fort collins water supply and demand management policy ... · the community working group (cwg) was...

Community Working Group Memo

Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 1

Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management

Policy Update


Introduction

The Community Working Group (CWG) was formed on behalf of Fort Collins Utilities (with an invitation from the City Manager) to provide a forum for thoughtful discussion of potential refinements to the existing Water Supply and Demand Management Policy among community members with varied perspectives on water issues. This memo documents the CWG’s process and comments for the purpose of providing community input to the Water Board and City Council in their review of the Draft Policy created by Fort Collins Utilities and consultants.

This memo is organized into the following sections:

� CWG Process

− Membership

− Meeting Process

� Comments on the Revised Policy

− Overall Response

− Comments on Sections of the Policy

− Comments on Issues not Addressed in the Policy

� Review of the CWG Process � Conclusions � Attachments:

− A: CWG Roster

− B: CWG Charter

− C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings

− D Revised Policy

− E: Meeting #6 Comment Form - Compilation of Verbatim Responses

− F: Meeting #6 Minutes

Additional information on the CWG process, including meeting agendas, materials and minutes, are included on the City’s website at www.fcgov.com/wsdmp-cwg.

CWG Process

Membership

The CWG included three representatives from the Fort Collins Water Board and 16 additional members with different interests including:



� Agriculture � Environmental protection � Civic organizations � Business � Homeowners � University � State of Colorado

Members were invited to participate following a series of 27 interviews conducted between November 2010 and February 2011 that were focused on gathering data for designing the process for updating the City of Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. Barbara Lewis of Catalyst Inc. and Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth & Environmental, consultants for the Policy update, conducted the interviews. Fort Collins Utilities provided an initial list of interview candidates and additional candidates were identified during the interviews. The group roster is contained in Attachment A of this memo and Attachment B presents the CWG Charter.

Meeting Process

The CWG process began with a meeting focused on launching the effort, which involved introducing participants and understanding issues and concerns. Four subsequent meetings addressed key topics in the Policy. Project team members presented background information at each meeting. Key topics addressed and information presented and discussed are highlighted below.

� Non-Drought Water Use � Severe Drought Preparedness � Additional Supplies and Facilities � Non-Municipal Water Use

Following CWG meeting #5, the Project Team prepared a Draft Policy Update and circulated it to the CWG via Google Documents to enable members to add comments on particular sections. The Project Team then reviewed all the comments and created a Revised Policy prior to CWG meeting #6. CWG members received the Revised Policy and a compilation of comments and responses prior to CWG meeting #6.

The Project Team, comprised of Utilities staff and consultants, supported the CWG process by developing information materials and presentations, designing meeting agendas, facilitating the meetings and documenting the meetings and other input. Detailed minutes of each meeting provided a record of the working group process and discussions. CWG members had the opportunity to suggest revisions to these minutes before the Project Team posted final copies on the project SharePoint. In addition, CWG members received comment forms at each meeting to enable them to provide more detailed comments. A meeting packet with the agenda and previous meeting minutes were distributed one week in advance of the next meeting and all project materials were posted on a CWG SharePoint site. A quick evaluation at the end of each meeting provided an opportunity for CWG members to note meeting strengths and suggestions for making meetings even more productive. Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings summarizes the CWG’s input and the meeting evaluations from the first five meetings.



Comments on the Revised Policy

As stated above, most CWG members commented on an initial draft of the Policy Update via Google Documents. The Project Team then prepared a Revised Policy in response to the CWG’s first round of comments. The following summarizes what the CWG members said about the Revised Policy during meeting #6 and in writing in response to the meeting #6 Comment Form. Comments on Revised Policy are organized as follows:

� Overall response to the Policy, which presents the CWG’s level of support for the Revised Policy and each CWG member’s highest priority strength and suggested change to the Revised Policy

� Comments on Sections of the Policy, which presents a summary of the comments CWG members submitted in writing in response to each section of the Revised Policy

� Other Issues Not Addressed in the Policy

Overall Response

At CWG meeting #6, many CWG members were pleased that the group reached common ground on much of the Revised Policy. The facilitator invited the CWG members to express their overall response to the Revised Policy using the following “level of agreement” scale:

1. = Full support 2. = Support with reservations 3. = Do not support

Of the 15 members in attendance, 8 expressed full support (two in writing on their comment forms as they had to leave early), 6 supported the revised Policy with reservations and 1 did not support the revised Policy but stated that he would neither support nor oppose the Policy. Many members were pleased that the Revised Draft was responsive to the CWG comments and there appeared to be a general feeling that the Revised Policy is heading in the right direction, although several members felt it should go further in some areas.

The following discussion highlights strengths and suggested improvements to the Revised Policy. Following the polling on level of agreement, each member stated one “Like” or strength of the Policy and one “Dislike” or suggestion for improvement.

Strengths of the Revised Policy that were repeated in the comments were as follows:

� The emphasis on agricultural preservation and water sharing � The emphasis on protection of instream flows � Presenting Fort Collins Utilities as a leader in water resource planning � Inclusion of climate change � Creating a well organized and comprehensive Policy � Reflecting the CWG’s diverse views in the Policy

Notes recorded in the meeting on the flipchart about what members liked in the Revised Policy are as follows:

� Incorporated aspects regarding respect for needs of agriculture and working with

agriculture



� Continuing from previous Policy and taking into consideration different concerns

� Good Policy

� Included being a Leader in the Policy

� More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing

� More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing, heard what the CWG said

� Comprehensive, addresses climate change

� Like climate change, streams, rivers, agriculture. All encompassing.

� Water sharing and interrelation between city and agriculture

� Well organized and comprehensive – at right level, addresses climate change

� Likes new 4.1 and other beneficial purposes. Appreciate Utility’s hearing the group’s input;

hope specifics follow.

� Very good Policy. Started thinking take out the #’s but now thinks they are the railings on

the bridge. Don’t turn everything over to Utility staff to decide.

� Appreciate strong, diverse group providing Policy input. Excellent choice of process. Like

the 3 planning criteria.

� Remarkable agreement by the group

Some of the recurring themes in what CWG members noted as “Dislikes” or areas for improvement in the Revised Policy were:

� Lowering the planning demand level (suggestions ranged between 120 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 153 gpcd)

� Recognition of the importance of preserving the quality and taste of Fort Collins water � Clearly enabling discussions about water sharing, especially related to midterm and long

term arrangements � Strengthening language on working with other providers

Notes recorded in the meeting on the flipchart on dislikes or desired changes in the Revised Policy are as follows:

� p. 8 3rd sentence….replace rental with sharing. Policy should be straightforward in

directing the City to form a work group to explore water sharing and other collaborative

agreements with agriculture.

� Need to recognize that it matters how and where you get water from, especially with respect

to water quality

� Instream flows important. Be clear on meaning of “exceed regulatory requirements”

� FC best tasting water – great tasting water.

� Lower planning demand water level – 153?

� Working with other municipal providers that serve FC residents. Don’t imply that other

providers need to act more like us.

� Reword places where it is Policy not opinion

� Take out the numbers – The Policy is the bases for response to whatever the city is facing.

� Arrangement with water sharing better defined with more emphasis on Long Term Sharing

(not year to year)

� Shoot for 140 gpcd. Should not inflate it so much higher.

� Adjust numbers to fit John’s proposal – 140 gpcd. 15% is key and it is too low but may be

the only thing we can get.



� Policy is too weak on working with other providers. Suggest aggressively seek

collaboration. (Example is Denver metro pooling of infrastructure – treatment, storage, etc.)

� Structure: Thought of 2.0 as Core Values for decision-making. Add overt statement on

environmental responsibility, financial responsibility, and water quality value.

� Will submit letter on how can be improved. Most of ideas are in online comments on

previous draft.

Comments on Sections of the Policy

This section presents comments on sections of the Revised Policy and includes both comments voiced at CWG meeting #6 and those submitted in writing. The version of the Revised Policy on which these comments are based is included as Attachment D. The Comment Form distributed at meeting #6 asked each respondent to indicate their level of agreement with the section; the tally of responses for each section represents ratings by those who included their ratings in their written responses (a few members did not complete this section). Attachment E is a Compilation of Verbatim Responses from the Meeting #6 Comment Form and Attachment F: Meeting #6 Minutes provides additional detail on the discussion of the Revised Policy.

Introduction and Objective

The nine CWG members who rated the section on Introduction and Objective all gave it full support. Specific strengths were that it provided a “good overview” and “commitment to the triple bottom line and sustainability.” Suggestions included broadening the objectives to address water supply core values related to financial and environmental responsibility; in particular, one CWG member suggested adding the following objectives or values:

� Environmental value, such as making decisions about supply and demand should be done in an environmentally responsible manner,

� Financial value, such as address potential adverse economic impacts, for example study the financial impacts of a 1-in-100 year drought criterion,

� Water quality value, such as maintain the watershed yet also address emergency situations such as a wildfire.

Another member raised a concern that the phrase “meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend” may be “greenwashing” and questioned whether this language should be changed or the Policy changed to better reflect this intent.

1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management

In these comments, CWG members addressed sections 1.0 on Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management and subsections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 on Water Use Efficiency Goals, the Water Use Efficiency Program and Water Rate Structures. These sections received full support from eight members and support with reservations from two members. Strengths noted were the addition of supporting information for the numbers presented in the section and the commitment to 140 gpcd. Suggestions for improvement were as follows:

� Present supporting information in footnotes

Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management 11/8/11

� Avoid the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in landscaping”

� Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without considering the effects of climate change on water demand.”

� Recognize how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections for water supply needs and storage.

� Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below this in Fort Collins and Fort Collins shoulconservation…”

2.0 Water Supply Reliability

In these comments, CWG members addressed subsections 2.1 Water Supply Planning CriteriaShortage Response Plan. These sections received full support from five members and support with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on this section of the Revised Policymeeting followed by a summary of comments submitted in writing.

Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring to the numbers used in defining the Water Supply Planning Criteria. InPolicy, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a brief presentation explaining the criteria. In particumanaging risk in Utilities’ Policy


Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo

void the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in

Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without considering the effects of climate change on water demand.”

ze how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections for water supply needs and storage. Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below this in Fort Collins and Fort Collins should “lead forward on the path of aggressive water

In these comments, CWG members addressed Section 2.0 on Water Supply Reliability and Water Supply Planning Criteria, 2.2 Climate Change and 2.3

. These sections received full support from five members and support with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on

Policy, the summary below presents comments made during the meeting followed by a summary of comments submitted in writing.

Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring to the numbers used in defining the Water Supply Planning Criteria. In commenting on the Draft

, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a brief presentation explaining the criteria. In particular, he noted how there are four pieces to

Policy.


6

void the phrase “reasonable landscape transformation” and replace it with “changes in

Don’t cast doubt on the water conservation goal by qualifying it as established “without

ze how assumptions about gpcd and population growth directly influence projections

Set a lower goal for water conservation than140 gpcd. Water use has already dropped below d “lead forward on the path of aggressive water

2.0 on Water Supply Reliability and and 2.3 Water Supply

. These sections received full support from five members and support with reservations from four members. Since much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on

comments made during the

Much of the discussion at meeting #6 focused on what members called “the numbers,” referring commenting on the Draft

, many CWG members noted questions and disagreement with various aspects of the Planning Criteria. In response, Lee Rozaklis of AMEC Earth and Environmental delivered a

lar, he noted how there are four pieces to



The Planning Demand Level is the per capita water use assumed for Utility customers; combined with population projections and large contractual water uses, the Planning Demand Level is used to project future water demand. The Revised Policy includes 162 gpcd for the Planning Demand Level, which is equivalent to the average use between 2006 and 2010 adjusted to reflect increased usage based on the 50th percentile climate change scenario for the year 2040. The Drought Criterion expresses the reliability of the Utilities’ supply system before it might experience water shortages. The Revised Policy states that Fort Collins’ water supply system should be able to meet the planning demand level during at least a 1-in-50 year drought event. The Safety Factor is a reserve or contingency for unforeseen circumstances like a pipeline failure. The Revised Policy includes a Safety Factor of 15% of the Utility’s annual supply, which is equivalent to 3 months of winter demand or 1 month of summer demand. Finally, the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan provides a way to respond to projected water shortages, most notably from droughts that are more severe than the 1-in-50 year recurrence.

CWG members had a rich discussion about whether the Water Supply Planning Criteria numbers in the Revised Policy (162 gpcd planning demand level, 1-in-50 year drought criterion and 15% safety factor) were the right numbers to use. Several members felt the numbers were too conservative while several others thought they were about right. Initially, the facilitator asked that each person indicate whether the degree of reliability represented by the Planning Criteria as a whole should be as proposed in the Revised Policy or decreased or increased. Several members were concerned that asking to decrease reliability or increase risk biased the response and suggested looking at each of the “numbers” separately. The following presents results for how many people favored which numbers and the comments recorded on flipcharts in support of each choice.

Planning Demand Level

Perspective Number of CWG Members Comments Noted

162 gpcd 6 About right Good place to start

153 gpcd 2 - 3* Safe box achievements which reflects variability already There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor creep)

140 gpcd 1 - 2* There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor creep) Our stated goal is 140 gpcd. We should achieve that goal. It is not terribly aggressive. Even if you want to account for climate change, 140 gpcd + 6% = 148.4. Looking beyond the Front Range, we see plenty of examples below 140 gpcd.

120 gpcd 1 *One CWG member supported both 140 and 153 for the same reason.

Other comments in the discussion included:

� Future water use will decrease not increase. Since this Policy is going to set planning precedence for the next ten years, it would be accurate to assume that demands will continue to drop.

� Use 153 gpcd as that is what is the average of the last few years and it allows for fluctuations � Customers will continue to lower water consumption in response to water cost increases,

education and climate change so future demand will decrease



� Both the water conservation goal and the planning demand level should be lower and based on sound scientific calculations

Drought Criterion

Perspective Number of CWG Members

Comments Noted

1-in-50 5

1-in-75 1 Expect climate change to increase drought severity. This needs more conservative planning.

1-in-100 2 1-in-50 is not conservative enough Study this first before we commit to it. What is the impact? Does it meet values test?

Other comments in the discussion included:

� Having been around for the droughts of 1930s, 1950s, 1970s and 2002, suggests being more conservative with a criterion of 1-in-100 year. Need to study the 1-in-25, 1-in-50, 1-in-75 and 1-in-100 to know what the implications are economically and for reservoir planning. Information presented on climate change is questionable but still feels that there is cause for additional conservatism.

� We could look at what it would mean to adopt 1-in-100 but this could be a huge task. We would need to study the financial and other implications and consistency with our core values.

� Consider 1-in-40 rather than 1-in-50 for the drought criterion � What really matters is the seniority of Utilities’ water rights portfolio. “If a city has a secure

portfolio with lots of senior direct flow rights, it is much more impervious to drought.”

Safety Factor

Perspective Number of CWG Members

Comments Noted

15% 9

Other comments raised in the discussion included:

� The label for the safety factor is misleading. Call it a water reserve, strategic reserve or contingency.

� Safety factor may be too low but anything higher may be infeasible.

Other general comments in the discussion included:

� The Policy should be a bag of tools that can be used to address problems in the proper way. In 2002 and 2003, agricultural water was leased, yet this was not specifically written down anywhere in advance. It was allowed because the Policy was flexible enough to allow it to happen.

� Use agricultural reserves as a safety factor. � Policy needs to give direction on how to approach water sharing. We need to figure out how

many irrigators need to participate to participate in water sharing for the needed yield.



� Future agricultural agreements should be developed in advance of droughts that specify an expected amount of water farmers would give up during a drought.

� It is unrealistic to think of agriculture as a safety factor given that farmers do not have that much supply and will have even less in the future.

� The CWG has not been given adequate information to make a judgment on these numbers � With the high water use goal, the drought criterion, the safety factor, the higher planning

demand level and the City’s water response to climate change, it seems as if the Policy has a “built-in quintuple safety factor.”

� Need to be clear about the implications of these numbers and what they mean for the Halligan Reservoir enlargement

As described above, CWG members have different perspectives on what “numbers” are best for this Policy. When asked for the level of agreement with the Policy if the “numbers” were set aside, everyone but one person gave full support and the one remaining member would support the Policy with reservations. CWG members discussed a proposal to remove the specific numbers for the planning demand level, drought criterion and safety factor. Two people favored this approach for different reasons. One felt the numbers do not provide enough flexibility to address changing circumstances. The other felt that the implications of the numbers are not clear; “we don’t really know what a 1-in-25 or a 1-in-50 years looks like in the city or what the city would look like if the planning demand level was 90 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd.” In the end, most of the members felt that the “numbers” were important to provide direction to Utilities. As one member said, “the numbers provide rails on the bridge.”

On the meeting #6 comment forms, CWG members offered the following additional suggestions for revisions:

� Clarify the intent of the conservation goal and the planning demand level; the conservation goal deals with an “efficiency goal” and the planning demand level deals with “risk”

� Add a commitment to “aggressively seek collaboration with the City’s neighboring water providers.”

� 2.0 should be a list of core values. Add environmental, economic impact and water quality values.

� Remove redundancy in this section � Climate change is mentioned 20 times in the document and was used as a scare tactic. To

address climate change, “1. Use the best available science, quantify the likely impact, and then include that impact with margins of error in one spot in the Policy. “ and 2. Cut water use “and begin switching away from a high water-use economy. This Policy update only offers one response to the threat of climate change – more water and bigger facilities.”

2.4 Water Supply Reliability - Additional Supplies and Facilities

Section 2.4 on Additional Supplies and Facilities and subsections 2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development, 2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies and 2.4.3 Facilities received full support from eight members. CWG members strongly support agricultural preservation and would like to see Utilities continue to work with different interests to explore the strengths of different options, including water sharing and other collaborative arrangements. Many members feel the policy should be more straightforward in directing the city to convene a task force to explore water sharing and other collaborative arrangements that



address both agricultural preservation and environmental benefits. One strength noted was the flexibility in supply choices. Suggestions for improvements included:

� Stressing diversity as a key value � Explain the rationale of growth pays its own way for why developers turn in water � Need to more fully address the potential for sharing water with farmers. “Sharing water with

farmers was supported by everyone in the meetings and should be a large part of Fort Collins future water supply” rather than an afterthought.

� Questions need for storage based on overstated reliability numbers. � Address additional water supplies such as “using farms as reservoirs” as was done in the

2002/2003 drought and purchasing additional senior direct flow rights.

3.0 Treated and Raw Water Quality

Section 3.0 on Treated and Raw Water Quality received full support from the eight members who rated this section on their comment forms. No suggestions for improvement were offered but a couple CWG members recognized the high quality and taste of Fort Collins water and the need to continue to make this a priority.

4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water

In these comments, CWG members addressed section 4.0 on Use of Surplus Raw Water and subsections 4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes (Agriculture and Open Space, Instream Flows and Other Arrangements). These sections received full support from the eight members who completed this section of the comment form. In particular, many CWG members were pleased to see the commitment to agriculture and the environment in these sections.

Suggested improvements included the following:

� Edit some of the language and remove redundancies � Flip the order of 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 as “I believe Utility customers are more interested in water

in the Poudre than ag production” � Strengthen this section by making instream flows “more of an imperative.”

5.0 Regional Cooperation

In these comments, CWG members addressed section 5.0 Regional Cooperation, and subsections 5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers, 5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies, and 5.3 Working with Others. These sections received full support from six members and support with reservations from two members. One CWG member noted support for the last sentence, which indicates that Utilities is “accepting the role of ‘leader’ on water supply planning that respects all community interests.” Suggested changes included:

� Include working with Northern Water and Central, not just irrigation companies � Stress the opportunity to share facilities with regional entities � Reference to Colorado building and supplying water is not correct. Change Colorado to

growing municipalities.



Comments on Issues not Addressed in the Policy

In reviewing the Policy, one CWG member noted population growth, costs and environmental impacts as missing issues in the Policy. These concerns are noted verbatim in Attachment E: Meeting #6 Comment Form: Compilation of Verbatim Responses and summarized briefly below.

� Population growth - While the CWG raised this as an issue in meeting #1, future population growth projected by the City is a given in the Revised Policy. The CWG member notes that population growth is “the main factor influencing the need for more water and the destruction of northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape” and that the interactions between population growth and water supply is an important issue to address in the Policy.

� The process should have spent considerably more time on costs and environmental impacts, especially as they relate to the proposed enlarged reservoir.

Review of CWG Process

CWG members provided feedback on the overall process on the comment forms distributed at meeting #6. CWG members noted several strengths of the process:

� Producing a specific document with a high level of agreement � Informative presentations � Good facilitation � Excellent debates and discussions � Adapting to member input, leading to real changes in the Policy � Worked well given very little time and the very diverse views of the CWG � Common commitment to working toward sustainability � Respect for diversity and listening to others � Very respectful dialogue with everyone heard � Surfaced areas of disagreement as well as agreement � More common ground among diverse interest groups than most of us expected � “Almost finding” consensus

With respect to suggestions for improvement, one member suggested slower delivery of information in the beginning to allow all members to get up to speed. While recognizing that it is hard to get people to show up for 6 meetings, one member felt that there was “too much material to cover in the 6 meetings.” Another member noted that the extra information meeting hosted by staff to answer questions and provide additional discussion was poorly attended; he suggested seeking input and discussion after each presentation. Another member would like to see more “information on how the Utility uses the Policy and what is required to produce water and how it is impacted by the Policy.”

At the last meeting, many members commented that they were surprised and pleased by the “remarkable agreement within the group.” At the same time, while many members appreciated the diverse representation on the CWG, some members found the volume of information overwhelming. Many comments suggested that the second, third and fourth meeting had too much time spent on presentations and too little on discussion and that the fifth and sixth meetings, where there was more time for discussion, were especially productive. Additional comments on the meetings is included in the Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings.



Conclusion

In conclusion, the group of 19 CWG members met 6 times between March and October 2011 to provide input on the Policy Update. In the final “synthesis” meeting, CWG members were both pleased and surprised by how much agreement they had reached on the Revised Policy. Of the 15 members in attendance, 8 expressed full support, 6 supported the revised Policy with reservations and one did not support the revised Policy but stated that he would neither support nor oppose the Policy publicly.

In commenting on the Revised Policy, there was one principle area where CWG members had divergent views: the Planning criteria numbers. CWG members differed on whether the Planning Criteria numbers (162 gpcd planning demand level, 1-in-50 year drought criterion and 15% safety factor) were the right numbers to use. Recognizing this area of disagreement, the group explored their level of support for the Revised Policy if the numbers were set aside. Everyone either fully supported the policy or supported it with reservations.

With respect to specific numbers in the Revised Policy, several people felt that the Planning Demand Level of 162 gpcd was too conservative while slightly more thought it was about right. Suggestions for revising the Planning Demand Level were 153 gpcd, 140 gpcd and 120 gpcd. There was also considerable interest in additional research to explore community preferences with respect to water use and landscaping. (Note: Utilities committed to conduct a customer survey and bring results forward to the Water Board and City Council prior to policy approval. This survey is being conducted and CWG members will be included in the polling.) In looking at the drought criterion, most members supported the 1-in-50 year drought criterion but some of the members favored additional conservatism and suggested looking at 1-in-100 or 1-in-75 years. There appeared to be widespread support of the Safety Factor of 15%. CWG members also offered the following as their “highest priority” revisions to the Revised Policy: � Strengthen the language on working with other providers in the area. � More explicitly recognize and commit to preserve the quality and taste of Fort Collins water. � Clearly enable discussions of water sharing, with an emphasis on medium to long term

arrangements. � Add core values related to environmental responsibility, financial responsibility, and water

quality.

Finally, the CWG noted the following key strengths in the Revised Policy:

� The emphasis on agricultural preservation and water sharing � The emphasis on protection of instream flows � Presenting Fort Collins Utilities as a leader in water resource planning � Considering sustainability that includes agriculture and the environment � Inclusion of climate change � Creating a well organized and comprehensive Policy � Reflecting the CWG’s diverse views in the Policy



Between October 31 and November 4, CWG members reviewed a revised version of the CWG Memo that responded to their comments on the first draft. All respondents approved the memo as a fair representation of their comments and no one stated opposition to the memo. Several people stated that they felt the CWG Memo should more clearly indicate the strong support, without dissent, for water sharing and other types of collaboration with agriculture. These members also suggested that the policy should direct the City to form a task force to study water sharing and other agricultural agreements. (This issue will be taken back to the Water Board as agreed to at a previous meeting where the Water Board tabled the issue until completion of the Policy.)


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8//11 Attachment A.1

Attachment A: CWG

Roster

CWG Members

� K-Lynn Cameron � Bill Emslie � Mark Forsyth � Johannes Gessler � Lewis Grant � Neil Grigg � Gina Janett � David Mack � Jenn Orgolini � Matt Robenalt � Holly Jo Roseberry � Barbara Rutstein � John Sanderson � George Varra � George Wallace � Dennis Wallisch � Steve Warner � Reagan Waskom � Gary Wockner � *Nolan Doesken – Originally invited to serve on the CWG but did not continue due to

scheduling conflicts.

Project Team

Fort Collins Utilities

� Donnie Dustin, Project Manager � Dennis Bode

AMEC Earth & Environmental

� Lee Rozaklis � Courtney Peppler

Catalyst Inc.

� Barbara Lewis


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 Attachment B.1

Attachment B: CWG Charter


Policy Update

Community Working Group Charter

This charter is intended to help clarify the role and process for the Community Working Group. In developing this draft Charter, the project team incorporated ideas from individual interviews with potential group members completed prior to our first group meeting. This draft charter will be reviewed and refined at the first meeting of the Community Working Group to produce a final charter.

Purpose of the Policy Update

The current Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (Policy) was adopted by Council in September 2003 (Resolution 2003-104). Since the Policy’s adoption, the Utility has seen a significant reduction in water use while continuing to plan for future water needs by pursuing the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. Updating the Policy will provide further direction regarding the planning, management, and maintenance of the City’s water supply system needed to assure a safe, reliable drinking water supply and provide an appropriate level of water conservation. It will also provide guidance on how the City may use its valuable water resources to meet other beneficial purposes for its citizens and the surrounding community.

Scope

The technical coordination and public outreach activities associated with the Policy update will be integrated to address the following key questions:

� What is an appropriate level of water use in Fort Collins during non-drought years? � What is an appropriate level of reliability when planning for severe drought or other water

supply vulnerabilities? � Given an appropriate level of water use and reliability, what sources of supply and associated

facilities are needed? � How should the City use its surplus water in the future, while considering the benefits and

costs of the competing desires to increase flows in the Poudre River through the City, provide support to local agriculture and promote regional cooperation?

Community Working Group Role and Deliverables

The Community Working Group (CWG) will provide a forum for thoughtful discussion of potential refinements to the existing Policy among community members with varied perspectives on water issues. With the assistance of the project team, the CWG will develop a memorandum describing issues identified by the CWG related to the city’s Water Supply and Demand Management Policy and suggested actions for addressing those issues. The memorandum will


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11.8/11 Attachment B.2

also list priorities identified by the CWG. It will reflect where there is agreement within the CWG on their findings and where CWG members disagree and why. The CWG will be asked to reach consensus on the memorandum as a fair and accurate summary of its discussions and input to the Update. City staff will present this memorandum to the Water Board and the City Council.

CWG Study Process

Through a series of regular meetings, the CWG will provide input to the project team regarding potential refinements to the Policy. A draft Timeline for CWG meetings is attached as Figure 1. This timeline will be refined based on the CWG’s input on which issues are of greatest import.

The project team will prepare and distribute meeting agendas and relevant supporting information prior to each CWG meeting. Background information and previous meeting minutes will be compiled and distributed at least 1 week in advance of the next meeting. A quick evaluation at the end of each meeting will provide an opportunity for CWG members to suggest what is working and how to make meetings even more productive. To provide the information needed while avoiding information overload, additional information will be made available electronically.

Other Roles and Responsibilities

Fort Collins City Council will be involved through updates, worksession(s) and eventual adoption of Policy Update.

The Water Board will be the central advisory body. They will be asked to provide input to the Policy Update and to provide comments and recommendations prior to review by City Council. Three Water Board members will be liaisons with the rest of the board as CWG members.

The Utilities Team will include staff that is supported by the consulting team of AMEC Earth & Environmental and Catalyst Inc. The Utilities Team will manage the Policy Update by preparing materials for review and discussion by the CWG, Water Board and City Council, performing additional public outreach, producing reports and developing the revised Policy recommendations.

Other City Boards will be offered an opportunity to review and provide input on the Policy Update through presentations. These boards may include:

� The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board � The Natural Resources Advisory Board � The Planning and Zoning Board � Parks & Recreation Board � Economic Advisory Board � Downtown Development Authority � Others as needed

The Facilitators will support the CWG in accomplishing the tasks at hand. The Facilitators are responsible for keeping the process moving forward in an effective and productive way and are responsible for maintaining the CWG ground rules.


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11.8/11 Attachment B.3

Other Interested Individuals will have the opportunity to learn about the plan process through the website and other public outreach activities. Meeting materials and supporting information will be posted on the website so that people can track the progress of the process. Others may also attend CWG meetings as observers with an opportunity to comment at designated times during CWG meetings. Interested individuals may also submit comments via the website or through e-mail to the project manager.

Commitments

Practice inclusive participation

� Keep open minds

� Listen well to understand different perspectives and ideas

� Allow time for everyone to be heard; avoid domination by a few

� Be hard on the issues, but easy on each other; avoid personal attacks

� Provide an opportunity for public comment at meetings

Be efficient with our time for meetings

� Share the responsibility to stay on task and adhere to time constraints � Be willing to “agree to disagree” and move on � Participate in subcommittees if and when needed � Avoid rehashing past meetings

Be accountable for meaningful participation

� Commit to consistently attend meetings; if you are absent, take responsibility for getting up to speed

� Communicate between meetings with the project team and CWG members as needed

� Come to meetings prepared and follow through on commitments

Share responsibility to achieve our purpose

� Focus on the big picture; avoid a long drawn-out process � Listen for common ground � Respect different perspectives (CWG, staff, Water Board, City Council) � Hold Project Team accountable for accurate and timely record-keeping

Show respect for the process and the CWG’s role

� Honor the CWG’s process and efforts

� Support City Council as the final decision maker � In speaking to the media and others, present individual views and avoid characterizing

others’ opinions or representing the views of the CWG

Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11

Figure 1 Timeline


Update Community Working Group Memo


Attachment B.4


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 Attachment C.1

Attachment C: Synopsis of CWG Meetings

This attachment includes a synopsis of the first five CWG meetings. More detailed meeting minutes are posted on the City’s website.

Meeting #1: Issues

In the first meeting, CWG members explained their core issues and voted on the issues of greatest importance. The chart below lists the issues identified by the project team based on the interview results as well as additional issues listed by the CWG during meeting #1. The numbers adjacent to the various issues reflects results of the CWG’s prioritization of the issues; issues receiving more than one vote are highlighted in bold. This prioritization helped inform the agenda for each CWG meeting.

Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Issues*

Non-Drought Municipal Use

� Management through pricing � Increase in rates as revenues from tap fees decline � Water reuse (1) � Embracing best management practices in partnership

with innovative businesses. (1) � Consistent supply of good quality water (5)

� Use of conserved water given physical, legal and financial realities (instream flow vs. more growth vs. increased reliability?)

� Potential for additional savings through conservation vs. aesthetics/quality of life (1)

� Raw water quality – Increased water acquisitions by neighboring

communities (1) – Effect of climate change on water demand

Additional Facilities and Supplies

� Need for additional storage and other facilities (5)

� Municipal/agricultural water sharing agreements for

water supply (5) � Gravel pit storage � Raw water quality of new supplies � Aquifer storage � Developer requirements (1) � Assured carryover capacity in CBT system � Utilities’ fiscal responsibility to the ratepayers

Severe Drought Preparedness

� Reliability of CBT water in the face of increased demand on Colorado River rights, including Colorado Compact call (1)

� Adequacy of existing reliability criteria and

drought supply (4) � Equity in water use restrictions during drought (1) � Effect of conservation on drought preparedness � Effect of climate change in drought planning (1) � Maintenance of infrastructure to preserve full storage

capacity � Adaptive management � Supply and demand side uncertainties and the need

for a safety factor (1) � Impairment to raw water quality during drought

Non-Municipal Uses

� Minimum flows for aquatic populations (2) � Recreational base flows � River health and biodiversity (9)

� Urban interface with the Poudre River (3) � Regional cooperation and collaboration (1) � Municipal/agricultural water sharing for agricultural

preservation (7)

� Agricultural water use efficiency � Open space and natural areas

*Issues identified during stakeholder interviews and organized by category with results of CWG dot voting



New Issues

� Legal Constraints such as gray water and rain barrel use; legal constraints on instream

flow restoration or preservation (4)

� Operation and maintenance of existing facilities, e.g., dredge existing reservoirs to increase storage capacity

� Watershed health management (2)

� Vulnerability analysis � Agricultural preservation in land use decisions and land use planning � Growth management – demand reduction and agricultural land preservation (2)

� List core values address each valve – missing values, group all issues under core values

(2)

Meeting #2: Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management

Conservation emerged as a complex topic with many members frustrated that data on the potential for additional conservation is limited. Many want to find that right balance between lowering water use and maintaining the City’s aesthetics while others believe there needs to be a shift in how people use water, leading toward greater sustainability. Some members are concerned that conservation will adversely affect today’s residents for the benefit of future growth.

At the meeting on water use efficiency and demand management, CWG members provided input on:

� The Water Conservation Goal � Additional information needs � The Planning Goal

Water Conservation Goal

CWG members commented on what water conservation goal is appropriate for the City at this point in time, given declining water use by City customers coupled with concerns about future water supplies. The existing Water Conservation Plan includes a goal of 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).

CWG members stated that addressing the triple bottom line means that the goal should encompass all sectors of water use and be tied to both supply and demand. Some CWG members feel strongly that the goal should be inspirational with Fort Collins taking a leadership position in the state, looking at 120 gpcd or perhaps even lower. “Be bold and aggressive.” Others are concerned about how a lower goal will affect today’s residents: “Don’t squeeze existing residents to meet the needs of future populations.” Between these two views, is the perspective that while 140 gpcd may be too high for a goal given current trends (increased costs, retrofits to landscaping at older homes, etc.), the level can be modified through water conservation planning.

Many members appeared to share the view that it is important to explain the rationale for the goal and its impact on customers and quality of life in Fort Collins. In particular, suggestions included articulating:



� The benefits of the specific level chosen � What the goal means for both indoor and outdoor water use � How this level affects local food production, recreation, the health of the river, etc. � How the goal will affect maintaining infrastructure, the rate structure, system reliability, the

resource portfolio, and water reserve.

Conservation Survey

The CWG feels it is important to understand the water needs of landscaping and how additional conservation is likely to affect landscaping as well as how the community views conservation. The project team committed to conducting a survey to assess how Utility customers view additional outdoor water conservation. CWG members provided input on what to communicate to customers about water use and what to ask to assess the community’s interest in additional water conservation:

What to communicate to people:

� How costs are going up � How water conservation serves quality of life goals � How conservation results in increased rates � What tradeoffs have been made to get to current consumption levels � What additional tradeoffs would be needed to get to 140 gpcd

What to ask customers:

� What value do community members place on various landscape components (trees, shrubs and forbs, gardens, turf)?

� Would you be willing to implement turf management to be able to keep a garden? � What sacrifices are you willing to make for river health? � How much leadership should Fort Collins provide in protecting flows in the Poudre River?

Planning Goal

CWG members were asked if they supported the Utility proposal of having a conservation goal and a planning goal that includes a contingency for uncertainties like climate change. One comment was that a planning range needs to take into account climate and Policy changes, shifts in population and growth made sense. No one opposed this approach but there were comments that the time horizon would need to be clear and the goals would need to be expressed in the context of what they would achieve.

Other Comments

CWG members were also concerned that other water providers need to be involved in discussions about conservation. There is no regional approach to water supplies and demands, although the state is moving in this direction. Local governments need to talk about opportunities to work together.

Several members also feel strongly that water supply and demand Policy is an obvious place for integrating land use and planning. “We don’t get anywhere with the philosophy that the Utilities



responsibility is to only serve water.” Water is key to land development, which creates wealth, so we need to look at land use and water together.

Meeting #3: Water Supply Reliability Criteria

Project team members provided background information on Utilities’ 2003 Policy related to preparedness for severe drought and shared research on how other water providers in the state approach drought response. CWG members were asked to comment on the adequacy of Utilities’ current approach by addressing the following questions:

� Does our approach to water supply reliability provide a responsible level of drought preparedness?

� Does our approach to the safety factor provide an appropriate contingency for emergencies? � In a water supply shortage situation, how would you prioritize any needed water use

reductions?

Reliability Criterion

While views on climate change vary, many members see a need to be conservative in preparing for drought and climate change. When asked to choose what level of reliability they thought would be best for the City, almost half the members expressed support for the existing 1-in-50 year reliability criterion stating that this approach is working and there is no need to change it while about the same number suggested increasing the drought criteria (perhaps to 1:100), noting a preference for being conservative given the number of uncertainties. A few members did not choose, noting that they would need to understand the whole picture before answer the question. Their views were captured subsequently in commenting on the draft Policy.

Safety Factor

Most of the group supported keeping the safety factor at 15% or increasing it but several members stated that the issue is too connected to other factors to say at this time.

Reasons expressed for supporting 15% or higher were:

� Provides flexibility to address a number of unknown factors � We should use partnerships with agriculture as a safety factor; however, there is so little

water left in agriculture, this approach has limitations. � We can’t rely on traditional means to get more water so we need a larger safety factor.

The primary reason expressed by CWG members who preferred to hold off on addressing the safety factor was that the level of the safety factor is too interconnected with other issues like storage and the drought criterion.

Water Use Reductions in a Drought

One person expressed support for looking at the tiered structure Boulder has where there are different levels of criteria while another commented that there should be just one criterion for reliability but different levels for drought response. Another suggestion was to explore potential savings in the commercial sector.



CWG members had several suggestions for enhancing drought preparedness:

� Buy senior water rights as a strategy for drought protection � In next revision to Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, look at historical data to identify

years in which Fort Collin’s water supplies reached a warning limit and evaluate the cause. � Build stronger relationships between the city and agriculture as a method of drought

protection � Explore drought response measures for the commercial sector. � Need to have a regional approach to problem solving, especially drought preparedness. � Need to have a plan for the other 20% of Fort Collins’ residents who live within other

districts. What will the City do if they run out of water?

Meeting #4: Water Supply Reliability – Additional Supplies and Facilities

The meeting on Alternative Facilities and Supplies involved mostly presentations and questions and answers, with limited time for sharing and discussion CWG views. To assess views, the Project Team asked participants to complete worksheets indicating their preferences for supply options and 7 members handed in these sheets at the end of the meeting. Results, tabulated below, show preferences for a wide range of options without a clear preference for any one source of supply. The discussion was continued in meeting #5 and comments from both meetings are highlighted below.

Many members were concerned that the presentation focused too much on the limitations of alternatives to additional storage and called on Utilities to work to figure out how to address the limitations, especially with respect to creating water sharing arrangements that are workable given water law and agricultural and municipal needs. Another perspective was that the information was helpful in understanding the complexity involved.

The discussion of alternatives revealed that the CWG appears to be unified in its strong support for agricultural preservation. This topic is discussed further in the following section.

In meeting #5, CWG members were asked to comment about enhancing storage for the purpose of providing benefits to the river. Reponses were mixed. Several members see a connection between Halligan enlargement and enhancing river flows. One comment noted: “The purpose of the Halligan enlargement should include supplying storage for river flows as one of its purposes. Sizing should take into consideration storage for drought years, lower water use per capita and for river flows.” Two people indicated that additional storage is detrimental to the environment and should not be pursued but one of these felt that including enhanced river flows in the Halligan Enlargement might be acceptable. Other comments were:

� May require a vote � The question is biased toward a new and bigger dam. Don’t put choices in silos. � Halligan should not be the only storage alternative � The City should be prepared for the possibility that only NISP will be permitted.



Another view was that the City should more explicitly consider existing and potential future infrastructure for regional benefits.

One member felt the group should focus on four choices: 1) no new storage, 2) Halligan Reservoir only, 3) NISP only and 4) Halligan and NISP.

At the end of the meeting, CWG members completed comment forms with their preferences with respect to facilities and supplies. Each person checked the items that represented the most promising sources of supply to meet future needs. Seven CWG members submitted comment forms and their responses are tallied in the table below.

Alternative # CWG Comments

Acquire more irrigation company shares

More CBT units 3 - Higher (upstream) older more senior rights may reduce storage needs. - Change raw water requirements of developers

- Shares in upstream companies

2 First preference to NPIC and second to WSSC - Try other alternatives first - Acquisitions in these companies would give more flexibility

- Shares in downstream companies

- Why bother? Need to change raw water requirement in Policy.

Other

1 - More flow for growth with location to optimize storage advantage

Water Sharing

Water Sharing - overall

2 – Need careful work on these. This option produces many additional benefits (food shed, open space, wildlife habitat, community separators, ground water recharge, flood surge protection, shared infrastructure, reduced carbon footprint, etc.) - Understand it is more complicated and it may be worth it! Important to keep agricultural land in production.

Dry-year leases 2 - Opportunities to lease in drought with farmers by providing predictable water during average years to farms. Can provide drought protection with possibly lower leasing costs to City. Include agricultural sharing as a drought protection mechanism. – Evaluate as companion activities to flow and storage acquisition

Rotational Fallowing 1

Purchase lease-back

1 - Work out arrangement with NPIC for interruptible supply and put in Policy

Other

Additional Storage

Additional Storage - overall

1 Consider all of these. It will require an alternatives analysis. Best to diversify to keep storage distributed.

Build new reservoir

Enlarge existing reservoir

2 – Find a way to let Corps know about its potential for water sharing

Acquire existing reservoirs

1



Alternative # CWG Comments

Gravel pits 3 - Pilot some - Careful selection of existing gravel pits for storage with least harmful impact to riparian corridor – Gravel pit storage for return flows and local irrigation. Doesn’t need high water quality. Not all Halligan storage; multiple storage options.

Aquifers

Other

Other Ideas

- Dual use system – use raw water for outdoor irrigation

Conservation 1 - Conservation - Achieving conservation goal will increase supply.

- State law changes and state support for reducing ditch losses (e.g., pipes)

– Given current direct flow rights and storage to accommodate these flows it would be very helpful to optimize the flow/storage combination that allows the following:

- Sufficient storage to firm existing and planned direct flow rights to a specified firming level - Sufficient storage to capture all direct flows when available so that the flows can be retimed based on need and use

There is an optimal balance between flow rights (yield) and storage (to firm this yield). This balance will drive the amount of storage needed for current flow to supply existing population. Additional flow right acquisition will be based on projected growth of the population. Additional storage will be needed to firm these new flow rights. Conservation and shared use (ag rotation) are helpful and should be evaluated.

- The best plan is to create a more comprehensive total water management approach – become a regional provider and water manager – approach water management more comprehensively.

- Conservation and shared use (ag rotation) are helpful and should be evaluated.

Meeting #5: Use of Surplus Raw Water

Reducing adverse impacts on the Poudre River is a priority for many CWG members. While recognizing that Fort Collins has a limited ability to affect flows in the Poudre River, many CWG members would like to see the City take a leadership role in protecting the river. Recreational flows, river health and biodiversity are important in downtown revitalization efforts and quality of life in Fort Collins. While Colorado water law makes in-stream flow protection difficult, many CWG members called on the City to find a way to protect the river despite the legal and physical challenges. Members believe the City can find a way to meet municipal demands and ecological needs. Most CWG members would like to see Utilities take a leadership role to explore options and develop strategies for enhancing flows. Those favoring Utilities’ leadership noted that Utilities should provide expertise and resources. One person favors leadership from Natural Resources with Utilities providing cooperation and technical assistance. Another feels that Poudre River minimum flows are best met through the NISP project.

Agricultural preservation emerged as another priority for CWG members. Members see that agriculture is depending on renting water from Fort Collins and preserving prime agricultural lands is central to food security. This issue bridges rural and urban interests as the Downtown



Development Authority sees itself as the interface between the local food system and urban consumers. Effective partnerships will be key to agricultural preservation.

With respect to Utility Policy related to surplus water, the CWG expressed strong support for using surplus water to benefit the larger community. Utilities should have a broader view of its services to include the larger community, not just its traditional “customers.” Specific comments were as follows:

� City should take on more regional leadership � Need a broader view of “customer benefit” while keeping in mind the costs � “Surplus water used to support a sustainable foodshed is beneficial for Utility customers.” � Benefit customers but take a larger regional view � Don’t “squeeze” existing customers to increase surplus supplies by promoting additional

conservation � Consider leasing more water for other beneficial purposes

In addition, there is considerable interest in shifting from allocating surplus water on an available basis to pursuing long-term arrangements, greater than 5 years. For many members, a key condition to make long-term arrangements work would be that they would have to be flexible to accommodate changes in the weather and other circumstances.

Specific comments on the timing for surplus water agreements are as follows:

� Long-term arrangements provide greater certainty for water users, assuming agreements are flexible and include appropriate contingencies to address changes in weather and other conditions

� Long-term arrangements should benefit agricultural preservation, Poudre River Flows and regional benefits

� Make some portion of irrigation water available in February even if higher cost � Include early releases as benefit to utility and user � Build short-term contingencies into long-term agreements that provide stability

A few CWG members favored shorter-term arrangements (less than 5 years) because they believe that shorter terms are better suited to deal with complexity and provide flexibility. Most of these members would support long-term arrangements with the right amount of flexibility.

The CWG discussed priorities among different surplus water uses, including agricultural preservation, Poudre River flows and regional benefits. In a dot voting exercise where each person had 10 dots to allocate to the three different uses for surplus water, the following priorities were indicated:

� Agricultural preservation (52 dots) � Poudre River flows (46 dots) � Regional benefits (19 dots) � All three priorities together (13 dots)

Much of the CWG’s discussion focused on finding ways to use surplus water, protect Poudre River flows and support regional needs, rather than establishing priorities amongst the three. Many in the group called for a more holistic approach. Some members were resistant to supporting regional benefits if they meant that Fort Collins’ wise planning would support



jurisdictions that have not planned well, accepted unmanaged growth or failed to promote conservation. Some people in Fort Collins are adverse to conserving more if the conserved water supports more growth without conservation in other areas. Several members emphasized the need to have agreements to balance agricultural and Poudre River flow benefits and that the updated Policy should enable such agreements.

At the same time, a member noted the importance of recognizing that Utilities is a government owned business and as such, their revenues are intended to benefit the people who are paying for the water. A few people supported the notion that the best strategy is to get City Council to direct other departments and Utilities to work together on strategies to support agriculture and river flows. For instance, the Natural Resources Department could take the lead on instream flows and they could rent water from Utilities to keep the Utilities revenue fund whole. Customers may not be willing to support flows in the river through water rates but they may through taxes.

Specific comments from individual comment forms and the group’s discussion on using surplus water for different purposes are noted below.

Agricultural Preservation

� Universal agreement that agriculture should be supported in Fort Collins and surrounding area

� By supporting agriculture, the City gets drought protection and there are benefits to wetlands, open space, flood surge and community separators

� Support the food supply � Maintain what we have � Should there be a distinction between hobby farms and long-term agricultural businesses.

Businesses with conservation easements should take priority but hobby farms may support food production.

� City should consider point system created by Agricultural Advisory Board for water rentals. � Agricultural-municipal water sharing agreements could pre-empt southern cities from buying

more farms � Rotational fallowing can keep food local, support agriculture, protect the river and provide

regional benefits. � Create a system for renting surplus water to agriculture that reflects different types of

operations (those with conservation easements and hobby farms.) � Look at ways for water sales to the south to run water through the Poudre and diverted along

the South Platte.

Poudre River Flows

� Need more water in the river which will have other environmental benefits; explore ways to enhance flows by using surplus water through CWCB

� The river is already highly compromised � NISP could impact river flows in the winter positively. � Need a Policy on surplus water without NISP � Yes to keeping excess flows in the Poudre and renting it to downstream farmers but no to

pumping it back



� Don’t maximize flows in the river but look to achieve optimum river health � Have there been any studies on the infrastructure necessary to pump water from downstream

of Fort Collins to the ditches upstream of Fort Collins? Study feasibility of moving head gate(s) and letting some water go through town.

� Water purchases by suburbs to the south could be run through the Poudre River to enhance flows. It is complicated but there are ways it could work. Makes sense for existing municipal supplies but new supplies would result in drying up more farms.

Regional Benefits

� Supports only if there is an agreement – does not want to see the water go to Loveland, okay with Greeley and Tri-Districts

� We need to be considering regional benefits � The City should take a leadership role on regional issues and opportunities that include

common environmental benefits, preserving agriculture, a healthy environment and amenities/recreational opportunities.

� The City should more explicitly consider existing and potential future infrastructure for regional benefits.

All Three

� Don’t create priorities or silos but rather find a way to address all three needs � Explore how water sharing arrangements and existing storage can provide greater security to

agriculture, do better by the river and help the City meet its supply needs. � While I oppose dams, I support the city getting water. Look for creative ways to meet the

needs. � The City should develop a comprehensive Policy to use resources from its general fund and

utility fund to pursue goals to support flows in the Poudre and for water sharing agreements with agriculture. Surplus water can play a role for both purposes but it is also desirable for Natural Resources to kick in support for Poudre River flow and economic development to support agricultural water sharing.

� Balance is key. � Support surplus water uses that benefit agriculture, river flows and the region � Think more broadly about regional benefits � Recognize that neighboring entities do not have a well thought out plan for future

development but partner to support regional benefits � Create a task force to examine ways to meet all three needs. � Need to have City Council direct other departments in addition to Utilities to look at surplus

water use in the best interest of the City/Region as a whole. Have to be cognizant of the legal limitations imposed by having the Utility be an enterprise.

� Explore surplus water with the County too � Sustainability means working across boundaries.

Revenue from renting surplus water has averaged about $750,000 per year (about 3% of total revenues). CWG members were asked how to address the lost revenue if changes in the surplus water use resulted in decreased revenues. Responses varied with some CWG members favoring



a strategy to maintain revenues at existing levels and others suggesting increased emphasis on surplus water even if it reduced revenues. Specific comments included:

� The City’s general fund and Natural Resources tax should rent surplus water from Utilities � The City could request a voluntary contribution � More creative solutions will involve combinations of solutions � Do not purchase additional water rights � Look at all of the options

At the 5th meeting, CWG members were asked to comment on where revenues should come from to support surplus water uses that require additional funds. Reponses on a comment form were as follows:

� Utility rate payers (5) � City tax revenues (5) � County tax revenues (1) � User fees – individual and/or groups (4) � Other (10) –

− Sales tax because it comes from a broader base

− Voluntary instream or river restoration fee on water bills

− DDA taxes

− Support from economic development agencies

− Rental surcharge on agriculture to develop conserved water

− Non-profit organizations (TNC, Bonneville Environmental Fund, etc.)

− From all who benefit in proportion to benefits received

Meeting Evaluations

Each of the first five CWG meeting ended with an exercise to document what worked well in the meeting and what would improve future meetings. The following table presents results of this evaluation for the first five meetings.



Meeting Evaluations

Worked Well Wishes for the Future

Meeting #1 Keeping to the timeline Going around table and getting everyone’s view points Full participation and getting everyone involved Good presentations Good information Appropriate amount of information (was not too much just right) The bandwidth diagrams were effective and something new people in the local community have not seen

Would be helpful to have a laser pointer for the presentations Make Tables legible, including captions Presentation talked extensively about water issues but not about the ecological devastation to the river as a result of use

Meeting #2 Good job Good discussion

These meetings have a lot of information. However, it is not clear how this group’s comments/discussion will be incorporated into the Policy.

Meeting #3 Liked standing up for exercises Good facilitation Good food Good discussion Just right amount of presentation

Need to know what the benefits vs. costs are before can make decisions. Need more data/information in order to make decisions (i.e. What would the effects be of a 1-in-50 year drought versus a 1-in-100 year drought?) Donnie will try to run a 1-in-100-drought year scenario. Need to take into account environmental impacts Adult beverages

Meeting #4 � Excellent presentations � Process concerns were heard and process will be adjusted to accommodate � Good food, not just water

� More time for dynamic discourse � Presentations provided ahead of time (previous presentations are available on SharePoint) � Print presentation materials with fewer slides per page (can print in large formats from SharePoint) � Communicate plus sides of alternatives, not just the negatives

Meeting #5 Small group break out discussions Time to talk Courteous to people that came in late Information was provided beforehand Longer amount of time Timeline was provided so can anticipate where the process is going Good food

Was challenging to hear. Physically separating the table groups more could have helped. There is agreement on much of the existing Policy. Focus on margins where agreement is needed.


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 Attachment D.1

Attachment D: Revised Policy

City of Fort Collins

DRAFT

Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update

October 7, 2011

This update of the City of Fort Collins’ 2003 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy provides a foundational framework for water supply and demand management decisions concerning the City’s water supply system. Operational and management actions and decisions by the Water Utility will be consistent with the provisions of this Policy.

Objective

To provide a sustainable and integrated approach to 1) ensuring an adequate, safe and reliable

supply of water for the beneficial use by customers and the community and 2) managing the level

of demand and the efficient use of a scarce and valuable resource consistent with the preferences

of Water Utility customers and in recognition of the region’s semi-arid climate.

This objective aligns with the 2010 Plan Fort Collins that provides a comprehensive 25-year vision for the future development of Fort Collins. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Abide by Water Supply and Demand Management Policy: Provide for an integrated approach to providing a reliable water supply to meet the beneficial needs of customers and the community while promoting the efficient and wise use of water.”

This Policy calls for a “sustainable and integrated approach” to water demand and water resources management. Sustainability is defined within the context of the triple-bottom-line decision-making in Plan Fort Collins as, “To systematically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.” The use of our valuable water resources should 1) avoid, minimize or offset impacts to our environment, 2) consider the social benefits of having an adequate water supply for health and safety, economic prosperity and healthy landscapes and 3) factor in the cost to provide such supplies, while also considering the effects it has outside our City. Aligning with Plan Fort Collins, the Water Utility will take a leadership role by incorporating the triple-bottom-line in its management of water supply and demand.

Managing water supply and demand is a dynamic process that evolves as data management and technology progresses, legal and political environments change, and the State’s population continues to increase. Given these factors, it is important to maintain an up-to-date effective Policy that is based on current data. The Policy’s terms and conditions should be reviewed and updated by 2020, or sooner if desired by the City Council or the Utilities Executive Director.



1.0 Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management

The City views its water use efficiency program as an important proactive response to supply variability and climate change. Elements of the City’s conservation program include reducing indoor demand through improved technology, leak reduction and behavior change and reducing outdoor demand through improved irrigation efficiency and reasonable landscape transformation. The City believes water use efficiency is of vital importance for many reasons, including to:

� Foster a conservation ethic and eliminate waste � Demonstrate a commitment to sustainability � Provide water for multiple beneficial purposes � Reduce the need for capital expansion projects and certain operational costs � Prepare for forecasted climate change

1.1 Water Use Efficiency Goals for Treated Water Use

The City’s 2009 Water Conservation Plan1 established a goal of reducing the City’s treated water use to 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by the year 2020, without considering the effects of climate change upon water demands. This goal represents an 8.5% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ 2006-2010 average daily water use of 153 gpcd. It represents a 29% reduction in water use compared to Fort Collins’ pre-drought (1992-2001) average daily water use of 197 gpcd. The City will utilize water use efficiency measures and programs with the aim of reducing its water use to an average of 140 gpcd, subject to 1) continuing study of the water requirements of the City’s urban landscaping, 2) additional studies on climate change, and 3) changes in the 140 gpcd water conservation goal as may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans. This water use efficiency goal is subject to change as discussed above and is not intended to be used for water supply planning purposes.

The per capita peak daily demand will be reduced or maintained to be no more than 350 gpcd by the year 2020, but may be adjusted by any subsequent water conservation plans. The peak daily demand is 2.5 times the average daily use water conservation goal and is based on historic ratios of average to peak daily use.

Gallon per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area.

1.2 Water Use Efficiency Program

Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Conservation measures should be implemented in accordance with the Water Conservation Plan and periodically adjusted to reflect new and effective conservation measures.” The City will optimize water use efficiency through the programs and measures specified in its Water Conservation Plan. These programs and measures include educational programs, incentive programs, regulatory measures and operational measures. Specific measures and programs are outlined in the Water Conservation Plan.

1 State guidelines are changing the terminology of Water Conservation Plans to Water Use Efficiency Plans, and likewise conservation is being changed to water use efficiency. For purposes of this Policy, water use efficiency is referred to as water conservation; however, the terminology may be used interchangeably.



The overall effectiveness of these measures and programs will be evaluated on a regular basis and if necessary, modifications will be made to increase effectiveness or to modify the City’s water conservation goal. An annual water conservation report will be prepared to describe the status and results of the various measures and programs. The Water Conservation Plan will be updated at a minimum of every seven years.

1.3 Water Rate Structures

The City will have stable water rate structures with transparent accountability for all classes of customers. The water rate structures will provide an economic incentive to use water efficiently while also providing sufficient revenue for operational purposes. Examples of structures that may be utilized include 1) tiered rates with increasing prices as water use increases, 2) seasonal blocks with higher rates during the irrigation season, and 3) water budget approaches based on appropriate targets for individual customers.

The City will annually review the effectiveness of its water rate structures as part of its financial analyses regarding Water Utility revenue, expenses and rates. Specific studies or changes to the rate structure may be made upon identification of the need to revise it. Any changes to the rate structure will require City Council approval.

2.0 Water Supply Reliability

The City needs to meet future water demands in an efficient and reliable manner. Policy ENV 21.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Water supply reliability criteria will take into consideration potential effects of climate change and other vulnerabilities. Water supplies and related facilities shall be acquired or developed after careful consideration of social, economic and environmental factors.” One of the Water Utility’s primary objectives is to provide an adequate and reliable supply of water to its customers and other water users. Key principles that need to be considered when addressing water supply for municipal use include:

� Providing water supply system reliability and flexibility � Considering a broad portfolio of resources that do not depend on any one source � Maintaining a water storage reserve for unforeseen circumstances � Maintaining water supply infrastructure and system security � Being a steward of the City’s water resources, which includes watershed management � Considering the City’s neighboring water providers and users � Maintaining awareness of national and worldwide trends and adapt as needed to meeting our

customer needs

2.1 Water Supply Planning Criteria

An integral component of the City’s water supply planning efforts is to maintain computer models that determine the yield of its existing and future water supplies. The following water supply planning criteria are key parameters used in these models that provide a foundation for planning future supplies.



2.1.1 Planning Demand Level

The reliability of the City’s water supply should be maintained to meet an average per capita demand level of 162 gpcd. This planning level provides a value that is higher than the water use efficiency goal to address uncertainties inherent in water supply planning. The 162 gpcd value is based upon the 2006-2010 average daily use, adjusted to reflect the increase in demand that would be necessary to maintain existing levels of urban landscaping considering the mid-range of projected climate change impact.

It is important to have a planning number that can be used for development of long-range water supply facilities. Because many structures related to a water supply system take many years to develop and last for many decades once built, it is desirable to use conservative assumptions to size facilities that may be needed for the long-term. A planning demand level should be larger than the water use efficiency goal, primarily because of the uncertainties related to projected water demands, yields from specific water rights, climate change and other unanticipated effects.

The average per capita demand planning level is used for facility planning purposes. Gallons per capita per day (gpcd) calculations are based on the total treated water produced for use by Water Utility customers (minus large contractual customers and other sales or exchange arrangements) divided by the estimated population of the Water Utility’s service area. This number is multiplied by population projections developed by the City’s Planning Department to calculate future water demands.

2.1.2 Drought Criterion

The reliability and capacity of the City’s water supply system should be maintained to meet the planning level demand during at least a l-in-50 year drought event in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. Water rights should be acquired and facilities (including storage capacity) should be planned and constructed sufficiently ahead of the time to maintain the 1-in-50 year drought criterion, considering the time required to seek water court decrees and permit and construct diversion, conveyance and/or storage facilities. In using this criterion, the City seeks to provide a balance among water supply reliability, the financial investment necessary to secure such reliability and the environmental costs associated with water storage and diversions.

2.1.3 Safety Factor

The City’s water supply reliability planning incorporates a safety factor of having 15% of annual demand in storage through a 1-in-50 year drought. This is equivalent to three months of average winter demand and just over one month of average July demand. This safety factor provides an additional layer of protection intended to address dimensions of risk outside of the other reliability criteria, including emergency situations (i.e. pipeline failure) and droughts that exceed a 1-in-50 year drought.

In meeting this safety factor, it is assumed that the City cannot rely on the existing Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) carryover program. This program currently allows each CBT unit holder to carry over up to 20% of its CBT unit ownership in CBT reservoirs for use in the following year. However, this program has varied over the years and there is no guarantee that it will be continued in the future.



2.2 Climate Change

Climate change could significantly impact the reliability of the City’s supplies and/or the amount of water required to maintain existing landscapes; however, there is a great deal of uncertainty related to current climate change projections along the Colorado Front Range and its impact on municipal demands and water supply systems. The City’s planning criteria and assumptions are conservative in part to account for climate change based on the information to date. The City will continue to monitor climate change information and, if necessary, will revise its water supply planning criteria and assumptions to ensure future water supply reliability.

2.3 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan

The City will maintain a plan for responding to situations where there are projected water supply shortages, either because of severe drought conditions (i.e., greater than a 1-in-50 year drought) or because of disruptions in the raw water delivery system. When needed, the 2003 Water Supply Shortage Response Plan will be activated based on the projected water supply shortage.

This plan will include measures to temporarily reduce water use through media campaigns, regulations, restrictions, rate adjustments and other measures. The plan may also include provisions to temporarily supplement the supply through interruptible water supply contracts, leases, exchanges and operational measures. Reducing the City’s water use during supply short situations may lessen adverse impacts to irrigated agriculture and flows in the Poudre River. The plan will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, updated to reflect changes in the City’s water use and its water supply system.

2.4 Additional Supplies and Facilities

In order to meet projected growth within the Water Utility’s service area, as well as maintain system reliability and flexibility, the City will need to increase the firm yield of its current water supply system. The following Policy elements address ways of meeting these needs.

2.4.1 Raw Water Requirements for New Development

The City shall require developers to turn over water rights as approved by the City, or cash in-lieu-of water rights, such that supplies can be made available to meet or exceed the demands of the Water Utility’s treated water customers during a l-in-50 year drought.

Cash collected shall be used to increase the firm yield and long-term reliability of the City’s supply system. Potential uses of cash include acquiring additional water rights, entering into water sharing arrangements with agricultural entities, purchasing or developing storage facilities and pursuing other actions toward developing a reliable water supply system. Consideration needs to be given to providing a diversified system that can withstand the annual variability inherent in both water demands and supplies. The balance between water rights being turned over and cash received by developers should be monitored and adjusted as needed to develop a reliable and effective system.

2.4.2 Acquisition and/or Sharing of Agricultural Water Supplies

The City currently owns and will acquire additional water rights that are still decreed for agricultural use only. The City will periodically need to change these water rights from



agricultural use to municipal use to meet its water supply needs. The City will change those rights that come from areas upon which the City is growing, or from areas where the irrigation has ceased, when needed. For water rights that were derived from irrigated agricultural lands that remain in viable agricultural areas, the City will refrain from converting agricultural decrees to municipal use as long as other water supply options are available or other factors make it prudent to do so. The City will also work towards water sharing arrangements that provide water for municipal uses when critically needed and that allow for continued agricultural use of water at other times, in a manner that preserves irrigated agricultural lands over the long-term.

2.4.3 Facilities

The City will pursue the acquisition or development of facilities which are needed to manage the City’s water rights in an efficient and effective manner and which will enhance the City’s ability to get through at least a 1-in-50 year drought. These facilities may include storage capacity, diversion structures, pipelines or other conveyances, pumping equipment, or other facilities that increase the firm yield of the City’s supply system.

Additional storage should be acquired or constructed considering 1) the City’s return flow obligations incurred from changes of water rights, 2) the City’s need to carryover water from wet years to dry years in order to meet its drought criteria, 3) operational flexibility, redundancy and reliability of the City’s water supply system, and 4) potential multiple-use benefits (i.e., environmental flows, recreational uses, etc.). The City will analyze the potential impacts of developing storage to the environment, along with the costs and benefits of doing so, and will develop that storage in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment. Storage capacity options include the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, the development of local gravel pits into storage ponds, the acquisition of storage capacity in new or existing reservoirs, the development of aquifer storage, or some combination of the above.


Policy ENV 21.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Develop and adhere to drinking water quality standards, treatment practices, and procedures that provide the highest level of health protection that can be realistically achieved.” In addition, the City will take an active role in protecting the quality of water in the various watersheds from which the City’s raw water is derived. This may require collaboration with private, county, state and federal landowners and managers. The acquisition, development, and management of the City’s raw water will be consistent with the City’s Drinking Water Quality Policy and other applicable policies related to watershed protection.

4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water

The City will use its existing supplies to meet municipal obligations with the following priorities: 1) to meet water demands by the City’s treated water customers, and 2) to meet the City’s raw water needs as well as other City raw water obligations. Raw water needs include use for such purposes as irrigation of City parks, golf courses, cemeteries and other greenbelt areas. Additional raw water obligations include primarily water transfers to other entities because of agreements or exchanges made to manage the water supply system more effectively.



Water not needed for the above purposes is referred to as surplus water and may be made available to others in accordance with decrees and other applicable policies. This surplus water may be available on a year-to-year basis or through multi-year arrangements that do not significantly impair the City’s ability to meet municipal demands. The City will continue to rent its surplus supplies at a fair market price that helps offset the cost of owning such supplies and benefits the Water Utility ratepayers.

4.1 Commitment to Other Beneficial Purposes

Acknowledging that the City’s use of its valuable water resources has impacts to the environment and the region, the City will commit to using its surplus supplies for other beneficial purposes such as supporting irrigated agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River or providing other regional benefits. Typically, the City has significant quantities of surplus raw water from a variety of sources, each of which has unique characteristics. These sources include CBT water and shares in several irrigation companies. Some sources are more suitable and available than others to meet beneficial purposes. Whether the surplus raw water can be used for these other purposes is dependent upon a number of factors, including the type of water, place of use and other decree limitations. Any potential use of these supplies should consider, and will likely require coordination with, other water users, state agencies and other groups. Some uses of the surplus supplies may require a change of water rights through the water court process. The City will engage in a thorough evaluation of these issues as part of assessing the use of its surplus supplies for these beneficial purposes, if applicable.

Supporting local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River or meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire will likely require actions outside of using the City’s surplus water supplies. Utilities will consider voluntary contributions from their ratepayers for programs that are designed to support these purposes.

4.1.1 Agriculture and Open Space

Policy SW 3.2 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Participate in and follow the Northern Colorado Regional Food System Assessment project and other Larimer County agricultural efforts, and implement their recommendations at a local level, if appropriate.” In addition, Policy LIV 44.1 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Maintain a system of publicly-owned open lands to protect the integrity of wildlife habitat and conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas, conserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad range of opportunities for educational, interpretive, and recreational programs to meet community needs.” To the extent that surplus water is available, the City will continue to support the local agricultural economy and help preserve the associated open spaces by renting surplus agricultural water back to irrigators under the respective irrigation companies.

In order to support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and other benefits provided by irrigated agriculture, as well as benefit the Water Utility ratepayers, the City will explore long-term rental arrangements with irrigators when applicable. The City’s largest irrigation company ownership interest is in the North Poudre Irrigation Company, which still has substantial lands in irrigated agricultural production and has a unique mix of native water and CBT water that lends itself to these types of partnership arrangements.



4.1.2 Instream Flows

Policy ENV 24.5 of Plan Fort Collins states, “Work to quantify and provide adequate instream flows to maintain the ecological functionality, and recreational and scenic values of the Cache la Poudre River through Fort Collins.” Recognizing that its water use depletes natural stream flows, the City will seek opportunities to exceed regulatory requirements that protect the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its diversions. The Water Utility will take a leadership role in working with other City departments, local groups and agencies towards the following objectives in accordance with Colorado water law and the administration of water rights in Colorado: 1) encourage flows in local streams to protect the ecosystem, 2) pursue the operation of its water supplies and facilities in a manner that avoids, minimizes or offsets the effects to the environment while meeting customer demands, and 3) explore projects or measures that would provide flows in streams and water in reservoirs for recreational and aesthetic purposes.

4.1.3 Other Arrangements

The City will consider and participate in other surplus water supply arrangements with other entities that provide mutual benefits and support the region. These may include other rental agreements, augmentation plans and other cooperative arrangements with regional partners. These types of arrangements should be limited to unique opportunities that are mutually beneficial to the parties, and provide significant social, economic or environmental benefits to the region.

5.0 Regional Cooperation

The City recognizes the importance in maintaining good relationships with local entities in the region and coordinating efforts to achieve mutual goals. The City also recognizes that Colorado is currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs for Front Range municipalities in a manner that does not destroy whole agricultural economies and river ecosystems, and the Water Utility will endeavor to be a leader in demonstrating how water supply can be provided in a manner that respects other interests.

5.1 Working with Other Municipal Providers

The City will continue to work with the water suppliers throughout the northern Colorado Front Range to assure that adequate supplies are maintained in the region. When benefits are identified, the City will cooperate with area entities in studying, building and sharing capacity of water transmission lines, distribution systems and storage reservoirs. The City has common interests and the potential to cooperate with regional entities including the water districts around Fort Collins, the City of Greeley and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, as well as other Colorado water providers. In particular, the City should work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents to encourage similar policies regarding drought protection, conservation and to provide mutual assistance during emergencies.



5.2 Working with Local Irrigation Companies

The City will continue to cooperate with local irrigation companies regarding the use, exchange and transfer of water in the Cache la Poudre River Basin. As a major shareholder in many of the local irrigation companies, it is necessary and desirable that the City works closely with these companies. Much of the water supply available to the City is through the ownership of shares in local irrigation companies.

5.3 Working with Others

The City will work with other City Departments and cooperate with civic organizations, environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations when common goals would benefit City residents and the surrounding community. Examples of goals that may involve City water supplies and be worthy of collaborative efforts include support for existing and development of new local food sources, promoting open space, improving river flows and supporting the local economy. Such efforts should identify appropriate entities and sources of revenue for specific goals or projects.


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 Attachment E.1

Attachment E: Meeting #6 Comment Form - Compilation of Verbatim Responses

The following table records verbatim comments submitted by CWG members in writing on comment forms. The individual’s Initials appear to the right of each comment. GW refers to Gary Wockner and GNW refers to George Wallace.

Rating 1 = Full support 2 = Support with reservations 3 = Do not support Circle selected response

Likes Dislikes

Introduction and Objective

9 1’s 0 2’s 0 3’s

• Well written “as is” JG*

• Provides a good overview DM

• Clear objective

• Makes a clear commitment to sustainability and triple bottom line JS

• I like it as is but would like a core values statement added. GJ

• Triple bottom line sustainability MF

• N/A JG

• Would prefer less room for interpretation. Insist on faithful interpretation. DM

• Add environmental and financial objective BE

• Would like an addition before the “objectives” that is a simple statement of core values as suggested by Bill Emslie. GJ

• Delete “the beneficial use” RW

• Letter from GW/STP**: The section states that the Policy will "...meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend." We ask the City how it can achieve this goal at the same time the City proposes to grow its population, build a larger dam and reservoir in endangered species habitat on the North Fork of the Poudre River, and take more water out of two of the most endangered rivers in America – the Cache la Poudre River and Upper Colorado River? The language in this section sounds very green, but if the actions are not likewise green, it may appear as “greenwashing.” We ask the City to consider if the language in this section should be changed, or if the Policy should be changed to meet the language?

Water Use Efficiency and Demand Management (including 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)

8 1’s 1 2’ 0 3’s

• Well written “as is” JG

• I like the addition of supporting information for the #’s. DM

• Specific goals very important.

• I like the commitment to 140 gpcd JS

• Comprehensive MF

• N/A JG

• Could be stricter than 8.5%. DM

• The added section! 1.1 This seems like a footnote not a part of a Policy plan. “This goal …of 197 gpcd.” 1.1 other addition “The peak daily demand…. peak daily use” (also a footnote)Add s to Gallon in last paragraph of 1.1. This is redundant because it is stated again on page 4. BR

• Don’t like the term “reasonable landscape transformation.” Would prefer “and changes in landscaping.” (Some will be customer driven – not utility driven.” Phrase in 1

st sentence of 1.1 “without

considering the effects of climate change upon water demands. Eliminate. It casts unnecessary doubt on goal. GJ




Likes Dislikes

• Delete added statement “This goal represents…..197 gpcd.” Seems very odd for Policy. RW

• Letter from GW/STP: STP believes that the water use efficiency goal of 140 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) is too high. Water use in Fort Collins has already dipped below 140, and will likely continue to fall. Some new urbanism developments in the Southwest demonstrate sustainable water use rates as low as 90 gpcd. Fort Collins should set a lower goal to shoot for – Fort Collins should lead forward on a path of aggressive water conservation that more responsibly and sustainably uses this precious resource.

2.0 Water Supply Reliability – Criteria (including 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3)

5 1’s 4 2’s 0 3’s

• Ok JG

• Water partnership with Ag which is positive for both the City and Ag LG

• Like 2.1.2 1-in-50, 2.1.3 Safety Factor, 2.3 Response Plan, 2.4 Climate Change GJ

• Addresses climate change MF

• I suggest in 2.1.1 to add (line 3) after “planning” ….because reliability deals with risk, whereas the conservation target deals with an efficiency goal.” (You can probably phrase much better.) NG

• In 2.0 “considering the City’s neighboring water providers is too weak. Utility staff should “aggressively seek collaboration with the City’s neighboring water providers.” 2.1.1 162 gpcd is too high, 152 would be fine. 1-in-50 should be 1-in-40. 2.1.3 15% of annual demand is too low, though anything higher might be infeasible.” JG

• 2.0 should be a list of core values. Add environmental and economic impact values. These are the basic guidance of the Policy. Add water quality value that supports 3.0. BE

• Section 2.1.1: I understand how 162 gpcd was developed, but I still don’t buy it. If our Policy is 140, we should achieve 140. JS

• 2.0 6th sentence – Who are the “other water users” agriculture? Not

clear. Last sentence of 2.0 “adapt” needs “ing” on the end. Change “meeting” to “meet.” 2.1.1 “162 gpcd value…. climate change impact” – a footnote. Also, “Gallons per capital to service area” also on 1.1 p.2 Do we need this twice? 2.3 “This plan will include – etc. Does this mean everything must be done or selected items? Not clear. Page 5 BR

• I think the planning demand level should be set at something along the lines of the 153 gpcd that it has averaged the past few years. I understand fluctuations but there is an amount of this included in 153. As improvements are made they should be locked in and we should not slip backwards. DW

• 2.1.1 Lower 162 gpcd. I don’t think “maintaining existing




Likes Dislikes

….landscaping” is realistic. Customers are responding to water cost increases, education and climate change on their own and are voluntarily reducing their landscape water demand. This will continue and accelerate in the future. GJ

• Letter from GW/STP: 2.1.1 Though the staff and consultants repeatedly tried, it was never adequately explained why the planning goal of 162 gpcd is so much higher than the water use goal of 140. There was concern expressed in the meetings that this number was inflated for purposes of supporting the Halligan enlargement EIS process. STP believes the planning goal and the water use goal should both be lower, and should both be based on sound scientific calculations.

• Letter from GW/STP: 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 When the committee discussed drought criterion and safety factor, the exercise was over-simplified – STP does not believe the committee was given adequate information to make a judgment on these numbers. The concepts of drought criterion, safety factory, planning demand level, and climate change were all inconsistently lumped together during the meetings and discussion. There was discussion in the meetings of “safety factor creep” – i.e., that all the numbers were being over- inflated non-scientifically. In addition, with the high water use goal, the drought criterion, the safety factor, the higher planning demand level, and the City's water response to climate change (more conservative and more proposed storage), it seems like the Policy has a built-in quintuple safety factor. STP will require further scientific review of these numbers to evaluate if they are accurate.

• Letter from GW/STP: Additionally, the concept of “drought criterion” was not sufficiently addressed in the meetings. A city’s water supply portfolio is a critical factor in addressing drought – if a city has a secure portfolio with lots of senior direct flow rights, it is much more impervious to drought. This section, and the discussion in the meetings, over-simplifies the complexity of drought’s interaction with water supplies. More scientific analysis will be needed by Save the Poudre to evaluate the City’s drought criterion.

• Letter from GW/STP: 2.2 “Climate change” was mentioned 20 times in the Policy. Interestingly, in the former Policy, “climate change” was mentioned zero times. Climate change was repeatedly used as a scare tactic in the committee meetings and in the Policy wording –




Likes Dislikes

and for a good reason, climate change is scary. However, what is a rational non-fear-based response? Should we make reservoirs larger? Or should we lower water use rates? Which solution leads to greater resiliency, more adaptability, and more economic success in an uncertain future world? Consider this analogy – if oil is getting scarce and expensive, should your next car be a Hummer or a Volt? Should you invest in wider roads or should you invest in public transportation, electric car plug-in stations, and bicycle routes? And then consider the same question for water – if climate change will cause water to get more scarce and expensive, what is a rational response? More bluegrass lawns and bigger dams? Or wide-scale water conservation and xeriscaping? STP has two recommendations for addressing the threat of climate change in the Policy 1. Use the best available science, quantify the likely impact, and then include that impact with margins of error in one spot in the Policy. (As it is now, the Policy just throws around the threat of climate change 20 times, sometimes without scientific backing.) 2. STP contends that Fort Collins will be more resilient, adaptable, and more economically competitive in the future if it significantly cuts its use of water and begins switching away from a high water-use economy. This Policy update only offers one response to the threat of climate change – more water and bigger facilities. STP believes that other more sustainable responses to climate change were not adequately discussed or presented as options during the committee meetings.

2.4 Water Supply Reliability – Additional Supplies and Facilities

8 1’s 0 2’s 0 3’s

• Flexibility in supply choices. BE

• Like it all. GJ

• Stress diversity as this is a key value. BE

• Just before “The City” … (line 1 in 2.4.1) it might be good to add a sentence as to why developers turn in water….”growth pays its own way.” NG

• 2.4.2 STP believes that the potential to share water with farmers will be the water supply source of the future for Colorado. Over 80% of the water in the Poudre River is used by farmers – cooperatively tapping this source will be the primary path forward as demand for water increases. This section does not fully address this potential, nor does it fully address the conversation in the meetings. Sharing water with agriculture was supported by everyone in the meetings and should be a large part of Fort Collins future water supply; this section makes it more of an after-thought.

• 2.4.3 Because the Policy's water use rates are high, planning




Likes Dislikes

demand level is high, drought criterion is not fully substantiated, safety factor is not fully substantiated, and response to climate change is to be more conservative, this section therefore assumes the need for more storage. STP will require a more thorough scientific analysis in order to evaluate this assumption. In addition, if more storage is required, additional options should be considered that were not mentioned in the Policy including but not limited to “using farms as reservoirs” through leasing and sharing arrangements both for firm supply and for drought supply. As an example, Fort Collins weathered the worst one-year drought in history (2002/3) by leasing water from farmers – a proven and inexpensive option for future water supply that required no facility at all. As another example, the purchase of senior direct flow rights would also minimize the need for enlarged facilities. GW


8 1’s 0 2’s 0 3’s

• Fine JG

• Specifics in stds. to meet

• Seems reasonable JS

• Like it. GJ

4.0 Use of Surplus Raw Water (including 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)

8 1’s 0 2’s 0 3’s

• Fine JG

• I really appreciate the delineation of section 4.1, which includes a commitment to agriculture and environment. JS

• Like especially 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 I would change their order as I believe Utility customers are more interested in water in the Poudre, then ag production. GJ

• Stress preservation of agriculture

• 4.1 end of added sentence. “may desire. This will likely ….water supplies. Flip order. Revise to: “Utilities will consider voluntary contributions from their ratepayers for programs that are designed to support the following purposes: Local agriculture, supplementing flows in the Poudre River, or meeting other beneficial purposes that our community may desire.” Last sentence 4.1.1: Flip order of first 2 sentences to begin with what the City will do first. “The City will explore long-term rental arrangements with irrigators when applicable. This is to support the regional food system, encourage agricultural open space and enhance other benefits provided by irrigated agriculture. 4.1.2 Instream flow – added part seems redundant. BR

• Delete “if applicable” at the end of 3rd

paragraph. 4.1 last sentence – change to Utilities will evaluate implementing a program to allow voluntary contributions …GJ

• Letter from GW/STP This section is still too soft. STP believes that using the City’s surplus water for instream flows needs to be more of




Likes Dislikes

an imperative. Instead of the wording in the section that says "encourage," "pursue," and "explore," STP strongly recommends the City to work more aggressively to get it done. GW

5.0 Regional Cooperation (including 5.1, 5.2, 5.2)

6 1’s 2 2’s 0 3’s

• The last sentence of the document is great – utility is accepting the role of ‘leader’ on water supply planning that respects all community interests. JS

• Fine JG

• I would change 5.2 to include work with Northern Water, Central, and any others who are not just “irrigation companies.” NG

• Stress consideration of sharing facilities with regional entities. BE

• 5.0 added part needs “and” deleted and new sentence: “ecosystems. The water utility ….etc.” 5.3 Instead of ‘The City” – “The Utility” BR

• Fix added statement “The City also….” As there is opinion mixed with a value statement. Suggest: “The City also recognizes that growing municipalities are currently struggling to define a way to meet future water supply needs in a manner that does no undue harm to agricultural economies….” Colorado does not build/supply water. Needs beyond Front Range. 5.1 delete last clause. “In particular, the City should work closely with water districts that serve Fort Collins residents and the surrounding community.” 5.3 Needs to be edited: The Utility instead of the City. City will work across departments. RW

*Initials at the end of each comment refer to the person who submitted the comment. **Comments for GW were extracted with permission from a letter submitted by Gary Wockner on behalf of Save the Poudre.



Comments on Issues not addressed in the Revised Policy

� I’d like to see a simple statement of core values as recommended by Bill in the beginning of

the Policy. GJ

� Letter from GW/STP MISSED SECTION: Population Growth Although a few people in the

committee wanted to talk about population growth and its impacts on water supply planning

and farms, the facilitators/consultants/staff did not allow this discussion to occur. STP

believes that any discussion of future water supply planning should include information

about population growth because it is the main factor influencing the need for more water

and the destruction of northern Colorado’s agricultural landscape. Specifically, discussion

should include:

− How population growth is driving water supply Policy.

− How population growth is a Policy that the City Council can consider, address, and

control just as other cities in the Southwest have done.

− How population growth and sprawl are inter-related – higher density human habitation

(residential and commercial) uses significantly less water than sprawl and is significantly

less expensive to supply water to than sprawl.

− How population growth is also destroying northern Colorado's agricultural landscapes

and agricultural economy.

� Letter from GW/STP - MISSED DISCUSSION: Most of the conversation in the meetings was

about the details of the Policy sections, but there was very little conversation about “cost”

and “environmental impacts.” Because the City is involved in a permitting process for a

proposed enlarged reservoir, cost and environmental impacts will be two of the biggest

considerations evaluated during that federal permitting process. For example, many federal

permitting precedents in the U.S. have occurred where water projects have been stopped

because of their environmental impacts. Additionally, there are federal permitting precedents

where the lowest costing project was denied a permit. Save the Poudre believes the Policy

update should have spent considerably more time on these two topics.

Comments on the CWG Process

Where the CWG’s input has had the greatest impact

� Poudre River minimal flow, agricultural concerns JG

� It is hard for me to tell since I missed many of the meetings, but I was pleased with the

readiness with which my comments were incorporated into the draft. DM

� The process was just as important as the end result. The last vote of 9 green and 1 yellow

card speaks volumes as to the process. We need to leave 1-in-50, 162 and 15% in. We had

all 12 vote in favor. Please do not leave blank. This is irresponsible. Simply say 11

supported and 2 wanted no numbers. The ratio of 11 for 2 against says a lot. The majority

opinion is important and per Dennis, the staff needs these numbers. BE

� Revising and adding to the Policy the Utilities should be a leader in water supply planning,

specifically that Utilities should also seriously consider sustainability that includes

agriculture and the environment. JS

� To develop a specific document that has a high level of agreement. BE



� Last couple of meetings where group discussion was enabled. GJ

� The CWG’s input had the greatest impact in ensuring that the Demand Management Policy

included consideration of agriculture, the environment and that the Utility take a lead role in

planning for the future. DW

What I have learned

� How to run meetings of such a diverse group JG

� The presentations and discussions were very informative for a water novice like me. I

learned a lot about all of the water-related issues. Learned a lot about water rights. DM

� I am always impressed by the complexities of these issues. I was glad to learn that

conservative members of our CWG also want to work toward sustainability. JS

� To respect diversity of opinion and to listen to others. BE

� There is more common ground among diverse interest groups than most of us expected. GJ

� We have fairly strong consensus MF

� The existing Policy was good and that the water management in a town such as Fort Collins

is a very complex task. The City of Fort Collins has excellent water from the standpoint of

quantity and quality and this shows the Utility does a good job managing the complex task.

DW

How the process has worked well

� ‘Almost’ finding consensus’ JG

� Good presentations and facilitation. Excellent debates and discussions. DM

� It adapted to member input. It led to real changes in the Policy. JS

� Yes. The votes at the end exemplify this and should be reflected in the final report. BE

� In improving the Policy recommendations. GJ

� Very respectful dialog, everyone heard. Surfaced the areas of disagreement as well as

agreement. MF

� There was very limited time and the views of the CWG were very diverse. Considering this

fact I think the process worked well. DW

Suggestions for improving the process in the next Update

� Worked well, especially the last couple of meetings. JG

� I know it was hard enough to get people to show up to the 6 existing meetings, but I felt that

there was too much material to cover in the 6 meetings. Not sure how to improve this. DM

� Seek input and discussions after each presentation. The session that was specifically for

input and discussion failed as only 2 people attended. BE

� Slower delivery of information in the beginning to allow all members to come up to speed.

More opportunities for discussion in all meetings. GJ

� Develop the presentations to more clearly explain the very complex nature of water

management. The presenters live and breathe it so what may be obvious to them is not

always clear to the general public. I think more information on how the Utility uses the

Policy and what is required to produce water and how it is impacted by the Policy would

also help. DW


Fort Collins Utilities Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Update Community Working Group Memo 11/8/11 Attachment F.1

Attachment F: Meeting #6 Summary


DRAFT CWG Meeting #6 Minutes

October 12, 2011

Attendance and Materials

Participants Present at the Meeting

CWG Member

• Gary Wockner � Bill Emslie � George Wallace � Gina Janett � Lewis Grant � George Varra � Reagan Waskom � Neil Grigg

� Dennis Wallisch � John Sanderson � Holly Jo Roseberry � Johannes Gessler � Barbara Rutstein � David Mack � Mark Forsyth

Fort Collins Staff � Donnie Dustin � Dennis Bode � Kevin Gertig � Melissa Katsimpalis

� Laurie D’Audney � Susan Smolnik � Beth Molenaar � John Stokes

Consultant Team � Lee Rozaklis - AMEC � Barbara Lewis – Catalyst, Inc. � Courtney Peppler – AMEC



CWG Members Unable to Attend

� Jenn Orgolini � K-Lynn Cameron � Steve Warner � Matt Robenalt

Packet of Materials Distributed Prior to the Meeting

� Draft agenda � Fort Collin’s Supply Planning Criteria presentation handout � Second draft of the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy � Response to CWG Comments on first draft of Policy

Materials Distributed at the Meeting

� CWG Process Update presentation handout � CWG Meeting #6 Comment Form

Welcoming

Barbara Lewis, lead facilitator for the CWG process, welcomed the Community Working Group (CWG) and reviewed the agenda, logistical items, purpose and outline of the CWG memo, projected timeline for the CWG memo and the remaining review and approval process to finalize and adopt the Policy.

Planning Criteria

Lee Rozaklis provided a review of the planning demand level, drought criterion, water supply shortage response plan and safety factor. This included an overview of the criteria’s purposes, how the criteria were derived and aspects of uncertainty. Questions and comments include the following:

Neil Grigg – Suggested changing the term safety factor to strategic reserve, which is more expressive of what the criterion entails. Answer: Lee – This may be something we want to refine. The term “safety factor” is somewhat opaque.

John Sanderson – He commented on the safety factor during the first round of Policy comments and is still not convinced after Lee’s presentation on the planning criteria. There is already a safety factor built into the 162 gpcd planning demand level because the starting point for this criterion without a “safety factor” should be 140 gpcd instead of 153 gpcd. The 140 gpcd is the targeted conservation goal. Hence the planning demand level is conservative. Then there is the water supply shortage plan which is more of a coping factor than an engineering safety factor and then on the supply-side, there is the 1-in-50 drought scenario which is a drought that far exceeds the normal range. In summary, there appears to be a lot of conservatism and “safety factors” ingrained in all of the planning criteria. Response: Lee Rozaklis – He understands the point that John is making. However, he does not view the 162 gpcd as particularly conservative. This criterion is the average of the per capita water use during the past five years adjusted for



climate change and does not include the possibility of more intensive water uses in the future. That said, the starting point is not the 140 gpcd conservation goal and water use in the future could decrease. The drought criterion defines the boundary of what the water supply system can “cover” operating under normal conditions. Essentially it determines the drought condition in which Utilities would go from “normal” operating conditions to “coping conditions.”

John Sanderson – He would like to shoot towards lowering the planning demand level.

Johannes Gessler - He agrees with John and would refer to the whole situation as “safety factor creep.” Each of the planning criterion adds more of a safety factor and at the end, there is this large ambiguous safety factor. The planning demand level of 162 gpcd is very high. He would even lower the conservation goal of 140 gpcd to 130 gpcd. Future per capita water demands will decrease, not increase. Since this Policy is going to set the planning precedence for the next ten years, it would be accurate to assume that demands will continue to drop. In addition, why are we using a drought criterion of 1-in-50 years? Why not use 1 in 40 years? He agrees with the 15% safety factor, yet would change the terminology to strategic reserve per Neil’s suggestion.

Neil Grigg – Every utility needs some sort of reserve for emergencies (i.e. tunnel falls in or dam breaks) which is available during the period of emergency.

Gary Wockner – When it comes to drought, what really matters is the seniority of a utilities’ water rights portfolio. During the 2002, the utilities that had senior water right portfolios had little concern about running out of water. The big question is how senior is the City’s water rights portfolio? Utilities can have a strategic reserve, yet is doesn’t have to be related to a reservoir. For instance, strategic reserves can be underground tanks. Strategic reserves need to be available during the emergency. If the City’s strategic reserve is in Horsetooth and it goes offline or there is an issue in the Poudre River, then the City will not have access to the reserve. Response: Lee Rozaklis – A strategic reserve is only useful is it can be delivered to the water treatment plant. A strategic reserve can also consist of multiple diverse reserves. The City is reluctant to use Horsetooth storage for its reserve because it does not control the reservoir.

Gary Wockner – Would it be possible to contract with farmers as a strategic reserve? Response:

Lee Rozaklis – Agricultural water would not be available in the winter. If available, cities could purchase senior water rights to meet all of their needs. However, this would be very costly and be an inefficient way of doing things. Response: Gary Wockner - He agrees that this could be inefficient, however, it is a way to do business and could be a less environmentally destructive way to meet demands.

Dennis Wallisch – Does the 162 gpcd include large contractual users? Response: Lee Rozaklis – The 162 gpcd does not include large contractual users. The 162 gpcd is multiplied by population to get total demands not including large contractual users.

Barbara Rutstein – What is the significant difference of using 153 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd? Response: Lee Rozaklis – If the City used 153 gpcd, the projected demands would be reduced. This would be ok if future demands actually end up being lower. There are a lot of factors that could result in lower future demands. The City’s selection of 162 gpcd assumes that the City has not achieved the 140 gpcd conservation goal and that the City is not relying on “passive savings” (i.e. technological advances in water efficient fixtures and appliances). There are also factors that would increase future per capita water use. It is important to remember that the past three



years have been relatively cool and wet, resulting in lower per capita water demands than what would have occurred if the weather had been hotter and drier.

John Sanderson – What are the benefits of “too low” of a planning demand level? Response:

Lee Rozaklis – The City would end up investing less in more storage or more in water rights (less capital requirements would be necessary). This would be fine as long as future demands are lower and/or if the service area is willing to accept less water during droughts.

Barbara Rutstein – Are the four planning criteria the accepted way of doing it? Response: Lee

Rozaklis – While the actual numbers are specific to each provider’s planning process, the process is the acceptable/common way of municipal water supply planning.

Lewis Grant – He feels that he is on a little different page than other opinions expressed thus far. He advocates for a more conservative drought criterion of 1-in-100. He was around for the droughts of 1930, 1950, 1970 and 2002. The 1-in-50 drought criterion only includes the 2002 and 1970s drought. It does not cover the other droughts and we don’t know how severe the next droughts could be. The 1-in-50 drought criterion only covers a minor number of the historical droughts.

Barbara Lewis – Introduced planning criteria exercise

John Sanderson – Expressed difficulty with the proposed exercise of stating whether to increase or decrease the drought criterion because there are a variety of options on how the City could achieve reliability. These options need to be looked at as well.

Reagan Waskom – The criteria are all integrated, the change to one criterion may necessitate the changing of another criterion. This makes the proposed exercise difficult. The CWG committee is relatively ill informed compared to the Utilities staff that work with this every day.

Dennis Bode – He was not in Colorado for the 1970s drought, yet was here for the 2002 drought and has experienced significant weather variability in Colorado. The 2002 drought was an eye opener. He thinks that the City could have a more conservative drought criterion such as the 1-in-100 criterion Lewis mentioned. One of the biggest questions that the Utilities had in 2002 was: how much water would the City have in reserve if they completely ran out of water? That is what the strategic reserve is all about. The water supply shortage response plan is available for droughts that exceed the 1-in-50 year criterion or in years when the Utilities is really skeptical about future weather patterns (i.e. the Utilities had no way of knowing that a huge blizzard was going to occur in 2003). The drought criterion expresses the level of what to plan for. Breaking out the individual criterion makes the planning process more transparent and helps to ensure a reliable system for the community.

Reagan Waskom – Each of quadrants (referring to the planning criteria chart) have an impact on management and infrastructure. Using a lot of groundwater wells will have very different implications and would eliminate the need for more reservoir storage.

Dennis Bode – The City has been fortunate with their seniority of water rights, yet, also has a lot of junior water rights. The City is not short of water, it is short of a tool that helps it manage its water rights. The planning criteria allows for the planning of facilities.

Gary Wockner – During the 2002 drought, the City was concerned about water supply quantity, as they should be, and worked with farmers. Where does that level of cooperation fit in here?



While he understands that wells/agricultural deals are not the preference, there is an option out there that has not been discussed as a water supply safety factor.

Dennis Bode – Agricultural arrangements, such as what was done during the 2002 drought, fit in with the supply-side of a water supply response plan for short-term extreme conditions. If 2003 had ended up being like 2002, conditions would have been really extreme. The City did not have a safety factor during the 2002 drought. There is a supply-side and demand-side of a shortage supply response plan. Most of the plan focuses on the demand-side however, the supply-side (agricultural arrangements) can also be an important component especially during extreme conditions.

Lee Rozaklis – Gary and Reagan’s comments address the supply-side options for meeting the goals of the Policy. These things should not specifically be in the Policy, but rather be used to meet the Policy. Future demands could possibly be met through wells or through agricultural arrangements.

Susan Smolnik – Many of the agricultural leases in 2002 came from the WSSC system which are now mostly owned by Thornton and won’t be available for next drought. Other farmers that provided water to the City in 2002 have or will sell their water to municipalities. These supplies will also not be available in the future. It was advantageous to use these supplies in 2002 because they could be leased without requiring storage for return flow obligations.

Lee Rozaklis – The agricultural leases, groundwater wells and other supply options are important to look at after the Policy is in place.

Bill Emslie – He appreciates and feels that this is a good diverse discussion on important points. It’s healthy and he commends the staff for allowing such discussion. It is important to remember that this is a Policy and the CWG members, as advisors, need to be careful about providing too much specific guidance on techniques and operations. Our responsibility is to have a Policy that establishes goals, criteria, and allows Utilities to have a good portfolio of options with which to address the problems, whether they be water shortages or water quality issues. The Policy should be a “bag of tools” that can be used to address such problems in a proper way. The Policy also needs to establish boundaries that reflect core values such as environmentally responsible actions and flexibility with a broad range of options. Things like drought planning are important. We could look at what it would mean to implement a 1-in-100 year drought criterion; however, this could end up being a huge task. With regard to the Policy, we should be careful of getting into the specifics too far. In 2002 and 2003, agricultural water was leased, yet this was not specifically written down anywhere in advance. It was allowed because the Policy was flexible enough to allow it to happen. Think of the Policy as railings on the side of the bridge.

George Wallace – When the Agricultural Advisory Board approaches the Water Board about water sharing, it would be most beneficial to have a Policy that tells us how to best do that. The Policy needs a clear statement that enables agriculture to work with staff. It is easy to say how many acre-feet to increase Halligan by, but more difficult to say how many irrigators are needed to result in an equivalent yield.

Neil Grigg – Susan’s statement is very important. While agriculture is often mentioned as a good standby supply option, farmers do not have that much supply. Farmers only own 15% of



the North Poudre water. It is unrealistic to use agriculture as a safety factor. There were agricultural supplies available in 2002, however less now, and even less in the future.

George Wallace – Future agricultural agreements should be developed in advance of droughts that specify an expected amount of water farmers would “give up” during drought periods.

Reagan Waskom – While he appreciates the Policy framework, the criteria have real implications. If the City accepts a 1-in-100 drought criterion, they will have to go out and acquire additional storage. It is important to understand the implications.

Barbara Lewis – Is the Policy at an appropriate level of conservatism? She would like to know this because in the CWG Memo she would like to say what the CWG thought about reliability. Is the draft Policy at the right level, although there may be alternate options available to get there? Where does the CWG generally lie on the reliability spectrum?

Lee Rozaklis – It is important to not bundle or confuse elements of Policy and action. This process is not about the actions. The actions need to be addressed once the Policy is in place.

Gary Wockner – He does not like the term reliability criteria. He thinks of the concept more as a trade-off.

Reagan Waskom – That is true. It is irrational to ask people for less reliability.

Johannes Gessler - What about using risk?

Lee Rozaklis – But this is the same dilemma, who would sign up for more risk?

Bill Emslie – We should go up a level and address values rather than specific criteria. Essentially we want the system to be as reliable as possible without contradicting values (i.e. environmental, cost, et). As long as we are within the sphere of values, we do not necessarily need to put a specific number or measure on actions taken. Let’s be as reliable as we can and not violate our core values.

John Sanderson – There are three specific numbers in the Policy: 162 gpcd, 1-in-50, and 15%. For Barbara’s proposed exercise, we could look at each one of these. Are we being excessively conservative, not conservative enough or right on?

George Wallace – How do you incorporate population in your demands? Does it go to buildout? Response: Donnie – Yes, population is related to water utility service area at buildout by 2050. The projected population is multiplied by the 162 gpcd demand planning level.

George Wallace – So by increasing the reliability, you are not making more room to serve more people? Response: Donnie – Correct.

Johannes Gessler – He liked John’s idea of conducting the exercise with all three numbers, but would also like to add the 140 gpcd as an independent issue. For example, changing the 140 gpcd down to 130 gpcd.

Lee Rozaklis – The 140 gpcd was established as the conservation goal during the development of the water conservation plan. This process does not include the modification of this goal. John’s idea could work, it unbundles the criteria.

In response to CWG suggestions, the exercise for gauging CWG views on the Planning Criteria was changed to allow people to comment on each of the three key numbers: the planning demand level (proposed as 162 gpcd in the revised Policy), the drought criterion (proposed as 1-



in-50 in the revised Policy) and the safety factor (proposed as 15 % in the revised Policy.) Each CWG member wrote their comments on one of three flipcharts reflecting different responses. Comments are noted below with initials for who wrote down which comment.

Address Reliability Differently Support Numbers in the Revised Policy

Increase reliability (also expressed as be more

conservative or decrease risk)

Planning Level Demand

153 gpcd – DW – safe box achievements which reflects variability already GJ 153 gpcd – JG - There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor creep) 140 gpcd – JG - There is enough safety at several levels (safety factor creep) 140 gpcd – JS - Our stated goal for gpcd is 140. We should achieve that goal. It is not terribly aggressive. Even if you want to account for climate, 140 gpcd + 6% = 148.4. Looking beyond the front range, we see plenty of examples of <140 gpcd. 120 gpcd - GW

162 gpcd - HJR, BE, BR, RW, GV, MF LG - About right GNW – Good place to start

Drought Criterion

1-in-50 – HJR, DW, MF, GJ, JS

1:100 – BE - Study this first before we commit to it. What is the impact? Does it meet values test? 1:75 – RW - Expect climate change to increase drought severity. This needs more conservative planning. LG – 1-in-50 is not conservative enough.

Safety Factor 15% - HJR, DW, BE, GJ, JS, RW, MF, LG, JG

CWG Perspectives on Policy Sections

Barbara Lewis introduced an exercise to get a reading on how each CWG member felt about the Policy. CWG members were asked to hold up a green card if they fully supported the Policy, a yellow card if they could support it with reservations, and a red card if they couldn’t support it. The results were:

� Full agreement – 6 votes (In addition, two people who left early provided full agreement support in writing)

� Support with some reservation – 6 votes � Cannot support – 1 vote



Barbara asked the CWG members to go around the room and provide one strength of the Policy and one recommendation on what they would like to see changed. Barbara recorded ”plusses” and “wishes” on a flipchart; the flipchart notes are included in this summary as Attachment A.

George Wallace – Strength: Good job at incorporating needs of agriculture and working with agriculture. Recommendation: Change “the City will explore long-term rental arrangements with irrigators” to “the City will explore long-term sharing arrangements with irrigators.”

Dennis Wallisch – Strength: Liked continuity with the previous Policy yet also how concerns of the different CWG members were incorporated into the updated draft Policy. Recommendation: The draft Policy needs to do a better job addressing water quality. The quality of water can be significantly different depending on whether the water is coming out of Horsetooth or out of the Poudre. As a large contractual user, water quality has implications on how their system is designed. Fort Collins has good quality water and this has served as an economic benefit to the City. How the City manages water quality in the future will make a difference.

George Varra – Strength: He likes the Policy and thinks that it is exceptionally good. Recommendation: He is not clear on the statement: “Recognizing that its water use depletes natural stream flows, the City will seek opportunities to exceed regulatory requirements that protect the ecological function of the streams and rivers affected by its diversions.” What does it mean by exceeding regulatory requirements? Response: Donnie - This statement was not intended to go around the law, but rather to exceed certain regulatory requirements. Response:

John Sanderson – This was his original comment. If the City is to be a leader, it needs to look for opportunities to cooperate and go beyond just what the Corps for example is saying. The City needs to seek other opportunities.

Gary Wockner – Strength: Policy refers to the City as a leader. Recommendation: Fort Collins has some of the best tasting water in the United States and internationally. There is nothing in the draft Policy about the taste of water.

Gina Janett – Strength: Draft Policy places more emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing. Recommendation: The planning demand level is a little high. She would like to see it be as low as 153 gpcd.

Reagan Waskom – Strength: He liked the agricultural and environmental changes in the Policy. Recommendation: He has a number of wordsmithing tweaks that he’ll provide on the comment form. The most significant change involves the language on working with other providers. We need to make sure that we do not imply that other providers have to “behave” like the City in order for the City to cooperate with them (i.e. Tri-Districts).

Barbara Rutstein – Strength: She has some wordsmithing, but overall it is a good comprehensive Policy and she likes how climate change was addressed. Recommendation: There are some things that are opinions in the Policy. These need to be restated in Policy language or included as footnotes. Specifics are noted on her comment sheet.

Holly Jo Roseberry - Strength: Overall it is a good all encompassing Policy. She liked how climate change, instream flows and agriculture were incorporated. Recommendation: The numbers (1-in-50 drought, 15% and 162 gpcd) should be taken out. The Policy should serve as the basis on how to respond to certain numbers.



Lewis Grant – Strength: Overall it is a good Policy. He likes the water sharing and interrelation between the City and agriculture. Recommendation: The agricultural water sharing should be better defined with more emphasis of having medium and long-term sharing arrangements that support both agriculture and the City.

Mark Forsyth - Strength: The Policy is well organized, comprehensive and he likes the inclusion of climate change. It is at just the right level. Recommendation: He has no specific recommendations.

John Sanderson – Strength: He likes Section 4.1, which expresses commitment to both agriculture and instream flows. He appreciates the Utilities efforts to hear the general sentiment that the CWG put forward. Recommendation: The demand planning level should be lowered to 140 gpcd and in the future the 140 gpcd water conservation goal should possibly be revisited.

Johannes Gessler - Strength: Very good Policy. Recommendation: His former recommendation was to take out all of the numbers. He has changed his mind and now thinks that they need to be included. The numbers are needed to provide some guidance to staff. If there are no numbers, there is too much flexibility. However, the numbers need to be adjusted. The 162 gpcd is too high. The 1-in-50 is too conservative; it should be 1-in-40. The 15% safety factor is the most important criterion and 15% does not give us much safety. The Policy is also too weak on addressing working with the neighbors and other water providers. Language in this section should be modified saying the City will aggressively seek collaboration and be a leader in discussions including Northern.

Bill Emslie – Strength: Good Policy and process. The best Policy comes from having a diverse set of viewpoints, which was achieved in this process. Recommendation: He generally agrees with the Policy, but would like to see some changes. He would like to add to Johannes comment regarding cooperating with neighbors and providers. Several communities in Denver are pooling resources in order to share and optimize existing infrastructure. He recommends thinking about water supply core values as a separate section instead of embedding these in the water supply reliability section. Such values may include: 1) decisions about supply and demand should be done in an environmentally responsible manner, 2) financial value (address potential adverse economic impacts, for example study the financial impacts of a 1-in-100 year drought criterion, 3) water quality value – maintain the watershed for the preservation and enhancement of water quality and also address emergency situations such as a wildfire.

Gary Wockner – He cannot support the Policy yet wants to be clear that he in not going to oppose the Policy in a public way. There are a number of ways in which the Policy can be improved. Most of these improvements were provided in his former Policy comments.

Common Ground

Barbara asked the group if it would like to spend the remaining time discussing other issues not addressed in the Revised Policy or identify areas of common ground. Group decided to discuss common ground.

Reagan Waskom – He pointed out that everyone but Gary can support the Policy as is or with some minor changes.



Bill Emslie – For those that held up the yellow card, if your recommendations were addressed, would you support the Policy or are there still a few issues that would keep you from accepting the Policy?

Gary Wockner – Does staff have to have all of the planning criteria numbers? This is a big sticking point. Response: Dennis – The numbers do help. If we do not have the numbers, we do not have any guidance.

Johannes Gessler – If the numbers remain in the Policy, he will continue to “hold the yellow card.” The current numbers cumulatively results in “safety factor creep.”

Bill Emslie – If we take out all of the numbers, such as the 15 percent reserve, the 1 in 50 drought criteria and the 162 gpcd planning number, we strip out the vital guidance that his needed to establish reserves and ensure sufficient water resources. . We should present the majority opinions and then have a separate section that presents the alternative/minority opinions.

Barbara Lewis – The CWG memo is intended to communicate that some of the group felt one way and some of the group felt another way. In this way, the Memo can communicate the common ground as well as the breadth of other opinions.

Reagan Waskom – Most of the disagreement appears to revolve around the numbers. If we negate the numbers, it would be interesting to see if there are any other major points of disagreement.

Johannes Gessler – Let’s exclude the numbers and do the “card exercise.”

John Sanderson – If we do not recommend specific numbers, who then decides on what the numbers will be? What will that look like?

Reagan Waskom – Although it has been implied, we have not openly discussed the Halligan EIS. The Halligan EIS has a planning level of 162 gpcd.

Dennis Bode – Would like to highlight that if we do not consider the numbers, the group appears to generally agree with the Policy. In regards to Halligan, the 162 gpcd is used for planning purposes. However, the 162 gpcd is not the only assumption that is incorporated into the modeling for the EIS. There are many other assumptions and the use of 162 gpcd or 153 gpcd as the planning level would not make that significant of a difference. If we have additional storage (i.e. Halligan), it may not just be used for municipal water supply. It could also be used to meet other needs such as agriculture and instream flows.

Barbara Rutstein – We need the numbers in the Policy because the staff could change. If the CWG recommends the numbers, the Council will be less likely to change the number. The Council could recommend anything.

Bill Emslie –If we say no to the numbers, we are abandoning our responsibility to provide a useful policy recommendation.

Gary Wockner – If the numbers were dropped, he would go to green.

Holly Jo Roseberry – If something changes, the 1-in-50 criterion may not cover it. Response:

Donnie – The 1-in-50 criterion covers anything less than 1-in-50.

Barbara Rutstein – A 1-in-100 criterion means building more facilities



Lewis Grant – He is not sure on what the 1-in-100 implies in regards to infrastructure changes.

Lee Rozaklis – What do people envision the Policy would sound like without the numbers? Would there just be qualitative words instead of numbers? What does the Policy get us without numbers?

Bill Emslie – Dennis says that the numbers are helpful and already in the Halligan enlargement. If we send the Policy forward with blanks, what kind of message are we sending to the decision makers? We are then saying to Council and the Water Board we can’t agree on the numbers, which creates a vacuum and the first person that comes up with a logical argument may have their view accepted by the Council, bypassing the recommendations we have provided.

John Sanderson – We are not going to agree on the numbers.

Bill Emslie – He likes providing a range of minority and majority. It speaks to the inability to come to an agreement.

Gary Wockner – We don’t really know what the numbers mean. For instance, we don’t know what a 1-in-25 or a 1-in-50 looks like in the City. What would the City look like if the demand planning level was 90 gpcd instead of 162 gpcd? We need more information.

Lewis Grant – The staff has done a good job looking at the range of numbers. They have provided us a lot of information. The Policy needs numbers ad guidelines. Without numbers there are no decisions or anything.

Johannes Gessler - The Utility should make the decision on the numbers. If the Utilities are not comfortable, then the Water Board can help decide on the numbers with cooperation of the staff. Somebody will have to come up with the numbers. The Utilities staff are the ones that are to be blamed if they come up with the numbers and therefore they tend to be conservative. If they do not come up with the numbers, they won’t be blamed.

Barbara asked for a vote to see whether the Policy needs numbers:

� 7 voted yes out of 10 remaining

The CWG then voted on whether members could can accept Policy if the numbers were set aside (do not consider what the actual numbers are):

� Full agreement – 9 votes � Support with some reservation – 1 vote

Reagan Waskom – Some of the members are not here. He is concerned that they are not adequately represented. Response: Barbara – She will ask others to provide input remotely.

Gina Janett – The memo should conclude that there is actually a lot of consensus.

Other Issues not Addressed in the Policy

This was not covered in depth but is addressed in written comment forms.



Wrap Up

Kevin Gertig gave a sincere thank you on behalf of the Utility staff and stated that the CWG’s input is extremely valuable and is taken seriously from a social, economic and environmental standpoint.



ATTACHMENT A Flipchart Notes of Policy Review Comments

CWG Policy Review Comments

Plusses Wishes

Incorporated aspects regarding respect for needs of agriculture and working with agriculture

p. 8 3rd

sentence….replace rental with sharing

Continuing from previous Policy and taking into consideration different concerns

Need to recognize that it matters how and where you get water from, especially with respect to water quality

Good Policy Instream flows important. Be clear on meaning of “exceed regulatory requirements”

Included being a Leader in the Policy FC best tasting water – great tasting water.

More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing

Lower planning demand water level – 153?

More emphasis on instream flows and agricultural water sharing, heard what the CWG said

Working with other municipal providers that serve FC residents. Don’t imply that other providers need to act more like us.

Comprehensive, addresses climate change Reword places where it is Policy not opinion

Like climate change, streams, rivers, agriculture. All encompassing.

Take out the numbers – The Policy is the bases for response to whatever the city is facing.

Water sharing and interrelation between city and agriculture

Arrangement with water sharing better defined with more emphasis on Long Term Sharing (not year to year)

Well organized and comprehensive – at right level, addresses climate change

Shoot for 140 gpcd. Should not inflate it so much higher.

Likes new 4.1 and other beneficial purposes. Appreciate Utility’s hearing the group’s input; hope specifics follow.

Adjust numbers to fit John’s proposal – 140 gpcd. 15% is key and it is too low but may be the only thing we can get.

Very good Policy. Started thinking take out the 3’s but now thinks they are the railings on the bridge. Don’t turn everything over to Utility staff to decide.

Policy is too weak on working with other providers. Suggest aggressively seek collaboration. (Example is Denver metro pooling of infrastructure – treatment, storage, etc.)

Appreciate strong, diverse group providing Policy input. Excellent choice of process. Like the 3 planning criteria.

Structure: Thought of 2.0 as Core Values for decision-making. Add overt statement on environmental responsibility, financial responsibility, and water quality value.

Remarkable agreement by the group Will submit letter on how can be improved. Most of ideas are in online comments on previous draft.