HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail - Read Before Packet - 2/9/2021 - Email From Max Moss Regarding Water Supply For NefcFrom:Max Moss
To:Emily Gorgol
Subject:Related to the work session
Date:Saturday, February 6, 2021 7:09:36 AM
Hi Emily,
I know this is long, but please read it in relation to the work session Tuesday. It’s information I shared with Liesel
and Theresa (both of whom I really respect and appreciate).
I’m working my way through the document for the work session. I’m concerned that staff is setting up a
conversation they are not prepared to discuss appropriately with the council, with the full context they need to
really understand it.
For example this sentence: “ Current and potential Fort Collins residents and business experiences vary
depending on where their home or place of business is located. This has resulted in different points of tension over
the years, from issues of development costs to water conservation programs to drought policies. An additional
unique water provider could exacerbate these existing challenges.”.
This does not mention the alternative challenges that are being faced already.
1. That no master planning approach can be undertaken in the current environment where all the water was taken
off the land by the City, and we have to go fight in the market for every acre foot of water.
2. Building up a sufficient water bank that will drive the cost per home up over $40,000 for the raw water alone,
and that is assuming a non potable water supply that will be in addition to this cost. These costs are not paid by
the developer, they are paid by the home owners.
3. It will require the drying up of thousands of acres of farm land, which our plan does not. Being far less efficient
with the resources and less environmentally responsible.
4. While yes ELCO can treat and distribute water cheaply, there will be no water for them to deliver cheaply
because there will not be a development on this property. So it’s a moot point. Or if there ever is any
development, it will be 50 acres at a time with substantial negative impacts on what could have been done for the
community design.
5. Which leaves all the people who are now, and who are about to live there because multiple developments have
had cheap water for decades, without the servcies needed to make NEFC self sufficient. It’s math, and the math
does not add up.
My point is there is context and color around these points that staff cannot be expected to fully understand or
communicate. (I don’t blame you) And when we simply make statements like “an additional unique water provider
could exacerbate these challenges” it is not telling the whole story, by a long shot.
This report seems to be written from the standpoint of all the reasons “not” to do something. Nothing about the
value to the community, at least that I’ve seen.
The entire purpose of this water supply approach is to provide the future residents of Montava (NEFC) an
affordable, predictable, environmentally responsible water source. That is not possible to do in the open market
environment, that ship has sailed and it is never coming back. To be more clear, without building our plan the
water supply for this enormous portion of NEFC will be unpredictable, unaffordable, and negatively impact the
environment by drying up thousands of acres of farm land.
I’m concerned about this, and I won’t even be able to talk to share any of it Tuesday.
Max Moss
President | HF2M Colorado
430 N College Ave. Suite 410
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Cell# 512-507-5570
www.montava.com