Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 8/19/2002WATER RESOURCES ADVTSORY BOARD FINAL MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2002 BOARD MEMBERSPRES~NT Robert Fiehweg, Vicki Naber, Ken Wilson, Gil Barth; Jeannette Hillery was absent STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Ned Williams, Carol Ellinghouse, Lee Rozaklis (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc.), Brad Segal, Robin Madel, secretary AGENDA IT~M 1 Call to Order Bob Fiehweg called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 Approval of July 15, 2002 Meeting Minutes Vicki Naber motioned to approve the minutes. Ken Wilson seconded. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Gil Barth did not vote on the minutes because he did not attend that meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3 General Citizen Participation There was none. General Citizen Participation was closed. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Mtnutes August 19, 2002 Page 1 AG~NDA ITEM 4 Staff update and WRAB discussion on the development of the Long Term Drought Response Plan. Ned Williams introduced the topia Williams said that because there were citizens there that might not be familiar with the board he asked everyone to introduce himself or herself. Ned Williams discussed the Drought Response Plan that the staff is developing and said that the staff is not looking for a WRAB recommendation or final approval at this time. The intent of the meeting is to have a chance for open dialogue. Williams introduced Carol Ellinghouse, who is managing production of the plan. Carol Ellin hg ouse acknowledged that the city is in a severe drought and said that the city has been working toward development of a Drought Response Plan (DRP) since the 1990's, which coincidentally was the wettest decade since the 1800's. Ellinghouse said that this experience has made it clear that the staff needs Co geC the plan Yogether in a timely manner. She reviewed the timeline for development of the plan so far. Previous discussions were theoretical but given the physical aspects and effects of Che drought, iY is clear Yhat the discussion is no longer theoretical. Ellinghouse presented the outline for the DRP and the staff ideas for what should be included in the plan. The plan will address the drought from two positions, the supply side and the demand side. The intent is to gain public input and have the plan developed to a point where it can be distributed to the public for discussion. Lee Rozaklis, of Hydrosphere Consultants, Inc. discussed the drought in both a national and a historical context. Rozaklis presented information that indicated that the drought is prevalent throughout the U.S. This drought has been more severe than any recorded in terms of stream flow. The drought is likely to persist over the next several months; however, conditions are only forecasted three months at a time. Rozaklis pointed out a stream flow graph for Middle Boulder Creek that indicated flows at present that are typical for December. He also said that North Boulder Creek has had a greater impact from the drought this year than Middle Boulder Creek. Rozaklis provided data that correlated tree ring growth with stream flows. The data indicate that this is the worst drought on record in the last 300 years. Rozaklis pointed out that in a drought our water supply would diminish more than proportionately with stream flow because of how senior water rights are configured. Vicki Naber asked whether the severity of the drought would last. Rozaklis presented data that indicated that the chances are low of having as severe a drought next year (approximately 3 to 1). Rozaklis said that this is probably an unparalleled drought. Rozaklis discussed the state of Boulder's water system with respect to systems from the surrounding communities. He rated the water system by storage volume versus demand. At 3 to Water Resaurces Advisary Board Pull Minute,s August 19, 2002 Page 2 1, Boulder's system is more reliable than those of the surrounding communities are. The ratio for the city and county of Denver is 2 to 1. Rozaklis discussed potential and existing triggers within the system that indicate that the city is in a drought. The city's trigger system is complicated bacause the city relies on water from the Colarado-Big Thompson (CBT) project, the availability of which changes when the water supplies are low. During wet years the reservoirs are filled from junior water rights. During dry years the balance is gained from CBT water, but CBT is in a totally constrained mode this year because their supplies are so low. Drought planning actually started in July 2000. Rozaklis said that the city staff waited this year until they knew for sure that we are in a drought until they asked the citizens to begin watering restrictions. Sometimes, the heaviest snowfalls are in April and May. Storage and snow pack levels as of May 1 seem to be the most reliable triggers so the city waited until the May 1 reading until it asked people to conserve. He said Boulder has done very well at meeting and exceeding the target expectations. Although he said some people have argued that the targets were set too low, Rozaklis said the city is in a good position to meet necessary storage levels. Vicki Naber said that she got a citizen complaint that said that our watering restrictions don't seem equitable with those of Longmont. Naber also asked if the historical data still has meaning if we are going through a climate change. Rozaklis said that water rights are based on who has senior rights and not on equity. Longmont has enough water rights for double its current population. Rozaklis also said that it is difficult to predict whether or not we are going through a climatic change, especially along the Front Range because this area is difficult to model. Carol Ellinghouse discussed the city's water rights with respect to exchanging water between the upper and lower part of the storage system, use of gray water and re-use of treated water. Ellinghouse said that some senior water rights holders are letting some of their water rights go to downstream users. She also said that reusing gray water is not an option to a large extent because Boulder's water rights will not allow it. The water that flows downstream from the city is reused seven times before it enters into the Platte River. Downstream users are dependent on having water in the creek. Reuse of water would take that water away. Ken Wilson said thaY the city needs better triggers. Rozaklis said that there is a limit to how useful triggers are and the only reliable triggers are snowpack and reservoir storage. Wilson asked how often the reservoirs fail to fill. Rozaklis said that it happens about every 50 years. Wilson asked what could be done in a dry year when the reservoir is full, because then it is hard to justify restrictions. Rozaklis said that it becomes a policy question about whether to inconvenience people more frequently to be safe or to heavily inconvenience people only once in a while. Ellinghouse said that it is an on-going evaluation. Ellinghouse said that most summer days we typically draw on direct flows and not storage. This summer we drew mainly on storage. Naber asked if the city is going to build more storage. Rozaklis said that the city has a reservoir, Green Lake Reservoir that needs to be rebuilt. Williams added that the city might participate in a Windy Gap storage project with a larger group of users. Warer Resources Advdsory Baard Full Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 3 Ellinghouse discussed the DRP and the sections contained in the outline. Bllinghouse said that the document should provide guidance to the city during the next big drought but should also provide flexibility to use judgement in how the city will proceed. The report will include a decision support tool. Major points of discussion in the outline included supply management, demand management and reliability criteria. Ellinghouse said that the ciYy would try to establish a system that would provide enough water for all indoor demands even in a 1000-year drought. She also said that the discussion about demand management and reliability criteria needs to happen without any extreme feelings from the current drought. Brad Segal asked how the comprehensive water conservation plan that the city has in place fits into the Drought Response Plan. Rozaklis said that water conservation helps a system remain reliable but the DRP evaluates conditions that exist when the system has to be operated out of the norm. He said the single most effecYive thing the city can do is to operate the 63`d St. Water Treatment Plant but it is costly to operate. Ellinghouse said that the city is evaluating demand management through planning. She spoke about the different scenarios being evaluated in the Jobs-to-Population study being performed by the city. Ken Wilson said that in order for public forums to be valuable, the staff might need to limit the number of options presented to the public. He added that two years from now public opinion would change about how the city should respond to a drought. Carol Ellinghouse said that the main item of concern for the public is whether or not there will be watering restrictions next year. She said that this would be the topic at two public forums that will be held this fall. The staff intention for presenting the DRP at the September 2002 WRAB meeting is to scope options for water restriction scenarios and obtain feedback about the plan and not to use the meeting as an opportunity to vent frustrations about the watering restrictions. Bob Fiehweg asked Jim Knopf, a member of the public who is a xeriscape architect, about the effect of the watering restrictions on mature trees. Knopf said that the main concern is that the trees will start a decline from which they will not recover. Trees need to be watered two times per month with soaker hoses. Fiehweg asked if these are the most severe restrictions and if the ciry could change to a system of absolute amounts. Williams said that the most severe restrictions would include not allowing any lawn watering. Rozaklis said that the gross household data for 2000-2002 will be evaluated this winter to determine compliance. The volumetric date for June, July and August will be compared by account and user types. The system is not set up to provide users with absolute amount information but the city is working with a consultant to be able to provide historical user information on water bills. Ellinghouse said that changing to a block rate structure with higher rates for higher use would be the least costly way Yo control water demand. Ellinghouse said the city would be evaluating its own watering practices. Rozaklis said that whatever system is employed, if the cost is high, then it may not be useful to the city because the city wili only need tbe sysYem for a limited time, unless we are headed into a period of climatic change. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 4 Bob Fiehweg asked if there was a spike in usage for the August tree watering day. Ellinghouse said that she didn't have the data yet. Wilson asked if the public forums would be advertised heavily. Bob Fiehweg asked to have it put on the Web page. Williams said that it would receive plenty of advertising. AGENDA IT~M 5 A. Matters from the Board . There were none. B. Matters from Staff • Ned Williams discussed a study session with the city council on Aug. 27, 2002 in which he would discuss the utility portion of the 2003 budget, including utility rate increases. • Ned Williams provided a handout of information that was sent to the Planning Board regarding minor revisions to floodplain regulations that deal with requirements from FEMA. • Ned Williams said that full road closures on Lakewood Pipeline during the daytime would end this week but that there will still be single lane closures. Williams said that traffic control has been the most challenging aspect of the project. Williams said he would organize a tour of the project for the WRAB. . Ned Williams said that the staff has begun discussing the possibility of imposing a city sales tax on water as a commodity. He said the staff is not ready to present the item to the board but they are discussing it. . Ned Williams asked Ken Wilson to give an update on the symposium he attended regarding chronic wasting disease. Wilson said that while it is a very serious disease for elk and deer it is not certain whether it is infectious for people. Although Colorado has been a focus of the problem area, Boulder is on the edge of the area of concern. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Water Resources Advisory Board Ful! Minutes August 19, 2002 Page S Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next meeting will include a public hearing on the Drought Response Plan. The next regular meeting will be September 16, 2002, 7:00 p.m., at the City Municipal Services Center, 5050 East Pearl. Minutes approved by (,(~ ""'~ Date '9 ~ Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes August /9, 2002 Page 6 WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002, 7:00 p.m. The Municipal Services Center Conference Room 5050 ~ast Pearl Agenda Highlights: I. Call to order. II. Approval of August ] 9, 2002 meeting minutes. III. Citizen participation and comment period. IV. *Public hearing and WRAB recommendation on the development of the L,ong Term Drought Response Plan (Carol Ellinghouse). V. *Staff update and WRAB discussion on the draft Wastewater Collection System Masterplan (final approval at October 2002 meeting) (Randy Earley). VI. A. Matters from the Board. B. Matters from staff. VII. Discussion of future meeting dates and agenda. VIII. Adjournment. * Public Comment Item Telephone the WRAB Secretary Robin Madel at (303) 441-4073. Packets can be accessed on- line at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/uw8.html Central Records CITY Or 130ULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Wa[er Resources Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: August ] 9, 2002 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073 NAMES OF M~MBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS - Robert Fichweg, Vicki Nabcr and Kcn Wilson, Gil Bar[h; Jeannette HiQery was absenf STAFF - Ned Williams, Carol EIlinghouse, Lee Rozaklis (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc.), Brad Segal, Robin Madel, secretary WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item 1- Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. Agenda Item 2- Approval of July 15, 2002 Meeting Minutes Vicki Naber motioned to approve the minutes from July 15, 2002. Ken Wilson seconded. The vote was 3-0 in favor of the motion. Gil Barth did not vofe on the minutes because he was absent From that meetin~. Agenda Item 3- General Citizen Participation There was none. General Citizen Participation was closed. Agenda Item 4- Staff update and WRAB discussion on the development of the Long Term Drought Response Plan (Carol Ellinghouse). Ned Williams introduced the topic and said that the staff was not looking for a WRAB recommandation or final approval at this time. He said [he infent of thc meeting was to have a chance for open dialogue. Carol Ellin house said that the city has been wotking toward development of a Drought Response Plan (DRP) since the 1990's, which was the wettest decade since the 1800's. Ellinghouse presented [he outline for tha DRP, which included staff ideas oP wfiat should be developed. The intent is to gain public input and have the plan developed to a point whare it can be disfributed fo the public for discussion. Lee Rozaklis discussed [he drought in bo[h a national and a historical context Rozaklis presenled informa[ion that indicated that this is the worst droughC on record in the last 300 years. Rozaklis also provided dafa that indicate that the chances of having as sevare a drought next year are low. Rozaklis diseussed the state of Bouldec's water system wiCh respect to systems from the surrounding communities. He rated the water system by storage volume versus demand. At 3 to 1, Boulder's systam is more reliable than those of the surrounding communities are inctuding that of the city and county of Denver. Rozaklis discussed potential and existing triggers wiChin the system that indicate that the ciry is in a drough~ Storage und snow pnck levels ns of Mny 1 seem to be the most reliable triggers. Rozaklis sAid that the eity stafF waited until they knew for sura that we are in a drought un61 they asked the citizens w begin watering restrictions. He said Boulder has done very well at meeting and exceeding [he target expectations. Although he said somc people have argued that the targets were set too low, Roznklis said the city is in a good position Yo meet necessary storage levels. Caro! Ellinghovse discussed the city's water rights with respect to exchanging water batween the upper and lower part of the s[orage system, use of gray water and re-use of heated water. Sllinghouse discussed the DRP and the secCions contained in the out]ine. Sllinghouse said that the document should provide guidanca to the city during the next big droughC but should also provide flexibility to use iud~ement in how the ciri will nroceed. Maior noints of discussion in [he outline included supplv mana~ement, Water Resourees Advisory Board Summary Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 1 demand management and reliability cxiCeria. Lee Rozaklis said that water conservafion is a good cool because it makes the system more reliable buC ic doesdt address all operating issucs during severe droughts. Carol Ellinghousa said Chat the main item oP concern for the public is whether or not there will be waCeeing restricuons nexC year. She said that this would be the topic at two public forums that will be held this fatl. The staff intenCion for presendng the DRP ac Che Septamber 2002 WRAB meeting is to scope options for water restric6ion scanarios and obtain feedback about the plan and not to use the meeting as an opportunity to vent frustrations about lhe watering resuie6ons. Agenda Item 5 - Matters from the Board There were none. Matters from Staff • Ned Williams diswssed a s[udy session with the city council on Aug. 27, 2002 in which he would discuss the utiliry portion of the 2003 budget, including udlity rate ineceases. • Ned Williams provided a handout of information that was sent to the Planning Board regarding minor revisions to floodplain regulafions that deal with requiremenls from FEMA. . Ned Williams said that full road closures on Lakewood Pipeline during the daytime would end this week but that there will atill be single lane closures. Williams said that traffic control has been the moet challenging aspect oP the pcoject. Williams said he would organize a tour of the project for the WRAB, . Ned V/illiams said that the staff has begun discussing the possibility oP imposing a eiry sales tax on water as a wmmodiry. He eaid the staff is not ready to presenC Che ifem to the board but they aze discussing it. . Ned Williams asked Ken Wilson to give an update on the symposium he attended regarding chronic wasting disease. Wilson said thaC while it is a vary serious disease for elk and deer it is not ce~tain whether ic is infectious for people. Although Colorado has been a focus of the problem area, Boulder is on fhe edge of the area of concern. Next meeting agenda The next mee[ing will include a public hearing on thc Drought Response Plan. . ~---------` The mee[ing was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Date, Time, and LocaGon of Next Meeting: Monday, Sep[amber 16, 2002, 7:00 p.m., regular meeting, at Ihe City Municipal Scrvices Center conference Water Xe.sources Advisory Baard Summary Minutes August 19, 2002 Page 2 CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING DATE: September 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the scope of topics to be addressed in the development of a Drought Response Plan and recommandation on the continuation of the process for completion of the plan REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department: Robert E. Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator BOARD ACTION R~QUESTED: Public Hearing to obtain public comment on the items and Yhe scope of evaluadon to be addressed in the development of the Drought Response Plan. Recommendation on scope, process and timeline for completion of the Drought Response Plan based on public comment and WRAB discussion and evaluation. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. PURPOSE The severity of this year's drought has increased interest in the completion of a Drought Response Plan for Boulder's municipal water supply system. Based on the many instances of mulYi-year droughts in the Boulder Creek basin in the past; it is prudent to prepare for the possibility of the continuation of the drought into next year. A Drought Response Plan can hoth address the potential near-term options and longer-term goals for drought management. On August 19, 2002, WRAB discussed the development of a Drought Response Plan, the scope of elements and topics to be addressed in the plan, and a process for completion of the plan and receipt of public input on water conservation measures. The Public Hearing will provide opportunity for public input on the scope of the Drought Response Plan to facilitate inclusion in the plan of items of public interest. Based on this input and its previous discussions, the WRAB may make recommendations for the continued development of the Drought Response Plan. AGENDA ITEM # Pa e 1 BACKGROUND Since Colorado has a semi-arid climate, the need for management and planning for available water supplies is critical. Given Boulder's location so near the continenCal divide, the city's water supplies are almost entirely dependent on mountain snowmelt. Almost all of Boulder's water supplies for the entire year are captured in reservoirs during the spring snowmelt in May and June. A low winter snowpack in the mountains can lead to a shortage of water supplies for the next year. The occurrence of periods of drought is a certainty and must be prepared for even though the timing of droughts cannot be predicted. A drought can be severe for a single year with a return to average precipitation levels immediately afterward ar it can continue for several years. On May i, 2002, snowcourse readings indicated that this year's spring runoff from mountain snowmelt would be significantly below average. Therefore, the city's water supplies for the next year until the next spring runoff would be greatly reduced from the average. On May 8, 2002, the city requested that its citizens and water users follow a strong voluntary water conservation effort in response to the drought. By mid-May, it was evident that streamflows were even lower than predicted and drought conditions were severe. In addition, after two weeks of voluntary water use restrictions, there had been no success in reducing water consumption. On May 21, 2002, it was determined that mandatory water use restricYions would be required to assure sufficient water supplies were available Yo meet the city's needs until the following spring snowmelt. On June 4, 2002, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7215, by emergency to amend the Cify Code to set forth measures for water conservation implementation, including restrictions on water use. On June 5, 2002, the "Regulations Concerning Water Conservation and Water Waste" were approved by the Ciry Manager, and the city began active enforcement of water use restrictions. To date, the water restrictions have been successful in meeting Boulder's water use reduction target by successfully reducing water use by over 25% compared to levels of water use in 2000 and 2001. At iYs July 9, 2002, meeting, City Council discussed issues related to the city's water use restrictions this year and long term drought planning. City Council requested that a Drought Response Plan be completed to review drought planning issues and potential elements of future water conservation efforts during drought periods. The plan would provide the city with options to follow in the event of a severe drought and guidelines for recognizing when a drought year might significantly impact the city's ability to deliver water. AGENDA ITEM # ~ Paee 2 DROUGHT RESPONS~ PLAN DEVELOPMENT Much of the information to support development of a drought plan has previously been developed through the Raw Water Master Plan, the Treated Water Master Plan, the Boulder Creek basin watershed model, Boulder Creek tree ring studies, and the Water Conservation Futures Study. A Drought Response Plan was in the process of being prepared prior to the 2002 drought. The preliminary information developed for this plan will need to be updated and revised to contain information developed as a result of this year's experiences. At the August 19, 2002, WRAB meeYing, staff proposed that a Drought Response Plan be completed that contains an evaluation of the water resources available to the ciYy during drought periods, a review of water supply management options, and consideration of various water demand management options. WRAB provided comments on the scope of the plan at this meeting. Since that time a Framework Document (Attachment A) has been developed that includes elements addressing previous comments of the WRAB. A Public Hearing is scheduled for this WRAB meeting to obtain public comment on the Drought Response Plan scope. Public meetings to obtain public comment on specific issues related to the city's drought response this year or suggestions for the response in subsequent drought years have been scheduled for September 18 and October 16. Both public meetings are to be held from 5:30 to 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Similar staff and consultant presentations will be made at each of the two meetings, and an opportunity will be offered for answering any questions the public may have and for providing comment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a Drought Response Plan be completed based on the attached Framework Document. Staff recommends modification of the Framewark as necessary to incorporate issues identified through the Public Hearing held at this WRAB meeting regarding the scope of the Drought Response Plan. The comments from the two separate upcoming public meetings can be evaluated and incorporated into the plan development and a final draft Drought Response Plan presented at the October WRAB meeting. Staff is pursuing the presentation of a WRAB- recommended Drought Response Plan to City Council in November 2002 and wiil be discussing various options for achieving this timeline to the WRAB at this meeting for WRAB approval. ACTION REOU~STED Public hearing on the scope of the Drought Response Plan and WRAB recommendation on the process for continuation of the plan development. ATTACHM~NTS Attachment A--Draft Framework Document for Boulder Drought Management Plan AG~NDA ITEM # Pa e 3 DRAFT FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT BOULDER DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN Introduction As the spring of 2002 began, there was no particular indication that a drought of unprecedented intensity was unfolding throughout Colorado. While snowpack had been below normal on New Year's Day and remained so through March, the heavy snow and rain months of April and May had yet to come. The previous two years had been similarly dry, but had not caused any significant problems for Boulder's municipal water supply. However as April came and went, air temperatures rose rapidly, snowpack levels declined drastically and spring rains did not materialize. On May 8 of 2002, Boulder requested voluntary watering restrictions and, on May 21, 2002, imposed a drought response program that included a mandatory watering restrictions. This is the first time mandatory restrictions have been implemented in Boulder since the 1950's. While watering restrictions significantly reduced Boulder's water use, they also caused impacts to landscaping within the city. The extent of any permanent landscaping damage will not be fully known until next year's growing season. Questions have arisen about the timeliness and effectiveness of the city's response to the drought earlier, and if water demand could be reduced by the necessary amount in a more flexible manner. The current drought is not over. Stream flows have dropped to levels not seen in 300 years Water supplies might be below average next year. Boulder must therefore plan for the possibility of continuing its drought response program over the next year or more. Even if the current drought abates this winter, a defined drought response plan will improve the ability to respond to the inevitable droughts in the future. The purpose of this document is twofold: • to develop a general plan for recognizing and responding appropriately to future droughts that may significantly impact Boulder's water supply system; and • to identify Boulder's specific water demand and supply management options for responding to the ongoing drought of 2000-2003. Background Information on Droughts Definitions There is no single universally accepted definition of drought. From a purely meteorological perspective, drought is defined as an extended period of low precipitation relative to the statistical average for a given region. However, most definitions recognize drought as extended period o£ relatively low precipitaYion that results in a water shorta eg to a particular human Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 1 AquacrafY, Inc. Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 activitv or environmental function (e.g. municipal water supply, agriculture, stream fisheries, forest health). Thus, drought is an interplay between climate and water-dependent processes. Drought is a normal and regular aspect of climate variability that periodically occurs virtually everywhere on earth. However, drought is a particularly complex and insidious form of natural hazard. The severity of a drought depends on the degree, duration and geographical extent of precipitation deficiency and the sensitivity of affected water uses. Because drought is not a single event, its onset cannot be easily recognized and its magnitude cannot be determined while it is unfolding. Only after a drought is past can its severity be gauged. There are four perspectives that are wmmonly applied to definition of drought: Meteorological - a measure of departure of precipitation from normal. Due to climatic differences what is considered a drought in one location may not be a drought in another location. • A¢ricultural- refers to a situation when the amount of moisture in the soil no longer meets the needs of a particular crop. • Hvdrolo.~ic - occurs when stream flows are below normal. • Socioeconomio- refers to droughts of sufficient magnitude to cause physical water shortages that affect people. The hydrologic and socioeconomic perspectives of drought are the most relevant to Boulder's water supply system (explain why). Direct Historical Evidence of Droughts Stream gage records provide direct evidence of historical droughts. From the perspective of Boulder's water supply system, the stream gage on Boulder Creek near Orodell is the most suitable gage for this purpose because of its long period of record and because its measures the combined stream flow from North and Middle Boulder Creeks, which comprise Boulder's main sources of water supply. Records at this gage have been compiled from "x" to the present. The measured flows at the Orodell gage are not natural or virgin flows; they are reduced by the amount of upstream diversions by the city at Barker Reservoir, the Silver Lake Watershed, and Lakewood Reservoir, as well as a few smaller diversions by others. However, records of these diversions are readily available and the virgin flow at Orodell can be easily reconstructed, as shown in Figure _ below. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan 140,000 7 20,000 LL 100,000 a ~ e ~ 80,000 0 > 3 0 LL 60,000 m ~ c c a ao,ooo 20,000 0 Figure 1: Reconstructed Virgin Flow, Boulder Creek Near Orodell Points illustrated by figure: September 10, 2002 • Boulder Creek stream flow volumes are highly variable • Significant hydrologic droughts occur regularly • From a hydrologic perspective, the current drought in Boulder Creek began in 2000 and includes the lowest stream flow year (2002) of the last century. The three most important characteristics of hydrologic droughts are their duration, their single- year flow deficit and their cumulative flow deficit. (Discussion the relevance of these factors to Boulder's water supply. Hydrologic drought may or may not mean socioeconomic drought for Boulder). Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 3 Aquacraft, 1910 7920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Drou ht Period Duration Sin le Year Deficit Cumulative Deficit 1910-1911 2 ears 32,300 AF 54,000 AF 1913 1 ear 18,500 AF 18,500 AF 1925 1 ear 21,700 AF 21,700 AF 1930-1934 5 ears 31,100 AF 79,200 AF 1939-1941 3 ears 18,000 AF 43,100 AF 1943-1946 4 ears 22,400 AF 34,500 AF 1950 1 ear 19,000 AF 19,000 AF 1953-1956 4 ears 34,700 AF 64,600 AF 1963-1964 2 ears 19,500 AF 35,900 AF 1966-1968 3 ears 32,900 AF 48,400 AF 1976-1977 2 ears 27,500 AF 48,000 AF 1981-1982 2 ears 26,200 AF 26,700 AF 1987-1994 8 ears 19,300 AF 63,100 AF 2000 -???? 3 ears + 41,000 AF 72,000 AF + Table _: Comparison of Significant Historical Droughts, Boulder Creek Near Orodell. Points illustrated by table: • Define "significanY' as used in table • The current drought is the worst within the period of record in terms of single year flow deficit and the second worst (so far) in terms of cumulative flow deficit. • Boulder Creek experienced an eight-year drought with a cumulative deficit nearly as large as the 1950's drought with no adverse effects on Boulder's water supply system. Boulder's water supply system is dependent on stream flows in both the Boulder Creek basin and the Colorado River basin because of Boulder's reliance on supplemental suppiies from the CBT and Windy Gap projects. (explain further) Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 4 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan 900,000 800,000 ~oo,ooo ~ a soo,ooo a E 0 500,000 > 3 LL 400,000 m ~ a 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1910 September 10, 2002 Figure _: Reconstructed Virgin Flow, Colorado River at Hot Sulphur Springs Points illustrated by figure: • Drought occurrences at this location are significant because they are indicative of CBT and Windy Gap supplies. • Stream flows in the Colorado River exhibit the same high degree of variability as those in Boulder Creek Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 5 Aquacraft, 1920 1930 1940 1950 t960 1970 1980 7990 Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan 200% September 10, 2002 180% a 160% LL ~ 140% c a 120% a rn ~ 100°Jo ~ a 80% 0 d 60% ~ p~, 40% - -~ - - R2=070- - - - - -- ~ - ~ - - nI- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -'""~° - - - ; 11 20% 0% 1910 1920 7930 1940 1950 1960 7970 1980 1990 -~COlorado River at Hot Sulphur Sqrinqs -~-Boulder Creek Near Orodell Figure: _: Comparison of Virgin Flows, Boulder Creek vs. Colorado River Points illustrated by figure: • Droughts on Boulder Creek and the Colorado River are highly correlated (Drought conditions here usually mean drought conditions there.) • To a certain extent, the large storage volume (730,000 AF) of the CBT project allows it to act as a supplemental supply during droughts. Evidence of Historical Droughts Provided by Tree Rings While stream flows records are limited to the past century, tree rings provide another source of evidence of historical droughts. Tree rings have proven to be useful in extending our records of stream flows back in time and providing valuable insights on the long-term variability of stream flows. This is possible because the growth rings of properly selected trees adequately reflect the year-to-year variation in flows in nearby streams. Scientists at NOAA and Hydrosphere have recently developed several records of tree rings that are well correlated to Boulder Creek flows. We have used these data to generate estimates of Boulder Creek flows that extend back as far as the early 1700's. These data show that Boulder Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 6 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Creek has experienced droughts that were more severe than those that have occurred in the last 90 years. These data have also provided us with an enhanced perspective on the current drought. This year's stream flows are probably the lowest that have occurred during the last 200 to 300 years. 180,000 7 60,000 140,000 120,000 ~ 100,000 LL ~ ~ Q 80.00~ 60~~00 4~~~~~ 20,000 Figure notes: Flows for 1703-] 987 based on tree ring reconstructions (Dr. Connie Woodhouse and Hydrosphere) Flows for 1988-2001 recons[ructed from gage ilows (Hydrosphere). Flow for 2002 expressed as the mean [ree ring-based flow for 1907-1987 minus 214 standard deviations. This is based upon the number oP standard deviations between [he actual projected 2002 flow and the mean reconstrucfed gage flow for 1907-1987. The actual projected na[ural flow for 2002 is expected to be less lhan 31,000 AF, Figure _: Natural Flow, Boulder Creek Near Orodell, Based on Tree Ring Evidence Points illustrated by figure: • Over the past 300 years, there have been more significantly more severe droughts that what we have seen in the 20`" century • The current drought is within the range of historica] variation • Stream flows in 2002 have an approximate 1-in-300 year recurrence interval Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 7 Aquacraft, 1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1825 7850 7875 7900 1925 1950 1975 2000 Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Potential Effects of Climate Change • Summarize resuits of climate change research: no clear trend for northeast Colorado • The relationship between reduction in stream flows and reduction in the yields of Boulder's water rights is nonlinear. • Reduction in long-term average flow in the Colorado Basin could affect reliability of CBT project, which comprises a major portion of Boulder's water supply. • Recent climate is well within the range of historical climate variaYion as evidenced by tree rings Drought Recognition Considerations • Snow pack accumulation is a reliable indicator of runoff only by May 1. • Global factors (El Nino Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.) have basically no predictive skill with respect to droughts in Boulder Creek or the CBT drainage area (so far). • Multi-year persistence of droughts is evident only in the years following extremely low flow (<50% of average) years. • Modeling studies have suggest that, under historical and tree ring-based climate regime, Boulder's water supply system very infrequently impacted by droughts, only 1-in-50 year droughts or worse. • Problems with "crying wolf' too early and often. • May and June are the months when Boulder has the most foreknowledge about its water supply system and Boulder Creek stream flows. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 8 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan S September 10, 2002 iooio so~io 0 ~ ~ eo°io ~~ ~~ ~ 9 ~o~io N o L ~ 6O% ~ LL 50% v E m ,~ ~ 40% m C a ~ 30% ~ T ~ ~ V T 20% m ~ 10% --~------------------------~--------~----- 0% 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr t-May Date of Snowpack Reading Figure _: Seasonal Value of Boulder Creek Snowpack Data in Predicting Boulder Creek Runoff Volume Drought Response Considerations Boulder's Wafer Supply Reliability Criteria During the development of Boulder's Raw Water Master Plan, Boulder adopted water supply reliability criteria that struck a balance between the costs and environmental impacts of increased reliability and the consequences of temporary water supply restrictions. These criteria were the subject of extensive public meetings and reflected the near-consensus of public opinion. ~ For those uses of water deemed essential to the maintenance of basic public health, safety and welfare such as indoor domestic, commercial and industrial uses and fire fighting uses, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 1,000 years. • For that increment of water use needed to provide continued viability of outdoor lawns and gardens, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 100 years. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 9 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 • For that increment of water needed to fully satisfy all municipal water needs, Boulder shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with recurrence intervals of up to 20 years. Given the extremely severe nature of the current drought, especially this year's 1-in-300 year low stream flows, Boulder's current watering restrictions are consistent with the city's water supply reliability criteria. Drought Response Triggers The most appropriate time for evaluating drought response triggers and planning droughf responses late April to early May because snowpack then provides a relatively high degree foreknowledge of runoff, Boulder's final CBT quota is known, and nearly all of the irrigation season still lies ahead. However, in order to deploy a drought response plan in a timely manner, responses must be formulated in advance. The three most important factors to consider when deciding on a drought response in April and May are: • Boulder's projected mountain storage contenYs • CBT project system storage contents • Boulder's CBT quota for the upcoming year Suggested drought response triggers. Drought Alert Level Boulder Upper System Storage CBT Storage CBT Quota 3 Not Full Below Avera e 2 Not Full Above Avera e 1 Full Below Avera e 0 Full Full Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 10 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Current Situation ]. Origin and magnitude of the current drought a. In terms of precipitation, the current drought began in 1999 for Boulder Creek, _ for CBT system. In terms of hydrologic drought, (check when last spilled). b. current year, run sum, compared to historical and tree ring stats, come up with a return period 2. Current stream flow conditions a. graph of Orodell, Nederland, imputed NBC daily gage flows b. graph of Orodell natural flows 1954 vs. 2002 3. Status of Boulder's water supply system as of 8/31/02 a. Waterin storage b. Current and expected yield of direct flow rights a CBT supplies: how much left in current year quota, next year's quota prospects 4. Boulder's water use and the effects of this year's response program a. Year-to-date water use in 2002 is 11% lower than 2000/2001 average b. Since restrictions were announced on May 21st, Boulder's water use has been 30% lower than 2000/2001 average c. Effects of this year's restrictions on Boulder's starage and CBT supplies with/without restrieYions d. degree of compliance: results of database analysis Near-Term Future Prospects 1. What is the likelihood that this drought will persist into next year? a. What we know from historical droughts dry yeartest very dry year test tree ring data don't help because tree rings show bio, not hydro persistence b. What do large-scale predictors suggest? EI Nino forming, but ENSO doesn't correlate well with Boulder's watersheds Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) flipped into dry mode a few years ago 2. What will next year's CBT Quota be? Most likely 30% to 50%, unless a very wet year occurs. Scenario Analysis 1. SelecYed scenarios for 2003 a. Normal runoff, 50% CBT quota b. 90%-of-average runoff, 40% CBT quota c. 75%-of-average runoff, 40% CBT quota a 50%-of-average runoff, 30% CBT quota 2. Results of analysis a. Water restrictions should be continued through Apri12003, including fall/winter indoor restricdons targeted at a 5% savings. b. The Boulder Reservoir WTP should be operated at maximum safe capacity through the fall and winter. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 11 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 c. Restrictions may be needed again next year if runoff is severely below average d. Discussion of trade-offs Comparison of Projected Scenarios for 2002-2004, City of Boulder Water Supply System 20,000 ~ d ia,ooo ~ C~i 16,000 r c ~ 14,000 9 12,000 c w ~ 10,000 ~ ° 8,000 y c ~ 6,000 ~ 0 ~ 4,000 w a y Z,OOO ~ 0 -----~-~------~-~ ------~-i-----~ Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 -+-700% Flows, 50%Quota, Full Use ~--100% Flows, 50%Quota, Restrictions -+-90°/a Flows, 40% Quota, Full Use --•-~-90% Flows, 40°/a Quota, Hestrictions -+-75%Flows, 40%Quota, Full Use +75°/, Flows, 40%Quota, Restrictlons -+-50% Flows, 30% ~uota, Full Use -~-50% Flows, 30% Quote, Restrictlons Supply Management In response to the current drought, Boulder has employed the following supply-side strategies: • Increased fall/winter season use of the Boulder Reservoir treatment plant • Elimination of CBT leasing programs to local farmers • Exercise of drought reservation ciauses in Boulder's instream flow agreements • Exercise of interruptible supply arrangements with local ditch companies • Water trades with Baseline Reservoir. • Exchange of CBT water for water released from Jasper Reseivoir If the current drought continues or intensifies, Boulder could consider the following options • Drawdown of reserve pools in Boulder's reseivoirs • Temporary use of Open Space irrigation rights (e.g. Farmers Ditch) for municipal purposes Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 12 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 • Operation of Skyscraper Reservoir ~ Lease of additional CBT supplies • Emptying of dead pool storage in Boulder's reservoirs • Out-of-priority diversion of water under the "municipal priority" clause of the Colorado Constitution, with condemnation-based compensation to injured farmers. Demand Management Restrictions and Response In Apri12002, it quickly became apparent that the City had to acC quickly to curtail water demand over the summer to ensure for adequate supplies through the winter and into 2003. Although the City has been working to develop a more comprehensive drought management plan over the past year, this plan was not in place. As a result the City used existing legal mechanisms to enact strict watering restrictions in May. These restrictions were amended once over the summer of 2002 to permit tree watering on designated days. A timeline of restrictions is shown in Table 1. Table 1: 2002 Drought Restriction Timeline Date 5/8/2002 Voluntary watering restrictions approved 5/22/2002 Mandatory watering restrictions approved 6/5/2002 Mandatory water restrictions take effect. 8/2/2002 Monthly tree watering days announced Description of 2002 watering restrictions The mandatory restrictions enacted by Che City applied to all residents and businesses in Boulder, Gunbarrel, Falo Park and Hoover Hills as well as anyone else receiving city of Boulder water. Restrictions Spray irrigation or hand watering of lawns, gardens, or other landscapes was restricted to the following days: • Street addresses ending in 00-30 may water on Thursday and Sunday. • Street addresses ending in 31-60 may water on Wednesday and Saturday. • Street addresses ending in 61-99 may water on Tuesday and Friday. Properties without specific addresses, such as street medians, or any other properfy that has no numeric address, were permitted to water on Tuesday and Friday. No outdoor watering was allowed on Monday. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 13 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Watering Hours Restricted to before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. on designated watering day. Watering Duration Hand or sprinkler outdoor watering was limited to 15 minutes to each area or zone, one time on each watering day. Exemption for Drip Irrigation Systems Drip irrigation systems, bubbler or soaker hoses were permitted to be used for up to two hours for each area on the sama days and hours designated for hand or sprinkler outdoor watering. Other Restrictions • Washing of sidewalks, drivaways, patios or similar hardscapes was prohibited. • Water waste caused by runoff of water onto streets or into drainage facilities was declared illegal. ~ Failure to shut off or repair a leaking irrigation system within 1 hour could result in a violation. • Vehicles washing was permitted any time. Washing could only occur with a bucket or a hose fitted with an automatic shut-off nozzle. People were encouraged to park vehicles on their lawns while washing but remove immediately after. Commercial vehicle washing facilities were exempted from restrictions. Penalties The following penalties were established for violations of City watering restrictions: • First violation -$50 water waste charge. • Second violation -$100 water waste charge. • Third violation -$300 water waste charge. • Failure to pay resulted in the water misuse charge plus a$15 administrative processing fee, being added ko the next regular water bill. • Subsequent violations could result in turning off water service and Municipal Court prosecution. Customer Response The citizens of Boulder responded quickly and substantially to the mandatory watering restrictions. From June through August, water demand in Boulder was about 30 percent lower than previous years and was below established targets for each week from June - mid-August. Boulder citizens reduced their outdoor consumption by approximately 50 percent and their indoor consump[ion by about 10 percent. The week of August 13-19 the targets were exceeded for the first time since mandatory restrictions were imposed but only by 1 percent. Figure 2 shows the cumutative citywide daily water use in Boulder and the water use targets for the entire summer of 2002. Figure 3 shows daily water use in comparison with the 2000-2001 average and the targets established by the City. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Ina Page 14 AquacrafC, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan a2oo 3000 September 1Q 2002 3600 N C O ~ 2400 ~ C O 1800 ~ 1200 600 0 5/14/02 5/28/02 6/11/02 6/25/02 7/9/02 7/23/02 8/6/02 8/20/02 9/3/02 9/17/02 -2002 Target Water Use -2002 Actual Water Use ~2000-2001 Water Use Figure 2: City of Boulder actual and target daily water use, May - August 2002 Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 15 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan ra 40 c 35 0 m ~ 30 e 0 ~ 25 ai ~ 20 ~ d 3 is T p 10 5 0 September 10, 2002 1-Jan 1•Feb 1~Mer 1-Apr t-May 7JUn 1-JUl 1-AUg 1-Sep 1•OCt 1-Nov 1-Dec -2000-2001 Average -2002 Actual Use -2002 Water Use Conservatlon Targets Figure 3: Comparison of Boulder's treated water use, 2000-O1 avg. vs. 2002 actual vs. targets Over the course of the summer of 2002, citizens of Boulder saved 1,005.2 million gallons (3,086 acre feet) of water on their way to a savings target of 1,190.8 million gallons (3,654 acre feet) from May 2002 - May 2003. Figure 4 shows the progress to date toward the annual water savings target. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 16 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan ,~: ~ ~ ~_ ~ y;; I ",, 3 ~;~ ~ ~ , , , , a ~< < ; t , ,` ~ t , ~ ~ . ~ ~ y~ t ' ~t~ ~ ;` 1k1Q&;3 y ~i . ~ ~ i; ' 7 t : 02002 Water ~ i , . , ; ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ Savings to Date ~ , , , , , , ~ y ~ ° ~ „} .Y : , 3 , E 5.. ~ ~ ~ m ~ ` ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ; - s - ~ 2002 Water ~ ~ r , ` o " y ~ ~~; Savings Goal ._ °~ ~ , ~ ~ ~' a u~ ,~1 + ~ ' 4 ~ . u*. .~ ~~ # ~ ~~' :i 1 ~ ~ @~ 'iE;,i EF Figure 4: Progress toward annual water savings goal Discussion of Restrictions (Preliminary) The discussion in this section is preliminary and is based on comments published in the newspaper, internal departmental discussions, and one public comment meeting (8/14). As more discussion ensues, especially the forthcoming public comment meetings on 9/18 and 10/16, this section will be updated and revised accordingly. Successes and Benefits of 2002 Water Restrictions: - The water saving targets were met and exceeded. - Restrictions were simple and relatively "easy" to communicate and understand. - Generally good response by the citizens with relatively few violations. - Implementation was quick as was the response to mandatory restrictions. - City made sensible and appropriate changes to accommodate concerns by increasing the time allotted for drip irrigation and allowing increased watering time of trees. - Program of restrictions was relatively inexpensive to implement. Problems with 2002 Water Restrictions: Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 17 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 - The mandated restrictions were often seen as onerous and inequitable. (What do you mean by "often"? The v1sC majoriCy of cusComers did noC complain. How can 125% ceduction be anyti~ing other t.han onerous? "uiequitable" needs further elaboration.) - Coupled with Boulder's current rate sYructure, the drought cutbacks resulted in a utility revenue shortfall of more than $2,000,000. (Cou~led with Boulder's currenf rate structure, a~ demanci red~ictions wauld have resulled in revenue shorlfalls.) - The severe day/time restrictions made it nearly impossible for parks, schools, and other larger irrigators to manage irrigation without incurring violations. This resulted in reductions to large irrigated areas such as parks and schools that were far greater (60% and up) than the desired 25%o. - Opportunity for input (both within City departments and from the public) prior to implementation was minimal at best. - The system of restrictions directed personnel resources more reactively towards violation enforcement rather than proactively towards providing customer understanding and assistance in responding to the situation's challenges. - Enforcement of restrictions cost $??, and only about $9,000 was collected through fines. - No opportunity for community prioritization of public landscapes. - Trees suffered disproportionately. Compaced to whaf? Cei~tainly no[ lawns. - The absence of sufficient warning resulted in the "Green Industry" being severely impacted and not properly prepared to better serve the customer's new drought restriction driven needs. - No exemption was provided for vegetable gardens. - Some citizens may water more because they don't want to miss their watering day. - Prohibiting water meter access is seen as unreasonable and counter productive. - To work within limitations and gain greater application volumes, there was some replacement of lower flow to higher volume sprinkler heads that is counter productive to long term system demand management interests. Demand Management Options Barring quick and severe regional climate change, droughts in Boulder will be infrequent occurrences. However, the severity of the drought of 2002 has put the City in a position where some type of demand management may be required in the fall and winter and through the 2003 irrigation season. The demand management options discussed below are designed to help the City respond to the continuing drought situation in Boulder, and can be implemented on fairly short notice. More long-term options are discussed in the next section. Indoor Water Conservation Importance of winter water savings Indoor water savings are critical if Boulder is to store additional waYer through the winter and spring in preparation for continuing shortages and drought conditions in 2003. Because of anticipated low allocations of CBT water in 2003 Boulder's supply may be under stress without sufficient winter snow pack. Indoor water efficiency programs enacted now can oniy help "bank" Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 18 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 1Q 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan water over the winter as well and can also maintain some measure of reduced demand during the summer of 2003 and for years to come. Regardless of the snow pack this year, it makes sense for the City to implement indoor conservation soon to inoculate against potential shartfalls. Furthermore, most of the water savings achieved from indoor measures will be permanent and will assist in future years. Expectation of 5% reduction, but more possible Water use data from the summer of 2002 suggest that the citizens of Boulder curtailed their indoor use as well as outdoor use in response to the drought. While the exact magnitude of these savings is not known, it was estimated to be about a 5 percent reduction. Water demand projections for the coming months assume that this 5 percent reduction will continue, but even more savings are possible. As the irrigation season winds down, efforts must be focused on indoor water savings and reducing demand through the winter to ensure adequate supplies for 2003 and beyond. Indoor Conservatiorc Program ideas The following is a list of indoor water conservation programs for the City to consider implementing. • Public Education and InFormation The City greatly increased its conservation public education effort during the summer of 2002. This campaign should be continued and expanded. Public education and information support and promote all other efficiency programs the City implements. The City needs to get the message out that indoor water savings are critical and reduce the likelihood of required restrictions in 2003. Bill stuffers, pamphlets, the City web site, newspaper articles and advertisements, radio and television public service announcements, and other information opportunities should be considered. Specific water saving information that should be conveyed to customers includes: • Toilets and clothes washers are typically the largest indoor users of water in a single-family home. • Only wash full loads of clothes. Avoid using the extra-rinse setting on your clothes washer if possible. • Reducing flushing frequency saves water. Never dispose of trash down the toilet. • Replacing older toilets with a new 1.6 gallon per flush model saves an average of 1Q000 gallons per year per household. • Repair leaks. Leakage typically accounts for 13 percent of indoor water use. • Toilet leaks are the most common form of household leakage. Toilet leaks are usually caused by a faulty flapper valve. Some toilet cieaning products that are put into the tank actually damage and degrade the flapper valve. When replacing a flapper valve, be sure to bring the old one to the store with you to be sure you get one that is compatible with your toilet. Fiappers are noC standardized. • Replacing older toilets with new a new 1.6 gallons per flush model is the best way to eliminate leakage. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 19 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Dort zrnent Boulder Drought Ma~agement Plan September 10, 2002 ~ Replac mg an older clothes washer with a high efficiency model saves an average of 7,0(0) gallons per year. New clothes washers also use substantially less energy. Estimated comt of program: Unknown Estimated w~ver savings: 0- 5 percent of indoor use. • Ultra Low FLLw (ULF) toilet distribution/rebate Research has : hown that replacing old inefficient toilets with a standard 1,6 gallons per flush Coilet (th t only type of new toilet sold in the U.S.) is one of the most cost-effective water conservntion measures available. Although more expensive models are available, a good quality to;ilet costs around $100 plus installation,. Replacing all the toilets in a house saves an aver2l;e of 10.5 gaAons per capita per day. ~ For a household of 4, this equates to more than 15,Q100 gallons of savings over a year and the payback period from water savings is typ'~:ally 2 to 4 years.~ Many utilitiesa~ffer a rebaYe of $50 to $100 Por replacing an old Yoilet with an efficiettt model. Anothor option is to offer a complete purchase and installation service with or without rebatatto customers. Customers could select a toilet from using an on-line web interface, inst~tdl the toilet themselves, or schedule an installation time with a professional. At a minimur~i the City could provide educational materials promoCing toilet replacement, aicplaining the anticipated water savings, and providing installation instructions otccontacts for professional plumbers. Estimated cosi of toilet rebate program ($25 per toilet): $75,000 -$100,Q00 (assumes between 2,506,:and 3,500 toilets replaced) Estimated wau.er savings: 43 - 60 acre-feet (permanent savings). Cost per Acri ~Foot of Savings: $1,700 • Faucet Aerat rs Low flow fauaet aerators are inexpensive and coald be purchased in kits by the city and distributed alchg with conservation literature to customers. Research has shown that the water savings'acom faucet aerators can be larger when they replace high flow fixtures. A kit with two a~ rators and installation information would cost about $5. Research indicaYes that showarhelai replacement offers very small water savings and is usually not cost effective. Estimated coa~t of program: $15,000 (includes distribution of 3,000 kits) Estimated waeer savings: 10 acre-feet (permanent savings) Cost per Acri ~Foot of Savings: $1,500 '"Residential End Uses o",Water", 1999, American Water Works Association. z"Seattle Home Watar Cciaserva6on Study", 20Q0, Aquacraft, Ine. Hydrosphere Resourese Consultants, Inc. Page 20 AquaarafY, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 • Clothes Washer rebate promotion Clothes washers are the second largest user of water in residences a$er toilets. High efficiency models use about 40 percent less water and electricity than standard washers. The City Office of Water Conservation currently offers a$75 rebate for the purchase of a high-efficiency clothes washer. However the program is under-funded and has received little public promotion. In 2001, the City gave out approximately 325 rebates at cost of $24,375. The water savings from this effort are estimated at 7 acre-feet for a cost per acre-foot of savings of $3,482. Without much effort the City could promote and expand the current rebate program and encourage more citizens to purchase a high efficiency clothes washer. Estimated cost of expanded program: $30,000 (assumes doubling of 2001 rebate rate) Estimated water savings: 7 acre-feet (permanent savings) Cost per Acre-Foot of 5avings: $4,286 Point oF property sale retro~t ordinance An ordinance requiring the updating of existing plumbing fixtures to current efficiency standards as a condition of the sale of residential and commercial property could increase the rate of penetration of these devices. Under such an ordinance, the City would require the seller of improved real property ensure that all standard plumbing fixtures (toilets, showers, and faucets) complied with the flow rates estabiished in the 1994 Energy Policy Act before the title could be transferred to a new owner. Buildings constructed after 1994 would be exempt (presumably they already have these fixtures), and properties updated since 1994 would not be required to do so again. The pros and cons of this type or regulation aze fairly obvious. Such an ordinance would put an additional burden on the sellers of real estate and it is not clear how compliance could be enforced. On the other hand, if properly implemented, this ordinance could rapidly increase the conversion of old inefficient fixtures to new models. ~stimated cost of program: Minimal to the City Estimated water savings: Unknown. Depends upon the number of properties sold. Estimated water savings per house soid is: 11,000 gallons per year. Cost per Acre-Foot of Savings: $0 ~ Commercial , industrial, & institutional (CII) conservation program Large commercial and industrial customers are among the largest uses of water in Boulder. A water efficiency partnership program between the City and these customers could result in substantial water savings both indoors and outdoors. Under such a program, the City would offer a free water use consultation wiCh CII customers to determine where water is used on the site and opportunities for savings exist. A water efficiency management plan for each customer would be developed. Implementation of the plan would remain the responsibility of the customer, but the City could offer financial incentives to increase implementation rates. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 21 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Estimated cost of program: $30,000 per year for staff and consulting time. Estimated water savings: Varies depending upon the level of cooperation and the measures implemented. Cost per Acre-Foot of Savings: Unknown. ~ Pool and Spa covers This is not exclusively an indoor conservation measure but studies haue shown that swimming pool and spa covers greatly reduce evaporation losses. The City could promote or require pool and spa covers on all public and private outdoor pools and spas. ~stimated cost of program: Nothing. Estimated water savings: Unknown. Cost per Acre-Foot of Savings: $0 • Leak detection - Systematic and Customer Water lost to leakage is a problem in the City's distribution system and within residences and businesses across the City. The City could initiate a leak detection and repair program targeted at system and storage reservoir leaks and get extra bang for the buck by coupling the program with educational materials designed to assist residents in tracking down and repairing leaks in their homes and businesses. System: About 8.5 percent of the water leaving Boulder's water treatment plants is lost on the way to the end user. The City of Boulder Water Conservation Futures Study (Hydroshpere and Aquacraft, 2000) has a detailed analysis of these losses and potential causes. A distribution system leak detection and repair program would probably necessitate the purchase or lease or new equipment along with additional staff time to track down leaks. Each percent reduction savings in unaccounted water represents about 225 acre-feet. If the City valued this water at $2,500 per acre-foot (10% of current market value) it would be justified in spending $562,500 for each percentage decrease in unaccounted water. Customer: Leaks in homes and businesses are most typically caused by faulty toilet flappers, although there are many other culprits. A 1999 American Water Works Association study found that leaks accounted for nearly 13 percent of indoor use in single-family residences. An effective toilet rebate/replacement program will likely reduce leakage because presumably many older leaking toilets will be replaced. A targeted leak audit program could be an excellent service to Boulder water customers. When leaks are found they could be repaired (if possible) or a professional plumber could be referred to the customer. Estimated cost of program: System wide leak detection -$100,000 -$150,000 per year (1 F"I'E plus equipment). Residential leak detection - Unknown Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 22 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Estimated water savings: 225 acre-feet for each percentage reduction in unaccounted water. Cost per Acre-Foot of Savings: $1,000 -$2,500 (rough estimate) • Other ideas Repeal the regulation that makes gaining access to one's water meter illegal. Greywater Reuse and Rain Barre/s - Not Viable for Boulder Over the summer of 2002, many Boulder citizens informally re-used water from showers, baths, sinks, and even clothes washers to water their landscapes. Although there wasn't much rain, the topic of rain barrels was frequently discussed as another possibility for getting water to plants. Greywater Reuse Although technically feasible, greywater reuse systems are not a realistic option for Boulder to consider. Here's why: Boulder does not own the reuse rights to most of its municipal water supply. Encouraging greywater systems could have the unintended effect of decreasing the city's water supplies instead of conserving them. Extensive use of greywater systems would cause an increase in the consumed amount of Boulder's municipal water and a decrease in the historic return flows to other users. 3 A greywater promotion program by the City has the potential to trigger a reopening of many of the City's water decrees with imposition of new terms and conditions. Boulder has an extensive reuse system and de facto greywater system already in place in the form of downstream users who take Boulder's wastewater and put it to use and who have a legal claim to the reused water that trumps the reuse rights of Boulder's users. In addition, this existing reuse system is based on discharges of treated wastewater from the treatment plant delivered to downstream users and meets all state permitting requirements. Rain Barrels It is the current opinion of the state engineer that rain barrels represent an unlawful diversion of water that is a part of the stream system and that should be administered according to the priority system. The City is unable to authorize or promote rain barrels for this reason. Even if rain barrels were legal in Boulder, [he amount and frequency of rain in the summer make them an iffy proposition at best when a cost benefit analysis is performed. ~ Consumed water is water that is not sent to the water treatment plant, teeated, and then put back into Boulder Creek for o[hers downstream to usc. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 23 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Outdoor Use - Restriction Options If faced with future shortages and droughts, the City has a wide variety of resCriction options it could choose to implement. A number of diffarent of options are listed below along with the anticipated annual water use reductions anticipated with each option. Full Ban on Outdoor Use 45% annual reduction esYimated. Without sufficient rain, a full ban on outdoor use would cause severe loss of trees, lawns, bushes, shrubs, and other landscape plantings across the City. Current Restriction Program - IS minutes per zone, 2 times per week 20% annual reduction estimated (similar to 2002) See discussion of current system above. Potential modi~cations to current program4: Exemptions and changes • Vegetable gardens ~ City parks and ball fields • New plantings • Expanded customer information & education ~ Individual water management plans Individual Water Management Plans The City could allow customer to submit an individual water management plan that would then exempt them from the restriction program. The individual management plan would essentially create a water budget for the customer that they would agree to adhere to. Once approved, the management plan customer could use water any day of the week (during designated hours i.e. 6 p.m. - 9 a.m.) and would place a sign on their property to alert neighbors and code enforcement officers. Individual management plans could be used as a way to transition to a water budget rate and billing system or could be used when restrictions are imposed in lieu of such a system. The water management plan would be based on the theoretical requirements for the property (lot size, landscaping, etc.) and historic water use at the site and would fix a target maximum volume of water to be used each month. If the customer exceeded their plan's budget, they would automatically receive a fine (no warning, just a fine). Exceeding the budget twice could result in a fine, cancellation of the plan, and possibly installation of a flow restrictor. 4 Modifications could be applied to any of the outdooi use restric6on options listed. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 24 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Samnle water mana eg ment plan Here is a hypothetical water managament plan for a single-family customer in Boulder: Customer Information Name: Mork and Mindy Address: 1511 Spruce St., Boulder, CO Residents: 2 adults, no kids Irrigable area: 8,000 square feet (sfj Irrigable area calculaYionS: Lot size (from tax assessor) = 14,000 sf House footprint = 2,000 sf Patio area = 2,000 sf Driveway area = 1,000 sf Walks and other impervious areas = 1,000 sf Normal Year Consumption Avg. annual water use 2000 - 2001 (pre drought) = 200,000 gal. Avg. winYer monthly consumption (AWC) = 5,000 gal. Estimated annual indoor use = 60,000 gal. Estimated annual outdoor use = 140,000 gal. Est. annual gal. per square foot outdoor = 17.5 gal/sf Water Budget Calculations Reduction in water use required by City of Boulder = 30% Reduced annual consumption = 140,000 gal. per year (200,000 x 0.7) Proposed Monthly Water Budget: Month Indoor Outdoor Total Use Use (gal.) Use (gal) (gaL) January 5,000 0 5,000 February 5,000 0 5,000 March 5,000 0 5,000 5 Including a dcawing of the site plan, or ob[ainiug fhe information from the Ciry dIS could be used Co verify accuracy. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 25 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan April 5,000 5,000 10,000 May 5,000 10,000 15,000 June 5,000 15,000 20,000 July 5,000 20,000 25,000 August 5,000 15,000 20,000 September 5,000 1Q000 15,000 October 5,000 5,000 10,000 November 5,000 0 5,000 December 5,000 0 5,000 TOTAL 60,000 80,000 140,000 September 10, 2002 Two Days Per Week - 2 hours total watering tirrce per day, 2 times per week, no limiC on time per zone 15% annual reduction estimated Voluntary Restrictions - l5 minutes per zone, 2 tirizes per week 10% annual reductions estimated. Outdoor Use - Water Budget Approaches Overview and History Simply defined, a water budget rate system is a tiered (block) rate structure with higher rates for higher use that is used in conjunction with customer-specific water budgets based on available water supplies and the indoor and outdoor requirements of each customer. The water budget rate system can be viewed as an information Yool that assisCs the utility to communicate with the customer. The water bill becomes a valuable source of information that tells the customer if they are over-watering or if they might have a large leak by comparing their monthly use to a monthly budget created specifically for their property. In response to California's prolonged drought of the early nineties, uvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), located near Los Angeles, conceived a unique water budget based billing approach initially as a landscape conservation tool. Over time, this water management system has evolved to make the water bill more closely reflect a customer's actual water use and tl~eir water needs and has been adopted by several communities. As described in City of Boulder Water Conservation Futures Study (Hydrosphere and Aquacraft, Inc., 2000, page 64), a water budget based rate system (also known as an "Allocation Rate") "is designed to benefit accounts Chat practice conservation with lower water bills and send a strong message to accounts which waste water through high bills". Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 26 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 A 1997 study determined IRWD had lowered its average annual service area irrigation rate from 57.2" to 32.8" (or 35.7 to 20.44 ga]/SF) a 37°~o drop. Several otl~er California communities have adopted this budget-based strucCure with similar demonstrated success and a reported high degree of customer satisfaction. One major benefit to this program is that these reductions occur every yearratherjustin droughtemergencies. In 2001, to better control its irrigation water use, the City of Cary, NorCh Carolina adopted a water budget rate structure. Site specific water budgets were developed for its largest non- residential customers to reduce excessive irrigation use. To serve as a deterrent, progressively priced aggressive tiers were added to the existing residential and non-residential tiered rate structures. A water budget rate system has also been put in place in Otay California and West Jordan Utah. The greatest strength of a budgeted rate structure is its fairness both to the customer as well as to the utility. Customers are rewarded for saving water both financially and/or as an opportunity for using the saved water at a later time. They appreciate the fact they have much more latitude to make decisions in their own behalf about when and how to use the budgeYed water. A key utility benefit is that this cost-effective program also provides a stabilized revenue stream regardless of volume use and climatic conditions. Another utility benefit is its oppoxtunity to serve mare in a customer service/educator capacity since the need for enforcement involvement is greatly reduced. For all concerned, water budgets are a more fair and reliable way to adjust water use in appropriate response to changing water supplies than by imposing mandatory restrictions which rely greatly on inflexible irrigation schedules. How it works Bud~et Factors Indoors: The indoor water budget is typically set for each customer based on the average winter consumption (AWC)6 or fixed for all using the AWC class average. For residential customers in Boulder, the class average is 5,000 gallons per month per house or apartment unit. The advantage of using the AWC for each customer is that the indoor budget can be tailored to each customer's real use. On the other hand, it is possible to artificially inflate one's AWC by using mare water in the winter (although the customer is charged for this use). Currently in Bouider, customers whose AWC is less than 5,000 gallons are bumped up to 5,000 gallons of use in block 1. Customers whose AWC is more than 5,000 gallons have a block 1 amount fixed at their higher AWC volume. Fixing an indoor budget of 5,000 gallons per month for residential customers is a simpler solution, but it would be important to offer variances for large families and other extenuating circumstances. Commercial, industrial, municipal and other users would be initially be assigned an indoor water budget based on their individual average winter consumption from water billing years 2000 - 2001. Ideally the indoor budget for non-residential customers should be tailored for each customer however this will take time to implement. ~ Average win[er consumption is the average monthly use during December, January, and February. This usually is a good estimate of monthly indoor use for each customer. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 27 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Budget Factors Outdoors: The outdoor water budget is typically based on lot size (square feet) associated with each billing accounY or if possible the irrigable area (lot size minus all impervious areas).~ The area data for each property is multiplied by a volume of water, typically between 10 and 20 gallons per square foot, to arrive at the outdoor volumecric budget. The volumetric multiplier can be adjusted up or down in times of surplus or drought and a maximum monthly cap could be established in severe drought years. The outdoor water budget should provide ample supply to each customer in a normal year, and can be scaled back to meet utility needs during time of drought. Customers who exceed their budget in a normal year will pay a premium price for the extra water. In a drought year customers who exceed their budget could face a fine and possibly a flow restrictor for repeated violations. The water budget is set for an entire year, but it differs from month to month based on average historic climate. During the winter months, November - March the budget only includes indoor use. From April - October the water budget increases to accommodate outdoor use. The highest monthly allocation will occur in July and then decrease through October. Water budget variances could be made available via an application and review process. Figure 4 shows the monthly adjustments used by the City of Otay, CA for their budget rate system. Water Budget with Monthly Adjustment Figure 5: Sample water budget monthly adjustment curve Rate Structure: The water budget is then paired with a tiered rate structure that ties basic rates with base line water use and accelerated rates aimed at penalizing overuse. An example of a potential rate structure for Boulder, modified from IRWD is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Example of a Modified IRWD Budget Based Rate Structure Tier Rate Water Use ~ The City's Geographic Informadon System (GIS) has advanced to the point where it can be used to obtain lot size informadon that ean be linked Co each watee meter and wate~ billing account. It may also be possible to obtain some measures of impervious area including building footprint, driveway, and patio areas. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 28 Aquacraft, Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov ~ec Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 (per kgal) (% of water budget) Low Volume Benefit '/a x Base Rate 0- 40% Conservation Base Rate Base Rate 41 - 100%o Inefficient 2 x Base Rate 101 - 150% Excessive 3 x Base Rate 151- 200% Wasteful 5 x Base Rate 201%+ For the short-term, the City of Boulder might opt to adapt the current three-tiered block rate structure to function with a customized water budget for each customer. The could enable the City to continue using iYs current water billing software until a full five tier system could be implemented. Service Fee/Commoditv Fee: Using IRWD's example, their monthly service fee is determined and charged on the premise of fully covering the agency's annual fixed operating costs. A separate "commodity" charge is used for the variable costs associated with water treatment and delivery. This method protects the utiIity's revenue requirements from usage fluctuation in situations such as drought. In Boulder, it might make sense to have the service fee and part of Block 1 charges set to cover annual fixed operating costs rather than the monthly service fee alone. To acknowledge those that conserve and maka sure that they aren't perceived as subsidizing the system's "water wasters", typically revenue obtained from the upper "wasteful" tier is earmarked for funding furCher agency/community conservation programs/acYivities. This is in keeping with Boulder's current program of using Block 3 revenues to fund water conservation. Drought year versus normal vear: In response to drought conditions, a customer's budget can be lowered proportionately to the system's demand reduction needs. This approach recognizes that what may be acceptable use during normal times is wasteful in times of shortage. It aiso provides the customer with greater freedom than would be provided under the system of prescriptive schedules to decide how to best adapt to their new lowered budget. The motivation would be to avoid the excessive use charges rather than to compiy with an arbifrary schedule. In the process of lowering the budget, there may also be a corresponding price increase that serves as an added consarvation incentive. In a drought, the utility may also wish to set a maximum limit on water use for each customer based on the individual budget or on the customer class. Lafayette instituted a monthly maximum per account use in 2002. Customers that exceed the maximum during any given billing period would be given a warning. Customers that exceed the maximum during any two consacutive billing periods could receive a flow restrictor on their water line. If the City desired to have more rapid response to violators it could read customer's water meters more frequently - every two weeks for example. Billing would remain monthly, but customers whose use over a two-week period exceeded their drought allocation would be sent a warning. A fine would follow with their monthly bill if thair full monthly allocation were exceeded. Two weeks later, those customers that were still exceeding their budget could receive a flow restrictor. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 29 AquacrafC, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Other Water Budget Rate System Features The City of Boulder already has a three tiered rate structure with a monthly service fee so adjusting to a modified tiered system with a service and commodity fee should be relatively easy for customers. The main difference would be that in the new system, the economic message sent by the higher tiers would be much stronger than the present system. There are variations on the basic rate theme amongst the several communities using this type of water budget approach. Boulder will need to consider these in tailoring the elements of a water budget rate structure that will best serve iYs community own unique needs. Some examples are: "Water Bankine": To reward conservation and to provide fairness, an important consideration for inclusion in this rate system is a"water banking" feature. As described in the monthly budgeting process above, if a customer uses less than their monthly allotment, that amount is electronically "banked". Banked units are available for times when extra water may be necessary (hot periods, landscape rehabilitation, fertilization, etc.), to offset an overage before surcharges are assessed, and carried over for use at some future date. Similarly, this feature would allow users who conserve indoor water use through retrofits and/or upgrades to fixtures and appiiances to bank this water for use outdoors during the summer. Natural rainfall is not subtracted from the budgeted amount so that water is "free" falling into one's water bank (providing they aren't irrigating during the rain.) Overuse Penalties and "Grace" Periods: If no water bank units a1•e available, using more water than the monthiy budget amount results in the surcharges being assessed only after the customer has been given a one (or two) month "grace" period to make-up or offset the overage of the prior month. Providing Education and Timely Customer Information: Education, combined with timely and easily accessible customer water use information is critical to the success of a water budget rate system. If the expectations are that a customer adhere to a water budget, then the utility has the responsibility Co work closely with the customer by providing appropriate and timely water use information to help the customer best manage their budget. The following items could be implemented by the City of Boulder to facilitate better customer understanding of their water use. Imnroved Water Bill - The water bill itself is critical to the success of a water budget rate program. The water bill is the primary communication tool that informs the customer how much water she has used and if that water use is over or under the budget. The following information could be included on Boulder's monthly water billing statements: • Consumption in current month - total consumption and the amount billed in each of the billing rate blocks. ~ Budgeted consumption in the current month - amount of water for indoor use and for outdoor use in the budget. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 30 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 • Amount under or over the budget. Volumes exceeding the monthly budget should be highlighted in red so that customers understand they have exceeded their budget. Customers who exceed their budget should be provided phone numbers and web addresses for information on reducing water use, finding leaks, customer questions, etc. • Water budget for the next month - how much water is budgeted for the customer in the coming month. This will help the customer plan water use for the upcoming month. During the summer months, recommended irrigation schedules, amounts, etc. could be provided along with the water bill as a customer service. • Water budget and water consumption for year to date. The budget to date (indoor and outdoor) should be shown along with the total amount used in the year so far. This again will help the customer to understand how they are doing overalL The total annual budget should also be shown along with an explanation of how the budget is calculated. • Amount used during same period last year. Give the customer the ability to compare their consumption against what was used last year (or over an average of the past few years). • Information should be provided in a graphical as well as a numerical format if possible. Web and telephone customer billin~ information - Imagine going to your home computer, logging on to the City web site, entering your water billing account number and a password and getting access to your most recent water bill (including all the information listed above) and your water billing history. On the site one could see how much water you used during the last billing period, how much water was used over the last 12 months, how water use compares with the previous 12 months, and how current use compares with your water budget. New data would be uploaded every time the City reads meters and providing customers with timely feedback. A similarly featured automated telephone system, much like banks offer their customers, could be offered for those without web access. Such a system may not be as expensive as it might seem to implement and would provide a tremendous value to the customer. The web site could serve as an information center providing information such as how each water budget is calculated, how a variance can be obtained, as well as tips on numerous water efficiency opportunities. Water Meter TrackinE: Tn addition to the above-mentioned electronic access, for customers who wish to track their own water use more closely, additional information services could be considered. These could include remote meter read out devices or simply encourage customers to track their use by allowing access to their own water meters rather than prohibiting this activity. A simple option would be to encourage customers to install their own water meter inside where the water line comes into the house. The cost for purchasing a meter and hiring a plumber to do the job is about $200. This is a way for customers who wish to track their own water use to have regular information without disturbing the City meter. Benefits artd Challenges Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 31 AquacraPt, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September ] 0, 2002 Benefits - Key benefits of the proposed water budget based billing system include: • Fairness/Equity for both customer and agency • Cost-effective program for the utility • Revenue stability even during drought • Customer oriented - provides management flexibility at account level ~ Accountability - targets excessive water use/users without relying on costly city enforcement • Promoteshewards those that conseroe • Utility partners with customers in water conservation • Flexible in responding to drought or system limitations • Provides incentive for accounY conservation investment - especially landscape adaptation and/or irrigation system efficiencies • Compliments Boulder's water conservation implementation plans - even provides funding source from "wasters" tier proceeds ~ Provides a highly accurate, reliable, and quick method to adjust water use. • Better for overali horticultural health Challenges - Some challenges that face the City as it proceeds with this project include: • Program preparatiou and public education • InformaYion needs • Customer information - ways of access, ease of access, water use, historical use, budget basis, budget amount, etc. • Data integration (cross departmental & interdepaztmental) • Data needs versus data availability • Implementation timing - full implementation may be difficult for 2003 • Will require specialized programming for billing purposes • Water use data timeliness & providing ease of customer access • Water budgef variance review process • Commercial, institutional, industrial and irrigation only customers may require individualized budgets Water Budget Imp/ementation Options Full Implementat~on A full implementation of the water budget rate system described above including a customized budget for each customer, web and phone-based customer consumption information system, and a 3 or more tier rate structure would likely require the City to purchase new water billing software. It is unlikely that a full implementation including a migration to new billing software could be accomplished in time for the 2003 irrigation season. Research suggests that ic is best for implementation to occur in the winter months thus giving customers (especially residential) opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new system before the more critical summer months arrive. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Ina Page 32 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document September 10, 2002 Boulder Drought Management Plan Estimated time to implement: 1- 2 years Estimated cost: $? New billing system software and migration8 $? Create water budgets for each customer $? Set new rates $? Create web and telephone customer billing access $? TOTAL Full Implerrtentation Using Current Billing Systein A full implementation of the water budget rate system implemented by modifying the current billing system could be accomplished with some programming effort on behalf of City staff and consultants. Many of the tasks and costs would remain the same even if the current billing system is not replaced. Water budgets for each customer must be created, rates must be set, and customers must be provided up-to-date information on their water use. Using the current three-tiered or three block billing system, Block 1 could be for indoor use, Block 2 could be for outdoor use within the defined budget for each customer, and Block 3 could be for excessive outdoor use above the established budgeL The amount of water provided in Block 2 would change (go down) in a drought year to reflect a required water savings. During a severe drought, any customer whose monthly use goes into Block 3 would be subject to a warning or fine. Repeated violations could be punished by installation of a flow restrictor. Estimated time to implement: 4-8 months? ~stimated wst: $? Programming changes to current system $? Create water budgets for each customer $? Set new rates $? Create web and telephone customer billing access $? TOTAL Partial or Phased Implementatiore A water budget rate system could be implemented for a select set of customers in Boulder by May 2003 and then expanded to the entire City for 2004. Some options for consideration: - Create a water budget rate system for commercial, industrial, institutional, and municipal accounts for 2003 and then add the larger residential sector for 2004. - Create a water budget rate system for a select portion (the top 25 largest outside water users for example) of commercial, industrial, institutional, and municipal accounts for 2003 and then add the remainder, including residential, in 2004. - Address the residential sector (either Single Family and Multi-Family or Single Family alone) by May 2003 and bring the remaining customers into the system for 2004. - Implement a pilot water budget rate system for 2003 and proceed based on the results of the pilot program. e Irvine Ranch Water District used two in-housc programmers (1 full-time and 1 temp) to develop their water budget bi]ling system and to migrate to the new system. It took Chem approarimately 1 year to complete the andre project. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 33 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 The cost of these partial or phased implementations would depend entirely on the scope of the project selected. Estimated time to implement: 3- 6 months? Estimated cost: $? Programming changes to current system (or manual billing) $? Create water budgets for selected customers $? Set new rates (or use current rates) $? Create web and telephone customer billing access (or simply allow customers to read their own water meter) $? TOTAL Financing for Demand Managemenf All of the conservation measures discussed above cost money. If the City hopes to implement any of these programs it must find a way to pay for them. A drought poses many challenges for a water utility. On the one hand a drought requires reduction in demand which results in reduced revenue. On the other hand, during a drought a utility needs to spend additional money on demand management - such as the indoor conservation measures discussed in this report. One approach is to impose a drought surcharge, such as Denver Water has implemented. A drought surcharge can be a flat fee assessed to all customers based on meter size ar customer category, or can be based on actual consumption. Typically the surcharge is imposed for a limited period or time or until some end-of-drought triggers have been satisfied. For example, Denver Water's drought surcharge will remain in place until the reseivoir system reaches 80 percent of capacity. Another approach is to tap into reserve funds. To date the City has never used this money to pay for demand management programs. A third possibility would be to create a loan program where the utility offers small low or no- interest loans to customers for the purpose of implementing conservation. The loans could be paid back over a number of months or years as part of the customer's water bill. A preliminary proposal for a zero/low interest "Residential Water Saver Pilot Program" (Aquacraft and City of Boulder Office of Water) was drafted earlier in 2002 and was temporarily sidelined due to the drought's precedence. R@COIIIlYlelldatlOt7S - these should be added after the WRAB and public meetings. References A Primer on Individualized Water Rates: Designing and Implementing Water Buclget-based Rates, A&N Technical Services, 2002 City of Boulder - Water Conservation Futures Study, Hydrosphere and Aquacraft, Inc., 2000 Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 34 Aquacraft, Draft Framework Document Boulder Drought Management Plan September 10, 2002 Correspondence and Conversations with Tom Ash and Dale Lessick, Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, CA Landscape Water Conservation Programs: Evaluation of Water Budget Based Rate Structures, A&N Technical Services, 1997 The More You Use, The More you Pay - ESPECIALLY if its for Irrigation!, Cary, North Carolina, 2002 Residential End Uses of Water. Mayer and DeOreo, et.al. 1999. American Water Works Association. Seattle Home Water Conservation Study. Aquacraft, Ina 2000. Boulder, Colorado. Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Program - Synopsis, Otay Water District, Otay, CA Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. Page 35 Aquacraft, CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING DATE: September 16, 2002 SUBJECT: Presentation and Staff Update on the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Utilities Project Engineering BOARD ACTION R~QUESTED: IniCial Review of the Draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan FISCAL IMPACT: The Draft Collection System Master Plan includes recommendations for capital improvements that may require future rate increases. PURPOSE This draft master plan is being presented to the Board as part of the public review, comment and approval process. BACKGROUND Since the last Wastewater Collection System Master Plan update in 1983, radevelopment and growth patterns have changed significanUy. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan was recently updated, and the 2000 census data and the 2001 Planning Data Sourcebook are now available. These planning documents project future changes to the service area. Along with these changes, the wastewater volume and distribution will change too. The city's redevelopment, the updated planning documents, and an anticipated federal regulation directed at wastewater collection system operation and maintenance make this an appropriate time to update the ColIection System Master Plan. An engineering consultant, Brown and Caldwell, has worked with city staff to complete t6is draft update to the Master Plan. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Significant flow increases are projected over the next 20 years. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) projects population increases that will result in a corresponding wastewater flow increase of 17 percent to 23 percent by 2025. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan projects the increase to occur sooner, within the next 13 years. Either of these projections represents significandy higher flows in the wastewater collection system. AGENDA ITEM # ~ Paee 1 Brown and Caldwell point out this developing problem in this draft Master Plan. The city of Boulder's Utilities Division needs a comprehensive approach to meeting these increased system loads. The utiliYy can confinue with the existing approach and current level of funding or increase the effort and set more aggressive schedules to remove anticipated capacity limitations. With the existing approach, we will complete needed capacity expansion in 2023. This may be too late depending upon the growth pattern. On the other hand, the evaluation may be too conservative. The city is not having continual complaints or sewage backups and overflows that would necessitate immediata action. The draft plan recommands completion of the ongoing detailed survey of pipes and manholes to further define problem areas. With that information we can make a decision on the best approach and the impacts of correcting existing and future system deficiencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review the draft and consider recommending approval of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to the Planning Board and the City Council. ACTION REOUESTED No action is requested at this time. A recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council will be requested at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS Executive Summary The complete draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan will be handed out at the meeting. AGENDA ITEM # J/ Paae 2 DRAFT CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City of Boulder completed its most recent Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WWCSMP) in 1983. Prior collection system master plans were completed in 1972 and 1978. This report serves as an update to the City of Boulder 1983 WWCSMP. The City's wastewater collection system contains gravity sewer lines ranging from 4-inches to 60-inches in diameter. These pipelines collect and convey wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial sources to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). There is one pumping station and force main in the City's collection system. In 1994, the City purchased the "Hydra" hydraulic model and incorporated wastewater collection system pipelines with diameters greater than or equal to 10 inches into the model. As part of this WWCSMP the model was updated to incorporate selected 8-inch diameter pipelines. Due to the number of 8-inch pipes within the City's collection system, only selected lines were incorporated into the model as part of this project. The pipeline selection criteria for the 8-inch pipes is discussed in Chapter 5. Prior to updating the model, it included approximately 1,600 pipe sections. With the addition of selected 8-inch lines, the updated model contains approximately 3,900 pipe sections. Wastewater collection system capital improvement projects are handled by the Public Works Department Project Management staff, however the Utility Maintenance staff works with the Project Management staff to identify needed projects and to review facility designs. OBJECTIVES OP THE WWCSMP This WWCSMP (including the updated hydraulic model) identifies the upgrade requirements needed to accommodate growth and redevelopment. It also provides a roadmap that identifies the general program modifications necessary for compliance with the anticipated Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) regulations. These modifications will also enhance customer service and value while minimizing negative health and environmental impacts. \\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USER~PW~IADERI~PWIIDSEC\WRAB\memos\CHAPTER 1 rev.doc 1-1 DRAFT SUMMARY OF TASKS PERFORMED This WWCSMP update includes: 1. A review of existing planning documents, 2. Evaluation of the wastewater collection system, 3. Population, employment, and flow projections, 4. A review of City operation and maintenance practices, 5. Expansion of the City's Hydra model, 6. Identification of hydraulic deficiencies in the collection system, 7. Cost estimates for identified capital improvement needs, and 8. Recommended priorities for identified capital improvement needs. PROJECTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS WWCSMP Population and Employment Values The population and employment projections used to develop wastewater collection system service needs are presented in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. DRCOG TAZ Analysis Projected Population and Employment Values Year Po ulation Em lo ment 2001 106,614 106,407 2005 109,412 111,062 2010 112,341 119,656 2015 116,121 125,228 2020 119,500 130,721 2025 121,000 132,942 The values shown in Table 1-1 are based on the 2000 census values and DRCOG growth projections, Actual population and employment numbers should be monitored closely. If actual population and employment values are found to exceed the projected values shown in Table 1-1, capital improvement schedules should be revised accordingly. This primarily impacts wastewater treatment capacity requirements, which are not a part of this master plan. Annual Average (Dry Weather) Flow Projections Annual average flow projections shown in Table 1-2 were based on the 2001 DRCOG Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) population and employment values for 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025. The flow projections were calculated by multiplying the population numbers by 102 gallons per capita per day (g/c/d) and the employment numbers \\COIICLUSTER USER SERVER\USER~I'W~tvIADERIV'WIIDSEC\WRAB\memos\CHAPTER 1 rev.doc 1-Z DRAFT by 50 gallons per employee per day (g/e/d~. The 2001 DRCOG TAZ Analysis population and employment values were used since the DRCOG TAZ model breaks down the population and employment in small areas for analysis. This breakdown facilitates routing flows more accurately through the collection system model and helps to identify wastewater collection system capacity shortfalls. In addition, the City of Boulder population projections described in the BVCP are currently being challenged. The census undercount challenge has not been finalized. If actual population values are found to exceed the DRCOG-based projected values, flow projections should be revised accordingly. Table 1-2. Flow Projections Year Plow Projections Based on 2001 DRCOG Po ulation and Em lo ment TAZ Anal sis' 2001 17.2 2005 17.8 2010 18.5 2015 19.3 2020 19.9 2025 20.2 ' Projections are based on population multiplied by 102 g/c/d and employment multiplied by 50 g/e/d and induscrial flows at 6% of the total flow. Peak dry-weather flow inputs are calculated by applying a peaking factor to the average dry- weather flows. Throughout the wastewater industry, hydraulic peaking factors ranging from 1.2 to 5.0 are commonly used. A sampling of 2000 data in June and October revealed the peaking factor at the wastewater treatment plant ranged from 1.26 to 1,34. Table 1-3 displays the peaking factors used for the hydraulic modeling performed for the WWCSMP based on pipeline diameters. These peaking factors are consistent with the values listed in the City's Design and Construction Standards and measured flows, however they vary slightly due to the broader range of pipe diameters selected for the modeling effort. Table 1-3. Peaking Factor by Pipe Diameter Pi e Diameter, inches Hourl Plow Peakin Factor 8-15 4.0 18-36 2.7 42-60 134 Peak Dry-Weather Pipe Capacity Criteria. Based on discussions with the City, peak dry- weather flow pipe capacity criteria were established at 90% full for all pipe sizes. Peak-Wet Weather Flows (Storm Events) Flows in the Boulder wastewater collection system increase as a result of significant precipitation events. During an August 1992 storm event, the influent daily auerage flow at \\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USERU'WLiv1ADERIV'WBDSEC\WRABimemos\CHAPTERIrev.doc 1-3 DRAFT the Boulder WWTP increased by approximately 7.0 mgd from the day before the storm to the day of the storm. This change in flow was estimated to be the volume of wastewater contributed to the system as a direct result of the storm event. This storm flow volume resulted from 0.83 inches of rainfall in the Boulder area, which represents approximately a"2- year" storm. For planning purposes, this value of 7.0 mgd was added to the peak dry-weather flow to simulate a peak wet-weather value for the 2-year storm, thus combining the effects of hourly peaking factor with the increased flow from the storm event. The rainfall was assumed to be distributed evenly over the entire service area. Wet weather flow contributions for other size storm events were then extrapolated from the 1992 storm event experience. Peak Wet-Weather Pipe Capacity Criteria. Based on discussions with the City, peak wet- weather flow pipe capacity criteria were established at 100% full for all pipe sizes. As the model is further verified based on additional data this value can be changed. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Peak Dry-Weather Modeling Results (2001 and 2025) The pipes that exceed the limiting dry weather capacity criteria in 2001 and in 2025 total approximately 90 and 138 pipes, respectively. These pipes range from 10 inches to 42 inches in diameter and are displayed in Appendix W. Planning-level costs for the pipes (pipe replacement based on $13 per inch diameter per linear foot) are included in Chapter 6. Costing information was based on historical data from recent City projects. Model results and cost estimates presented in the report do not include the 8-inch pipes since the model data for many of these pipes included assumed invert elevations. There may be significant additional costs associated with correcting hydraulic limitation in these 8-inch diameter pipes. Upon completion of the survey of the system components currently underway, it is recommended that the City update the S-inch pipe data in the GIS database and run the hydraulic model to check for capacity problems in the 8-inch diameter pipes. Collection of flow data to determine actual peaking factors would also be beneficial in verifying pipeline capacities. Peak Wet-Weather Modeling Results The 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm event model results identify pipes that have exceeded the capacity limitations outlined in the above-described modeling assumptions. The number of pipes that are projected to exceed the limiting capacity criteria in 2025 during the storm events total from 237 to 348 pipes, depending on the size of the storm event. The pipes identified as having insufficient wet-weather capacity range from 10 inches to 60 inches in diameter and are listed in Appendix X. The 8-inches pipes are not included in the results. Planning-level costs for the pipes (pipe replacement based on $13 per inch diameter per linear foot~ are included in Chapter 6. \\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USER~PW\MADERI~PV7BDSEC\WRAB~memos\CHAPTER 1 rev.doc 1-4 DRAFT SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Model Specific Recommendations Model specific recommendations related to model-input parameters, calibration, data inventory and content, and model analysis capability are presented in Chapter 5. These recommendations are directed toward increasing the accuracy and reliability of the modeling results. CMOM COMPLIANCE The Boulder wastewater collection system management program is quite comprehensive and appears to comply with most of the anticipated CMOM management practice requirements. Specific recommendations to enhance collection sqstem management are as follows: 1. Improve £ormal documentation of procedures such as the emergency response procedure and the sanitary sewer overflow response procedure. 2. Maintain a fully staffed maintenance group to allow more proactive maintenance activities and minimize blockages and overflows. Collect the additional information required to complete the Geographic Information System (GIS) database for all collection system lines 8 inches in diameter and larger. 4. Implement a City standard for grease control devices for new and existing food service facilities to reduce grease related Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). 5. Expand maintenance records to include information on history (i.e. feet jetted, rodded, chemical treatment, CCTV) Capital Improvement Recommendations Capital improvement needs have been identified based primarily on the results of the hydraulic model analysis. The needs have been categorized into four separate categories, or tiers, based on how the need was identified. \\COBCLUSI`ER USER SERVER\USER\PWVVIADERIV'WBDSEC\WRAB\memos\CHAI'TER 1 rev.doc 1-5 DRAFT PROPOSED SCHEDULE An implementation schedule for the recommended activities is shown in Figure 1-1. Capital improvements required to correct structural deficiencies ('Tier 1 improvements) should be on-going to address these neecls as soon as they are identified. Specific improvements have not been identified and consequently no costs have been assigned to this category of improvements. The recommendations regarding updating and verifying GIS database information should be completed before any of the Tier 2, 3, or 4 activities are undertaken. The resulting changes to the GIS database and subsequent revisions to the Hydra Model are expected to reduce the number of projects required for Tier 2 and therefore no Tier 2 activities should be undertaken until the GIS database update and the model re-runs are complete. All replacement pipelines, whether they are categorized as Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 projects, should be design for the 2025 peak dry weather flows plus the 10-year recurrence interval storm event wet weather flows. Tier 3 and Tier 4 activities should be performed in order respectively, after all Tier 2 activities are complete. Due to the time frame required to implement Tier 1 and Tier 2 improvements under current capital improvement funding levels, it is recommended that consideration should be given to increasing the annual wastewater collection system capital improvement budget. Such a change would allow Tier 1 and Tier 2 improvements to be completed in a shorter period of time. Wastewater collection system management program modifications can begin immediately. The deadline for compliance with the CMOM regulations will depend on the timing of regulation implementation. \\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USER~I'W~bIADERI\PWBDSEC\WRAB\memoslCHAPTER t rev.doc 1-~i DRAFT Figure 1-1. Implementation Schedule Total Ranking Category Scenario Fstimated 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 Capital Costs 1 GIS/Model Verify GIS Data, Perform Flow * Monitoring, Misc. Model Recommeadacions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 CMOM Capacity, Management and Operations ° ~ ~ ~ Recommendations Tier 1 Ho2 Spots Struc[ural Deficiencies ^ Tier 2 E~sting 2001 Peak Dry-Weather $8,374,000 - Deficiency Tier 3 Growth 2025 Peak Dry-Weacher $2,77Q000 - Deficiency ~ ~ ~ Tier 4 Enhancement 10-Year Storm (2025 Flows) $13,692,000 * Costs were not de[ermined for these items. Actual costs for these items will depend on implemen[ation mechods adopted by the City. Noce: The implementation schedule is based on the City's annual wastewater collection system capital improvemeacs budget of $500,000 per yeaz. \\COBCLUSTER USER SERVER\USER~PW~MADERI~PWBDSEC\WRAB~memos\CHAPT'ERirev.doc 1-6