Water Supply Planning:
Past, Present, and Future
Carol Webb
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
06-08-15
ISSUE
The high cost and availability of raw
water in the region
Today’s Agenda
• Review background/history of water supply planning
including formation of districts
• Compare water supply planning policies
• Discuss current/future water supply demands
• Considerations for future discussions
Water Provider Profiles
Fort Collins Water
Utility
East Larimer
County Water
District (ELCO)
Fort Collins
Loveland
Water District
(FCLWD)
1883
1962
1961
133,000*
17,000
40,000
53
49
38
Annual Treated
Water Demand
25,000
4,000
9,000
Water Taps
34,500
8,000
16,300
Date Organized
Total Population Served
Service Area size
(square miles)
*Includes 5,500 customers within the FCLWD service area served by agreement. Does not include 4,000 customers served within WFCWD as the City
does not provide raw water for those customers.
Fort Collins Area
Water Districts Map
5
Raw Water Supplies
CITY
ELCO
FCLWD
• Poudre River
• City’s raw water
pipeline
• Pleasant Valley
Pipeline (PVP)
(seasonal supply)
• Halligan Project (in
progress)
• Rigden Reservoir
• Poudre River
• PVP (seasonal
supply)
• Overland Trail
Ponds (in
progress)
• Poudre River
• PVP (seasonal
supply)
• NISP (in
progress)
• Overland Trail
Ponds (in
progress)
• C-BT (Horsetooth
Reservoir)
• C-BT
• C-BT
• Michigan Ditch/Joe Wright
Reservoir
Raw Water Supplies
Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT)
• Designed to deliver 310,000 acre-feet each year.
• Quotas expressed as a percentage of 310,000 acre feet
• C-BT unit = 1/310,000 of the total quantity of water
the board makes available in any particular year.
• 70% quota for one unit = 0.7 AF
BACKGROUND
Established raw
water
requirements
(RWR)
Joe Wright
Reservoir
purchase &
enlargement
Introduction of
Michigan Ditch
supplies
Continued
acquisition of
water rights
Adoption of the
Water Supply
Policy
Increased RWR
Conversion of
water rights
Option
agreement with
NPIC for Halligan
2000s – 2010s
Formation of
Water Board
Acquired stock in
irrigation
companies
1980s – 1990s
Purchased senior
rights on Poudre
River
Active
acquisition of
CBT water
1960s – 1970s
Water Utility
formed
1950s
1880s – 1940s
City History of
Water Supply Planning
Updated Water
Supply Policy
(2003 and 2012)
Exercised
Halligan Option
agreement
Increased RWR
Halligan NEPA
process
Conversion of
water rights
Rigden Reservoir
Formation of Water Districts
Late 1950s and early 1960s:
Request from developers
extension of water and sewer
service
Cities determines expansion
beyond financial capabilities;
denied requests for service.
Pressure for development in the
area continued to increase.
Separate utility districts form to
provide service.
Development increases; the City
annexes or includes area in the
GMA now served by both ELCO
and FCLWD.
Water Districts
History of Water Supply Planning
2004
Construction
of PVP seasonal
access to
Poudre River
supplies
Districts drop
out of Halligan
Project
Late 2000s
Districts begin
acquiring
Poudre River
rights
Districts
partner with
City in Halligan
Project
2003
Acquisition of
CBT supplies direct or
through RWR
1960s – 1990s
Early 1960s
Water Districts
organize
FCLWD joins
NISP
FCLWD and
ELCO enter
Overland
Gravel Ponds
project.
Collaborations
• City and Districts have extensive history of collaboration
• Numerous IGAs to share supply, treatment, and
transmission of raw/treated water
• 1998 – Josh Ames Certificates for raw water for in
ELCO and FCLWD.
• 2001 – Sale/delivery of water from City to FCLWD
for approved subdivisions (expired in 2011)
• 2013
• Capacity agreement with FCLWD
• Study of regionalized treatment with Tri-Districts
Conflicts:
City/FCLWD Service Area Dispute
• Dispute in late 1970s regarding service area boundaries
between City and FCLWD
• Included lawsuits filed by both parties
• Court ordered parties to resolve dispute
• Entities formed steering committee
• Explored various options for collaboration
• Entered IGA in 1985
• Establish service areas
• Collaborate on planning
• Evaluate Regionalization
• Resulted in collaborations in place today
Water Supply Planning Policies
Current Supply and Demands
Water Development Fees
• Development fees consist of
• Raw Water Requirements
• Dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu to ensure
adequate water is available to serve development
• Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) - one-time fees for
cost of utility infrastructure needed to serve a new
development
• Development fees reflect lot size and type of
development (single family or multifamily)
Raw Water Requirements (RWR)
• All providers require dedication of water rights or cash-in-lieu of
water rights for development
• RWR consist of
• Raw Water Dedication or cash-in-lieu
•
Based on water provider needs and yield from accepted sources
• Conversion (or Credit) Factor
•
•
Applied to each share or unit dedicated
Value determined by annual average yield
• Water Supply Factor
•
Ensure reliable supply when water rights yield less than average.
Comparison of RWR
Water Rights
or Cash-inWater
lieu
Provider
ELCO
FCLWD
CITY
Current Cashin-lieu/AcreFoot
Water Rights Accepted
CBT Units
North Poudre Irrigation
Company (NPIC) shares
Water Supply and Storage
Company (WSSC) shares
Jackson Ditch Company
(JDC) shares
Supply
Factor
Accepts both
water rights
and cash-in-lieu
for one lot;
water rights
only for more
than one lot
For single lot only;
based on a value of
•
acre-foot unit of
CBT
•
Accepts cashin-lieu only
$25,000; based on
value of acre-foot
of CBT
None
Unknown
Unknown
$6,500; based on
market value of
accepted water
rights (last
increased in 2001)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Average
acre/foot
yield
1.92
Accepts both
water rights
and cash-in-lieu
for all
development
•
•
Credit
Factor
Arthur Irrigation Co.
Larimer County Canal No. 2
New Mercer Ditch Co.
NPIC
CBT Units
PV&LC Co.
Warren Lake Res. Co.
City Water Certificates
Josh Ames Certificates
Historic
average or
1.5
decreed
yield
Comparison of
Water Development Fees
• FCLWD does not consider size of lot (up to 3 acres) in determining
the single family PIF or RWR.
• City PIFs based on the actual plant installed and a 10-year projection
of what additional plant is needed to serve customers.
• City allows multi-family developments to use a single tap for
domestic and irrigation use. FCLWD and ELCO require separate
irrigation taps for such developments.
• Acceptance of cash-in-lieu vs. water rights
Water Development Fee Comparison
Plant Investment Fee
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot)
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on
1.0 acre)
FCU
FCLWD
ELCO
$2,640
$7,000
$7,614
$16,290
$28,000
$29,360
0.663
1.000
0.567
5.760
6.000
2.580
Cash-in-lieu (per acre-foot)
$6,500
$25,000
$32,857
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot)
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on
1.0 acre)
$4,310
$25,000
$18,630
$37,440
$100,000
$84,771
$6,950
$32,000
$26,244
$53,730
$128,000
$114,131
Raw Water Requirement
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot)
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living units on
1.0 acre)
Total Water Development Cost
Single Family (6000 sq. ft/lot)
Multifamily (per living unit based on 10 living
units on 1.0 acre)
Acre-Feet
Current Water Demands and Yields
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
55,000
31,000
25,000
14,900
6,800
City
Average annual yield
9,000
4,000
ELCO
Annual water demand
FCLWD
Firm yield
2012 Households served by
Districts in City/GMA
Fraction of Households Served
by Water District in City Limits,
2012
4.02%
Fort Collins
Utilities (Water)
14.92%
Fort Collins
Loveland Water
District
81.06%
ELCO Water
District
Fraction of Households Served
by Water District in GMA, 2012
Fort Collins
Utilities
(Water)
8.61%
15.60%
75.79%
Fort Collins
Loveland
Water District
ELCO Water
District
FUTURE DEMANDS AND FIRM YIELD
Future Water Demands
45,000
40,000
35,000
Acre-Feet
30,000
25,000
38,400
35,200
31,100
City’s Current Firm Yield = 31K AF
Annual water demand
25,000
2025 Demand Planning Level
20,000
18,000
2040 Demand Planning Level
2065 Demand Planning Level
15,000
9,600
10,000
9,000
4,000
5,000
0
City
ELCO
FCLWD
2040 Projected Households served by
Districts in City/GMA
Projected Fraction of Household
Served by Water Districts in City
Limits, 2040
Fort Collins
Utilities
(Water)
14.71%
Fort Collins
Loveland
Water District
14.57%
70.71%
ELCO Water
District
Projected Fraction of Household
Served by Water Districts in
GMA, 2040
Fort Collins
Utilities (Water)
19.78%
15.63%
64.59%
Fort Collins
Loveland Water
District
ELCO Water
District
Policy Comparison
City of Fort Collins
Water Districts (ELCO and FCLWD)
Diverse water rights portfolio that are available
the majority of the year.
Water rights portfolio relies heavily on CBT, with
only seasonal access to Poudre River supplies.
Planning based on
• Reliability (1-in-50 year drought),
• Storage reserve factor (20%),
• Planning demand level (150 gpcd).
The Districts consider dry-years and storage in
planning, however specific criteria are unknown
to City staff.
Acquire supplies before they are needed.
Acquire supplies primarily as they are needed.
Sophisticated supply planning models.
Static supply planning models.
Cash-in-lieu rate last updated in 2001; does not
reflect costs of storage or current market rates.
FCLWD updates cash-in-lieu annually; ELCO
accepts water rights, which are priced at the
current market rate.
Considerations
For Future Discussions
• City limited in options for providing firm supply to Districts
• NEPA process constraints
• Changes to water rights decrees
• City’s water rights portfolio includes limited storage. Water provided
by the City to Districts requires storage to firm supply
• Past collaborations may serve as models
• Opportunities to address affordable housing development
• Districts and staff have/continue to collaborate
Direction Sought
• Is the cost of raw water in City/GMA served by Water Districts:
• Prohibiting development; and/or,
• Prohibiting affordable housing development?
• How could the City have more input/ control over water supply
planning in areas of City/GMA served by Water Districts to facilitate
integrated planning?
• Should the City update raw water requirements and/or cash-in-lieu?
Questions