HomeMy WebLinkAboutComplete April 2013 WRAB Packet
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Monday, 15April2013
7:00 p.m.
1777 West Conference Room
1777 Broadway
Agenda Highlights
:
I.Call to order. (7:00p.m.)
II.Approval of minutes from the 18Marchmeeting(7:01p.m.)
III.*Public Comment Period. (7:05 p.m.)
IV.Swear in new board members(7:10 p.m.)
V.Election of Officers (7:15p.m.)
VI.Information Item -2014 Budget Process Overview (7:30p.m.)
VII.Information Item –Drought Response Overview and Water SupplyUpdate (8:10p.m.)
VIII.Matters:(8:40p.m.)
From the Board
FromStaff
IX.Discussion about Future Schedule (8:50p.m.)
X.Adjournment. (9:00p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Information
: Contact the WRAB Secretary,AngelaD. Reese at (303) 441-3266or
reesea@bouldercolorado.gov. Packets are available in the reference section of the Main
Library and on-line at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works,
Agenda item times are approximate.
Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board.
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Upcoming Agenda Items–All Items Tentative
Revised 3-19-2013
April 15, 2013
New WRAB members/Election of Officers
WRAB Retreat Scoping
Information Item -2014 Budget Process Overview(Baird)
Information Item –Drought Response Triggers
May 20, 2013
WRAB Retreat Follow Up
Information Item -Water Conservation Futures Study (Sands)
Information Item -E. coli TMDL (Taylor/Linenfelser)
Information Item -South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer)
Information Item–2014 Capital Improvements Program
June 17,2013
Action Item –Recommendation on 2014 Capital Improvements Program
Information Item -Hydroelectric Program Operations/Opportunities (Taddeucci)
Action Item -South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer)
Information Item –Twomile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek Flood Mapping
Study (Bauer)
July15,2013
Action Item -Water Conservation Futures Study
Action Item –Twomile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek Flood Mapping Study
(Bauer)
Information Item –Skunk Creek, Bluebell reek and King’s Gulch Flood Mapping Study
(Coleman)
August 19, 2013
Action Item –Skunk Creek, Bluebell reek and King’s Gulch Flood Mapping Study
(Coleman)
Upcoming Items/Not Scheduled
Fluoride in drinking water (Linenfelser/Crittenden)
Public Works Design and Construction Standards(Schum)
Update on Partnership for Clean Water (Emarine)
Boulder Slough Flood Mapping Update (Coleman)
Backflow Prevention Program (Leoni)
Utility Revenue Stabilization (Baird/Sands)
Technology and Benchmarks (Crittenden/Douville/Crean/Harberg/Gallo)
Water Supply/Climate Change(Taddeucci)
WWTF Activated Sludge Upgrade/Removal of Emerging Contaminants
(Linenfelser/Douville)
Update on Civic Area Planning Process
WWTF –Tour of facility upgrades–April 2013(Douville)
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
18March 2013
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Laurel Olsen-Horen; 303-441-3203
Board Members Present:Susan Iott, Chuck Howe(departed at 10:16 p.m.],Dan Johnson,Vicki
Scharnhorst
Board Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator
Craig Skeie,Water Resources Facilities Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Manager
Ken Baird, Financial Manager
Kaaren Davis, Board Secretary
Meeting Type:
Regular
Agenda Item 1 –Call to Order [7:03p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:03p.m.
Agenda Item 2–Approval of the 25February2013Meeting Minutes: [7:03p.m.]
Motion to approvethe 28Decemberminutes as presentedby:Howe;Seconded by: Scharnhorst
Motion Passes;4:0
Agenda Item 3–Public Participation and Comment [7:09p.m.]
Public Comment:
None
Agenda Item 4–Continuation-Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation for thresholds
for a recreational boating Program on Barker Reservoir. [7:17p.m.]
Jeff Arthurpresented item to the board. Item was deferred until after Agenda item5 but before agenda item
6.There was a pause at the beginning of the item while the board reviewed a written summary of the
February 25, 2013 discussion provided by staff.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
No memo was produced as this item was a continuation from the prior meeting.Staff provided a draft
“WRAB Thresholds Summary” and proposed motion based on the February 25, 2013 WRAB discussion.
The original flip chart notes from the February meeting were posted to allow for review and comparison
with the summary.
Public Comment: [7:29p.m.]
There was no public comment on this item. The WRAB was provided with a hardcopy
of an email from Arden Buck. Mr. Buck was unable to attend the meeting and asked
that his comments be providedtothe WRAB.
WRAB DiscussionIncluded: [7:34p.m.]
The WRAB reviewed and discussed the draft WRAB Threshold Summary and made several edits.. Edits
were documented in a redline/strikeout version(attached)of the draft produced and reviewed by WRAB
during the meeting.
Motion by Johnson, seconded by Howe: See full text of motion and thresholds below “vote”.
Vote: 4:0Motion Passes
Motion to recommend that the following “WRAB Thresholds Summary” be addressed in the
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No.1
evaluation of a Town of Nederland proposal for a recreational non-motorized boating program on
Barker Reservoir.
WRAB Thresholds Summary:
The Water Resources Advisory Board, at the request of City Council, has considered “thresholds” for a
potential recreational non-motorized boating program on Barker Reservoir. The WRAB recognizes the
recreational benefits that a boating program would provide. The WRAB also recognizes that development
and management of such a program in a manner generally consistent with comparable city programs will
entail significant costs. The WRAB further recognizes that if a proposal is to be prepared by the Town of
Nederland, it is important to fairly and adequately assess the risks and benefits to the City of Boulder, to
communicate the city’s general requirements, concerns, and expectations at the outset, so that the Town of
Nederland can make informed decisions on the development and submittal of a proposal. The WRAB does
not support dedicating resources from the Water Utility Enterprise fund for development or management of
a recreational boating program and recommends that only minimal staff resources be dedicated to review of
a proposal. The WRAB does not consider review of a boating proposal to be a higher priority than existing
work program items. Should City Council decide to prioritize review of a boating proposal, WRAB
recommends that such a proposal address the following general thresholds:
Safety
1. –The boating proposal should provide a thorough analysis of safety and security relative to
recreational non-motorized boating at Barker Reservoir. The reservoir is currently under Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. Prior to finalization of a license exemption, any
proposal would, at a minimum, be subject to FERC requirements. Should an exemption be
approved, any proposal should still address FERC recreation, public safety and security
requirements. With or without an exemption, the proposal should address emergency response
and should provide a comparative safety analysis, including evaluation of acceptable accident and
death frequency, toother reservoirs (city-owned and non-city-owned such as Denver Water) that
provide recreational boating. Because Barker Dam vulnerability assessments and security plans
are confidential in nature, staff would need to evaluate the proposal to determine the adequacy of
the existing security plan with regard to any concerns attributable to a boating program.
Additional security measures, if needed, could result in increased program costs.
Water Quality
2. –The boating proposal will need to present a detailed plan to monitor and address
potential water quality impacts including risks associated with aquatic nuisance species. At a
minimum, the proposal will need to present a plan for both short-term and long-term inspection,
monitoring and reporting to the city for aquatic nuisance species, and monitoring and reporting
other pertinent water quality parameters, including identification of roles and responsibilities. The
city’s Boulder Reservoir aquatic nuisance species program and monitoring program should be
used as a general guide for minimum standards. The short-term water quality monitoring program
should present steps for establishing baseline water quality information so that effects can be
considered with and without boating. The proposal should presentplans for meeting city and state
water quality requirements and should address consistency with other city facilities where
recreational boating is allowed.
Program Development and Management
3. –The boating proposal should present a
comprehensive plan for program management. In terms of program development, strong
consideration should be given to involving third-party consultants with relevant experience and
expertise. The proposal should provide a comparative analysis to other reservoirs (city-owned and
non-city-owned such as Denver Water) that provide recreational boating. WRAB’s expectation
would be that the management plan would present an approach consistent with a city-managed
program and should include provisions for items such as training and certification. The plan
should identify the organizational structure and should clarify roles and responsibilities.
Liability
4. –The boating proposal should present a careful and complete analysis of liability
prepared by an individual or firm with appropriate professional qualifications. WRAB’s
expectation is that the proposal would address liability and insurance at the Town of Nederland’s
sole expense and that the Town of Nederland would indemnify the city from any damages, losses,
claims or expenses that result from the boating program. The plan should provide a comparative
analysis to other boating programs in the state with respect to liability, risk management and
insurance issues. The proposed plan to address liability will be subject to review and comment
from the City Attorney’s Office at which time additional legal considerations may be identified.
Cost/Sustainability
5. –The boating proposal should be prepared by the Town of Nederland and
should present a detailed plan and budget. The plan should present an analysis of usage and
projected costs, fees, and revenue in a way that can support the program at the Town of
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No.2
Nederland’s sole expense. The proposal should identify any associated resource impacts above
current city expenditures, including staff time, and present a plan for compensation to the city.
The proposal should include a detailed budget that describes the long term financial viability of
the program. Should the boating program be terminated for any reason, the proposal should
address plans to end the program inclusive of measures to prevent further boating use.
Other
6. –The proposal should include a discussion of any potential benefits to the City of Boulder
(e.g., number of projected boaters from Boulder, regional collaboration, recreation, environmental
benefits, water quality education, etc.). The proposal should also present a plan for development
of an intergovernmental agreement.
Agenda Item 5–Public hearing and consideration of recommendation to City Council regarding the
adoption of a Critical facilities Ordinance. [7:12p.m.]
Jeff Arthur and Christie Coleman presented item to the board.The item was presented and discussed before
Agenda Item 4 (Boating on Barker).
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
The City of Boulder is proposing an ordinance to increase flood protection for facilities that offer lodging,
and for critical facilities that provide essential services, serve at-risk populations, or contain hazardous
materials. This ordinance requires lodging facilities to develop an emergency management plan and critical
facilities to both develop an emergency management plan and implement flood protection measures. The
proposed requirements would help reduce the risk to life and safety, ensure continuous service, minimize
infrastructure damage and reduce environmental contamination following a major flood event.
In 2011, WRAB and Planning Board recommended approval of a draft critical facilities flood ordinance.
City Council subsequently raised concerns about the ordinance’s potential impact on the business
community. At a May 29, 2012 flood study session, City Council expressed support for continuing
development of the ordinance and provided the following feedback:
Minimize impacts to nonprofits and small businesses
Avoid conflicts between height restrictions and elevation requirements
Structure ordinance to clearly reflect the impacted uses
At the June 2012 WRAB meeting, staff gave an update on the outcome of the flood study session, and in
September 2012, staff presented a summary of City Council’s feedback and staff’s anticipated next steps.
On December 17, 2012, staff presented an update on the ordinance and asked WRAB to assess proposed
modifications to address City Council’s feedback. No significant concerns were identified and WRAB was
generally supportive of scheduling an agenda item to make a formal recommendation to City Council.
Staff has continued to refine the ordinance to improve its organization and incorporate public feedback.
Portions of the ordinance have been relocated from the floodplain management section of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981, to a section focused on development standards. Another change, based on feedback
from a facility manager, provides a two year time frame for completing levee modifications. Outside of
these changes, the substance of the regulations remains substantially the same as discussed in December.
Public Comment: [7:17p.m.]
None
WRAB Discussion Included: [7:16p.m.]
WRAB had no questions for staff.
Motionby Scharnhorst, Seconded by Howe:Motion to recommend adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 9-3, “Overlay Districts,” Chapter 9-9 “Development Standards,” and Section 9-
16-1 “Definitions,” B.R.C 1981, in substantially the same form as what is included in the WRAB
packet as Attachment A.
Vote: 4:0 Motion Passes
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No.3
Agenda Item 6 –Information Item –Update on Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water
Budgets. [8:48p.m.]
The item was presented by Russ Sands , Jeff Arthur and Seth Jansen with Brendle Group. There was a
Powerpoint presentation.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
When water budgets were implemented in 2007 they were intended to equitably link monthly
water allotments with water efficiency. While single family, multifamily and outdoor water
budgets were set using informed efficiency levels, the Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
(CII) sector was less straightforward. Given the complexities of the CII sector, historic water use
was used to determine CII water budgets regardless of whether the historic use had been efficient
or inefficient. Upon implementation of water budgets in 2007, and amidst subsequent CII budget
changes in 2008, City Council directedstaff to continue evaluating if an efficiency-based,
equitable CII water budget could be developed.
With WRAB guidance, staff initiated a CII water budget pilot study in 2009 to identify what, if
any, water efficiency-based alternatives could be developed and implemented. In 2011, staff
developed a CII water budget approach that combined statistical benchmarks and water audits
into a single “Combined Approach.” With WRAB’s support, staff has moved forward with a
deeper analysis of how and if this methodology could be used to establish new CII water
budgets.
Through 2012 staff continued to analyze the Combined Approach, focusing most heavily on the
benchmarking methodology-the more data intensive component. Now, with sub-sector
benchmarks identified, initial revenue impacts analyzed and water audits ready to test, staff is
providing WRAB with an update on progress to date. Staff plans to continue testing and refining
the Combined Approach through 2013 in order to bring a final recommendation back to WRAB
in early 2014.
WRAB Discussion Included: Consideration of the following questions from staff. [10:04p.m.]
Does WRAB have any questions or concerns with the benchmarking analysis?
Revenueneutral approach is preferable.
o
Does WRAB have any questions, concerns or specific direction for water audits?
Should perhaps look at implementing the audit system for residential users as well as CII
o
users.
Audits should be free. They are a good tool towards doing the right thing, but cost could
o
be considered punitive.
Is there specific financial analysis WRAB would like to see in future presentations?
th
percentile as levels for analysis going forward.
Discussed the 75th and 85
o
Make sure whatever method we use is not so punitive towards business thatit causes
o
business exodus.Current system can be punitive.
Is WRAB supportive of having staff continue exploring the Combined Approach?
Combined approach seems like a good approach to a thorough and equitable system.
o
Methodology combining benchmarking and audits seems efficient.
o
WRAB CommentsIncluded:
Current usages for CII water and what/whether there are goals for where it should be.
This should be published as it is an invaluable contribution to the field. Boulder is leading the
way.
Motion:No official action was requested of the board at this time.
Agenda Item 7 –Matters [8:39p.m.]
This item was considered prior to agenda item 6.
From Staff:(8:39 p.m.)
Staff-Update Snow-Pack:
Snow pack is running about 70% of average. Have been getting good
dense snows in the watershed. Expecting a good storm this weekend or next week. We are still too
early to make good projections. We will bring a comprehensive update to the WRAB in April.
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No.4
Overall reservoir storage is about 110% of what it would normally be for this time of year.
Council has appointed new WRAB members; Mark Squillace(5-year term) and Ed Clancy (2year
term). If any current members have ideas about useful orientation materials for new members,
please let staff know.
2 press releases and fix a leak week related to water budgets and water conservation efforts.
Rebates targeting high water usage users-Get a free toilet.
New meter updates-(1:46 track 4) Leak checks
New “Water Wise” flyer.
From the Board: [10:18 p.m.]
Scharnhorst: AWWA article regarding sensitivity around rate increases was interesting.
Recommended reading for staff.
Iott: Requested Windy gap/Gross stream reservoir in-stream flow update.
WRAB memberHowe departed at 10:16 p.m.
Agenda Item 8–Discussion on Future Schedule [10:28p.m.]
Officer Election
Budget Office
E. Coli TMDL Update (information item)-Move to May or June
Function for Kate and Susan
Thanks to Susan for her excellent service to the WRAB.
Agenda Item 9–Adjournment [10:32p.m.]
There being no furtherbusiness to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:32p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: Scharnhorst; Seconded by: Johnson
Motion Passes 3:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will beMarch 18,2013at 7:00 p.m., inthe 1777 West ConferenceRoomof the
city Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY:ATTESTED BY:
____________________________________________________________________
Board ChairBoard Secretary
____________________________________________________________________
DateDate
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary,is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No.5
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Update on 2014 Utilities Budget Process including updated six-year Utility
Fund Financials and current CIP
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning & Project Management Coordinator
Ken Baird, Financial Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
a six-year planning budget, this
year for the time period of 2014 through 2019.Within this process, funds are appropriated for
the first year, 2014. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) role in this process is
al
improvements conducted or proposed by the utilities divisionThis agenda item is intended to
initiate this process by providing:
Background information
Fund updates
Budget Outlook
Update on Bonds
Schedule of key milestones
This packet contains information concerning the updated 2013 Utilities Budget and the 2013-
2018Utilities Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The attached fund financials and CIP
Attachment A Attachment B
spreadsheets (Water Utility, Wastewater Utility and
Attachment C
-Stormwater / Flood Management Utility) reflect actual revenues and
expenditures for 2012.
Staff will return to the May 20, 2013 meeting with the updated 2014 proposed budget
incorporating personnel and other costs based on the budget guidelines. The CIP for each fund
will also be updated to reflect recommended changes, and recommended revenue increases may
be adjusted to assure fund sustainability.
No formal action by the WRAB is requested at this time. WRAB action will be scheduled for
the June 18 meeting. A public hearing will be scheduled for both the May 20 and June 17 budget
discussions.
Page 1
Agenda Item # _6_
BACKGROUND:
primary focus is to provide quality water services, as desired by the
community, in a manner which emphasizes efficient management of fiscal and natural resources,
wastewater and stormwater/flood management) is a separate enterprise fund established to
finance and account for the acquisiti
services while maintaining designated reserves and meeting debt service requirements. As
enterprise funds, each utility is self-supporting and receives no subsidies from other city funds
and all utility revenues remain within their respective funds.
Revenues generated from monthly utility bills are the largest source of revenue for each utility.
Other significant sources of funds include development fees (plant investment fees) related to
new construction, hydroelectric revenues, funding from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District (UDFCD) and interest earnings.
Approximately forty percent of expenditures are utilized to rehabilitate and improve the capital
infrastructure either through the capital improvements program (cash financed) or through annual
debt payments for revenue bonds that have been issued to fund capital improvements. Capital
investment in infrastructure is core in carrying out mission of delivering safe and
reliable water to our customers and ensuring that water is available for fire protection. Other
significant uses of funds include water treatment operations, wastewater treatment operations,
system maintenance and water quality operations.
FUND UPDATES:
The Water Fund ended the 2012 fiscal year with revenues collected at approximately $2.9
million (10%)greater than revised budget. This increase is primarily due to higher than expected
water sales. As mentioned in the 2012 Year in Review at the January WRAB meeting, the
unusually hot and dry summer brought more outdoor watering which resulted in overall
consumption increasing 8% from the previous year. Single family consumption was the highest
Also, greater than expected Plant Investment Fee (PIF) revenue was
received in 2012. Since PIF revenues are dependent on development activity, it is difficult to
project these revenues in any given year so a conservative approach is taken. Completion of
some large projects accounts for much of the PIF increase, which include the Peloton
development and a research facility at the University of Colorado. Hydroelectric Revenue was
down 35% from 2011 due to construction projects affecting various plants and choosing to treat
relatively more water at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. This strategy helped
preserve water for which the City owns storage rights. When greater overall revenues are
received than anticipated, the additional revenues will fall to end of year Water Fund balance.
The new fund balance will then be factored in for preparing the 2014 budget and may help offset
rate increases.
The Wastewater Fund ended 2012 with revenue collected approximately $700,000 (5%) greater
than revised budget, not including the bond refunding. Most of the increase is due to increase in
Page 2
Agenda Item # _6_
PIF revenue and higher billed revenue than anticipated.
The Stormwater Fund ended 2012 with revenue collected within less than one percent of revised
budget.
2014REVENUES:
The preliminary 2014 budget reflects billed revenue increases of 4% Water, 5% Wastewater, and
4% Stormwater/Flood Management. Revenue increases were projected for 2014 during the 2013
budget process. These may be revised as the budgets are developed.
It is estimated that the 2014 revenue increases (4%-5%-3%) would increase a typical residential
ity bill by approximately $2.67 per month, or an increase of approximately
$32.00 per month.
2014BUDGET OUTLOOK
There are some key items that will impact the 2014 budget. In the Water Fund, as staff continues
to evaluate how to optimize treatment between the two plants, treatment costs and hydroelectric
revenue will be considered. Increased use of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant to
preserve mountain storage results in increased energy costs through pumping from lower
elevation and reduced electric generation revenue since the hydroelectric plants are a part of the
system that supplies the Betasso Water Treatment Plant.
The Wastewater Fund has been impacted by new nutrient regulations for ammonia and nitrate
limits. A Nutrient Compliance Study was conducted, with an update provided to WRAB last
November. The proposed CIP will be updated to reflect additional costs in 2019 and reduced
costs for the project anticipated in 2029.
Escalation of costs is also something that staff monitors closely. Along with CPI, the division
monitors the Engineering News-Record (ENR) index and the Colorado Construction Cost index.
At the end of 2012, these indexes have increased 1.4% and 15.9%, respectively. Since these
indexes vary from year to year, averages over multiple years will be considered.
ANTICIPATED BONDS:
The 2013-2018 utility fund financials reflect several bond issuances (and associated debt
payments) to fund the following capital projects:
Water:
1.Betasso Water Treatment Plant Improvements ($12 million in 2016) to fund
improvements to the Betasso WTP to assure compliance with federal Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations.
2.Barker Dam Improvements ($11.3 million in 2018) to fund repairs to the outlet works and
construct a new hydroelectric facility
3.Carter Lake Pipeline ($27.4 million in 2018)
Page 3
Agenda Item # _6_
Wastewater:
1.No bonds are anticipated in the 2012-2018 planning period. There will likely be bonds
issued for Treatment Plant improvements in 2020 related to the Nutrient Compliance
Study previously mentioned.
:
Stormwater and Flood Management
1.South Boulder Creek Improvements ($4.5 million in 2015) to fund improvements
designed to mitigate flood hazards in the South Boulder Creek West Valley area.
The following table summarizes the debt obligations of the utilities, the year the debt is retired
and the average annual debt payment. Items shown in italics are projects that are anticipated to
be funded by issuing bonds.
Year Debt Approximate Annual
UtilityProjectsis RetiredDebt Payment
WaterBoulder Reservoir WTP 2016$858,000
Improvements
Multiple Projects including Silver 2019$2,522,000
Lake Pipeline, Barker Purchase
Lakewood Pipeline2021$2,066,000
Betasso WTP Imp. (2016)2035$1,125,000
Barker Dam Improvements2037$1,046,000
(2018)
Carter Lake Pipeline (2018)2037$2,508,000
WastewaterWWTP Improvements2025$3,500,000
WWTP Improvements 2030$674,000
Storm/Flood Multiple projects including Goose 2018$385,000
Creek Improvements
South Boulder Creek Imp. (2015)2035$437,000
related to the Windy Gap project.
payment is approximately $1,650,000.
originally issued in 2005. This will result in savings to the fund of around $80,000 per year
through 2015, then over $300,000 per year through 2025. The utility continues to maintain a
financial practices, one of the most important of which is maintaining sufficient reserves.
Page 4
Agenda Item # _6_
BUDGET SCHEDULE:
The current schedule of major budget milestones is provided below. Elements involving the
WRAB are highlighted in bold italics.
Milestone Date
Preliminary WRAB Budget Discussion April 15, 2013
Budget Guidelines to Departments April 29, 2012
WRAB meeting review updated CIP May 20, 2013
Proposed Budget Submittal to City Manager May 31, 2013
WRAB Recommendation on CIP/Budget June 17, 2013
Departmental Budget Review by City Manager May 30-June 28, 2013
Planning Board CIP Hearing Aug 1, 2013
City Council Study Session on Budget (CIP) Aug. 13, 2013
City Council Study Session on Budget Sept. 10, 2013
City Council Study Session on Budget (if needed) Sept. 24, 2013
City Council Consideration/Adoption of Budget Oct. 1 and Oct. 15, 2013
NEXT STEPS:
May 20,2013meeting for CIP review and discussion. Staff will
also provide updated fina4Budget Guidelines
and updated revenue projections. At the June 17 WRAB meeting, staff will request that the
WRAB provide a final recommendation concerning the proposed 2014-2019 CIP to Planning
Board and City Council.
Attachments:
A:
Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
B:
Wastewater - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
C:
Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Page 5
Agenda Item # _6_
Attachment A
%&'*+,-./0
CITY OF BOULDER04-Apr-13
2013-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate4.00%ESTIMATED2012201320142015201620172018
PROJECT NAME2013 COSTACTUALREVISEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTED
Treated Water Pressure Reducing and Hydroelectric Facilities
Kohler Hydro/PRV Facility411376$0$50,000$0$0$0$0$0
Maxwell Hydro/PRV Facility411342$0$50,000$0$0$0$0$0
Orodell Hydro/PRV Facility411331$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Sunshine Hydro/PRV Facility411347$232,400$0$0$0$0$0$271,875$0
Pearl Street Hydro/PRV Facility$200,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$24,333
Subtotal - Treated Water PRV and Hydro$0$100,000$0$0$0$271,875$24,333
Water Treatment Facilities
Betasso WTF411947$163,213$370,869$100,000$1,549,628$3,500,030$0$0
Betasso WTF - Bond Proceeds$0$0$0$0$11,996,245$0$0
Bond Issuance Costs$0$0$0$0$125,000$0$350,000
Boulder Reservoir WTF411652$30,393$159,933$82,000$0$164,000$0$0
Boulder Res WTF - Bond Proceeds$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Water Treatment Facilities$193,606$530,802$182,000$1,549,628$15,785,275$0$350,000
Treated Water Pump Stations
Cherryvale Pump Station411010$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Reservoir WTF High Service Pump Station411011$0$162,800$0$0$0$0$0
Iris Pump Stations411012$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Treated Water Pump Stations$0$162,800$0$0$0$0$0
Treated Water Storage Tanks
Gunbarrel Storage Tank411670$0$265,798$0$0$0$0$0
Maxwell Storage Tank411673$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Booten Storage Tank$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Devil's Thumb Storage Tank411674$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Kohler Storage Tank411671$920,000$0$0$0$103,487$1,034,875$0$0
Chautauqua Storage Tank411672$785,000$103,970$278,692$0$0$0$0$0
Betasso Storage Tank$250,000$0$0$0$0$0$292,465$0
Boulder Reservoir Storage Tank $0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Treated Water Storage Tanks$103,970$544,490$0$103,487$1,034,875$292,465$0
Treated Water Distribution System
Zone Isolation Valves411390$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Cathodic Protection411387$109,384$0$0$0$0$0$0
Waterline Replacement411389$2,211,857$3,043,936$2,184,000$2,271,360$2,362,214$2,456,703$2,554,971
Subtotal - Treated Water Distribution System$2,321,241$3,043,936$2,184,000$2,271,360$2,362,214$2,456,703$2,554,971
Treated Water Transmission System
Sunshine Transmission Pipe411006$0$800,000$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Canyon - Orodell to Fourmile Pipe411007$382,543$59,387$0$0$0$0$0
Mountain Transmission Pipes411007$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Zone 1 Transmission Pipes411002$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Zone 2 Transmission Pipes411004$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Zone 3 Transmission Pipes411005$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Treated Water Transmission System$382,543$859,387$0$0$0$0$0
Source Water Transmission System
Lakewood Pipeline411780$0$0$260,000$0$0$0$0
Silver Lake Pipeline 411640$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Source Water Transmission Pipe Inspections411775$0$80,000$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Source Water Transmission System$0$80,000$260,000$0$0$0$0
Barker Water System
Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair411106$20,000,000$326,573$611,376$364,000$378,560$667,416$612,436$636,933
Barker-Kossler Penstock Repair411107$100,000$0$0$0$0$0$116,986$0
Barker Dam Outlet411109$0$0$0$0$75,000$772,514$0
Barker Dam Outlet - Bond Proceeds$7,055,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$7,725,138
Barker Dam and Reservoir411110$350,000$0$119,040$0$378,560$0$0$0
Barker Hydro System Integration411111$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Barker Relicensing411112$140,245$149,234$0$0$0$0$0
Barker Instream Flow Release411114$37,133$96,287$0$0$0$0$0
Betasso Penstock411940$2,357$0$0$0$0$0$0
Kossler Dam411119$275,643$227,985$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Barker Water System$781,951$1,203,922$364,000$757,120$742,416$1,501,935$8,362,071
Raw Water Storage Reservoirs
Albion Dam$3,075,000$0$0$0$81,120$0$0$0
Silver Lake Dam$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Island Lake Dam411626$35,490$0$0$0$0$0$0
Green Lake 1 Dam$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Green Lake 2 Dam411627$3,875,000$0$75,000$0$0$0$0$432,739
Green Lake 3 Dam$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Goose Lake Dam411612$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Reservoir$90,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Lakewood Dam411981$102,500$0$0$0$0$0$0$124,707
Skyscraper Dam125,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Wittemyer Ponds4,000,000$0$0$0$0$0$100,000$455,515
Subtotal - Raw Water Storage Reservoirs$35,490$75,000$0$81,120$0$100,000$1,012,961
Other Raw Water Facilities
Farmer's Ditch411550$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Anderson Ditch411883$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Watershed Improvements411770$440,500$2,705$128,081$0$81,120$0$0$0
Nederland WWTP411565$0$370,000$0$0$0$0$0
Instream Flow Structures and Gaging411549$532$49,468$0$0$0$0$0
NCWCD Conveyance - Boulder Feeder Canal411546$0$92,355$0$0$0$0$0
NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline411547$615,150$336,024$0$0$100,000$2,737,469$0
NCWCD Conveyance - Bond Proceeds$25,000,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$27,374,690
Subtotal - Other Raw Water Facilities$618,387$975,928$0$81,120$100,000$2,737,469$27,374,690
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric
Lakewood Hydroelectric/PRV411801$0$0$100,000$0$0$0$0
Attachment A
%&'*+,-./0
CITY OF BOULDER04-Apr-13
2013-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate4.00%ESTIMATED2012201320142015201620172018
PROJECT NAME2013 COSTACTUALREVISEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTED
Silver Lake Hydroelectric/PRV411970$92,304$5,339$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping411655$41,586$19,681$0$0$0$0$0
Betasso Hydroelectric / Pressure Reducing Facility411974$0$0$0$0$100,000$0$0
Barker Dam Hydroelectric$0$0$0$0$50,000$361,346$0
Barker Dam Hydro - Bond Proceeds$3,300,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$3,613,459
Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric411975$3,247,525$103,363$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Canyon Hydro - Grant411976$153,320$3,778$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Canyon Hydro - Grant411977$234,151$4,237$0$0$0$0$0
Carter Lake Hydroelectric$0$0$0$0$0$50,000$250,000
Carter Lake Hydro - Bond Proceeds$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric Facility Rehabilitation$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Source Water PRV, Pumping and Hydro$3,768,886$136,398$100,000$0$150,000$411,346$3,863,459
Water Distribution System Expansion
Annexation Related Water System Expansion411433$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Water Distribution System Expansion$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Water System Monitoring and Metering
Automated Meter Reading411454$562,754$450,000$0$0$0$0$0
Water System Security Upgrades411440$54,306$45,694$0$0$0$0$0
Distribution System Water Quality411425$24,768$45,056$0$0$0$0$0
Data Communications System411435$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Yards Master Plan Implementation411039$126$99,875$0$0$0$0$0
Utility Billing Computer System Replacement411453$0$15,390$0$0$0$500,000$0
Subtotal - Water System Monitoring and Metering$641,954$656,015$0$0$0$500,000$0
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS$8,848,028$8,368,678$3,090,000$4,843,835$20,174,781$8,271,793$43,542,485
Asset Value Replacement Percentage75%
Attachment B
%&'*+,-./0
CITY OF BOULDER04-Apr-13
2013 - 2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate4.00%ESTIMATED2012201320142015201620172018
PROJECT NAME2013 COSTACTUALREVISEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTED
Wastewater Treatment
WWTF Pumps421339$142,996$5,417$150,000$0$150,000$0$0
WWTF Permit Improvements421617$154,579$307,615$150,000$1,500,000$112,486$253,064$1,265,319
WWTF Permit Improvements - Proj. Bond425xxx$10,000,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Laboratory421010$19,042$30,958$0$50,000$0$0$0
Lower Boulder Creek Enhancement421661$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Headworks421003$0$132,474$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Headworks - Proj. Bond$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Instrumentation/Control421437$14,823$160,177$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Electrical421439$0$0$100,000$0$120,000$1,200,000$0
WWTF Activated Sludge$0$0$0$0$0$182,498$0
WWTF Primary Clarifiers421005$0$300,000$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Secondary Clarifiers421006$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF UV Disinfection421110$78,396$53,676$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF UV Disinfection - Proj. Bond$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Permit Improvements - 2010 Bond424901$6,720,076$506,845$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Rehabilitation$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Valmont Butte421675$348,734$0$0$0$0$0$0
Biosolids Processing & Dewatering421670$0$0$150,000$1,000,000$0$0$0
WWTF Biosolids Digester421671$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Biosolids Digester - Proj. Bond424xxx$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Cogeneration421329$0$150,000$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Digester Complex421007$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
WWTF Digester Cleaning421360$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Bond Issuance Costs423998$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Wastewater Treatment Plant$7,478,646$1,647,162$550,000$2,550,000$382,486$1,635,562$1,265,319
Marshall Landfill
Marshall Landfill421078$0$0$0$0$100,000$0$0
Subtotal - Marshall Landfill$0$0$0$0$100,000$0$0
Wastewater System Monitoring and Metering
Yards Master Plan Implementation421039$0$50,000$0$0$0$0$0
Automated Meter Reading421548$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Utility Billing Computer System Replacement421453$0$17,596$0$0$0$250,000$0
Subtotal - Monitoring and Metering$0$67,596$0$0$0$250,000$0
Collection and Conveyance System Rehabilitation$47,052
Collection System Monitoring421450$0$50,000$0$0$0$58,493$0
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation421002$470,520$524,307$520,000$540,800$562,432$584,929$608,326
Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation421454$79,068$120,932$104,000$108,160$112,486$116,986$121,665
IBM Pump Station421521$500,000$86,972$938,848$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 1 Boulder Creek 2 Master Plan Project$733,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 1 Goose Creek 1/1A Master Plan Project$1,203,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 1 Goose Creek 3 Master Plan Project$482,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 1 Goose Creek 5 Master Plan Project$2,559,000$0$0$0$0$0$25,000$622,683
Tier 2 Boulder Creek 1 Master Plan Project$1,653,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 Boulder Creek 3 Master Plan Project$1,939,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 Boulder Creek 4 Master Plan Project$12,356,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 Goose Creek 4 Master Plan Project$3,928,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 Gunbarrel 1 Master Plan Project$1,116,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 Gunbarrel 2 Master Plan Project$939,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Tier 2 South Boulder Creek 1 Master Plan Project$733,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Sewer System Rehabilitation$636,560$1,634,087$624,000$648,960$674,918$785,408$1,352,675
Wastewater System Expansion
Annexation Related WW System Expansion421436$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Subtotal - Wastewater System Expansion$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS$8,115,206$3,348,845$1,174,000$3,198,960$1,157,405$2,670,970$2,617,994
Asset Value Replacement Percentage75%
Attachment C
%&')*+,-./
4-Apr-13
CITY OF BOULDER
2013-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Draft -
STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate4.00%ESTIMATED2012201320142015201620172018
PROJECT NAME2013 COSTACTUALREVISEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTEDPROJECTED
Major Drainageways
Elmer's Twomile Creek 431332 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Goose Creek 431710 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0
South Boulder Creek431202 $18,917$305,486$0$1,000,000$0$0$0
South Boulder Creek - Bond Proceeds$0$0$0$4,500,000$0$0$0
Bond Issuance Costs$0$0$0$75,000$0$0$0
Skunk Canyon Creek$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Sunshine Creek$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Twomile Canyon Creek$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Bluebell Canyon Creek - King's Gulch$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Viele Channel$0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Four Mile Canyon Creek431729 $3,500,000$101,333$0$0$0$0$0$0
Four Mile Canyon Creek - Upland to Violet431729 $0$0$0$0$1,000,000$1,000,000$500,000
Four Mile Canyon Creek - 19th to 22nd431730 $63,167$769,987$0$0$0$0$0
Bear Canyon Creek431010 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0
Gregory Canyon Creek431702 $14,965$0$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Creek431015 $22,329$100,000$0$0$0$0$0
Boulder Slough431016 $0$500,000$0$0$0$0$0
Wonderland Creek431003 $7,500,000$28$0$0$0$0$0$0
Wonderland Creek - Foothills to 30th431011 $227,486$3,515,760$1,200,000$0$0$0$0
Wonderland Creek at 28th St.431012 $0$1,350,000$2,050,000$1,500,000$0$0$0
Preflood Acquisition431622 $346,273$2,658,886$500,000$500,000$500,000$550,000$600,000
Greenways Program Transfer431630 $81,735$540,887$97,500$97,500$97,500$97,500$97,500
Subtotal - Major Drainageway Improvements$876,233$9,741,006$3,847,500$7,672,500$1,597,500$1,647,500$1,197,500
Miscellaneous
Yards Master Plan Implementation431039 $0$50,000$0$0$0$0$0
CU Bike/Ped Bridge Replacement I431054 $0$200,000$0$0$0$0$0
Utility Billing Computer System Replacement431453 $0$9,707$0$0$0$250,000$0
Subtotal - Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements$0$259,707$0$0$0$250,000$0
Stormwater Management
Upper Goose Creek431459 $10,700,000$0$0$0$175,000$750,000$750,000$750,000
Stormwater Quality Improvements431775 $0$150,000$52,000$54,080$56,243$58,493$60,833
Storm Sewer Rehabilitation431760 $58,930$141,070$260,000$270,400$281,216$292,465$304,163
Transportation Coordination431780 $18,454$765,684$260,000$270,400$281,216$292,465$304,163
Subtotal - Localized Drainage Improvements$77,384$1,056,754$572,000$769,880$1,368,675$1,393,422$1,419,159
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS$953,617$11,057,467$4,419,500$8,442,380$2,966,175$3,290,922$2,616,659
C I T Y OF B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Information Item –Drought Response Overview and Water Supply
Update
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Craig Skeie, Water Resources Facilities Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
During the January 28, 2013 Water Resources Advisory Board meeting, staff provided a
summary of the 2012 water year (Attachment 1) with emphasis on how the city managed water
supply during dry conditions. During the associated discussion, WRAB expressed interest in
discussing the drought plan in more detail at a subsequent meeting. This memo provides an
update on 2013 water supply conditions and the city’s drought stage determination procedures as
set forth in the Drought Plan (Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND:
The Drought Plan consists of two separate volumes and is intended to provide guidance for
recognizing and responding to droughts that will affect water supply availability. Volume I
categorizes drought alert levels according to severity and also includes actions that might be
taken to respond to each drought alert level. Volume II contains detailed technical supporting
information.
During development of the Drought Plan, the city established a formula called the “storage
index”. The storage index was derived from statistical analysis and modeling of Boulder’s water
system using hundreds of years of tree-ring based historical hydrology.The storage index is
basically a ratio of key storage parameters divided by projected demand. Staff applies the
formula each year in early May when key water supply information becomes known. The
drought alert levels corresponding to various storage index values are shown in Table 1.
Agenda Item 7 Page 1
Table 1: Suggested drought response triggers for May 1
Projected Drought Alert
Storage Index (1) Stage
Greater than 0.85 None
Between 0.85 and 0.7 I
Between 0.7 and 0.55 II
Between 0.55 and 0.4 III
Less than 0.4 IV
(1)Projected storage index = (projected usable Boulder mountain storage + 40% of
Boulder’s portion of projected CBT storage) / Boulder’s unrestrained water demand in non-drought years.
The Drought Plan identifies water use reduction goals and response options for each stage of
drought. The storage index calculation is one component of staff’s evaluation of water supply
conditions and is reviewed in conjunction with other appropriate data and operating experience.
While early May is a decision point in Boulder’s drought response analysis, staff is continuously
monitoring trends in snowpack, precipitation, runoff, reservoir filling and water system
administration throughout the year.
ANALYSIS:
As of early April this year, water supply conditions were as follows:
Mountain reservoir storage levels are average for this time of year.
Snowpack is at about 75% of average for this time of year.
Preliminary indications from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District are that
the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) allocation will be between 50-60%. The CBT
allocation is typically about 70%, but the city can make up the difference by carrying
over approximately 4,000 acre feet of unused 2012 CBT water.
The May 1 storage index calculation is still several weeks away, but it does not appear that
drought response stages I through IV will be triggered. However, the lower snowpack and
projected lower CBT allotment warrant continuation of conservative water supply measures that
began in 2012. The city has conducted public outreach and is encouraging water customers not
to turn on irrigation systems until May.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to monitor the water supply conditions and will perform the storage index
calculation in early May. Regardless of whether a drought trigger point is reached and/or
measures to reduce water use are implemented, staff will continue to inform the public of the
status of the water supply throughout the spring and summer and will increase outreach efforts to
encourage wise water use if hot, dry conditions persist.
ATTACHMENTS:
1
– January 28, 2013 WRAB Information Item– Year in Review: 2012Water Supply & Demand
Management
2
– City of Boulder - Drought Plan (electronic links)
Agenda Item 7 Page 2
Attachment 1
January 28, 2013 WRAB Information Item
Year in Review: 2012Water Supply & Demand Management
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATIONITEM
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Information Item–Year in Review: 2012Water Supply & Demand
Management
PRESENTER/S:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Project Management Coordinator
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Environmental Services Coordinator
Randy Crittenden, Water Treatment Coordinator
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Craig Skeie, Water Resources Facilities Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Program Manager
Steve Folle, Betasso Water Treatment Supervisor
Mike Emarine, Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Supervisor
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist
Joanna Crean, Public Works Project Coordinator
I. PURPOSE:
The year 2012 was the hottest and the third driest year on record in Colorado. Precipitation was
significantly below average with conditions much drier than normal in March and April. By the
end of the winter, the statewide snowpack accumulation was the lowest since 2002. Despite the
dry conditions of 2012, the city was able to preserve its mountain water storage levels and
maintain its instream flow commitments while avoiding a drought stage declaration.
Managing the city’s water supply and preparing for droughts is an ongoing process. The purpose
of this memorandum is to provide information as a “year in review” on the management of the
2012 water supply and demand. Given that 2013 may be another dry year, the city will continue
to implement projects and evaluate programs to better plan and prepare for drought conditions
such as proactively alerting customers to leaks and developing a new “Drought Buster” program.
While the city continuously monitors the snowpack levels, meaningful data is not available until
1
late April to early May to make a final identification and classification of adrought stage.
During this timeframe, knowledge of expected maximum spring snowpack accumulations,
1
The City of Boulder categorizesdroughts into four stages depending on the level of severity.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
amount of anticipated runoff that will occur and availability of water from the western slope is
known. Staff will continue to monitor snowpack, precipitation, storage levels and streamflows
throughout the winter to refine its water supply projections for 2013.
II. QUESTIONS FOR WRAB:
The WRAB is regularly asked to provide recommendations on capital projects and operating
programs that contribute to the city’s overall water supply approach. This informational agenda
item is an opportunity for WRAB to consider how those diverse components interrelate. A
review of 2012 provides a specific opportunity to discuss how the city responds during hot and
dry conditions without a drought stage declaration.
Questions for WRAB include the following:
1.What questions does WRAB have about the details of what happened in 2012 related
to water operations and drought response?
2.What questions does WRAB have on anticipated next steps in 2013 and beyond
related to water operations and drought response?
3.Would WRAB like any additional information on topics that have not been identified
in the meeting calendar for 2013?
III.OVERALL GOALS OF WATER OPERATIONS
There are many detailed goals and objectives for water operations but in general, below are the
overall goals. As in previous years, the city operated 2012 in a manner to achieve the overall
goals.
Treat and distribute water to the community in areliable,cost efficient, financially
sustainable manner.
Provide high-quality water in amanner that protects human and environmental health.
Keep instream flow at sufficient levels to protect ecosystem and natural resources.
Encourage efficient use of water.
IV.SUMMARY OF THE YEAR IN REVIEW:
The year 2012 was unusually warm and relatively dry, such that it was the hottest and the third
driest year on record for Colorado. In comparison, the year 2011 was one of the wettest and
snowiest years in recent memory with one of the historically largest snowpacks occurring in
March 2011. Due to the abundant snowfall and runoff in 2011, reservoir water storage levels
started 2012 higher than usual. Precipitation was significantly below average for the first six
months of the year, particularly in March through June. Midwinter snowpack readings were in
line with historical averages but conditions became much drier than normal in March and April.
By the end of the winter, the statewide snowpack accumulation was the lowest since 2002.
During the spring, the entire state experienced persistent warm and dry weather patterns
contributing to dry soils and the early melt of an already low snowpack. Peak snowmelt runoff
occurred approximately three weeks earlier than averageand streamflows were lower than
average.The dry weather led to unusually high irrigation water demand in the spring, with
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
abnormally high water use in March when customers turned on their irrigation systems much
earlier than expected. While March was the driest on record, July was the third wettest July on
record, which provided some temporary relief. Overall, increased outdoor water use was
2
generally consistent with turf needs based on the evapotranspiration (ET) rateand indoor water
use was low, as has been the trend over the last several years. Boulder’s overall 2012 treated
water use increased by 6 percent compared to 2011 but the increase isclose to recent average
levels observed over the last 10 years.
Despite the dry conditions of 2012, the city was able to preserve its mountain water storage
levels and maintain its instream flow commitments while avoiding a drought stage declaration
primarily due to the following factors:
Senior Water Rights and Capacity to Carry-Over
– The proportion of water from each of
the various sources (mountain storage, direct flows, and western slope supplies) varies quite
a bit from year to year. Due to past planning efforts, such as pursuing water rights and
managing growth, the city has flexibility in responding to natural weather pattern
fluctuations. Boulder’s water rights portfolio is robust and includes very senior water rights
intended to provide reliable yields even during dry years. In addition, the city has mountain
water storage reservoirs with the capability to carry-over water from wet years (2011) to dry
years (2012). In dry years, the city maximizesuse of existing water rights exchange
provisions using the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water (from the western slope) to meet
senior downstream water rights in order to maximize the ability to fill and maintain the upper
Boulder Creek reservoirs (water from the eastern slope).
High Reservoir Levels
– In 2011, exceptionally high runoff from spring kept the upper
Boulder Creek reservoirs full longer than normal. As a result, the city’s reservoirs water
levels started 2012 higher than usual. In 2012, outages due to construction projects at
Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric (Hyrdo) Plant and Kossler Reservoir resulted in reduced
winter usage of Barker Reservoir water. Additionally, significant rains during July 2012
reduced municipal water demand and added to upper Boulder Creek reservoir storage.
Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Allotment
– The CBT project brings water from the
western slope to northeastern Colorado to serve as a supplemental water supply to native
basin supplies. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD), which operates
the CBT project, provided a 100 percent allocation of CBT water in 2012. As a result, the
city was able to use more CBT water and less water from Boulder's mountain storage.
Increased Capacity of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
– The
increased Boulder Reservoir WTP capacity of 16 million gallons per day (MGD) allowed the
city to meet a greater proportion of municipal water needs from western slope supplies
(CBT), with a corresponding reduction in the city’s use of water stored in its upper Boulder
Creek basin reservoirs. The constructions projects at Boulder Reservoir WTP that increased
capacity included improvements in operational flexibility, pretreatment and monitoring in
2010 and the addition of another raw water pump in 2012.
2
Evapotranspiration (ET) rate means the amount of water that vegetation will use through the natural processes of
surface evaporation and plant transpiration (loss of water through the leaves)in an average year.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Other highlights of 2012 include the following:
No Drought Stage Declaration
– Based on the City of Boulder’s Drought Planning and
Response Plan, a drought stage was not triggered in 2012. When deciding to declare a
drought stage, the city considers, at a minimum, the following factors: Boulder’s projected
mountain storage, Boulder’s portion of water projected to be available in CBT system, and
data unique to the particular drought conditions.
No Interruptions to Instream Flow and Leasing WaterPrograms
– The city was able to
lease water without reductions and no interruptions of instream flows occurred. The city
leases CBT water on an annual basisto mostly agricultural users. The amount of water
available for lease is generally determined each year by the end of June and is based on
projections of each year’s source water supply to meet the city’s municipal water needs.The
city also uses its source water supplies to maintain instream flows in North Boulder and main
Boulder Creeks.
Identifying Irrigation Leaks
– One unanticipated benefit of a dry March was the higher
water bills earlier in the year which may have lead customers to discover irrigation leaks that
aretypically hidden in their summer water use.Due to recent meter upgrades, the city now
has the ability to flag continuous use on water meters. As a result, the city will mail letters
alerting customers to potential indoor and irrigation leaks beginning in March of 2013 and
continuing throughout the year.
Shifting to Water Conservation Installation Program
– Despite efforts to promote water
conservation rebates in 2012, customer participation appears to be one of the lowest in the
last twelve years. As a result, the city piloted an installation program using the Center for
ReSource Conservation (CRC) to make irrigation repairs, install more efficient irrigation
spray heads, and install ultra-low-flow toilets. Due to the success of the pilot projects, 2013
funding will be shifted from rebates to installation programs (toilets and sprinkler heads)
through CRC.
Unique Year for Water Budgets
– During the months April through September, on average
over 17 percent of bills were ‘over budget’ or had usage in block 3 or above. This is a
significant increase over previous years. Even though a larger amount of customers were
going into the upper blocks in the early watering months, the price signal sent by these
relatively higher bills appeared to have less effect on water use then the lack of precipitation
and dry conditions.
Higher than Expected Revenues
– Higher overall consumption and relatively high use in
the upper blocks have resulted in higher than expected revenues to the water fund in 2012.
Revenue from utility bills has increased by approximately 12 percent compared to last year.
A portion of this revenue will help offset a reduction in hydroelectric revenues, which are
lower due to hydroelectric plants being taken offline for various projects and also treating
more water through the Boulder Reservoir WTPto help preserve storage in the city
watershed. The increased use of Boulder Reservoir WTP means higher chemical costs
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
because of water quality issues along with additional electrical pumping costs. In any given
year, revenues fluctuate significantly, and keeping adequate fund balance helps mitigate
years where low water use results in revenues not covering expenditures. Excess revenues in
2012 will go to fund balance and will be used in planning the 2014 budget, which may help
reduce rate increases or offset future one-time expenses.
V. WATER CONSUMPTION & PRODUCTION:
Given the dry conditions, water use based on billed consumption increased by over eight percent
compared to 2011. Boulder’s 2012 treated water production increased six percent compared to
2011 but remained close to recent average levels observed over the last 10 years. The difference
between billed water consumption and overall production may be due to offsets in municipal
irrigation efficiency, decreases in total system water loss,and accuracy of treated water
calculations. The details related to water consumption and production are explained in the
subsections below.
Water Use Based on Billed Consumption
In 2012, the overall consumption compared to 2011 increased by over eight percent, and single-
family use was the highest it has been in 10 years. Consumption within the
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional accounts was the highest since 2008. Water use from
Irrigation-Only accounts was at the highest in over 20 years, although some of this is due to a
greater number of these account types. Comparing outdoor and indoor water use for all
customers, outdoor use was in proportion to irrigation demands and indoor use was lower than
previous years which is part of a downward trend.
Understanding the reasons for water use trends over time can be a challengegiven multiple
factors such as weather, water rate structure, the economy, demographic changes, and more
efficient water fixtures and practices. As part of the analysis, the water use during the period
from December through March, which is considered the Average Winter Consumption (AWC),
was evaluated. While this is a measure used to determine indoor consumption, it should be noted
that some customers water trees or other plants in dry winter months. In the early 1990’s, AWC
was around 6,000 to 6,500 gallons. Over the last 20 years, this has decreased to a little over
4,000 gallons for the AWC period ending March 2012.
An analysis published in the February 2011 Journal AWWA looked at the trends towards
reduced residential consumption in North America. The researchers found the two main factors
behind the decline were decreasing household size and more efficient fixtures. Since 1990,
Boulder’s average household size has remained relatively flat, so that does not appear to be a
cause. Besides efficient fixtures, another possible cause of the decline since the early 2000s is the
effect that significant drought conditions had on long-term behavior. Boulder is participating in a
3
national studywhich will help evaluate the long-term effect of the 2002-2003 Drought.
While the causes of the average indoor use declining are important, it appears weather is the
most significant variable in overall year-to-year water use in the city.The chart below shows
3
Alliance for Water Efficiencyis conductinga Demand Hardening Study, anticipated to becomplete in summer
2013. It will attempt to analyze water use and drought from 1970-to current and will focus on the 2002 drought,
changes customers made, response to utility actions, etc. Boulder is one of seven participants in this national study.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
monthly consumption amounts with a different line for each year since 2007. The city uses a
water budget rate structure which was implemented Jan. 1, 2007. Water budgets are the amount
of water a customer is expected to need for a specific month. Each customer’s water budget is
different based on their unique water needs, as well as their past usage levels.As the chart
illustrates, 2012 April through July billed consumption amounts were the highest they’ve been in
this time period. In August there was a decrease in consumption, which can be explained by July
being an exceptionally wet month and on average, August bills include half of July and half of
August (which is similar to other months).
Overall, 2012 was a unique year for water budgets. During the months April through September,
on average over 17 percent of bills were ‘over budget’ or had usage in block 3 or above. As seen
in the chart below, this is a significantincrease over prior years. As noted previously, there was
extremely hot weather and a lack of precipitation which resulted in an increase in water use
despite the increase in the cost of water (i.e., more expensive water in blocks 3, 4 and 5).
Outdoor water budgets will be further evaluated as part of the Water Conservation Futures Study
(WCFS) Update. For example, the WCFS Study will analyze the effects that projected increases
in temperature may have on additional outdoor watering if the same level of “green” is to be
achieved.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Average(April -Sept.) Percentage of Bills Over Budget
20%
18%
1.3%
16%
2.9%
14%
% of block 5
12%
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
2.1%% of block 4
10%
1.8%
1.7%
0.6%
% of block 3
8%0.6%
1.3%
1.2%
13.2%
6%
9.6%
9.1%
8.7%
4%
7.2%
6.7%
2%
0%
200720082009201020112012
Water Use Based on Water Treatment
Boulder’s 2012 treated water production increased by 6 percent compared to 2011 but remained
close torecent average levels in all but April through June, when treated water use significantly
exceeded average levels. The peak day demand was greater than any year since 2001, but did not
approach levels seen in the 1990s. For more detailed analysis of the treated water production and
Attachment A
the relationship to weather, please see .The difference between water
consumption and overall production may be due to offsets in municipal irrigation efficiency,
decreases in total system waterloss, and improved accuracy of treated water calculations.The
difference is relatively small, with a greater increase in consumption relative to a smaller
increase in production, which is indicative of progress made over the last several years.While
the current metering of water production can be off by as much as 5percent in a given year, staff
continues to move forward with improvements to reduce system leaks, increasethe accuracy of
treated water delivery calculations, and monitor water loss using the Water Auditing information
presented to WRAB on February 27, 2012 as a guide.
Boulder has two water treatment plants:
Betasso Water Treatment Plant (Betasso) with a nominal capacity of 40 million gallons
per day (MGD) for the Boulder Creek water, and
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (Boulder Reservoir WTP) with a nominal
capacity of 16 MGD for the CBT system water.
WATER TREATMENT PLANT20112012
Betasso4,736 MGD4,111 MGD
Boulder Reservoir1,343 MGD2,348 MGD
TOTAL PRODUCTION6,079 MGD6,459 MGD
While Betasso should theoretically be able to treat 40 MGD, the actual capacity may be limited
to 32-35 MGD during the spring and early summer, when highly colored water associated with
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
snowmelt runoff is being delivered. This situation is being investigated and a study was initiated
in the spring of 2012. However, due to the lack of snowmelt runoff last year, adequate
information was not collected and additional tests are now planned for the spring of 2013.
Due to construction projects at Boulder Reservoir WTP such as improvements in operational
flexibility, pretreatment and monitoring in 2004 and the addition of another raw water pump in
2010, the capacity has increased from 8 MGD to 16 MGD, which is double the capacity in 2002.
These construction projects were prompted after reviewing the
Acre Foot
city’s water delivery system subsequent to the 2002 Drought. The
One acre foot = 325,851
added capacity allowed the city to meet more of its treated water gallons or about the amount
of water that two typical
needs using CBT (western slope) water during 2012 after its upper
four-member households use
Boulder Creek basin direct flow rights were out of priority.
in a year.
Boulder Reservoir WTP was originally built to manage the “peak”
demand when summer water use exceeded the capacity at Betasso. As western slope water plays
an increasingly important role in the city’s future overall water system, Boulder Reservoir WTP
will continue to shift to strategically being used to manage the city’s water delivery, as was done
in 2012.
Together the two water treatment plants have the capacity to now treat approximately 50 million
Attachment B
gallons (about 150 acre-feet) per day. (See for a detailed map of Boulder’s water
facilities.) In most years, the majority of water is treated at Betasso and a smaller amount (30
percent) is treated at Boulder Reservoir WTP. During 2012, 64 percent was treated at Betasso
and 36 percent at Boulder Reservoir WTP. Early in 2012, Boulder Reservoir WTP increased
production to supplement water demand due to construction at the hydro facilities and Kossler
Reservoir inFebruary and March. As the year progressed, concerns about possible drought
conditions increased; therefore, the Boulder Reservoir WTP continued processing water. As the
irrigation season progressed without rainfall, NCWCD, which operates and allocates the CBT
water, started delivering additional amounts of CBT water that can only be processed through the
Boulder Reservoir WTP.
Currently, during drought yearslike 2002-2003, nearly half of the water supply for the City of
Boulder may be delivered through the Boulder Reservoir WTP. As Boulder grows, the
percentage of water delivered directly through the Boulder Reservoir WTP will increase to about
one-third of the total supply on average.
Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Water Supply & Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant
CBTwater originates in the Colorado River basin on Colorado’s western slope and is managed
by the NCWCD as a supplemental supply to the eastern slope supplies of its members. The city
owns 21,015 units of CBT water. A unit of CBT is a water supply contract issued by NCWCD
that provides delivery of an amount of water based on an annual allotment set by the NCWCD
board. A 100 percent quota provides one acre-foot of water for each unit for that year. High
quotas are typically set when east slope runoff is projected to be lower than normal and west
slope reservoirs are at orabove average storage levels. Low quotas are set when east slope runoff
is expected to be above normal or west slope reservoirs are significantly below normal storage
levels. The historical average for the annual quota is about 70 percent or 0.7 acre-foot per unit.
The 2012 CBT quota was 100 percent, supplying the city with 21,015 acre-feet of water
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
available for treatment at Boulder Reservoir WTF or use in exchange to the upper Boulder Creek
basin. By comparison, the 2002 CBT allotment was 70 percent.
Hydropower
The primary objective of Boulder’s water supply operation is to treat and distribute high quality
water to the community in a reliable and cost-effective manner. A secondary objective is to
generate hydropower from the excess water pressure in the system. The city’s upper Boulder
Creek basin source waters generate hydroelectricity which provides clean, renewable energy as a
byproduct of municipal water supply operations. Reducing use of upper Boulder Creek basin
water, while necessaryin managing water supplies during a dry year, also reduces hydroelectric
power generation and revenue from the sale of hydroelectricity. During 2011, the city’s
hydroelectric power plants generated 50,266,657 kilowatt hours of electricity or enough to meet
the average annual needs of approximately 8,500 households. It is estimated that total generation
for 2012 will be 36,450,000 kilowatt hours, equivalent to the average annual need of
approximately 6,100 households. The more than 25 percent reduction from 2011 generation
reflects not only reduced use of upper Boulder Creek basin water supplies, but also the fact that
Boulder Canyon Hydro was off line for almost the entire year due to construction. The combined
effect and resultant decreased hydroelectric production in 2012 led to a $250,000 to $300,000
reduction in hydroelectric revenue as the city receives $100 for every acre-foot of upper Boulder
Creek basin water delivered through its hydroelectric facilities.
Financial Analysis
Higher overall water consumption and relatively high use in the upper rate blocks have resulted
in higher than expected revenues to the water fund in 2012. Revenue from utility bills is up
around 12 percent compared to last year. A portion of this revenue will help offset the 2012
reduction in hydroelectric revenues, which was due to hydroelectric plants being taken offline for
various projects and also treating more water through the Boulder Reservoir WTP to help
preserve storage in the city watershed. The increased use of Boulder Reservoir WTP means
higher chemical costs because of water quality issues along with additional electrical pumping
costs. Excess revenues in 2012 will go to fund balance and will be used in planning the 2014
budget, which may help reduce rate increases or offset future one-time expenses. In any given
year, revenues fluctuate significantly, and keeping adequate fund balance helps mitigate years
where low water use results in revenues not covering expenditures.
VI.MANAGING BOULDER’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM:
Boulder’s water supply system provides the community with water for municipal purposes as
well as “non-municipal” uses including maintaining instream flows and leasing for agriculture
uses. Operating Boulder’s water supply system involves the interplay of water rights, water
supply availability, infrastructure capacity, and planning for future use. In order to summarize
the water supply operation, there are four basic “seasons” related to the management of the
system including the following:
Direct Flow – April through October
Reservoir Fill – April through June
Exchange – April through June
Reservoir Release – July through April
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
The timeframe associated with each season varies depending on the precipitation and weather
conditions. Details associated with each season are included below along with more information
related to the 2012 snowpack, streamflow, reservoir storage levels, instream flow, and
agriculture leases. Despite the dry conditions of 2012, the city was able to preserve its mountain
water storage levels and maintain its instream flow commitments.
Direct Flow Season
The city makes water source decisions on a daily basis based on the “call on the river” (simply
put, which of all the water rights in the basin are in priority and can be used on any given day)
and anticipated municipal water needs.Municipal demand is first met by using the city’s in-
4
priority direct flow water rights. All of the city’s water needs can often be met this way during
spring snowmelt and the early summer. The city’s “direct flow season” usually runs from about
April to late October, although it varies greatly from year to year depending on the amount of
winter snowpack accumulation and how quickly runoff occurs.
Reservoir Fill Season
Some water is stored in the city’s upper Boulder Creek basin reservoirs during the spring runoff
period when streamflows are usually high. This “reservoir fill season” may be only four to eight
weeks in length between the time when snowmelt begins and when senior water rights lower on
the river have priority over the city’s storage rights. The city was able to fill its upper Boulder
Creek basin reservoirs in 2012 in spite of reduced runoff and streamflow, largely because they
were more full than usual at the beginning of the fill season due to the abundant snowfall and
runoff from the 2011 winter. By comparison, neither Silver Lake nor Barker Reservoir filled in
2002. Storage levels were already very low at the beginning of 2002 because drought conditions
had existed since 2000. Calls on the river were so senior that very little water could be diverted
under even the most senior Silver Lake right. During 2012, maintenance of storage levels at
Barker Reservoir was also aided by capital construction projects in that portion of the system.
The Barker Reservoir/Middle Boulder Creek water source was off-line for a few months (during
the reservoir release season) for the installation of new generating equipment at the Boulder
Canyon Hydroelectric Plant.
Exchange Season
If the city’s storage rights are called out before its Boulder Creek reservoirs are filled, the city
canexchange western slope water. The city uses its exchange right to release water from Boulder
and Baseline Reservoirs to fulfill downstream calling rights while it takes additional water into
the city’s upper reservoir and/or diverts water into its pipelines. The “exchange season” may be
limited to just a few weeks during the reservoir fill season. In dry years (such as 2012) or years
when the snowpack is so low that streamflows don’t reach their normal peaks during the runoff
season, the river call will remain senior.In these years, the exchange right may be the only right
available to store water in Boulder’s upper Boulder Creek reservoirs.
Reservoir Release Season
As streamflows at the city’s upper diversion points drop in the summer, there is insufficient
physical water supply to meet all of the city’s water needs using direct flow rights. Therefore,
usually starting sometime in July or August, the city supplements direct flow diversions with
4
Direct flow water rights are those that must be used immediately for their decreed beneficial uses without storage.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
reservoir releases. By wintertime, streamflow levels are so low the city’s water needs are met by
treating water at the Boulder Reservoir WTP and releasing water from upper Boulder Creek
storage reservoirs.This “reservoir release season” lasts until the following spring. The city
manages its reservoirs so that they are not completely drained in a single year in order to assure
sufficient water supply during dry years.
Snowpack
Snowpack is an important factor in the city’s annual water supply monitoring. The city relies
upon snowmelt runoff to fill and store water in its upper Boulder Creek basin reservoirs each
year. This reservoir storage becomes an important component of the city’s water supply later in
the year when direct streamflows are insufficient to meet demands. Midwinter snowpack
readings were in line with historical averages during the 2011-2012 winter season, but conditions
became much drier than normal starting in early March(see Table 1).
Table 1: 2012 Snowpack Readings
LocationDatePercent of Average
March 1, 2012100%
University Camp Snotel SiteMay 1, 201254%
March 1, 201298%
Boulder FallsMay 1, 201212%
Streamflows
In addition to reduced snowpack, peak snowmelt runoff occurred approximately 3 weeks earlier
than average, and streamflows were lower than average. Figure 1 shows 2012 Middle Boulder
Creek streamflow at Nederland compared to the historical average flows for March through July
at this location.This figure shows that in the city’s upper Boulder Creek basin source water area,
some snowmelt occurred somewhat earlier than average, and the high streamflows usually
associated with snowmeltwere much lower than average. It also shows the beneficial
precipitation events that occurred in July. The upper Boulder Creek basin received ten inches of
precipitation during July and August 2012. The large spike in streamflow in early July
corresponded to 3.3 inches of precipitation in the city’s Silver Lake Watershed from a single
storm event.
Figure 1: 2012 March –July Middle Boulder Creek Streamflows at Nederland
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Reservoir Storage Levels
Due in part to abundant snowfall and runoff from the 2011 winter, the city’s Boulder Creek
reservoir storage levels were significantly higher in both May and October of 2012 compared to
2002 (see Table 2). Despite very dry 2012 conditions, the city was also able to fill its reservoir
and maintainreservoir storage levels in part by having greater treatment capacity at Boulder
Reservoir WTP than in 2002, which allowed the city to use a larger proportion of CBT supplies.
Table 2: 2012 Water Supply Conditions inComparison to 2002
DATEBOULDER MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR STORAGE (ACRE-FEET)
05/29/201215,814
05/29/20029,238
Difference in 20126,576
+
BOULDER MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR STORAGE (ACRE-FEET)
10/25/201213,160
10/25/20029,130
Difference in 2012+4,030
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON SYSTEM STORAGE (ACRE-FEET)
05/29/2012646,480
05/29/2002369,137
Difference in 2012+277,343
COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON ANNUAL ALLOTMENT (ACRE-FEET)
April 201221,015 (100%)
April 200214,736 (70%)
Difference in 2012+6,315
SNOW WATER EQUIVALENT 5 AT UNIVERSITY CAMP SNOTEL SITE
05/29/20125.4
05/29/20023.0
Difference in 2012+2.4
Instream Flows & Agricultural Leases
The city also uses its source water supplies for “non-municipal” uses including maintenance of
instream flows and leases for agricultural uses. The city entered into agreements with the
Colorado Water Conservation Board in 1990 and 1992 to convey certain senior water rights and
to maintain streamflow levels in North Boulder and main Boulder Creeks. In addition, since
2001 the city has voluntarily maintained instream flows in Middle Boulder Creek below Barker
Dam. The agreements allow the city to use the conveyed water rights for municipal purposes
when they are not needed to maintain the specified instream flow levels. The city may also
interrupt deliveries for instream flow purposes in the event of an extraordinary drought stage or
emergency conditions. The city exercised its right of interruption in 2002 and used the conveyed
water rights to meet municipal water needs. As a result, streamflows did drop below established
levels throughout 2002. No such interruptions of instream flows occurred in 2012.
The city leases CBT water on an annual basisto mostly agricultural users. The amount of water
available for lease is generally determined each year by the end of June and is based on
projections of each year’s source water supply to meet the city’s municipal water needs. During
5
Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) is the amount of water contained within the snowpack. It can be thought of as the
depth of water that would theoretically result if you melted the entire snowpack instantaneously.
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
2002, the water leasing program was suspended for all types of water that could be used within
the municipal water system. In 2012, no reductions were required in the city’s leasing program.
VII. DROUGHT RESPONSE:
Despite the dry conditions of 2012, the city did not reach the established threshold for a drought
stage declaration. However, no municipal water supply system is drought-proof. The cost of
providing facilities and water rights that might be used only once in many decades would be high
and would not be an effective use of available funds. In 1989, the city began planning to reduce
the amount of water provided by the municipal water system during significant drought stages
rather than planning to provide water for all uses under all drought conditions. At that time,
council established reliability criteria for the acceptable frequency of drought stage water use
restrictions. Reductions in water use will be required during drought stageswhen the available
supply of water is expected to be less than anticipated water demand over an extended period of
time, usually until the next spring snowmelt in the mountains. The need for water use limitations
due to adrought stage is not expected to happen often to Boulder’s municipal water system
because the city purposefully owns a diversified water rights portfolio that has a high degree of
reliability.
In the event that the city declares a drought stage, the Boulder Revised Code provides the general
context and legal authority for the city manager, in consultation with City Council, to declare a
drought stage and determine the specific response measures (e.g., reduce water budgets). The
city’s rules and regulations provide the specific details on the drought stage response measures
(e.g., how much to reduce water budgets). The city’s Drought Planning and Response Plan,
which is based on the established drought stage reliability criteria, provides the basic framework
and guidance for recognizing adrought stage and for responding appropriately to these drought
stages. When deciding to declare a drought stage, at a minimum, the city considers the following
three main quantitative factors that have a large effect on the city’s ability to provide a reliable
water supply:
Boulder’s projected mountain storage.
Boulder’s portion of water projected to be available from CBT system.
Boulder’s unrestrained water demand.
Based on these factors, the city did not declare a drought stage in 2012. Although a drought stage
was not declared, the city continued to monitor trends in snowpack, runoff conditions, reservoir
filling and customer usage in order to determine if conditions changed.
VIII. WATER CONSERVATIONRESPONSE:
Since no municipal water supply system is drought-proof, it is important to plan for droughts
before they actually occur. Drought preparation includes establishing appropriate rate structures,
water system planning, and managing an on-going water conservation program and public
education efforts. As such, the city implemented a Water Conservation Program in 1992 to
address the ongoing needs for water use reduction efforts.
The Water Conservation Program strategy for 2012 aimed to support and build-on existing
program efforts. By the end of 2012 the Water Conservation Program moved well beyond initial
goals, implementing several innovative initiatives through enhanced partnerships which stand to
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
improve future water conservation efforts in drought and non-drought years.Below is more
information on key efforts related to water conservation in 2012.
Irrigation Water Use & Leak Identification
Increased outdoor water use in 2012 was, for the most part, consistent with turf needs based on
Attachment A
the ET rate (see ). That being said, March water use was abnormally high as the
unseasonably warm, dry weather prompted customers to turn on their irrigation systems much
earlier than expected. The city received an increase in complaint calls related to high water bills
which, when investigated by city staff, almost always resulted in finding an irrigation or toilet
leak. In fact, higher bills earlier in the year may have lead customers to discover irrigation leaks
which are typically hidden in their summer water use. Due to recent meter upgrades, the city now
has the ability to flag continuous use on water meters. As a result, the city will mail letters
alerting customers to potential leaks beginning in March of 2013 which will also coincide with
the EPA’s Fix-A-leak Week. This effort will continue throughout the year.
Pilot Studies and Rebate Changes
Despite efforts to promote water conservation rebates in 2012, customer participation appears to
be one of the lowest in the last twelve years. Ironically, the lowest year (by dollar amount) was
2002. This suggests that rebates may not be an effective response tool for the driest years.
As a result, the city piloted an installation program using the Center for ReSource Conservation
(CRC) to make irrigation repairs, install more efficient irrigation spray heads, and install ultra-
low-flow toilets. Due to the success of the pilot projects, 2013 funding will be shifted from
rebates to installation programs (toilets and sprinkler heads) through CRC. This shift will support
changes and repairs being made towards greater drought mitigation efforts.
City Department Accounts, Parks and Recreation and the Water Conservation Fair
In 2012, there was an increase in outreach efforts to city departments, alerting all to the
possibility of matched funding for water efficiency improvements through the Water Efficiency
Fund. Water efficiency projects are ranked by water use and saving potential. The Parks and
Recreation Department (Parks) isthe largest water user among city departments, and in 2012, all
$50,000 was allocated to Parks water efficiency improvements. Parks and the Water
Conservation Program staff were already partnering to promote water efficiency in Parks by
installing new low-water turf plots and xersicape gardens at East Boulder Community Park.
These improvements resulted in the city’s first Water Conservation Fair which was held in July
2012. The Water Conservation Fair offered the public a way to learn about more efficient
outdoor irrigation methods. The 2013 event will be held on May 18 to better coincide with
CRC’s normal “Garden-in-a-Box”plant sale, National Parks Clean-up Day, city-wide
Community Cleanup Day (including creek clean-up), National Kid’s to Parks Day, and the
timeframe for any city drought stage declaration (May 1).
Additional Outreach Planning
The Water Conservation Fair fit in well with larger planning efforts to support the “2012: Year
of Water” initiative. In May, city staff also worked to have July declared as the “Month of
Water” in the City of Boulder to help highlight what is nationally recognized as the month with
the highest outdoor water use. In June, the potential for reservoir releases due to the lack of rain
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
lead to the development of the “Less Is More Campaign;” watering less makes grass more
drought tolerant. Multiple ads ran weekly from July through September in the Daily Camera
(weekend paper and online) and in the Colorado Daily newspaper. This campaign is now ready
to use as needed for 2013.
In a severe drought stage, it is understood that messaging needs to be accompanied by more
direct assistance. In 2013 the CRC will create a “Drought Buster” program which can, if needed,
be used to aid the city with a hotline, neighborhood canvassing and educating customers who are
over their water budgets.
Coordination with Other Communities –Drought Response & Watering Guidelines
From 2011 -2012 the city participated in various Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB)
Water Availability Task Force (WATF) meetings. The WATF meetings provide state drought
conditions, weather forecasts and updates from other cities on their drought stage status.
In May, Denver Water moved to Drought Stage 1 (Voluntary Restrictions) but this was not the
case with the majority of front-range cities. In September, the CWCB held a Drought Conference
and Denver Water was still one of the few cities that had declared a droughtstage. Other cities
such as Greeley and Thornton did issue drought related restrictions fairly late in the season but
those cities did not benefit as significantly from the July rainstorms which supplied Boulder
reservoirs with the equivalent of approximately 15 percent of annual snowpack in terms of snow
water equivalency.
While 2012 was the third driest year in Colorado and likely the hottest on record, the city’s
response to these conditions was similar to most front-range cities with one key difference, a
majority of cities tend to have some standard summer watering guidelines. These guidelines may
be enforced or simply exist as recommendations and they are typically present in all years,
regardless of drought conditions. While the city does generally promote suggested watering
recommendations, the development of formal summer watering guidelines may be something the
city wants to consider. Apart from formal guidelines, the city’s water conservation efforts
continue to be in-line with, if not advancing, other cities water conservation efforts. This is
particularly true when considering outdoor water budgets, allotted gallons per square foot, and
the city’s mapping of each accounts irrigable area which is something that many other cities are
trying to achieve.
The city presented water conservation information to the Boulder County Consortium of Cities
(Consortium) in August of 2011 in hopes of promoting a possible county-wide initiative.
Through 2012, the elected officials from each city in Boulder County (including Broomfield)
who make-up the Consortium, directed county staff and, through their membership, city staff to
participate in two Scoping Committee meetings. From these efforts a Water Stewardship
Initiative Task Force (Task Force) was created in August and given six months to report back to
the Consortium on what water related multi-jurisdictional collaboration might be possible.
The Task Force is chaired by County Commissioner Deb Gardner with Vice Chairs Russ Sands
(City of Boulder) and Doug Short (Lafayette). Coordinated drought response has been a core
focus of this group. This focus has been supported by many members of the Task Force,
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
including the City of Boulder’s council member Ken Wilson. The Task Force is currently
working on identifying, among other things, whether a central drought message could be used
across the county and may also consider promoting county-wide summer watering guidelines.
IX.PREPARING FOR 2013 AND BEYOND:
Managing the city’s water supply and preparing for droughts is an ongoing process. While the
operation of Boulder’s water supply system involves many details and much complexity, it is
Attachment C
governed by several guidelines, as outlined in .The city will continue to
implement projects and evaluate programs to better plan and prepare for drought conditions such
as sending out meter leak letters, monitoring water loss more closely, and developing the
“Drought Buster” program. If 2013 is another dry year, then thesespecific programmatic
developments in addition to the strategic operation of the water treatment plants, running the
Boulder Reservoir WTP more as was done in 2012, will better help address drought conditions.
When using comparisons to 2002 to characterize the water supply conditions of 2012, it is
important to remember that 2002 was actually the third year of a drought conditions that began in
2000.If dry conditions persist through 2013, then 2012 would be the first year and subsequent
dry years would be expected to diminish water supplies available at the beginning of each
subsequent year.The city conservatively estimates based on its normal November through
March water use that its upper Boulder Creek basin reservoirs will have approximately 11,000
acre-feet of stored water on April 1, 2013. By comparison, actual reservoir storage on April 1,
2002 was 7,186 acre-feet.
Looking ahead to 2013, the following is the status of the key water supply factors:
Boulder’s mountain reservoirs filled in 2012 and current storage levels are good.
Anticipated CBT allotment is 50 to 70 percent, which equates to 10,500 to 14,700 acre-
feet.
It is too early to tell what the snowpack will be at the end of the winter season.
Currently, snowpack is 60 percent of average. However, on average, at the University Camp
SNOTEL site, 33 percent of the total annual snowpack falls between October and December and
67 percent falls between January and May. The average maximum snowpack occurs around the
first of May. Therefore, it is too early in the season to predict what the contributions from
snowpack will be to Boulder’s 2013 water supply and whether Boulder will need to declare a
drought stage. Staff will continue to monitor snowpack, precipitation, storage levels and
streamflows throughout the winter to refine its water supply projections for 2013.
X. NEXT STEPS:
Below are some of the WRAB items related to water supply and drought response that are
currently on the 2013 calendar:
Water Conservation Futures Study (WCFS) Update –This update will identify additional
water conservation measures that may be needed and propose uses for the “saved” water.
It will also, among other things, evaluate the fairness of outdoor water budgets for
customers (and parks) especially when considering the effects that projected increases in
temperature may have on requiring additional outdoor watering if the same level of
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
“green” is to be achievedin future years. This item is anticipated to go to WRAB and
City Council in 2013.
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) Study – While water budgets for single-
family and multifamily accounts are tied to water efficiency, CII water budgets are based
on historic use. By revising CII water budgets to include efficiency benchmarks, the city
has an opportunity to better identify water waste and furtherassist CII customers with
saving water. This item is anticipated to go to WRAB and City Council in 2013.
Rebate Changes –Changes to the Water Conservation Rebate Program (which WRAB
approved in December 2012) have allowed the city greater flexibility to apply water
conservation funding to specific drought efforts, and provide increased savings to
customers –particularly with regards to outdoor water use. These programmatic changes
will be evaluated and refined in 2013 to optimize their effectiveness.
Water Conservation Fair – In July, 2012 the city held its first Water Conservation Fair.
Many WRAB members as well as other attendees suggested this event continue. In order
to better educate the public in responding to drought conditions and conserving water,
this event has been moved to May 18 in 2013 to better correspond with any drought stage
announcement in May. This event will also serve to streamline multiple events by
combining xeriscape plant sales through CRC, and coordination with Community Clean-
Up day (which includes stream clean-up) into a single day.
The specific timing of these and other items will be discussed at the WRAB meeting on Jan. 28,
2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
A
– Review of 2012: Weather and Treated Water Use in Boulder, CO Memorandum from
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure (Dec. 7, 2012)
B
– Map of City of Boulder Source Water Facilities
C
– General Guidelines for Operating Boulder’s Water Supply System
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
%XXEGLQIRX%
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
Agenda Item 7
ATTACHMENT 1 - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update (April 15, 2013)
ATTACHMENT C
General Guidelinesfor Operating Boulder’s Water Supply System
While the operation of Boulder’s water supply system involves many details and much
complexity, it is governedby the following general guidelines:
The system is operated to maximize its water supply yield, subject to the ability of its
water treatment plants to reliably produce high quality finished water. Hydropower
generation from the excess water pressure in the system is a secondary objective.
As a first priority in meeting its water demands, Boulder maximizes its diversions under
its direct flow rights.
As a second priority, Boulder uses its Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) and Windy Gap
supplies (western slope) as an exchangesource for transferring water into its upper
Boulder Creek basin reservoirs and pipelines.
As a third priority, during the irrigation season when the Boulder Feeder Canal is
running, Boulder delivers its CBT and Windy Gap supplies directly into the Boulder
Reservoir Water Treatment Plant to supplement native basin direct flow yields.
Boulder takes water from its mountain reservoirs or water stored in Boulder Reservoir
into the treatment plants to meet any remaining demand. Boulder attempts to minimize
spring and summer releases from its reservoirs in order to preserve this storage waterfor
meeting fall and winter demands and for multi-year drought protection.
Boulder supplies water to satisfy the commitments made by the city to the Colorado
Water Conservation Board for provision of instream flows on North Boulder and main
Boulder Creeks.
Boulder leases any excess CBT and Windy Gap supplies to agricultural users in Boulder
Creek on an annual basis.
Agenda Item 7
Attachment 2
City of Boulder Drought Plan (electronic links)
DROUGHT PLAN - Volume I Drought Planning and Response Plan
DROUGHT PLAN - Volume II Technical Information and Analysis
Agenda Item 7