Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 5/12/2015 - Memorandum From Donnie Dustin And Carol Webb Re: Work Session Agenda Item #2: Water Supply Reliability And Storage Update - Amendments To Agenda Item Summary And Presentation And Leadership Planning TWORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Date: May 12, 2015 Staff: Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update the City Council on the Utilities water supply reliability and storage projects. The Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) guides the City of Fort Collins Utilities in planning supplies for the water service area. Staff will present the Utilities current water supplies and demands, key Policy elements, future water service area needs and provide an update on the Utilities storage projects including Rigden and Halligan Reservoirs. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The Agenda Item Summary and presentation provide an update on the water supply reliability of the City of Fort Collins Utilities water service area, including an update on the Rigden Reservoir and Halligan Reservoir Enlargement projects. What questions does Council have regarding the Utilities water supply reliability and storage projects? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Water Supplies and Demands The City of Fort Collins Utilities (“Utilities”) water service area covers the central portion of Fort Collins. As the City continues to grow into the Growth Management Area, more of the water needs will be met by surrounding water districts (mostly the East Larimer County and Fort Collins-Loveland Water Districts). All discussion relative to water supply reliability and storage in this document is only for the Utilities water service area (see attached map). The Utilities main sources of water supply come from the Poudre River and the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (“CBT”). On average, Utilities annually uses about an equal amount from these two sources. The Poudre River supplies, which include senior direct flow rights, converted agricultural rights and the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright Reservoir system, are delivered to the Water Treatment Plant through two pipelines that divert off the Poudre River. Joe Wright Reservoir, which has an active capacity of about 6,500 acre-feet, is the only storage reservoir that is fully owned and operated by Utilities. Utilities owns units in the CBT project, which is administered by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (commonly known as “Northern Water”). These CBT units are delivered to Utilities out of Horsetooth Reservoir, which is not owned or operated by Utilities. Northern Water is directed by a Board of Directors that establish policy and strategic direction which is independent from the Utilities. These policies limit the Utilities’ ability to store excess water in Horsetooth Reservoir for use in later years (also known as carry over). More information on the CBT system is attached. 1 The Utilities currently delivers about 25,000 acre-feet per year of treated water to its customers and around 4,000 acre-feet per year of raw water for irrigation of City parks, golf course, etc. through various ditches that run through the City. Per capita treated water demands, which are measured in gallons per capita per day (“gpcd”) and exclude large contractual use (such as breweries and certain manufacturing companies), have declined significantly over the last few decades. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, treated water demands were about 200 gpcd. Following the drought of the early 2000s, such demands have averaged around 150 gpcd – which is about a 25 percent reduction in per capita water use. The current water supplies for the Utilities are adequate in most years. However, these snowpack driven water supplies can vary significantly from year to year. Water supply system modeling is maintained to assess how much demand can be met through certain droughts with the Utilities water supplies, also known as the firm yield of the system. Currently, the firm yield of the Utilities water supplies is about 31,000 acre-feet per year through a 1-in-50 year drought. Utilities must plan for projected future increases in demand that will exceed the existing firm yield. Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (“Policy”) The attached Policy, which was updated and approved by City Council in 2012, provides guidance in balancing water supplies and demands to help meet future needs. The Policy objective is to ensure an adequate, safe and reliable supply of water while managing the level of demand for a valuable resource. Key policy elements around water supply reliability are: 1) continuing the 1-in-50 year drought criterion, 2) maintaining a Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, 3) having a storage reserve for emergency situations equal to 20% of annual demands and 4) planning for a demand level (150 gpcd) that is higher than the water conservation goal (currently 140 gpcd). These criteria provide a water supply planning approach that address uncertainties such as climate change, river administration changes, system outages, competing water rights, etc. A key concern for Utilities is that its water supplies are highly reliant on CBT project storage. Utilities has very little storage for its Poudre River water supplies, which restricts its ability to effectively manage these supplies and to meet demands if the CBT supplies were ever unavailable. Future Water Supply Needs The amount of future water supplies needed for the Utilities water service area depends on population and commercial growth. Utilities currently serves about 133,000 treated water customers. Given changes over time in demand levels, population projections and other factors, a recent update to the Utilities future projected need has been conducted. The water service area population is projected to grow to about 178,000 by the year 2065. In addition, large contractual water use is expected to increase in the future. The Utilities total projected treated water demand is expected to be about 38,400 acre-feet per year by the year 2065, which is about 7,400 acre-feet/year greater than the existing firm yield of about 31,000 acre-feet per year. Additional water supplies for meeting future projected demands will be acquired through the Utilities’ Raw Water Requirements (“RWR”), which requires developments to provide either water rights or cash-in-lieu of water rights to support that development’s water needs. A main focus for the Utilities is to develop additional storage capacity, which will allow management of the water rights portfolio that Utilities already has acquired. Operational storage (e.g., gravel pit storage) is a critical need in order to fully utilize the Utilities’ existing water rights by meeting legal return flow obligations. In addition, carryover and vulnerability protection storage (e.g., Halligan Reservoir Enlargement) will allow Utilities to meet the future projected demands and provide a storage reserve for emergency water shortage scenarios (e.g., CBT outage). Storage Projects Rigden Reservoir Located near Horsetooth Road and the Poudre River, Rigden Reservoir will provide the critically needed operational storage for Utilities. The project will provide about 1,900 acre-feet of storage, 1,700 acre-feet for Utilities and 200 acre-feet for the City’s Natural Areas Department (which also has water storage 2 needs). The reservoir will be gravity filled via two existing, adjacent ditches. Outflows from the reservoir will be pumped to the Poudre River via an adjacent storm water channel. In addition to meeting return flow obligations, the reservoir will be able to capture and manage the Utilities reusable effluent from the Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Although the reservoir will not be accessible for recreation, the land around the reservoir will become a City Natural Area and trails will be constructed around it. In addition to building the reservoir, reclamation work was performed on two adjacent gravel pits owned by Natural Areas, and a future park site will be located west of the reservoir. The project will be operational in early June 2015 and has cost approximately $14 Million (of which Utilities portion is about $11.5 Million). Halligan Reservoir Enlargement The enlargement of Halligan Reservoir is a project Utilities has been pursuing for many years to provide carryover and vulnerability protection storage. Halligan is an existing reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre River. The existing capacity of about 6,400 acre-feet is operated by the North Poudre Irrigation Company (“NPIC”). Enlarging the reservoir by 8,125 acre-feet (to a total size of 14,525 acre-feet) would meet the Utilities future demands and provide a storage reserve for emergencies. This size represents a substantial reduction from previous plans to enlarge the reservoir to 40,000 acre-feet, which are the result of reduced Utilities needs and withdrawn project partners. Utilities believes there are several reasons for enlarging Halligan Reservoir over other potential alternatives. Halligan is an existing reservoir that already has impacts on the river (compared to a new reservoir) and is a gravity fed and released system (no pumping is required). Utilities plans to operate the enlarged Halligan Reservoir in a way that will improve flows in the North Fork of the Poudre River, particularly during low winter flows. The Halligan Enlargement project has been considered an “Acceptable Planned Project” by the Western Resource Advocates1. However, there may be certain adverse impacts to enlarging Halligan, including altered flow and sediment regimes and potential loss of wetlands, stream channel and wildlife habitat. The current federal permitting process will identify and address environmental consequences of the project and impacts will be avoided or mitigated. The Halligan Enlargement project has included several City Council approvals in the last few decades. These steps have included acquiring interest in the enlargement (Resolution (19)87-161), entering an option agreement with NPIC to purchase the reservoir and ability to enlarge (Resolution (19)93-164), and approved authority to exercise the NPIC option agreement, enter agreements with other Halligan participants and proceed with required permitting (Resolution 2003-121). In addition, the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy has been updated twice (in 2003 and 2012) to affirm the need to pursue the Halligan Enlargement project. Utilities officially entered the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process in 2006 with the lead agency being the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”). The permitting process has many steps, but essentially includes determining the Utilities’ purpose and need for the proposed project (Halligan enlargement), considering alternatives to the proposed project (including what would happen if no permit were issued, known as the No Action Alternative), and providing detailed environmental analysis of all alternatives. The Corps must permit the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to meet the Utilities’ needs. The LEDPA may not be the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. All this work is compiled in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be published for public review and comment. Although the Utilities purpose and need was identified early in the permitting process, it has recently undergone a review given the length of the permitting process and changes that have occurred in this time. As described above, the Utilities future water demands (and thus amount of storage required) depend on growth projections, as well as modeling criteria (e.g., storage reserve factor). Since 2006, the growth projections have changed with a general decrease in water use per capita, countered by an increase in projected future population. The Corps independently reviewed the Utilities’ growth projections and future water needs and determined that the amount of storage required at Halligan does not require adjustments. 1 Western Resource Advocates (2011). Filling the Gap, Commonsense Solutions for Meeting Front Range Water Needs. Available at: http://westernresourceadvocates.org/water/fillingthegap/FillingTheGap.pdf 3 In addition to updating the purpose and need, the Corps is currently focusing on the preliminary alternatives to the Halligan Enlargement project. The Corps determined the alternatives being studied, which are: 1) construction of gravel pit storage paired with Joe Wright Reservoir reoperations; 2) acquisition of existing agricultural reservoirs north and east of the City; and 3) expansion of Glade Reservoir. It should be noted that each of these ‘action’ alternatives would require pumping and associated greenhouse gas production, which is not the case at Halligan Reservoir. In addition to the action alternatives, the Corps and Utilities are working on defining the No Action Alternative, which will describe what actions would be taken should the Corps not issue a permit to construct the Halligan Reservoir enlargement or its alternatives. Currently, the No Action Alternative would likely involve acquiring additional water rights (over what is currently projected to be obtained through RWR), exploring Joe Wright Reservoir reoperations and describing the effects of not meeting the purpose and need (e.g., more frequent and severe mandatory water restrictions). The current projected schedule for the Halligan Enlargement project is for the Draft EIS to be released in the summer of 2016. Once released, the Draft EIS will be available for public review and input. The Corps would address any public comments in the production of a Final EIS prior to the Record of Decision (“ROD”), which is expected in 2018. Between the draft and final EIS, Utilities will also work on other, separate permitting requirements. Upon receiving the ROD, Utilities would work on final design of the project and is projected to start construction in 2019, with completion around 2021. The projected cost of enlarging Halligan Reservoir have recently been updated with more refined estimates of rebuilding at the existing dam location. The total cost (past and future) is approximately $46 Million, which includes acquisition (about $6 Million), permitting and mitigation (about $14 Million), and engineering and construction (about $26 Million). Expenses through the second quarter of 2015 have been about $11.3 Million, with Utilities share being about $6.8 Million. The total estimated cost to Utilities (both past and future) would be approximately $41.5 Million, leaving about $35 Million in additional funds needed to complete the project. Although these costs have increased over time, the costs continue to be reasonable compared to other water supplies. The updated cost per acre-foot of additional firm yield for Utilities is around $5,600, which compares with about $50,000 per acre-foot of firm yield for CBT supplies. It should be noted the preliminary costs of some of the alternatives to enlarging Halligan Reservoir could be substantially more (up to four times the cost). Revenues from RWR cash-in-lieu payments and raw water surcharges from commercial customers that use over their annual water allotment accrue into the Utilities’ Water Rights Reserve Fund (“Fund”), which is used to develop the Utilities water supplies. This Fund was used for acquiring Rigden Reservoir. The Fund has been and will continue to be used to fund the Halligan Enlargement project. The Fund currently has around $17 Million, or about $18 Million less than the remaining projected Halligan costs. However, expected growth and related RWR should provide adequate funds for the project. As mentioned above, the alternatives to enlarging Halligan Reservoir could cost significantly more and would likely require significant increases in RWR cash-in-lieu rates. There have been a few events related to Halligan in the last couple of years. In December 2013, diligence for maintaining a 1985 junior storage water right at Halligan was not filed that resulted in cancellation of that water right. A new (2013) junior storage water right at Halligan was filed, which is currently in the water court administrative process. The Utilities has other, more senior water rights to store in the Halligan enlargement that result in the size of Halligan not changing in order to meet the Utilities’ needs. The outcome of the loss of the 1985 water right will not be clear until completion of the water court and permitting processes. In February 2014, NPIC withdrew as a participant in the Halligan Enlargement project citing increased permitting costs and exploring other alternatives. With NPIC in the project, a new dam would have needed to be constructed about 1,000 feet downstream of the existing Halligan Reservoir dam. As a result of their exit, the existing dam can be reconstructed at its existing location (which could be no larger than about 15,000 acre-feet total), which is less costly to Utilities. In January 2015, Utilities mutually separated from the City of Greeley in a joint permitting process for their proposed enlargement of Seaman Reservoir citing diverging timelines in completing the EIS process. Utilities will continue to work with Greeley on modeling issues and cost sharing for certain shared reports. 4 Next Steps Quarterly reports on the Halligan Enlargement project will continue to be provided to City Council. Utilities staff will continue working with the Corps on developing the Draft EIS, which is expected to be released in the summer of 2016. Staff will consider outreach to City Council and the public for the release of the Draft EIS. Summary The Policy provides Utilities guidance for balancing water supplies and demands that help for planning our water future. Acquiring additional storage capacity continues to be a key Utilities need. The permitting process for the Halligan Reservoir Enlargement project should result in this needed storage. Utilities advocates for water conservation coupled with storage for a sustainable water future. ATTACHMENTS 1) Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map 2) Northern Water and Colorado-Big Thompson Project Information 3) Northern Water Boundaries and Facilities Map 4) Water Supply and Demand Management Policy 5) Glossary of Water Resources Terms 6) Presentation for Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update 7) Sustainability Assessment for Water Supply Reliability and Storage Update 5 1 1 Water Supply Reliability & Storage Update City Council Work Session May 12, 2015 2 2 Overview • Current Water Supplies and Demands • Water Supply and Demand Management Policy • Future Water Supply Needs • Update of Storage Projects – Rigden Reservoir – Halligan Reservoir Enlargement 3 3 Fort Collins Area Water Districts Map Only planning for Utilities water service area 4 4 City of Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply - Sources Poudre River CBT Project On average, about 50/50 split between these sources 5 5 Current Water Demand (Use) • Deliver about 25,000 acre-feet/year treated and 4,000 acre-feet/year of raw water • Demand levels have declined significantly – ~230 gpcd early 1990s – ~200 gpcd before 2002 – ~150 gpcd last ten years 6 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Use (gallons per capita per day - GPCD) Year Fort Collins Utilities - Per Capita Water Use Actual Use Normalized Use These values do not include large contractual water use. 7 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1884 1889 1894 1899 1904 1909 1914 1919 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 Runoff (Acre-feet/year) Year Poudre River Annual Native Runoff at the Mouth of the Canyon Total Annual Flow Long Term Average Highly variable flows affect Utilities water right yields 7 2014 8 2/3rds of runoff occurs in 2 months 8 9 - 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EOM Storage (acre-feet) Water Year CBT Project End of Month Active Storage Levels (Granby, Carter, Horsetooth) Horsetooth Carter Granby Maximum Active Capacity 9 CBT project yields also subject to variability 10 10 Current Water Supplies • Adequate supplies in most years • Existing firm yield about 31,000 acre- feet/year through 1-in-50 year drought • Need to plan for future 11 11 Water Supply & Demand Management Policy (updated 2012) • Guides Utilities in balancing water supplies and demands • Policy Objectives – Ensure an adequate, safe and reliable supply of water – Manage the level of demand 12 12 Key Policy Elements • Water Supply Reliability – 1-in-50 year drought criterion • Shortage Response Plan – Storage reserve factor • 20% of annual demand – Planning demand level • 150 gpcd: supply system target • Demand management – 140 gpcd goal by 2020: water conservation target 13 13 Why different levels?: Uncertainties • Climate change • CBT curtailment • Michigan Ditch issues • River administration changes • Competing water rights 14 14 Concern: Reliant on CBT Storage 15 15 Utilities Water Service Area Future Water Demands/Supplies • Depends on population and commercial growth (recent update) • 2015 Population: ~133,000 • 2065 Population: ~178,000 • Large contractual use increases – Breweries, manufacturing • 2065 Total Demand: ~38,400 acre- feet/year 16 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 AcreͲFeet Year FortCollinsUtilitiesͲ HistoricalDemands,Projected WaterNeedsandCurrentFirmYield HistoricalDemand ProjectedWaterNeeds CurrentFirmYield 16 17 17 Future Supply Plans • Acquire additional water rights and/or cash – Raw Water Requirements • Acquire additional storage capacity – Operational storage (gravel pits or similar) – Carryover and vulnerability protection storage (Halligan Res. or similar) 18 18 Rigden Reservoir • Critical for fully utilizing existing water rights • Operational in early June 2015 • About 1,900 acre-feet of storage – 1,700 for Utilities, 200 for Natural Areas • Adjacent natural areas and future park site • About $14 million cost 19 19 N Drake Water Reclamation Facility Horsetooth Road 19 Rigden Reservoir Location Map 20 20 Halligan Reservoir Enlargement • Enlarged to ~14,525 acre-feet (reduced from 40,000 acre-feet) – Existing NPIC ~6,400 acre-feet – Utilities portion ~8,125 acre-feet • Existing reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre River 21 Halligan Reservoir Location Map 21 22 22 22 23 23 Why Enlarge Halligan? • Existing reservoir • Gravity system (no pumping) • Improved flows in North Fork • Meets needs at reasonable cost • Considered and “Acceptable Planned Project” by Western Resource Advocates 24 24 Adverse Impacts of Enlarging Halligan • Altered flow and sediment regime • Potential loss of wetlands, stream channel and wildlife habitat • Permitting process will identify and address environmental consequences – Impacts will be avoided or mitigated 25 25 Permitting Process • Entered NEPA process with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2006 • Key: Define purpose and need – Recently updated • Detailed environmental and alternatives analysis – Must permit LEDPA – May not be Halligan 26 26 Preliminary Alternatives • Halligan Reservoir Enlargement (“Preferred”) • Glade Reservoir enlargement • Local gravel pits and Joe Wright reoperations • Use existing irrigation company storage • No Action Alternative Alternatives are subject to change by the Corps prior to release of the DEIS 27 27 Current Projected Schedule • 2005-2018 EIS and permitting decision – Mid-2016: Projected DEIS release • 2018-2019 Final design • 2019-2020 Construction Schedule subject to change. 28 28 Halligan Enlargement Costs • Estimated Project Costs – Acquisition $ 6 Million – Permitting & mitigation $14 Million – Engineering & construction $26 Million Total $46 Million • Expenses through 2nd Qtr. 2015 $ 11.3 Million – Utilities share $6.8 Million • Total estimated Utilities share $41.5 Million – $5,600 per acre-foot of firm yield 29 29 Halligan Funding • ~$35 Million additional funds needed • Water Rights Reserve Fund – Revenues from Raw Water Requirements (RWR) and Surcharges – Current fund around $17 Million • Alternatives could cost up to 4 times this amount – Would require significant RWR increase 30 30 Halligan Recent Events • Dec. 2013: Loss of 1985 junior water right • Feb. 2014: North Poudre Irrigation Comp. withdraw • Jan. 2015: Separation from City of Greeley 31 31 Moving Forward • Policy provides guidance for planning water future • Storage continues to be key Utilities need • Permitting process should result in needed storage • Advocate water conservation for sustainable water future • Next update at release of DEIS (mid-2016) 32 32 Thank You