utilities’ needs (e.g., the amount of storage
required) and should be conservative to account for inherent uncertainties in water supply planning.
Drought Criterion
The drought criterion states that in a 1-in-50 year drought the Utilities should be able to meet the
planning demand level. This is an important criterion because not only will demands often be higher in
drought periods due to less precipitation, water supply systems generally will also yield less water. The
Utilities has used a 1-in-50 year drought criterion since the original 1988 Water Supply Policy.
Storage Reserve Factor
A storage reserve factor is a criterion to have a certain percent of annual demand in storage through the
drought criterion (1-in-50 year drought). This storage reserve provides a short-term supply to address
emergency situations, such as pipeline shutdowns (which can and have occurred during drought
conditions). The Policy calls for a 20 percent storage reserve factor, which equates to about 3.5 months
of winter supplies or about 1.5 months of summer supplies.
Planning Demand Level
The planning demand level is the amount of demand the water supply system should be developed to
meet. Since acquiring water supplies takes many years, projecting future demands is required to
determine which supplies and/or facilities need to be acquired. The planning demand level is measured
in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and is used along with projected population and projected large
contractual use (LCU) needs to determine future demand levels; population projections will be discussed
in detail in Section 2.4. The planning demand level is set higher than current use and current water
conservation goals to account for uncertainties in water supply planning that might reduce the Utilities’
water supply yield. The current Water Supply and Demand Management Policy set 150 GPCD as the
planning demand level, which is the average of 2006-2011 water use.
Impacts of Climate Change
Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the Utilities’ supplies and/or the amount of
water required to maintain existing landscapes. These changes may include reduced snow pack, earlier
runoff, hotter and drier summers, and an increased recurrence of drought. A great deal of uncertainty
exists related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on
municipal water supply and demands. 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
17 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Report (dated April 2014; approved by City Council in later
2012).
9
earlier and in a shorter amount of time, precipitation may come more often as rain rather than snow,
and higher temperatures will increase outdoor demands and change growing seasons for existing
landscapes. For additional information refer to the CWCB 2014 report “Climate Change in Colorado: A
Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaptation”. 18
The Utilities’ water supply 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.
1.3 SUPPLY-SIDE LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE NEEDS
Table 1.2 lists the future water supply needs and challenges. The full use of the Utilities’ water rights in a
given year can be reduced by several physical and legal constraints. Legal challenges are related to
Colorado water laws and the administration of water rights. Some of the agricultural water rights owned
by the Utilities are not available for use because the shares need to be changed in Water Court to
municipal use.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Supply Initiative (SWSI) predicts a significant gap
between water supplies and water demands along Colorado’s Front Range, starting in 2040 for the
Northern region of the South Platter River Basin.19 Fort Collins is a forward-thinking community and the
Utilities has identified water supply needed through 2065. Two key solutions to ensuring a reliable
supply system moving forward include storage development and water efficiency programs. Water that
is conserved may only be used for other beneficial purposes or at other times of the year if storage is
available for that unused water.
Table 1.2 Water Supply Limitations and Future Need
Future Need/Challenge Yes No
System is in a designated critical water supply shortage
area X
System experiences frequent water supply shortages
and/or supply emergencies X
System has substantial real or apparent water losses X
Experiencing high rates of population and demand
growth X
Planning substantial improvements or additions X
Increases to wastewater system capacity anticipated X
Need additional drought reserves X
Drinking water quality issues X
18 http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/climate-change/Pages/main.aspx
19 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2011. Colorado’s Water Supply Future: Colorado Water Conservation Board 2010.
10
Storage Constraints
A primary physical constraint is the lack of storage capacity to manage and regulate the water rights
owned by the City. Additional water storage capacity is critically needed to increase the yield and
reliability of its water supply system. Operational storage is needed to meet return flow obligations
inherent with converted irrigation shares and provide other operational flexibility, which has recently
been met through the acquisition of Rigden Reservoir. Carryover storage is needed to capture water
during wetter years for use during drier years and also provide a storage reserve for unexpected
emergencies (e.g. a pipeline failure). Both types of storage are needed to increase the reliability and
redundancy desired to meet the water needs of our customers.
While the Utilities do have some year-to-year “carryover” storage capacity, much of this is already
allocated to meet return flow obligations and other contractual agreements. Northern Water does
include some carryover storage in the CB-T system; however, it is also almost entirely allocated to
meeting contractual obligations.20 While the City owns shares of several ditch companies that do have
storage, we do not have access to the storage systems. Acquiring storage in the Poudre Basin that meets
the storage reserve would help diversify the City’s water supply system, which is currently highly reliant
on C-BT storage.
Planned Storage Improvements
In 2003 the City acquired Halligan Reservoir, located on the North Fork of the Poudre River
approximately 25 miles northwest of Fort Collins, for carryover and vulnerability storage. With plans for
its expansion, the City is currently going through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
permitting process, including an analysis of potential environmental impacts, other storage options, and
costs and benefits. In 2013, the City acquired an existing gravel pit storage facility located below the
Drake Water Reclamation Facility. The gravel pit, now Rigden Reservoir, has been enlarged to 1,900
acre feet and is being used for operational storage. The reservoir began operation in 2015 and will
increase the system’s firm yield.
20 Note that CB-T water is particularly valuable to the water supply portfolio because it can be stored within the C-
BT reservoir system for use any time within a given water year.
11
2.0 PROFILE OF WATER DEMAND AND HISTORICAL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The City of Fort Collins city limits do not perfectly coincide with the Utilities water service area. The
information in Section 2.1 below describes the City of Fort Collins, rather than the service area, as the
city limits are how this type of information is collected by the City Planning Department, the U.S. Census,
and the American Community Survey. Information in Sections 2.2-2.4, however, will pertain to the
Utilities’ water service area.
2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SERVICE AREA
The City of Fort Collins is home to approximately 158,600 residents and 30,000 students as of 2015.21
The average household size is 2.37 people, the median age is about 29 years old, and about 27% of
households have at least one person under the age of 18. The average household income is about
$72,000. As of the 2010 U.S. Census, about 55% of homes were owner-occupied, 57% of homes were
single-family detached residences, and the median home value was $247,800. About 11% of the housing
stock is estimated to be built prior to1960 and about 40% were built prior to 1980.22
The City of Fort Collins is home to two major public higher education institutions: Colorado State
University and Front Range Community College. Fort Collins was once home to a wide swath of
agricultural activity; however, much of this is now limited to the outskirts of the City or has moved
outside of the City entirely. Several high-tech industries call Fort Collins home, including Hewlett
Packard, Intel, Woodward Inc., and AMD, among others. In addition to the other major employers like
the City Government and the colleges, there has been an increase in the areas of clean energy,
bioscience, and agri-tech businesses. The City also enjoys a strong microbrewery industry alongside an
Anheuser-Busch Brewery.23
2.2 HISTORICAL WATER DEMANDS
Up until the early 2000s, the Utilities’ service area population growth was largely matched by an
increase in total water demands. Like many other Colorado communities, the 2002-03 drought spurred
the City of Fort Collins to rethink its water use. While the population continues to grow, water demands
have exhibited a downward trend, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. From 2001 to 2014, the service area
population increased by about 7% while the total treated water demand decreased by about 25%. Such
reductions are a combined result of Utilities’ customers being fully metered and adopting
tiered/seasonal rate structures by 2003, as well as the robust water conservation program and the
water conservation efforts by customers.
21 As of 2014, the Utilities’ service area provided treated water to about 130,200 residents.
22 This paragraph contains information about the City of Fort Collins from three sources: the City Planning
Department, the 2010 U.S. Census, and the 2013 American Community Survey.
23 The Fort Collins AB Brewery is home to the world-famous Budweiser Clydesdales West Coast Team.
12
Figure 2.1 Treated water use and population
Daily water demand varies considerably throughout the year. Water use is fairly consistent throughout
the winter months, then more than doubles in the summer months as customers increase use for
landscapes and other seasonal purposes (e.g. pools). Figure 2.2 illustrates a five-year average of the
daily treated water delivered from 2010-2014 along with details on the peak day for each year, which
highlights how variable water demands can be in any given year.
13
Figure 2.2 Average daily treated water demand
Fort Collins Utilities monitors treated water use by eight categories, as shown in Table 2.1. This table
reports the annual use, number of accounts, average monthly use and water use by account, as of 2014.
The majority of accounts are single-family residential accounts, however on a per account basis
commercial customers use the most water. Recall that since the Utilities’ water service area is different
than the City limits; Outside City Customers refer to customers outside of the city limits but who are
Utilities’ customers. West Fort Collins Water District receives wholesale treated water from the Utilities,
which is why they appear as one singular customer.
14
Table 2.1 Treated Water Use by Customer Category
2014
Customer Category Annual Water
Use (MG)*
Number of
Accounts
Average Monthly
Use (MG)*
Average
Annual Use per
Account (gal)*
Single-Family 2,142 26,930 178.5 79,536
Duplex 120 1,226 10 97,750
Multi-Family 970 2,240 80.8 432,934
Commercial 2,972 2,222 247.7 1,337,765
City Government 107 225 8.9 475,830
West Fort Collins WD 140 1 11.7 140,000,000
Outside City Customers 280 1,454 23.3 192,751
Total 6,731 34,298 560.9 196,251
*Note: These numbers are rounded and are not exact. MG = million gallons.
As shown in Figure 2.3, residential categories collectively use the most water each year: about 47% on
average, with about 32% attributable to single-family homes. The City government buildings and
facilities only use about 1% of the treated water each year, outside City customer use about 4% and the
Utilities delivers about 2% of the treated water to West Fort Collins Water District. System loss is
discussed in greater detail below.
Commercial customers use about 39% of treated water, on average. Beyond the small, mid and large
commercial customers, the City has identified a number of Key Accounts, who are businesses that are
typically the largest water and energy users. The Utilities’ Customer Accounts representatives work
together with the Key Account customers to connect them to the appropriate experts, programs and
services they need from the City of Fort Collins. These partnerships help customers achieve their
sustainability goals as well as the goals set by the Energy Policy, Water Efficiency Plan and Climate
Action Plan. The Customer Accounts team offers a customized and targeted approach to assist in
accomplishing the goals set by these policies. Given the uniqueness of how each business utilizes water,
the largest users can also apply for a custom water conservation rebate, up to $5,000, in addition to
being encouraged to participate in our other rebate programs.
15
Figure 2.3 Water use by customer category, 2010-2014 average
2.2.1 GPCD: GALLONS CONSUMED PER PERSON PER DAY
Water consumption is often characterized by daily per person use, measured in gallons per capita per
day (GPCD). This is calculated as total treated water use (total treated water that leaves the water
treatment facility; includes all uses) divided by service area population and 365 days:
= ܦܥܲܩ
݀݊ܽ݉݁݀ ݀݁ݐܽ݁ݎݐ ݈ܽݐݐെ ܷܥܮ
ݏݕܽ݀ 365 כ ݊݅ݐ݈ܽݑ ܽ݁ݎܽ ݁ܿ݅ݒݎ݁ݏ
These calculations exclude large contractual customers (LCU) and other sales or exchange arrangements
to produce a value that is somewhat more comparable to other municipalities.24
Fort Collins Utilities also estimates a weather-normalized GPCD metric in order to control for the
fluctuations associated with varying weather patterns. This normalized GPCD is approximately the GPCD
24 While the use of GPCD for comparisons has long been an industry standard practice, there is evidence that it is a
difficult indicator for individual water-users to relate their behaviors to, and the system-wide GPCD is a function of
far more than a utility’s water conservation and efficiency activities. More on this topic and recommended changes
can be found in in Chapter 3.
16
that would have occurred if the weather conditions had been the average weather conditions for the
region. This means that the actual GPCD is generally higher than the normalized GPCD when we have a
relatively dry year and lower in a relatively wet year.
Demand levels have declined significantly over the last few decades, from around 230 GPCD in the early
1990s to about 200 GPCD before the drought year of 2002. Figure 2.4 shows actual GPCD and
normalized GPCD from 2001 through 2014. To help illustrate the role that weather plays in our actual
GPCD, the graph also includes annual precipitation and evapotranspiration for grass, both in inches.25 In
years where our region received less precipitation and the evapotranspiration rate was higher, actual
per capita water use is higher. The average normalized use over 2002 to 2009 is 158 GPCD,
approximately a 21% reduction in per capita water use from before 2002. The average normalized use
from 2010 to 2014 is 146 GPCD, which is about a 27% reduction in per capita use from pre-2002. Since
the 2002-03 drought, several factors have helped to reduce water use including, universal metering,
conservation-oriented rate structures, more efficient plumbing standards, and our robust water
efficiency and education programs.
Figure 2.4 Water use in gallons per capita per day and weather data
25 Evapotranspiration is often defined as the combination of the water lost (evaporate) to the atmosphere from
the ground surface, evaporation from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, along with the plant
transpiration, which is evaporation of water from plant leaves. Evapotranspiration is affected by temperature,
relative humidity, wind and air movement, soil moisture availability, and the type of plant. For more information
see: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
17
Weather patterns mostly affect outdoor use of water. Figure 2.5illustrates an estimate of the portion of
water demand that is utilized outdoors. A common method for estimating indoor versus outdoor use is
to take the average of the demands in December through February and set this to be the estimate of
average indoor demands and assume that no outdoor use occurs in those months. Then for months
March through October, attribute any use above and beyond this average indoor use to be the
estimated outdoor use portion. As shown in Figure 2.5, water use in the summer months can be up to
almost two-thirds of total water demands.
Figure 2.5 Estimated indoor and outdoor use, 2010-2014 average
Fort Collins Utilities participated in a single-family end use study in 2012.26 This study helped shed some
light on how families are using water, through a small 88-household survey and analysis. In terms of
outdoor use, many of the participating homes were estimated to be under-watering, relative to what
was water needs estimated based on landscape area and weather information. However a minority of
homes were over-watering and this excess was large enough to offset any under-watering by the other
participating households. This highlights our need to provide improved programs and education to help
our customers use the optimal amount of water for their landscape.
Since indoor use is less visible to the Utilities, how people allocate and use water indoors is more of a
mystery. This 2012 study illustrated that there are still a significant number of low efficiency toilets and
26 Study was conducted by Aquacraft Water Engineering and Management, Inc.
18
clothes washers in the housing stock, however the majority of participating homes had a high efficiency
shower heads. The study also estimated that a significant amount of water is lost to leaks, which often
go unnoticed by the residents. This highlights the need to utilize data available through the Advanced
Meter Fort Collins (AMFC) program to help identify leaks and let our customers know so that they can
address the problem and stop paying for lost water; we are piloting a Continuous Consumption program
to meet this need, discussed further in Section 2.3.
As noted in Section 1.1, in addition to treated water the Utilities diverts about 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet
of raw water to irrigate City parks, golf courses, a cemetery, greenbelt areas, some school grounds, and
for the purposes of meeting some contractual raw water delivery obligations.
2.2.2 SYSTEM WATER LOSS
Water losses in the Fort Collins Utilities’ water system can occur in several locations:
x Between the points of diversion and the water treatment facility (e.g., from conveyance losses
within the pipelines carrying water to the treatment facility)
x Within the water treatment facility (e.g., during filter backwash processes)
x Within the water distribution system between the water treatment facility and the meters of
end users (e.g., from conveyance losses in the distribution pipe network)
Losses within the conveyance system that brings water to the treatment plant and within the water
treatment plant itself are not fully quantified, but estimated at 3% of the annual diverted volume, when
estimated from source to outlet of the treatment plant. Losses within the distribution system are
estimated based on the difference between the amount of water treated at the treatment plant and the
cumulative amount of water metered at end users. A summary of losses is provided in Table 2.2 below.
These numbers represent estimates only and may reflect a number of factors. Fort Collins Utilities is
currently exploring integration of the American Water Works Association’s M36 methodology into its
water loss management and tracking.
Table 2.2 System Water Loss Estimates
Loss Estimate (in Million Gallons) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Treatment and Diversion to
Treatment Conveyance Losses 242.2 235.7 270.8 233.8 230.0
Distribution Losses 426.5 462.1 695.1 534.9 705.7
Total 668.7 697.8 965.9 768.8 935.7
Distribution loss as percentage of
total treated water 5.4% 6.1% 7.9% 7.1% 9.5%
19
2.3 PAST AND CURRENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Faced with a drought in 1977, the Utilities created a part-time water conservation position. In 1989 the
position expanded to a full-time position. The first Water Demand Management Policy in 1992 lead to
an expansion of conservation projects and increased educational and outreach efforts. The 1992 Policy
set a conservation goal of 195 GPCD by the year 2020.
Prompted by the drought of 2002-03, Utilities made several efforts in 2003 to increase accountability
and encourage the efficient use of water including fully metering every customer by, implementing a
conservation-oriented rate structure – a tiered rate structure – with a seasonal component, initiating
several new outreach and educational programs, and also developing the Utilities’ first Water Supply
Shortage Response Plan as guidance during drought and other emergency conditions.27 The first joint
Water Supply and Demand Management Policy was developed in 2003 and set a conservation goal of
185 GPCD by 2010.
The Utilities’ Water Conservation program expanded again in 2010 with the development of a formal
Water Conservation Plan. This plan set the current conservation goal of 140 GPCD by 2020. City Council
approved the budget for additional programs and staff outlined in the plan starting with the 2010-2011
budgets. The plan was approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in early 2010. Note that
conservation goals are purposely set lower than the Planning Demand Level discussed in Section 1.2,
which is used for supply reliability planning.
2.3.1 CURRENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Table 2.3 is a list of the current demand management activities along with the initial year of
implementation, if known. Note that many of our activities, programs, and regulations have
substantially evolved over the years. For a description of each activity, see Appendix B, which also
contains a table with participation levels from 2010 to 2014 for most of our current activities. This table
does not contain participation counts for events.
27 The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan contains certain restrictions on the use of City-treated water and
other actions to be taken during a specified drought or water supply conditions.
20
Table 2.3 List of Current Water Conservation Activities
Foundational Activities Educational Activities
Conservation-oriented rate structures (2003) Business education programs (2004)
Continuous consumption program (2015) Community education programs (1977)
Metering (2003) Conservation kit giveaways (1990)
Monitor My Use (2014) Conservation public information efforts (1977)
Online water use calculator (2012) Home water reports (2014)
Seasonal rate structures (2003) Hotel and restaurant conservation materials (2003)
Utility water loss program (1993) K-12 education programs (1997)
Target Technical Assistance and Incentives Watershed tours (2012)
Clothes washer rebates (2003) Xeriscape Demonstration Garden (1986)
Commercial facility assessments (2004) Ordinances and Regulations
Custom commercial rebates (2011) Green building codes (2011)
Dishwasher rebates (2007) Landscape and irrigation standards (1994)
Home efficiency audits (2009) Parkway landscaping regulations (2013)
Home efficiency loans/ZILCH/on-bill financing
(2010) Plumbing standards (1978)
Irrigation equipment rebates Restrictive covenants ordinance (2003)
Low income retrofit program (2007, w/ LCCC) Soil amendment ordinance (2003)
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution
(2011) Wasting water ordinance (1917)
Showerhead rebates (2011) Water efficiency upgrades at City buildings (2010)
Sprinkler system audits (1999) Water supply and shortage response plan (2003)
Toilet/Urinal rebates (2010) Other Activities
Xeriscape design/incentive program (2010) Raw water for City irrigation, large customer reuse
project (1985), backwash water recycling (2003)
2.4 DEMAND FORECASTS
Acquiring water supplies takes many years. In order to ensure a reliable water supply for customers in
the future, the Utilities plan for future growth and water needs. The City’s future municipal water
demands are largely dependent on population growth and the rate of commercial and industrial
development. The rate and pattern of population growth are also influenced by the future economy,
land use policies, and development incentives, among other factors. As such, the Water Supply and
Demand Management Policy Report (dated April 2014) takes the long view and identifies projected
demands through 2050.
21
2.4.1 PLANNING HORIZON
The current Water Conservation Plan, developed in 2009, identified a 10-year planning horizon with a
goal to update the plan in five years. This Water Efficiency Plan, to be submitted to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board in 2017, takes the middle road and uses a 2030 planning horizon, with incremental
goals leading up to the 2030 goal, as well as a goal to develop an updated plan no later than 2024 (seven
years after this Plan’s required submission year).
2.4.2 DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The Utilities estimates future water demands for a given year by first multiplying the projected
population by the planning demand level (150 gallons per capita per day) multiplied by the number of
calendar days, then projected large contractual use (LCU) is added to get the total projected water
demand, as shown in the equation below. The Demand Planning Level is currently set at 150 gallons per
capita per day, and is purposely set higher than conservation goals to provide a greater level of system
reliability28.
ܶ ܷܥܮ ݀݁ݐ݆ܿ݁ݎܲ + ݏݕܽ݀ 365× ݀ܿ݃ 150 × ݊݅ݐ݈ܽݑܲ ݀݁ݐ݆ܿ݁ݎܲ = ݀݊ܽ݉݁ܦ ݈ܽݐ
2.4.3POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Given the differences between the Fort Collins Utilities water service area, the Fort Collins city limits,
and the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, population projections were estimated using
information from a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) study developed for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer
County. The TAZ information is based on City and County zoning designations, which dictate the type of
development and thus population densities. The TAZ study makes population estimates based on
projected new development and redevelopment in each zone. The population projections for this Plan
were estimated by using the zones within the water service area. Note that, based on the TAZ study, it is
anticipated that the Fort Collins Utilities’ water service area will reach build-out near 2040, meaning that
all vacant buildable land will be developed. After build-out, it is assumed that the water service area
population will only grow via redevelopment, and therefore population growth in the service area is
expected to eventually slow down. However, the Utilities currently has agreements to supply water to
surrounding water districts. With these agreements in place and the potential for more in the future,
the Utilities considers these possibilities in estimating future demand projections. Thus, the population
projections used in this plan includes some of West Fort Collins Water District.29
28 For more information on the Planning Demand Level, see Section 1.2.
29 The estimates do not include some Fort Collins-Loveland Water District areas currently served by the Utility
because these areas are served only in the sense that a) FCLWD purchases some excess capacity in our Water
Treatment Facility, and b) there is an now terminated agreement whereby certain areas of development could
meet raw water requirements either through the Utilities or the districts. If any of these areas are annexed by the
City, then they would still have the option to make use of this option.
22
2.4.4 LARGE CONTRACTUAL USE
In addition to population-based water demands, the Utilities also has contractual obligations to provide
water for the current and future demands of several large industrial water users. Large contractual use
(LCU) is estimated separately from population-based water demand projections and is not included in
the GPCD metric. The LCU projections are added to the overall projected demands, which are based on
population projections and the water demand planning level set in the Water Supply and Demand
Management Policy Report (dated April 2014). LCU is currently about 3,900 acre-feet per year of treated
water. Additional raw water is provided to LCUs. Because of certain applications, a portion of the water
supplied to LCUs must be sourced from reusable water rights. The future LCU is estimated to be about
8,000 acre-feet per year by 2050. This will require a mix of single use and reusable water sources.
Figure 2.6 illustrates the projected population for the water service area. This figure also illustrates the
project water demands based on the historic Planning Demand Level and the current Planning Demand
Level.30 It is clear that conservation and efficiency activities, among other factors, have helped to reduce
total water use as well as per capita water use; these reductions have lowered the planning demand
level and helped to increase the reliability of the water supply system.
Figure 2.6 Treated water demand, historical planning levels, and population
30 These estimates also incorporates an estimated 8% system water loss level.
23
3.0 INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
There are four main documents that provide direction and/or complement the Utilities’ water efficiency
efforts, listed below. Along with the most recent Water Conservation Plan of 2010, these documents
helped to develop this updated Water Efficiency Plan and will also guide our ultimate implementation
moving forward.
The City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan (2015-16)31: this document is a result of a planning process
incorporating input from citizens, businesses, City Council, and City staff. It identifies the City’s seven
key outcome areas as well as several strategic objectives in each area; these are to guide the work in
all City service areas. Water efficiency aligns very strongly with Objectives 4.8, 4.7 and 4.6, it also
touches on several other objectives detailed in Appendix C.
The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (2012)32: this is the guiding document for water
supply and demand management activities. The objective is 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 preference of Water Utility customers and in
recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate. The original water supply-focused policy was
developed and approved in 1988; it was updated in 2003 and again in 2012, with the most up-to-
date report published in 2014. This Policy defers to the latest Water Efficiency Plan to set the
efficiency goals.
2015 Climate Action Plan Framework: The CAP provides a high level framework to set Fort Collins on
the path to achieve carbon emissions reduction objectives as requested by Council, but will not
determine future implementation details. Implementation details will be developed as strategies
and tactics are considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be brought forward to Council for
approval prior to implementation. The two main strategic initiatives that involve water are: 1) Water
and Land Use, and 2) Preparation, Adaptation, and Resilience.
The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (2014)33: this document identifies the restrictions and
requirements intended to achieve progressively higher levels of water savings under various
projected water shortage conditions. The original plan was approved by City Council in 2003 and an
update was approved in 2014.
31 The City’s Strategic Plan can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/pdf/strategic-plan-2015.pdf
32 Though a more extensive report was developed and dated April 2014. See the City’s Water Supply and Demand
page: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-supply-demand
33
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/ORDINANCE_NUMBER_088_July_2014_Water_Supply_
Shortage_Response_Plan.pdf
24
3.1 WATER EFFICIENCY AND WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
In planning for a reliable, secure, and sustainable water future, the Utilities employs an integrated
resource planning strategy that utilizes a portfolio-based approach to meeting future demands and is
guided by the documents described in Section 3.0 above. In most years, the City of Fort Collins Utilities
has the benefit of having a plentiful level of water supplies that ensure sufficient supplies above the
reliability criteria discussed in Section 1.2. The Utilities’ water supplies are expected to support
projected changes to demand under a combined strategy of a) increased long-term storage and, b)
continued water efficiency efforts. This diversified approach will reduce water demand, improve system
reliability, and enhance community resilience to drought and climate change. These two strategies need
to be undertaken collectively; either on their own will be significantly less effective without the other.
Expanded water efficiency measures are cost-effective means to water supplies that can be utilized for
several beneficial purposes. Conserved water can be stored for periods of drought, leased for
agriculture, and used for beneficial environmental enhancement efforts such as in-stream flow
programs. Increased storage provides a physical location for conserved water and enables Fort Collins to
take full advantage of savings achieved by customers. See Section 1.3 for more information on the role
of storage in our supply and demand management planning.
3.1.1 BENEFITS OF WATER EFFICIENCY
In addition to being a key part of the integrated resource management process, water efficiency
programs also:
Foster a conservation ethic and reduce waste: the success of this Plan depends on the cooperation and
support of the Water Utility customers and the City of Fort Collins community. Instilling a conservation
ethic is an important foundation to changing habits and attitudes toward water use. The power of the
individual in conservation makes a big difference in protecting quality of life, including our environment
today and for generations to come. Our average use, calculated as gallons per capita per day (GPCD),
has declined significantly. For example, in 2001 the GPCD was 198, whereas in 2014 it was 143. Several
conservation-based efforts took place on the heels of the 2002-03 drought which have helped to
support a sustained reduction in use; these include full metering, conservation-oriented rate structures,
seasonal rate structures, expanded targeted industry outreach, the restrictive covenants ordinance,
conservation kit giveaways, clothes washer rebates, and more.
Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability: The City aims to be leaders in this effort. The City
approved the Climate Action Plan Framework in 2015 and previously approved an Action Plan for
Sustainability in 2004, and an Environmental Policy in 2009 that outline the ways the City itself will
reduce its environmental impact (this includes a commitment to identifying and implementing effective
ways to conserve natural resources). To bring the global concept of sustainability to action at the local
level, sustainability advocates use the triple bottom line in decision-making. Essentially, that means
projects are evaluated based on their social, economic and environmental impacts. Rather than make
decisions on the basis of profit or the economic bottom line, three bottom lines (social, economic, and
environmental) are considered. For the City, it means creating an optimal mix of resource efficiency,
cost effectiveness and employee well-being in daily City operations. One example of a goal is to reduce
municipal operations water irrigation and increase efficiency per acre, as well as to reduce indoor use by
25
20% by 2020.34 City buildings are required to achieve LEED “Gold” certification. Also, several areas of
City grounds have been renovated with low water using landscape materials and some weather sensors
have been added to the irrigation systems. The City Parks system is regularly audited; the majority of the
Parks irrigation systems uses 95% or less of the water needed, based on the turf and plant
requirements.
Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes: Conservation efforts can help to provide more water for
beneficial uses beyond normal municipal purposes. For example, the area around Fort Collins continues
to be a productive agricultural area, which in addition to representing economic activity, also provide
significant open space outside of Fort Collins that is desired by many residents. When possible, making
some of the City’s surplus water available for these purposes provides supplemental revenue for the
Utility and its customers. The potential environmental benefits of conserved water are also important.
These include providing additional flow for the local stream systems, in-stream flow programs,
improvements in water quality, improvements in aquatic and riparian ecosystems, enhanced
recreational opportunities, and aesthetics, among other benefits.
Enhance resilience during drought periods: Conservation and efficiency efforts can help to develop a
community and landscape that is more resilient to drought conditions. Through support of drought
planning and implementation of proactive mitigation efforts, the actions proposed in this Plan can help
to reduce vulnerability, protect economic health, and ease the effect of drought on individuals,
businesses, and landscapes.
Prepare for climate change: Climate change may have significant impacts on both water demands and
water supplies in the time frame of this plan. It is anticipated that climate change in the Mountain West
will likely include the following changes: Increased evapotranspiration rates, increasing the water
required to maintain the landscaping; more frequent dry spells and a longer growing season; increased
variability in seasonal snow pack; earlier spring snowmelt and runoff; changes in the distribution of
precipitation throughout a given year. These changes are expected to accelerate over the decades
ahead and impacts may depend largely on factors such as population growth, economic growth and
technological changes. Utilities will likely face significant challenges in the years ahead managing both
water demands and water supplies. With many uncertainties regarding both water supply and demand,
it is prudent to prepare for a wide range of conditions in the future. One example of the importance of
efficiency efforts is that without conservation and/or significant changes in landscaping choices, outdoor
water use will likely increase over the coming decades as customers strive to maintain their landscapes
in a hotter and longer growing season. Furthermore, an approach that also includes planning for
adequate reservoir capacity to help balance the swing in supplies available between wet and dry periods
34 http://www.fcgov.com/sustainability/goals.php
26
Reduce costs:
Direct utility costs: Efficiency programs decrease water and wastewater treatment costs as it
reduces the amount of chemicals and energy used to produce, deliver, and heat water.
Customer costs: water bill, but also the cost of energy to heat water, and landscape related
costs including the cost to maintain, like labor costs, fertilizer and other landscape-related
product costs.35
Long-term costs: decisions about water supplies, treatment/distribution capacity needs, storage
facilities are all made in consideration of projected water demand and peak capacity.
In addition to these savings, Fort Collins Utilities has benefited financially from conservation in two
notable ways:
Halligan Water Supply Storage project size: The original Halligan Reservoir enlargement planned
allotment for Fort Collins was 12,000 acre-feet, which was in part based on the 2003 planning
demand level of 185 GPCD. Among other factors considered in the permitting process, the role
of conservation and the downward trend in GPCD (current planning demand level = 150 GPCD)
resulted in revising the enlargement downward to only 8,125 acre-feet, which is approximately
a 68% reduction and represents a $6.1M savings in project costs.
Extra Water Treatment Facility capacity: A Water Treatment Facility (WTF) is designed for peak
demand. The Fort Collins WTF was last expanded in 1999, prior to the significant increase in
conservation efforts prompted by the 2002-03 drought. The total WTF treatment capacity of 87
MGD is estimated to be at least 23% larger than the expected build out in 2035 peak demand (~
20 MGD). In 2013, the City of Fort Collins Utilities entered into an agreement with Fort Collins-
Loveland Water District to sell FCLWD up to 5 million gallons per day (MGD) in excess water
treatment capacity. The financial benefits of this agreement include the associated plant
investment fee of $12.6M and a treatment charge of about $2 per thousand gallons.36
Delay of capital expansion projects: Decreased wastewater flows have delayed the expansions
of the Drake Water Reclamation Facility treatment capacity from 2010 to 2028.
35 These costs may also represent larger environmental costs as run-off from landscapes can affect water quality
and ecosystem health.
36 In addition to the benefits to the City of Fort Collins Utilities, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District will be able to
defer expansion of their current treatment facility and/or construction of a new water treatment facility.
Additional information on this agreement can be found in the City of Fort Collins City Council agenda and materials
from the October 1st, 2013 regular City Council meeting.
27
3.2 WATER EFFICIENCY GOALS
The WEP’s overarching goal, which tracks from previous goals, is to reduce water demand to 130 GPCD
by 2030. During the development of this updated Plan, however, it became clear that a single, system-
wide metric of water use doesn’t resonate with and isn’t meaningful for customers. During the public
comment period Water Conservation staff often saw that the GPCD metric was confusing. For example,
it was unclear which water uses (residential, commercial, the Utilities’ largest users, etc.) were involved
in its calculation. The exact definition/equation of a utility’s GPCD is a common issue for other entities
and therefore can complicate and limit the ability to compare across utilities. Furthermore, a system-
wide GPCD isn’t a direct measure of the progress and effectiveness of the Water Conservation team’s
activities.
It was also unclear how an individual’s water use (as seen on their bill) related to a GPCD goal. For most
residential customers, on average, their individual GPCD or even GPHD (gallons per household her day)
are much lower than the system-wide GPCD; however, during the summer irrigation months, it may be
significantly higher. For customers in multi-family or multi-business units that are not sub-metered,
there is no way to connect to the single system-wide goal. The community’s feedback raised the
question of the appropriateness of a GPCD goal, as well as the question of the best way to structure
goals to motivate lasting change and communicate water efficiency progress.
Amy Vickers & Associates, Mary Wyatt Tiger and Shadi Eskaf confirm these broad issues: “…estimates of
[GPCD] are not comparable to each other when the types of data used to compute GPCD differ. While
average single-family water use metrics reflect a relatively small number of types of indoor and outdoor
end uses of water that are common to most single-family homes, an average water use metric for an
entire city reflects thousands of different types of water-using activities […] Furthermore, a system-wide
average neglects the nuances of individual customer behavior and is not specific enough to detect some
significant changes in water use behavior.” in the 2013 American Water Works Association report: A
Guide to Customer Water-Use Indicators for Conservation and Financial Planning.
For this WEP, a long-term goal of 130 gpcd by 2030 will remain. GPCD is still an industry standard and
still a means to compare progress over time for the Fort Collins Utilities system overall. In the coming
years, staff will work to evolve the metrics and indicators by which we judge water
conservation/efficiency progress. The ultimate version of the goal definitions and structure will be
subject to analysis and research and will be reflected in the next update of the Utilities’ Water Efficiency
Plan. Currently, staff recommends moving toward measurement and tracking of:
x Volume of water saved. This will be evaluated based on tracking conservation and efficiency
programs. This is being added in part because City and Utility leadership have asked for clearer
metrics related to Water Conservation programs. This metric provides good clarity and is a more
direct measurement of the impact of Water Conservation programs.
x Program participation. This will be tracked by programs and events. This will give a measure of
how many customers we’re reaching.
x Residential water use indicators defined using measures of the amount of water delivered to
residential customers and the service area population. This will likely be further broken down by
type of residence (single-family, duplex, multi-family).
x Commercial sector indicators. These indicators will be based on industry-specific standards and
set in partnership with the local commercial sector.
28
An updated Water Efficiency Plan will be developed no later than 2024 (7 years from the anticipated
CWCB 2017 submission date). Figure 3.1 illustrates the projected water demand level if the 130 GPCD by
2030 goal is met, the current 140 GPCD by 2020 goal in the 2010 Water Conservation Plan, and the
current 150 GPCD Planning Demand Level used in water supply reliability planning, along with historical
and projected population. Figure 3.2 is a graph of GPCD levels, rather than total volume. This figure
shows the historical GPCD levels along with our goal level and the projected trend in use that will
achieve that goal. Chapter 4 describes the strategies for achieving this goal.
Figure 3.1 Water efficiency goal, demand and population
29
Figure 3.2 Historical GPCD and New Efficiency Goal
30
4.0 SELECTION OF WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Utilities Water Conservation Team uses its mission and three overarching objectives to select the
programs, projects, and approaches used in our daily efforts. These will ultimately guide our path to
achieving our water efficiency goal of 130 GPCD by 2030 and align our work and efforts with those of
the Utilities, the City and the State.
Water Conservation Team Mission: Cultivate a water efficient, adaptive, and knowledgeable customer
base through education and cost-effective water efficiency programs while supporting the City’s
strategic plan and its social, environmental, and economic health.
Water Conservation Team Objectives:
Water Efficiency and Conservation – provide water for beneficial purposes while reducing
unnecessary use and waste.
Customer Service – provide exceptional service for an exceptional community
Technical Support – provide technical expertise to customers and City staff
4.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTION PROCESS
4.1.1 SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA
Fort Collins has a robust water conservation approach with a number of conservation activities that
have been implemented for years. We intend to continue the water efficiency activities, in some form,
within our current portfolio of programs. These programs are likely to evolve over the years and the
exact specifics of each are subject to change as a result of changing legislation, regulations, technology,
customer preferences, appliance/fixture saturation rate, and Utilities/City plans. For example, the state
of Colorado has passed legislation (Senate Bill 14-103) that mandates that any plumbing figure sold in
the state must meet WaterSense standards by September 2016; this includes lavatory faucets, toilets,
urinals, and showerheads. This change will likely affect our current approach to incentivizing customers
to swap out old efficient fixtures for new, efficient ones.
In addition to a review of our existing activities, new and innovative activities were researched. Potential
activities were identified from a number of sources including the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s
technical resources, the Colorado WaterWise Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water
Conservation in Colorado37, a broad literature review, exploration of other utility case studies, and input
from Utility staff, the City of Fort Collins Water Board, the community, the Water Conservation staff, and
a Water Efficiency Plan Technical Advisory Group, consisting of several City departments as well as
community members. This process not only identified activities, but also processes and tools that have
the potential to help improve all activities.
The activities identified in this plan represent the best choices at the time. Technology, regulations,
efficiency standards, market saturation, customer preferences and other factors are likely to change
before this plan is updated and are sure to change during the course of the planning horizon (2030). We
will continue to monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of current activities while also exploring
37 http://cwcb.state.co.us/technical-resources/best-management-practices/Pages/main.aspx
31
new programs. The City of Fort Collins utilizes a two-year budgeting cycle called Budgeting for
Outcomes, which determines funding for Water Efficiency activities by, in part, evaluating the proposed
activities against the City’s strategic outcomes. We are therefore potentially constrained in terms of the
activities we can undertake; the funding must be available and approved by City Council.
4.1.2 PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Each of the potential activities will be prioritized using the following qualitative screening criteria.
Program Effectiveness: This combines the estimated water savings with the estimated program
costs: How effective is the activities in terms of gallons of water saved per program dollar spent?
Staff Resources: How labor- and time-intensive is the program? Do we have the staff resources
to properly support, monitor and evaluate the program?
Customer Preferences: Does this activity meet the needs and wants of the Utility water service
area customers? Does this activity support the social and economic health of our customers?
Participation Level and Reach: How many customers could be impacted by this program? What
types of customers does it reach? Is it engaging previously unengaged customers?
Alignment with other Utility and City objectives: Does this program support activities in other
areas of the Utility and the City? Does it help achieve Utility and City strategic objectives?
4.1.3 POTENTIAL NEW DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In addition to continuing the existing set of water conservation and efficiency activities listed in Section
2.3 and described in greater detail in Appendix B, we identified five areas of opportunity for developing
new programs and approaches. Each highlights an area with great potential to expand and increase
water efficiency and great potential to better meet the needs of our customers. Each of these areas also
supports specific strategic outcomes and objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan; these are listed in
Appendix C. In this process we also identified three implementation principles that will guide the
development of any new programs and strategies; these are detailed in Section 5.1.
Areas of Opportunity
x Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
x Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
x Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
x Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
x Increase community water literacy
Table 4.1 highlights a few benefits of each identified area, a few potential activities that fall into each
area, as well as a brief description of an existing practice within the area.
32
Table 4.1 Areas of Opportunity
Leverage Advanced Meter Fort Collins data and capabilities
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 3.9, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.9, 7.10
Benefits
• Increased customer
understanding of water use
• Greater connectivity to
customers
• Increased customer
benefits through web portal
information and tools
• Less confusion and fewer
bill surprises
Potential Activities
• Monitor My Use & High
Bill/Use Alerts
• Improved leak detection
• Near real-time identification
of savings and inefficiencies
• Craft easy-to-understand,
targeted water-savings
actions based on data and use
patterns
Example: The
continuous consumption
uses AMI data to detect
likely leaks; we alert
homeowners so that
they can fix the leak and
avoid damage and high
bills. In 2015 we reached
out to 980 customers.
Promote and support greater outdoor water efficiency
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 1.11, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.5
Benefits
• Reduced peak season and
peak day demands, which
impact system capacity
needs and long-term
planning
• Customer benefits through
lower bills, increased
aesthetics and home value
• Fewer wasting water
issues/complaints
Potential Activities
• Residential and Commercial
sprinkler audit programs
• Xeriscape Incentive Program
• Customer and Contractor
training series
• Interactive demonstrations
• Educational Water budget
tool
Example: In 2014 we
provided over 400
sprinkler system audits,
with an estimated
potential savings of
33
Expand commercial and industrial sector strategies
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 3.5, 3.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.10
Benefits
• Increased water savings
due to scale of projects
• Enhanced business
partnerships
• Support ClimateWise
program
• Enable greater economic
health
Example Activities
• Custom commercial rebate
program
• Benchmarking
• Targeted industry-specific
campaigns and outreach
• Address tenant/owner
incentive misalignment
Example: In 2013 the
custom commercial
program helped replace
two pools filters, which
are estimated to have
nearly 800,000 gallons
per year.
Increase community water literacy
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 7.4
Benefits
• Customer has greater
understanding of role in the
water system
• Increased customer
understanding and support
of Utilities’ actions and
decisions
• Increased cooperation
during difficult conditions
Example Activities
• Improved and expanded
messaging strategies
• Identify new approaches to
education and outreach
• Develop innovative methods
to strengthen K-12 water
literacy curriculum
Example: In 2014 we
began providing Home
Water Report to select
customers; these display
usage information,
comparisions to similar
homes, and provide
efficiency tips.
Households receiving
the reports reduced
their use by 2%.
We also highlight a few other promising areas, in addition to our current program and the types of
activities identified in the Strategic Objectives sections, that we plan to explore in the coming years.
34
M36 Audit & Other Leak Monitoring Initiatives: A significant way to reduce water loss, reduce
bills and repair expenses, is a robust portfolio of leak detection, monitoring, and notification
initiatives, including those that address leaks within our distribution system, private property
leaks that occur prior to the meter and result in non-revenue waste, and continue to expand and
enhance our beyond-the-meter Continuous Consumption Program. The Utilities is also in the
process of incorporating the American Water Works Association’s M36 Audit process to ensure
“the accountable and efficient management of water supplies” by the Utilities.39
Rebate and Incentive Programs: We aim to ensure that the rebate level is based upon data-
driven estimates of the water savings that results from the appliance, fixture, or technology
change. This process will also include an approach to phase out or adjust program specifications
once Colorado becomes a WaterSense state in September 2016. We also want to expand the
reach of our programs to help more customers, either through community partnerships or new
approaches to outreach and marketing. We will explore how to reach more low-income or
otherwise disadvantaged/at-risk households, rental units, and multi-family units.40
39 The M36 represents a National standardized approach to water supply system audits that accounts for all water.
http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/publications/documents/toc/m36ed3.pdf
http://oawwa.org/SDWA%20Presentations/2013/Water%20Audit%20Presentation,%20November%204,%202013.
pdf
40 While this is titled “Rebates and Incentive programs”, efforts to reach underserved populations may also include
expansion of direct-install programs like our current partnership with the Larimer County Conservation Corps
(LCCC).
35
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION
The following principles serve as guidance to implementing existing and new activities. We believe these
principles will help to improve effectiveness of our programs, help to achieve our water efficiency goals,
and keep our actions in alignment with our overall mission. These principles are also in alignment with
several Strategic Objectives in the City Plan, including 3.9, 7.4, 7.5, 7.10, and 7.11. These are further
described in Appendix C.
Employ sophisticated data-driven processes and decision-making
Cultivate new and bolster existing community and statewide partnerships
Benefits
• Greater trust in the Utilities
• Expanded capacity and reach
through project partners
• Support economic health
• Stronger network of conservation
partners
Example Actions
• Expand conservation support for nearby water
districts
• Expand work with higher education institutions
• Increase public-private projects, like an
industry-specific water efficiency conference
• Participate in and contribute to statewide
conservation efforts, (e.g. Colorado
WaterWise, Colorado Foundation for Water
Education)
Coordinate and support symbiotic efforts within Utilities and across the City
Benefits
• Decisions supported by data
• Improved accuracy of water savings
estimates
• Increased overall portfolio
effectiveness
• Increased program savings and reach
through use of behavioral science
principles
h
Example Actions
• Targeted and tailored programs
• Marketing and Communications
• Streamlined, consistent program
tracking and reporting
• Develop and monitor targeted
metrics to support targeted goals
Benefits
• Improved consistency and
reduced redundancy across City
efforts
• Simplified processes for
customers
• Greater synergies in the water-
energy nexus space
Example Actions
• Resource Conservation unification in Utilities
• Collaborate with efforts of Environmental
Services, Planning, Natural Areas, Community
Engagement, Nature in the City, Housing and
Development, Parks, among others
• Partnerships with the neighboring water
36
5.1.1 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Each year existing activities will be evaluated and adjusted to ensure that they are performing well –
both internally and externally – and that they are meeting our goals and objectives. Any new programs
will be subject to a holistic vetting process, by bringing in internal stakeholders from other areas of the
Utilities and the City to ensure consideration of multiple viewpoints and create organization-wide
awareness and support for the new program.
Part of the support for existing new program development will stem from the Utilities’ new Program
Management Office, which is tasked with launching Utilities activities in a way that is well planned, well-
resourced and sustainable. New programs will be developed through a process that includes several key
stages. New programs will need clearly stated goals and objectives. Models will be developed to test the
viability of the proposed program in meeting water savings and other goals. These models will likely lay
the groundwork for metrics that will measure the effectiveness of the programs. Once a proposed
process starts to become clear, risk assessment and a business case will be developed to strengthen and
validate the proposed conservation program or activity. Proposed processes will be mapped and
documented and roles of staff will be assigned. Internal and external stakeholders will be engaged to
ensure consideration of multiple viewpoints, create organization-wise awareness and support for the
new program, and to make sure the program is supported by our customers.
The programs that ultimately are implemented will be a function of the budgeting process. The City of
Fort Collins uses a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) approach, which is based on the premise of prioritizing
funding for results, rather than focusing on funding inputs and costs. This method shifts the focus from
paying for costs to buying results, and emphasizes accountability, innovation, and partnerships. This is a
two-year cycle, with the next preparation phase starting in 2016 for the 2017-18 budget cycle. In order
to fund new water efficiency programs, we will need to show that the program can deliver results. These
results most importantly include improved water efficiency and sustained water savings.
5.2 MONITORING
We cannot monitor or improve what we do not measure. The benefits of monitoring include:
Feedback as to whether or not conservation activities are affecting change.
Identification of programs that might not be cost-effective relative to other programs or to
developing new supply.
Clarity of alignment with goals and if a given program warrants expansion, modification or
termination.
Improvement of modeling of supply needs.
Illustration of savings by various customer segments
Tracking of participation based on customer class and other factors to help verify programs are
accessible to all types of customers
Prioritization of program development funding and expansion
While the main goal of this plan is identified in terms of GPCD (a common metric used throughout the
water industry that captures community water use changes at a high level) we intend to also focus on
more specific and targeted measures. This is further discussed in Chapter 3.
37
In addition to what is discussed in Chapter 3, tracking measures may include but are not limited to:
Water savings estimates with breakdowns by seasonal vs. baseline, consumptive vs. non-
consumptive, treated vs. raw
Direct and indirect energy savings associated with water saved
Landscape changes, including the amount of irrigated landscape; annual amount of audited
landscape
Total participation in programs and events, number of new participants, types of participants –
including type of customer based on customer class, sociodemographic categories, geographic
location, etc.
Customer use of the Monitor My Use web portal, mobile, and other online tools and alerts
How effectively events, educational and informational strategies lead customers to participate
in a program; if participation in one program leads to participation in other programs
38
GLOSSARY
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 (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
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
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”
Drought Criterion - The drought criterion states that in a 1-in-50 year drought the Utilities should be able
to meet the planning demand level. This is an important criterion because not only will demands often
be higher in drought periods due to less precipitation, water supply systems generally will also yield less
water. The Utilities has used a 1-in-50 year drought criterion since the original 1988 Water Supply Policy.
ELCO - short for East Larimer County Water District
Evapotranspiration - the combination of the water lost (evaporate) to the atmosphere from the ground
surface, evaporation from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, along with the plant
transpiration, which is evaporation of water from plant leaves. Evapotranspiration is affected by
temperature, relative humidity, wind and air movement, soil moisture availability, and the type of plant.
For more information see: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
39
FCLWD - short for Fort Collins-Loveland Water District
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
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
LiDar: This is a remote sensing technology that can be used in large-scale landscape analysis.
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
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 Utilities’ supply system (e.g., purchase additional storage
capacity)
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”
40
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
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”.
41
APPENDIX A: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 1
The following are descriptions of the various water supplies currently in the Utilities water supply
portfolio:
Poudre River Basin Water Rights:
Senior Direct Flow Decrees: The City has five very senior direct flow decrees on the Poudre River
that are available to the City most of the time. Only in very severe dry periods are the diversions
limited.
Junior Direct Flow Decrees: These junior rights are only in priority during the peak runoff period
when most of the other rights on the Poudre River have been satisfied. In dry years, the City
may not be able to divert anything under these rights.
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Shares: The City owns a substantial portion of the shares in this
mutual irrigation company. The amount of water the City is entitled to divert to meet treated
water demands depends on the number of shares the City designates for such use and which
priorities owned by the irrigation company are in priority during the season.
Southside Ditches: The City owns shares of stock in the Arthur, Larimer No. 2, New Mercer and
Warren Lake irrigation companies, often referred to as the Southside Ditches. With 13 separate
priorities, yields vary considerably from year to year. Much of the yield comes from a couple of
large junior rights and normally only yields during the high runoff months of May and June.
Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir System: This system consists of a ditch that diverts
water from the Michigan River drainage across the divide into the Poudre River Basin, Joe
Wright Reservoir and storage capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir. Joe Wright Reservoir
includes about 6,500 acre-feet of active storage and is the only storage facility owned and
operated by the City. There are usually periods during the peak runoff season in which the
reservoir is full and Michigan Ditch water is available if it can be taken directly to meet demands.
Joe Wright Reservoir is used primarily to regulate the annual Michigan Ditch flows and has
limited carryover capacity to provide drought protection for the City. The City also has storage
capacity in Meadow Creek Reservoir, which is used to release water to downstream senior rights
on the Michigan River.
Water Supply and Storage Company Shares: The City owns about 27 shares in this irrigation
company. Since the City-owned shares are not presently decreed for municipal use, this water is
usually rented back for agricultural use.
Colorado-Big Thompson Water System:
Horsetooth Reservoir: Water from Horsetooth Reservoir, a part of the C-BT Project, can be
delivered to the City’s water treatment facility or to the Poudre River. The following sources are
available for use from Horsetooth Reservoir.
Windy Gap Water: The City receives Windy Gap water from Platte River Power Authority (PRPA)
as payment for 4,200 acre-feet of reusable effluent made available to PRPA by the City. The
reusable effluent is the result of a Reuse Plan that involves the City, PRPA, and the Water Supply
and Storage Company (WSSC). The 4,200 acre-feet of Windy Gap water is dedicated for large
contractual use that requires reusable water. As part of the Reuse Plan, the City is required to
deliver 1,890 acre-feet of single use water to the WSSC.
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) Shares: The City currently owns about 3,564 shares of
NPIC. Each share consists of native water supply (which is primarily decreed for agricultural use)
42
and 4 units of C-BT water. Unless the agricultural portion of each share is changed for municipal
purposes, the City can only use the C-BT portion of the shares to meet treated water demands.
West Fort Collins Water District (WFCWD) Water: Through an agreement with the WFCWD, the
City provides treated water to their customers and in return, gets reimbursed with an equivalent
amount of C-BT water. In recent years, the amount transferred to the City has been about 500
acre-feet each year.
Draft: February 17, 2016
APPENDIX B: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 2
Table: Collected Service Area Trends, 2001-2014
Year
Service
Area
Population
Annual Water
Use (MG)
Average
Day Use
(MGD)
Actual Use
(GPCD)
Normalized
Average Use
(GPCD)
Peak Day
Use (MGD)
Actual Peak
Day Use
(GPCD)
1 in 50
Normalized
Peak Day Use
Annual
Precipitation
(inches)
ETos
Grass Tot
(in)
2001 121,300 9,978 27.3 198 198 55.8 428 503 12.3 45
2002 123,700 9,599 26.2 183 189 51.4 378 411 9.3 47
2003 125,500 8,280 22.6 154 157 46.9 346 383 18.2 49
2004 125,800 7,984 21.8 146 150 42.3 307 327 18.1 44
2005 126,900 8,497 23.3 155 155 50.1 365 363 16.2 49
2006 127,800 9,268 25.4 172 156 48.9 353 350 11.2 51
2007 128,400 8,860 24.2 162 156 47.5 342 356 13.7 44
2008 128,700 8,352 22.8 153 153 44.3 321 333 13.8 50
2009 128,900 7,391 20.2 135 147 37.1 265 304 21.9 46
2010 129,000 7,830 21.4 146 144 40.8 295 323 14.1 48
2011 129,100 7,621 20.8 141 144 39.7 285 289 17.8 49
2012 129,200 8,757 23.9 165 152 46.8 342 315 10.8 54
2013 129,300 7,560 20.7 141 147 43 312 303 18.8 47
2014 130,200 7,437 20.4 139 143 37.2 269 288 16.7 47
Draft: February 17, 2016
The following are descriptions of the Current Water Conservation Program Activities, along with the first
year of full implementation.
Foundational Activities
Conservation-oriented rate structures (2003) – Tiered rates (increasing block rate structure).
There are currently three tiers for residential single-family and duplex customers, one tier for
multi-family units, and two tiers and commercial customers.41
Continuous Consumption program (2015): this program developed a data query that checks the
meter data for meter readings that have continuously remained above zero for 72 hours.
Customers with the highest continuous flow rates are contacted to make them aware of the
continuous consumption and the likely leak. Staff troubleshoots with the customer to try to find
the source of continuous use.
Metering (2003): Commercial and multi-family units have been metered for decades; the
Utilities fully metered residential customers by 2003. The Utilities transitioned to advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI) in 2014, known as Advanced Meter Fort Collins (AMFC) The data
resolution is hourly intervals for water and 15-minute intervals for electric.
Monitor My Use (2014): this web-based portal was developed to provide customers near-real
time access to their historical and current electric and water usage and costs. The portal also
provides comparisons to the previous bill period, and illustrates which tier you are currently in.
There are alert-based features that a customer can use to provide automatic notifications when
they reach a certain usage level or cost level.42 A mobile version was launched in December
2014.
Online water use calculator (2012): Customers can use an online calculator with their household
parameters and historic water consumption to identify ways to improve efficiency and reduce
use.43
Seasonal rate structures (2003): Multi-family and commercial customers face higher rates from
May through October.
Utility water loss program (1993): Sonar equipment is used to listen for leaks in the water mains
and pinpoint their locations. Crews monitor water leaks on an ongoing basis, with a two-year
cycle to survey all water mains. Catching leaks before they have surfaced saves water and costs
of excavation and repairs, and supports the wasting water ordinance.
41 For the most current residential rates see: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/rates/water. Multi-family
units are often not sub-metered and instead have a base charge which varies by the number of dwelling units.
Commercial customers’ rates are based on the size of the meter; this includes the base charge, the volumetric
charge, and the volume above which customers face the second-tier rates. See
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/manage-your-account/rates/water for the most current rates.
42 This tool is only available for residential customers. Commercial customers currently have access to a different
tool called MV Web and the Utilities is exploring new methods and systems to address commercial customers’
needs.
43 Currently, the Utilities’ website provides a link to the following website developed by the Alliance for Water
Efficiency: http://www.home-water-works.org/
45
Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives
Commercial custom rebates (2011): offered for any technology (e.g. cooling tower conductivity
control, leak detection and repair, fixture replacement, etc.) that has a documented water
savings from the current equipment.
Commercial facility assessments (2004): facility audits are performed to assess water and
energy use and make recommendations for improved efficiency. During these assessments, low-
flow aerators are installed at no cost to the business.
Home efficiency audits (2009): residential customers are offered an energy and water audit of
their home to identify equipment and actions that can improve efficiency for a small fee. Faucet
aerators and showerheads are installed at the time of the audit.
Home efficiency loans/on-bill financing (2010): this program offers a low cost, no-money-down
financing option for up to 20 years. Loans are conveniently repaid by the customer through their
monthly utility bill.
Indoor Appliance and Fixture Rebates (residential and commercial):
Clothes Washer (2003): Available for eligible EnergyStar labeled clothes washers.
Dishwasher (started 2007): Available for eligible EnergyStar labeled dishwashers.
Toilet (2010): Available for eligible WaterSense labeled toilets and urinals.44
Showerhead (2011): Available for eligible WaterSense labeled showerheads.
Outdoor Equipment Rebates (residential and commercial):
Sensors (rain, soil moisture), high-efficiency nozzles, pressure-reducing heads, pressure
regulators, and smart irrigation controllers
Low income retrofit program (2007): provides low income single- and multi-family households
with toilet, showerhead and faucet aerator retrofits. This work is often done in partnership with
Larimer County Conservation Corps.
Restaurant pre-rinse spray valve distribution (started 2011): low flow pre-rinse spray valves (to
rinse trays of dishes prior to washing them) are installed at no charge for restaurants and other
food service operations.
Sprinkler system audits (1999): audits are offered to homeowners and homeowner associations
to help them improve sprinkler system efficiency.
Xeriscape design/incentive program (2010): provides homeowners a one-on-one consultation
with a landscape design professional for a small fee.
44 The toilet rebate program also includes a mandatory toilet recycling component. The porcelain from recycled
toilets is used by the Streets Department as a road base.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/water-efficiency/toilet-rebates/toilet-recycling
46
Educational Activities
Business education programs (2004): Programs are offered to commercial customers on a
variety of environmental topics, including water conservation. Staff provides newsletters,
mailings, meetings and seminars on topics of interest to specific businesses, such as restaurants,
hotels, car washes, landscapers, and key accounts.
Community education programs (1977)45: These programs include the Educators’ workshops,
contractor trainings, and partnerships to put on other events like the Residential Environmental
Program Series. The Utilities also conducts educational programs about Xeriscape landscaping,
watering techniques and practices and general water conservation. A daily Lawn Watering Guide
is published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan and on the City’s website during the watering season.
Conservation kit giveaways (1990): Free conservation kits with indoor and/or outdoor water-
saving devices and information are offered periodically to customers during events.
Conservation public information efforts (1977): Information is disseminated via bill inserts, bus
benches, billboards, events, newspaper articles, TV and radio announcements, Utilities website
information, social media, and more. The team also serves as technical experts to help
commercial customers with water use or billing questions. Displays are set up at several
community events including the Sustainable Living Fair, Harvest Festival, Business Innovation
Fair and many others.
Home Water Reports (2014): These reports are delivered to a portion of customers on a bi-
monthly basis. The reports provide households with information on their current water use and
comparisons to historical use as well as similar households’ use.46
Hotel and restaurant conservation material distribution (2003): A three-card set is available for
hotels and other lodging establishments to inform guests about importance of water
conservation to our area and to encourage the reuse of towels and linens. Tent cards are
available for restaurants telling customers that “water is served upon request.”
K-12 education programs (1977): Presentations and hands-on activities are provided to school
classes on water topics, including the history of water in Fort Collins, water use and
conservation, water chemistry and watersheds. Fort Collins Utilities is a co-sponsor of the
annual Children’s Water Festival.
Watershed tours (2012): Educational bus tours of the Utilities’ Cache la Poudre watershed;
involves information about drinking water, protection of water resources, water quality, and
managing urban watersheds.
Xeriscape Demonstration Garden (1986): Staff oversees maintenance of the City's Xeriscape
Demonstration Garden and provides tours at organized events and upon request. We are also
partnering to support various demonstration gardens and other events at the Gardens on Spring
Creek.47
45 http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/community-education
46 The Utilities implements a similar program (Home Energy Reports) for electric customers.
47 http://www.fcgov.com/gardens/
47
Ordinances and Regulations
Green building codes (2011)48: Existing building codes include many elements that support
green building; the code green amendments represent the next steps along the path of
integrating green building practices into mainstream construction. These codes include a
requirement for bathroom and kitchen faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets to not exceed
the flow rates of WaterSense labeled fixtures.
Landscape and irrigation standards (1994) - New development landscape and irrigation plans are
reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code's water conservation standards. As part of
these standards, a rain shut-off device and a post-installation audit are required for commercial
sprinkler systems.
Parkway landscaping regulations (2013)49 – The City updated the Streetscape Standards to
include more flexibility to xeriscape the parkway, the strip of land between a residential street
and the sidewalk.
Plumbing standards (1978): All construction within the City of Fort Collins shall comply with the
most recent International Plumbing Code, among other codes and standards.50
Restrictive covenants ordinance (2003) – City Code prohibits homeowner association covenants
from banning the use of Xeriscape or requiring a percentage of landscape area to be planted
with turf, if the homeowner owns the property and pays for the water that irrigations the
landscape.
Soil amendment ordinance (2003): requires builders to amend the soil for new landscapes.
Wasting water ordinance (1917) – staff enforces the section of the City Code that prohibits
wasting water. Wasting water complaints are investigated. Complaints are used as an education
tool, but enforcement by ticketing is also an option.51
Water efficiency upgrades at City buildings (2010): The City is committed to building new City
buildings to the LEED standards; including water efficiency upgrades. Audits are conducted at
existing City facilities and upgraded water-efficient indoor fixtures and sprinkler system
equipment are installed. The City has a sustainability goal to reduce municipal building water
use (normalized to account for weather conditions), by 20% by 2020.52
Water Supply Shortage Response Plan (2003): This plan has a series of measures to be enacted,
including water restrictions, for various levels of water shortage.53
48 http://www.fcgov.com/enviro/green-building.php
49 http://www.fcgov.com/planning/streetscapedesign.php
50 http://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php
51 City Ordinance No. 089, last updated in 2014.
52 http://www.fcgov.com/sustainability/goals.php
53 City Ordinance No. 088, last updated in 2014.
48
Other Activities
Backwash water recycling (2003): Backwash water recycling equipment at the water treatment
facility treats backwash water and recycles it to the beginning of the treatment process.
Large customer reuse (1985) – Treated wastewater from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility is
pumped to Rawhide Power Plant for landscaping and cooling water.
Raw water for City irrigation: Raw water is used to irrigate the majority of the City’s parks,
cemeteries, and golf courses.54
Program Participation 2010-2014 (does not include event attendance)
Program 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clothes Washers 1249 1366 993 971 1058
Commercial Clothes Washer -- -- 0 1 0
Commercial Dishwasher -- -- 0 1 0
Commercial Facility Water
Assessments 81 77 93 268 281
Commercial Kitchen Info Program -- -- 32 nozzles, 72
aerators
16 rebates, 79
items --
Commercial Restroom -- 1 4 rebates;
443 items
16 rebates; 79
items
27 rebates;
249 items
Commercial Sprinkler Audits 2 1 0 0 0
Commercial Sprinkler Equipment -- 15 56 rebates;
964 items
35 rebates;
2266 items
12 rebates;
165 items
Custom Commercial Rebate -- 2 1 3 rebates; 14
items 0
Dishwasher 780 880 635 648 787
ELCO Audits -- -- 42 48 68
FCLWD Audits 112 82 67 94 97
Garden-in-a-box -- 68 63 74 --
HOA Sprinkler Audits 5 12 14 13 11
Home Efficiency Audits 466 519 592 683 662
Home efficiency loans/On-bill
Financing 13 6 5 0 7
Home Water Reports -- -- -- -- 10,000
Irrigation Plan Review 11 42 44 49 69
Irrigation Site Inspection 21 24 28 34 52
Landscape Plan Reviews 29 49 54 73 59
Low Income Retrofit Program -- 250 homes 275 homes 275 homes 482 homes
Residential Sprinkler Audits 449 331 232 394 232
Residential Sprinkler Equipment 164 118 137 rebates;
170 items
108 rebates;
880 items
97 rebates;
135 items
Residential Toilet 479 573 912 651 1004
Showerhead -- 21 27 25 73
Xeriscape Design Clinic/Assistance 55 50 37 -- 46
54 Many of these properties have only ever been irrigated with raw water, thus the “start” date varies.
49
Below is a graph of the total number of projects and measures by year from 2010 to 2014.
Below is a graph of the estimated new annual water savings in million gallons. These totals do not reflect
savings from Xeriscape programs, Home Water Reports, or events.
50
See below for a graph of projected participation (where participation here means total number of
measures) and annual new water savings in thousand gallons, where the savings includes customer
water use reductions as well as savings from treated less water and avoiding losses throughout the
distribution system.
51
APPENDIX C: MATERIALS RELATED TO CHAPTER 3
Water Efficiency and Conservation Activities and related actions support the following Strategic
Objectives from the City’s 2015-16 Strategic Plan.55
City of Fort Collins Strategic Objectives most relevant to Water Conservation Activities
Key Strategic Outcome: Environmental Health
4.1: Improve and protect wildlife habitat and the ecosystems of the Poudre River and other
urban streams.
4.2: Achieve environmental goals using the Sustainability Assessment framework.
4.6 Engage citizens in ways to educate and change behavior toward more sustainable living
practices.
4.7: Increase the community’s resiliency and preparedness for changes in climate, weather and
resource availability.
4.8: Protect and monitor water quality, and implement appropriate conservation efforts and
long-term water storage capability.
Key Strategic Outcome: Economic Health
3.5: Sustain high water quality to support the community and water-dependent businesses.
3.6: Maintain utility systems and services; infrastructure integrity; and stable, competitive
rates.
3.7: Support sustainable infill and redevelopment to meet climate action strategies.
3.9: Provide transparent, predictable and efficient processes for citizens and businesses
interacting with the City.
Key Strategic Outcome: Community and Neighborhood Livability
1.3: Direct and guide growth in the community through appropriate planning, annexation, land
use and development review processes.
1.11: Maintain and enhance attractive neighborhoods through City services, innovative
enforcement techniques, and voluntary compliance with City codes and regulations.
Key Strategic Outcome: Safe Community
5.10: Provide a high-quality, sustainable water supply that meets or exceeds all public health
standards and supports a healthy and safe community.
Key Strategic Outcome: High Performing Government
7.4 Strengthen methods of public engagement and reach all segments of the community.
7.6: Enhance the use of performance metrics to assess results.
7.9: Improve productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, customer service and citizen satisfaction in
all areas of the municipal organization.
7.10: Implement leading-edge and innovative practices that drive performance excellence and
quality improvements across all Service Areas.
7.11: Proactively influence policy at other levels of government regulation.
55 http://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/pdf/strategic-plan-2015.pdf
districts.
Many of these overlap with several of the Areas of Opportunity or warranted some additional
explanation, and thus are discussed in greater detail below.
Rate Structures: Prices send a value signal to customers and help customers determine how
they value using water. Rate structures are also designed to cover the cost of providing
service.38 Therefore it is important to balance both sides. Along with the Finance team, we
intend to explore new means of incentivizing the efficient use of water while supporting
revenue requirements.
New and Re-Development Incentives & Requirements: There are a variety of decisions made
throughout the development and re-development process. We aim to further explore and
support ordinances or regulations like low water use landscape requirements, tap fees and
incentive programs that are more aligned to encouraged efficiency from the start, irrigation
taps/requirements, greywater ordinances and systems, and more.
38 This includes operational costs (like treatment costs), maintenance costs, and capital costs.
30MG. The cost-
effectiveness of this
program is about $1.20
per 1,000 gallons saved.
Encourage greater integration of water efficiency into land use planning and building codes
Aligns with City Plan Strategic Objectives: 1.3, 1.11, 3.7, 4.7, 4.8
Benefits
• Increased efficiency of
development
• New development will lead
by example
• Less waste from pursuing
retrofits of new
development
• Reduced impact of
population growth
Example Activities
• Landscape requirements and
incentives for new
development
• Contractor education and
trainings
• New and re-development
plan review requirements
• Require WaterSense
appliances and fixtures
Example: Beginning in
2012, the City’s Green
Building Code mandates
WaterSense toilets and
other fixtures in
residential and
commercial facilities;
this is estimated to save
between 20-25%
annually.
impact
likely
Very
negative,
impact
expected
X