HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 Source Water Master Plan Volume 1City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page i
Group Acknowledgements
City Council: Matthew Appelbaum, Mayor
Crystal Gray, Deputy Mayor
Suzy Ageton, Macon Cowles, Angelique Espinoza, Shaun McGrath
(former Mayor), Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Ken Wilson
Water Resources
Advisory Board
(WRAB):
Bart Miller, Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan Iott
Utilities Staff: Ned Williams, Carol Ellinghouse, Bob Harberg , Bret Linenfelser, Joe
Taddeucci, Kim Hutton, Craig Skeie, Jake Gesner, Jim Creek
Thank you to city staff from Water Quality, Water Treatment, Utilities Project Engineering,
Water Resources, City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Utilities Administration, Parks
& Recreation, and Open Space and Mountain Parks for participating in the staff survey.
Consultants: MWH – Kevin Clark, Tracy Kosloff, Chip Paulson
Kris Kranzush
AMEC – Lee Rozakalis
Catalyst Consulting – Barb Lewis
Jenny McCurdy
Joanna Stansbury
June Busse
Community Study
Group:
Western Resource Advocates and WRAB – Bart Miller
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) –
Jeff Drager
PLAN Boulder County – Alan Boles
League of Women Voters – Jeannette Hillery
Sierra Club – Kirk Cunningham
Trout Unlimited – Larry Quilling
Department of Commerce Federal Labs – James McConnell
Citizens – Chuck Howe, Steve Pomerance, Peter Gowen, and Cal
Youngberg
Boulder County Parks and Open Space – Sasha Charney
Boulder Creek Watershed Initiative – Sheila Murphy
IBM – John Pavlovic
WRAB – Robin Byers and Kelly DiNatale
City Council – Ken Wilson and Matt Appelbaum
Silver Lake Ditch and Reservoir Company – Catherine Gates
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page ii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - What is the Source Water Master Plan?................................................................. 1
SECTION 1 - What is Boulder’s source water system? ...................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2 - Where does the Source Water Master Plan start? ................................................................... 6
SECTION 3 - How was the Source Water Master Plan developed? .............................................................. 8
SECTION 4 - What policy recommendations are in the Source Water Master Plan? ............................. 11
SECTION 5 - What issues have been identified in the Source Water Master Plan? ............................... 14
SECTION 6 - What recommendations and next steps are identified in the
Source Water Master Plan? ....................................................................................................... 20
SECTION 7 - How will the recommended projects and programs be funded? ......................................... 27
SECTION 8 - What performance measures will be used to monitor the plan’s success? ......................... 29
SECTION 9 - What did the Source Water Master Plan accomplish? .......................................................... 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Source Water Policy Recommendations ........................................................................................... 11
Table 2. Summary of Facility Condition and Critical Position in Water Supply ....................................... 19
Table 3. List of Capital Improvement Projects and Priority .......................................................................... 22
Table 4. List of Minor Improvement Projects and Priority (capital cost less than $50,000) .................... 24
Table 5. Recommended Source Water Programs and Studies .................................................................... 25
Table 6. 20-Year CIP ........................................................................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. Historic Yields of Boulder’s Water Rights and Supplies ................................................................. 3
Figure 2. City of Boulder Source Water Facilities ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 3. Water Utility Funding Sources (2009 CIP) ...................................................................................... 27
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Community Study Group Summary Memo
Appendix B – Staff Survey Summary
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 1
Executive Summary
WHAT IS THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN?
The Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) is intended to be a foundation document that will allow
informed decision-making regarding one of the city’s most important assets, its water supplies.
Boulder’s founders recognized the importance of a reliable water supply and began developing a
water supply system for the growing city in the late 1800’s. Careful planning for the city’s future
water needs now can help assure that future Boulder citizens also inherit a reliable and sufficient
water supply. The SWMP documents the current status of the city’s water resources and raw water
facilities and defines issues to be addressed to provide for the city’s future water supply needs. The
SWMP and its recommended projects and programs provide a framework for sustainable
management of the city’s source waters so that future water supply needs are met through drought
periods without violating adopted reliability criteria.
QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE SWMP
One of the key outcomes of the CSG process was the framing of four distinct questions to be
addressed either directly in the SWMP or in its recommended studies. Following are the four
questions:
1. Does Boulder have enough water for its municipal system?
What factors might alter the current projection that Boulder has sufficient water to meet build-out
needs? What level of reliability is acceptable at build-out? How are population and employment
factors be accounted for in projecting adequacy of water supply? How might climate change
affect Boulder’s water supply and the quality of life it supports? What sources should be pursued
if additional water is required? Is it strategic to buy new supplies now before knowing if events
may require it, or should we focus on other priorities?
2. How should Boulder use its municipal water supplies?
Once municipal water needs are met, how should water be divided up between other uses (e.g.,
preserving natural resources/instream flows, supporting local agriculture, landscaping,
groundwater recharge, etc.)? How does climate change affect these decisions?
3. What should Boulder do to protect the watersheds supplying its water?
What watershed management and wildland fire protection measures are necessary to protect the
city’s water supply? How do we deal with water quality impacts such as those associated with
Nederland's wastewater treatment system? What measures are required to sustain the supply
treated at the Boulder Reservoir WTF?
4. How should Boulder prioritize water system expenditures and improvements?
Are the benefits of the Carter Lake Pipeline enough to make it a priority compared to other
projects? What improvements are needed to maintain the Barker System facilities? How do we
maintain reliability of the watershed dams? Should storage enhancement opportunities be
pursued?
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 2
The SWMP Community Study Group (CSG), a key component of the SWMP public process, identified
four important questions (see inset on the previous page). While all four questions are central to the
SWMP, the first one is fundamental to the city’s water supply planning and asks, “Does Boulder have
enough water for its municipal system?” Past and current studies predict that as long as current supply
and drought management strategies remain in place, the city will have enough water in the future,
even with climate change and predicted population increases. While staff intends to keep a close eye
on future climate change science and water supply modeling, the focus of the SWMP is not, “Where
does the city find more water?” The focus is rather on the future steps and considerations needed to
manage the existing source water system, including its aging infrastructure. To that end, the scope of
the SWMP includes several different efforts, such as:
6 Defining emerging issues that affect how the city will manage and operate its source water
system in the future.
6 Recommending future studies and actions that should be undertaken.
6 Providing general budgeting information and project prioritization to guide development of
the twenty-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) so that source water deliveries are
dependable.
6 Compiling existing information about the city’s source water system including background
information, a review of the city’s raw water system assets, current operation and
maintenance practices, agreements, and other legal constraints on the city’s raw water
operations. Documenting current policies for management of the city’s source water.
6 Reviewing water use levels and water rights yields to assist in periodic re-evaluation of future
demands.
6 Recognizing and being consistent with the goals, policies and growth projections of Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, and being consistent with other city master and strategic plans.
The SWMP contains two volumes. The first volume contained herein provides a summary level of
detail aimed at a general audience. Volume 1 is consistent with other city master plans and planning
documents in terms of format, content and level of detail. The second volume contains much more
detail on background, system management, issues and recommendations. Volume 2 provides the
details necessary for future execution of programs and projects. Volume 2 also documents critical
system information in one place in a way that has never been done before, which will be valuable to
current and future staff. The second volume is prepared more for an audience having or desiring
detailed institutional knowledge of the source water system.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 3
Section 1
WHAT IS BOULDER’S SOURCE WATER SYSTEM?
Boulder’s water supply system includes many storage,
conveyance, hydroelectric and treatment facilities.
The city owns approximately 7,200 acre-feet of
reservoir storage space in the North Boulder Creek
watershed, owns 11,700 acre-feet of storage in
Barker Reservoir on Middle Boulder Creek, and has
up to 8,500 acre-feet of storage space in Boulder
Reservoir. Boulder’s two water treatment facilities
are the Betasso Water Treatment Facility (WTF), with
approximately 45 million gallons per day (MGD) of
treatment capacity and the Boulder Reservoir WTF
at about 16 MGD. The city operates eight
hydroelectric plants located within the municipal
water supply system and sells the electricity to Xcel
Energy. Four of these hydro plants are located on raw water pipelines and four are on treated water
transmission pipelines.
Operation of the city’s water system involves intricate relationships between water rights, water
quality, laws and legal agreements, streamflows, reservoir storage operations, transmission pipeline
operations, treatment capacity, hydropower production, and water demands. The availability of
sufficient water supplies to meet the city’s needs is only assured by balancing and managing all of
these factors.
Boulder owns a diverse portfolio of
water rights and water delivery contracts
which allow the city to use water both
from the local Boulder Creek basin and
from tributaries of the Colorado River
(Figure 1).
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Utilities Division is to
provide quality and reliable water
services involving drinking water,
wastewater, and stormwater and flood
management that meet regulatory
requirements and as desired by the
community, in a manner which emphasizes
efficient management of fiscal and
natural resources, and protects human
and environmental health.
SILVER LAKE WATERSHED
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 4
FIGURE 1. HISTORIC YIELDS OF BOULDER’S WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLIES
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Acre-FeetDirect Flow Storage Baseline Reservoir CBT Windy Gap
The city’s Middle Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek water rights are fed by watersheds on the
eastern slope just below the Continental Divide. Boulder also owns rights to delivery of water from
the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) and the Windy Gap Project. Both of these projects divert
water from the western slope and deliver it through the CBT facilities, which are operated by the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD).
Like most western communities, Boulder depends on stored water most of the year. High streamflows
from melting snowpack occur for only a few spring and summer months. Natural streamflows in late
summer and the winter are not sufficient to meet customer demands and must be supplemented with
previously stored water supplies. The amount of water available also changes from year to year
depending on how much snow falls in the mountains. Therefore, Boulder must store water in reservoirs
during wetter years to carry over for use in dry years. The city owns seven reservoirs and several
natural lakes in the headwaters of the North Boulder Creek basin within the Silver Lake Watershed. In
addition, the city owns Boulder Reservoir northeast of Boulder and the Barker Reservoir facilities on
Middle Boulder Creek.
Boulder’s source water facilities are depicted in Figure 2.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan Final – April 2009 Page 5 FIGURE 2. CITY OF BOULDER SOURCE WATER FACILITIES
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 6
Section 2
WHERE DOES THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN START?
The current SWMP picks up where earlier
planning efforts leave off. The city’s
previous Raw Water Master Plan (RWMP)
was completed in 1988. In 1987, the city
initiated a public process to evaluate the
water supplies that Boulder owned and
discuss options for use of the water. The
RWMP focused more on water yield and
water use in the city and less on raw
water system infrastructure.
Several of the recommendations in the
RWMP were adopted for further action
by the City Council. Many of these
recommendations have been implemented
over the past nineteen years. In addition,
some changes that affect water supply
have occurred since 1988 and new
information is now available. Between the completed tasks recommended by the RWMP, changes that
have occurred, and the availability of new information, it is an appropriate time to plan for the next
20 years.
One of the key findings of the RWMP was that the city owned sufficient supplies to meet its build-out
water needs. Although this determination still appears to be valid, changes since 1988 might have
affected this conclusion, either positively or negatively. This finding among others will be the subject
of future evaluation. The current SWMP, development of which began in earnest during the summer of
2007, sets the course to evaluate the adequacy of the city’s future source water supply with regard
to quantity, quality, policies and the infrastructure that is the backbone of the system.
SILVER LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 7
IMPLEMENTATION OF 1988 RWMP RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the 1988 RWMP recommendations have been implemented:
The city continues to maximize its exchange yields to maximize water available to the Betasso
WTF and for hydroelectric generation in accordance with City Council direction at the time.
The city has maintained or increased storage levels in the Silver Lake Watershed.
The city maintains a storage reserve in its Boulder Creek basin reservoirs and has converted the
Boulder Reservoir WTF to year-round operation.
The city sold 43 of its original 80 units in the Windy Gap Project and used the proceeds to
purchase additional shares in ditch companies, joint ownership with Boulder County of Caribou
Ranch, and the Barker system. Purchase of the Barker system in 2001 has increased the city’s
water yield and provides additional hydroelectric generation.
The city successfully postponed the construction of additional water treatment facilities until 2004
through its water conservation programs.
A Drought Response Plan has been developed for short-term supply shortfalls caused by extreme
drought or facility failure.
The city has continued its Watershed Dam rehabilitation program to provide a safe, reliable
water supply system.
The city has replaced both the Silver Lake and Lakewood Pipelines and installed hydroelectric
generation facilities on both pipelines.
The city continues to rehabilitate and improve Barker system pipelines to increase system
reliability.
The city protects and enhances the aquatic and riparian ecosystems by providing water flows
and managing the Boulder Creek instream flow program as an agent of the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (CWCB).
Many accomplishments have occurred and many things have changed since the 1988 RWMP was
completed. The current SWMP effort acknowledges those accomplishments and changes and sets the
course for future source water facilities, resources and policies.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 8
Section 3
HOW WAS THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN DEVELOPED?
The SWMP was developed by means of a collaborative process that involved input from the public,
city staff and consultants. The source water system is complex and accordingly, the scope of the
SWMP must be fairly broad in order to address all its important aspects. The source water system
involves many different elements including water rights, water quality, supply and demand,
infrastructure, city policy and land management. The system also involves numerous stakeholders and
interested parties both within and outside city government. As such, a number of concurrent work
efforts were required to develop the plan. The major tasks performed in development of the plan are
as follows:
6 Conducting a public process through formation of a community study group,
6 Conducting a staff survey,
6 Gathering and compiling a vast amount of existing information,
6 Consideration of water availability, water use and water rights,
6 Evaluation of the city’s source water infrastructure,
6 Preparation of a 20-year budget,
6 Coordination between the SWMP and the Water Quality Strategic Plan, and
6 Drafting and assembling the plan.
BOULDER’S EARLY PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 9
The Source Water Master Plan Community
Study Group (CSG) was formed on behalf
of the City Manager as a working group of
invited stakeholders representing a wide
range of opinions and interests in the
community. The CSG provided advice and
input to the city staff and consultants
preparing the SWMP. Both the Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) and City
Council appointed liaisons to the CSG. The
process was conducted with the assistance of
two professional facilitators, Barbara Lewis
and Jenny McCurdy from Catalyst Consulting.
The CSG developed a summary memo
(Appendix A) with the assistance of the
project team. It conveys to city staff the issues
related to the city’s source water system that were identified by the group and provides suggestions
concerning actions for addressing those issues.
On behalf of the project team preparing the SWMP, MWH conducted a survey of city staff. Forty
nine individuals from different divisions and departments within the city participated in the survey.
Survey participants were asked, among other things, to identify the “top three to five” most urgent
needs within the city’s source water system. The survey resulted in 27 pages of information, including
staff feedback and suggestions. A summary of the staff survey is provided in Appendix B.
Gathering and compiling a vast amount of
existing information was one of the primary
objectives of the SWMP. The goal was to compile
descriptive and background information for the
assets and resources which comprise the city’s
source water system so that the information is all in
one place and is available for future operations.
To the extent possible, existing reports and
documents were gathered and summarized,
including capturing important staff knowledge that
had not been previously documented. This work
effort was performed by city staff with assistance
and drafting from consultants Kris Kranzush,
Joanna Stansbury and June Busse.
An electronic file has been assembled with
electronic versions of important documents and
reports. This electronic file is included as an
appendix to Volume 2 of the plan.
The CSG initially developed and prioritized a list
of important issues to be addressed by the group
and in the SWMP. The project team then used the
issues list to develop the topics to be addressed in
subsequent meetings. A series of four meetings,
which were open to the public, were held between
September 2007 and February 2008. During
those meetings, the topics addressed by the group
were:
• Water availability
• Water use
• Watershed management
• CIP and proposed projects
Staff survey participants represented the
following workgroups:
• Water Quality
• Water Resources
• Water Treatment
• Utilities Project Engineering
• Utilities Maintenance
• Parks and Recreation
• Open Space and Mountain Parks
• Planning
• City Attorney’s Office
• City Manager’s Office
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 10
Development of the SWMP also included consideration of water availability, water use and water
rights. Yields of Boulder’s water rights are influenced by streamflow supply conditions, demand from
other water users and priority of the water rights. Operation of the city’s water system involves intricate
relationships between the city’s water rights, water rights owned by others, water quality, laws and legal
agreements, streamflows, reservoir storage
operations, transmission pipeline operations,
treatment capacity, hydropower production and
water demands. There are many restrictions on
what can be done with the city’s water supplies
based on legal or contractual constraints. Some of
the city’s water supply facilities have capacity or
operational limitations. However, Colorado’s semi-
arid climate is the overriding influence on the
choices made by the city when managing its water
supplies.
The SWMP evaluated the city’s current water
portfolio and the status of current modeling efforts, including climate change analysis.
Evaluation of the city’s source water infrastructure and development of a 20-year budget was
also an important objective of the SWMP. The effort was headed up by MWH, a Denver based
water resources engineering firm who performed the following tasks:
6 Toured major facilities with city staff,
6 Reviewed existing documents and reports,
6 Evaluated and followed up on staff survey comments,
6 Developed budgetary cost estimates for capital projects and studies, and
6 Prepared a 20-year budget..
Coordination between the SWMP and the Water Quality Strategic Plan was required because
development of the two plans occurred concurrently and along parallel paths. The Water Quality
Strategic Plan (WQSP) was led by the Water Quality and Environmental Services Group. There is
some overlap between the two plans because the SWMP is focused on all aspects of municipal source
water, including source water quality, and the WQSP looks at broader water quality issues including
treated water, waste water, and stormwater throughout the city.
Because there is overlap between the SWMP and WQSP, during the CSG process the merit for
separate source water and water quality plans versus a single plan was discussed. Points can be
made for either approach, but the elements of water quality not pertinent to source water led the city
to maintain development of separate plans. The CSG did identify issues and actions pertinent to the
WQSP and that information was passed on to the Water Quality and Environmental Services Group.
The information gleaned from all of the above efforts has been assembled into two volumes including
this summary plan and a detailed plan with appendices.
Boulder owns a diverse portfolio of water
rights and water delivery contracts which
allow the city to use water both from the
local Boulder Creek basin and from
tributaries of the Colorado River to provide
municipal water supply. These include direct
flow rights, storage rights, exchange rights,
and contract water delivery rights.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 11
Section 4
WHAT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN THE SOURCE
WATER MASTER PLAN?
The City of Boulder was incorporated in 1871 and has over time developed a stable administrative
framework including policies that apply to management of the source water system.
Recommendations in this section of the SWMP suggest minor adjustments and/or enhancements to the
established policies. The SWMP document itself will not implement any new policies as these will
require specific approval by the City Council or the City Manager and designated staff as is
appropriate.
Policies implemented as a result of the RWMP continue to guide management of the source water
system. In the past 20 years the city’s water supply system has changed and new information is
available. Therefore, it is an appropriate time to revisit the policies that will guide future source
water management.
In addition, some of the SWMP recommendations for additional efforts and studies could have
eventual policy implications. The specific direction such policies would take will not become apparent
until the studies and plans are complete. Table 1 presents only those policy recommendations for
which near-term council direction is needed. These recommendations are described in more detail
below.
TABLE 1. SOURCE WATER POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WATERSHED
SOURCE OF
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUE(S) TO BE
ADDRESSED
Continue taking reasonable steps to increase
water supply reliability and system flexibility
without causing negative economic impacts to the
water utility.
System
Wide Staff Water supply
quantity
Reaffirm or modify current water supply
reliability criteria.
System
Wide CSG Water supply
quantity
Formalize policy guiding the intended uses for
conserved water.
System
Wide CSG
Water supply
quantity and non-
municipal uses
Develop source water protection policy or goals. System
Wide Staff Water supply
quality
Do not pursue any further sales of Windy Gap
water until studies re-evaluating its utility to the
city are complete
Colorado
River Staff Water supply
quantity
System Flexibility (1) - With regard to system flexibility, the policy direction would be for the city to
pursue “no-regrets” actions that would increase system reliability and flexibility in a way that
provides value to the community and is sustainable for the future. No-regrets actions would be
considered good now and still good if things change in the future. They would be actions that can be
taken without unnecessary impacts to water rates.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 12
Examples of potential no-regrets actions are as follows:
6 Continuing to develop hydro power potential in an environmentally responsible manner where
opportunities exist within the city’s water system.
6 Improving municipal water system facilities such as rehabilitating Green Lake #2 Dam to
eliminate operating/storage-level restrictions.
6 Pursuing non-municipal water use arrangements that avoid reliability impacts even if higher
build-out water demand is realized or water yield is reduced by climate change. Interim
arrangements could be considered until build-out demand is realized. Drought reservations
could be established to minimize impacts if drought recognition thresholds are reached (e.g.,
allowing for instream flow pull-back in drought years). Future commitments to non-municipal
uses must be flexible to assure municipal needs can be reliably met.
6 Establishing downstream storage facilities to recapture instream flows for later exchange
upstream for municipal and non-municipal uses.
6 Recharging alluvial aquifers during high streamflow to increase returns to stream in low flow
periods. Recharge facilities would be required for such a program.
6 Assuming an acceptable funding/water rate plan can be accomplished, construction of Carter
Lake Pipeline.
6 Each project or program including the examples listed above would undergo its own approval
process to determine whether or not it is cost effective and truly is a no-regrets action.
Reliability Criteria (2) - The CSG (2008) recommended revisiting public support for the current water
supply reliability criteria policy, which expresses the city’s goals for water supply during droughts of
varying recurrence intervals. It was further recommended that in order to effectively define
community preferences the reliability
criteria need to be refined to define the
embedded quantitative assumptions
concerning indoor and outdoor water
use. The current reliability criteria
employ qualitative standards without
defining the quantity of water necessary
to meet those standards. “Essential
needs,” “exterior landscaping needs,”
and “all water uses” should be
quantified to allow residents to reach an
informed opinion concerning whether the
current reliability criteria are
acceptable or require adjustment. Do
essential needs include enough water
for residents to shower every day? Is
viability of exterior landscaping limited
to drought-resistant species only? These
SILVER LAKE DAM SPILLWAY
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 13
refinements would allow the community to more fully understand the impacts that could be expected
under various drought conditions and determine whether the frequencies of restrictions allowed under
the current criteria are acceptable.
Use of Conserved Water (3) - The CSG (2008) desired policy clarification on the intended uses for
water made available by the city’s water conservation efforts. Are we conserving water now to
ensure that there will be sufficient supply available to support population and employment at build-
out? Does the community’s water conservation translate directly to long-term increased streamflow or
water available for other non-municipal uses? A clear understanding should be developed for why
we currently conserve water during non-drought years.
Source Water Protection (4) - The policy directive for this topic would be to actively pursue protection
of the city’s source water quality. Issues to be addressed might include wildland fire hazard
mitigation, point and non-point source pollution and nuisance aquatic species. Land management
strategies should be adopted in association with Nederland, Eldora Ski Area, Boulder County, CDOT
and State and US Forest Services for Middle Boulder Creek Watershed Management.
The water source that supplies water to the Boulder Reservoir WTF includes both West Slope supplies
and local drainage area contributing to the Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir. For the
West Slope supplies, the city should support NCWCD and other CBT users in their development and
implementation of source water protection strategies. The city should undertake a parallel effort with
other stakeholders to protect the Boulder Reservoir and Boulder Feeder Canal water sources.
The North Boulder Creek Watershed consists of an upper and a lower basin. No recommended policy
changes were identified for the upper basin. For the lower basin, however, the city should take an
active role in oversight of activities associated with the Caribou Ranch Management Plan.
Windy Gap Units (5) - Although City Council did not recommend a permanent yield reduction of the
city’s water portfolio through sale of water in 1988, they did recognize that the Windy Gap water
was the city’s most expensive and least reliable water. Council recommended that staff attempt to
reconfigure the city’s water portfolio through sale of Windy Gap water and replacement of the
Windy Gap water with water supplies and assets in the Boulder Creek basin that would be capable
of multiple uses and would enhance the yield of existing systems. Based on these recommendations,
the city sold 43 of its original 80 units. The proceeds were used to purchase the Barker system,
additional shares in ditch companies, and joint ownership with Boulder County of Caribou Ranch.
Purchase of the Barker system in 2001 has increased the city’s water rights yield, increased
operational flexibility, allowed improvements that increased system reliability, allowed for instream
flows in Middle Boulder Creek and provided additional hydroelectric generation. Given uncertainties
in future water yields due to potential climate change and other currently indefinable factors, policy
direction concerning retention of the remaining Windy Gap units should be reevaluated and updated.
Staff recommends not pursuing any further sales of the city’s remaining Windy Gap units until a re-
evaluation of the yield and utilities of this water is completed unless more attractive alternative water
supply opportunities arise.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 14
Section 5
WHAT ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE SOURCE WATER
MASTER PLAN?
Source water system and facility issues were identified through:
6 Facilities inspection and assessment,
6 Review of historical city documents pertaining to facility condition,
6 Staff survey,
6 CSG discussions, and
6 Additional information provided by Utilities Division staff.
Issues were grouped into the following general categories:
6 Water rights yield issues,
6 Water management and system operations issues,
6 Water use issues,
6 Watershed management issues, and
6 Facility (physical infrastructure) condition and improvement issues.
The city must continue to protect its water rights yields to ensure that it can continue to meet the
water supply reliability criteria. Key water rights yield issues include:
6 Potential effects, if any, of climate change on the city’s water rights yields,
6 Possible uncertainties of future West Slope water supplies, and
6 Farmers’ Ditch capacity limitations.
Climate change science is at present relatively uncertain. Global circulation models (GCMs) have
relatively large grid sizes that make detailed, local predictions uncertain. Carbon dioxide emissions
scenarios also vary greatly. Just as many of the GCMs predict an increase in future average annual
precipitation for the local watersheds as predict a decrease. With such uncertainty, the city is not in
the position to take extensive actions to mitigate potential climate change effects. However, some
changes that seem to be very probable are an increase in local average temperatures and the
occurrence of earlier runoff mountain runoff and lower late summer flows in watersheds that supply
Boulder’s water. Reasonable and environmentally responsible measures to protect yields of the city’s
existing water rights, increase access to existing water supply sources, and enhance water system
flexibility without causing negative economic impacts to the water utility should be taken during the
interim period while current climate change uncertainties are resolved.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 15
Hydrologic changes will also likely occur in the West Slope basins that supply a portion of the city’s
water supply. A significant unknown factor that could affect approximately half of Boulder’s water
supply is changes that might be triggered in the administration of the Colorado River Compact due to
decreased streamflow in the Colorado River basin. The resultant effects on Boulder’s water system
could range from an increased average water yield to a decreased average yield depending on the
timing of seasonal streamflow changes and their interaction with the city’s ability to make streamflow
diversions in priority under Colorado’s water administration system.
A current water right allows the city to use 12.17 cfs of Farmers Ditch water for municipal use at times
when it is not needed to maintain instream flow in Boulder Creek. The city has made limited use of this
water right because of ditch capacity limitations above Boulder Reservoir. Restoration of ditch
capacity would allow Boulder to use additional yield of approximately 988 acre-feet per year. This
additional yield would be very reliable due to the seniority of the water right and would reduce
Boulder’s need to use its CBT supplies. Modeling studies have shown that CBT supplies can become a
critical limiting factor during extended droughts.
The city’s highest priority water management and system operations issues at the current time are:
6 Maintaining operational flexibility to address variability in annual water supply,
6 Source water system emergency planning, and
6 Maintenance and staffing needs.
By design, the source water system components work together to produce the total system yield. Some
parts of the system will be used more extensively than other parts in different years depending on
the hydrology in that particular year. The high variability in annual water supply has created the
need for flexibility in water management and system operation to provide reliable water supply
through extended drought periods. Flexibility in system operations will likely become even more
important in the future due to climate change effects.
The seasonal operation of the Boulder Feeder Canal limits flexibility of the city’s operations and may
limit the city’s drought-year water yield. The ability to access West Slope source water during the
winter would maximize use of this source and may be necessary to fully utilize the city’s Windy Gap
water. The city’s use of West Slope water during the winter is currently limited by the amount of
storage space available to the city in Boulder Reservoir under the contracts with NCWCD. The ability
to store water in Boulder Reservoir during the winter is further limited by the need to maintain winter
water levels below the point where high winter winds can damage the rip-rap on the dam and cause
erosion. While improvements to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility have been discussed
as an alternative to the proposed Carter Lake Pipeline, an expansion of the water treatment facility
capacity would not eliminate Boulder Reservoir’s storage limitation. Full winter use of the currently
planned 16 MGD capacity at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility would require more
water than can be stored in the city’s Boulder Reservoir accounts during the winter. Without the ability
to access West Slope water directly from Carter Lake during the winter to supplement what can be
stored in Boulder Reservoir, the city will be unable to fully use the 16 MGD capacity of the Boulder
Reservoir Water Treatment Facility on a year-round basis and may be unable to fully use its
allocation of West Slope water in drought years.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 16
The exchange mechanism provides an
important function in maintaining operational
flexibility within the city’s source water
system. The exchange mechanism is used to
continue taking water during the critical
spring and summer high flow periods when
water is physically available at the high
mountain reservoir and pipeline diversion
points in years when the city’s native basin
water rights are called out by more senior
water rights. This is accomplished by
satisfying the other water rights with an alternative supply such as CBT water. The city does not need
to use its exchange rights in every year, but in some years the city’s upper reservoirs will only fill
through use of the exchange. Use of the exchange rights enhances drought protection, reduces the
water utility’s capital and operating expenditures and provides for renewable, hydroelectric power
generation which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In deciding the current and future balance
between East Slope and West Slope water supplies and in reevaluating the current state of Boulder
Creek’s fisheries habitat, the city must consider the value of exchanges. Operational flexibility could
become an issue with a reduction in the city’s ability to use the exchange mechanism.
Notification and response planning is needed to ensure rapid, appropriate response to source water
system and facility emergencies. Emergency response planning should evaluate risks to the water
deliveries if there is a reduction in yield or quality of one or more of the city’s water sources as a
result of climate change, localized drought, compact call, wildland fire, infrastructure failure or
contamination event. The plan should outline emergency response measures to be taken and define
the city’s ability to deliver water if a catastrophic event were to disable a portion of the source water
system.
Operations, maintenance and staffing needs were gathered through staff survey responses as well as
direct information from city staff. The overall response from the survey was that operation and
maintenance have been steadily improving over the last 10 years, but that the city is lacking staff,
training, and tools to be able to follow a maintenance plan. Well trained technical staff is needed to
maintain the more technical equipment and computer systems that have been and are being added to
the system.
While most source water facilities are informally inspected on a fairly regular basis, inspections are
not formally documented. Documentation and communication of developing facility problems and
needs is necessary to ensure adequate budgets can be developed to address problems in a timely
and efficient manner. Standard operating procedures, maintenance schedules and inspection
reporting processes are needed for all source water facilities.
At present, the city can meet its water supply reliability criteria while providing for some
discretionary uses of water that is not needed for municipal use. Non-municipal water uses
examined in the master planning process include:
6 Instream flow protection,
6 Hydropower,
The city’s highest priority operations, maintenance
and staffing issues are:
• Documentation of standard operating and
maintenance procedures
• Development of maintenance schedules for
source water facilities
• Documentation of inspections and facility
maintenance needs
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 17
6 Agricultural leasing,
6 Flow-based recreation, and
6 Environmental enhancement.
In some years, the city’s water supplies
exceed the municipal demand. In these
years, there are opportunities to use the
city’s excess water supply for other
purposes. In some cases, there are multiple
potential beneficial uses of the water, some
of which can be fulfilled at the same time,
or some that can be fulfilled to a higher
degree by reducing the amount of water
dedicated to another purpose. For instance,
water that is used for instream flow can in
some cases be used downstream for
agricultural irrigation.
As the city nears build-out, more and more of its water supplies will need to be committed for
municipal use. Priorities among non-municipal uses may need to be established as the amount of
water available for discretionary use declines.
North, Middle and main Boulder Creeks currently have a formal or informal instream flow program
which maintain a wet stream year round subject to drought or emergency reservations, but the
fisheries habitat studies are due to be reevaluated to determine the effectiveness of the program.
South Boulder Creek is not part of the city’s source water system. However, it is part of the Boulder
Creek watershed, and its ecosystem is important to residents of the city. From November to mid-April,
there are flow deficits in South Boulder Creek between Gross Reservoir and South Boulder Road.
The generation of hydropower along with operation of the city’s municipal water supply system is in
agreement with the policies established in the city’s Climate Action Plan (2006). The city currently
operates its hydropower facilities with its municipal diversions and water deliveries and does not
make substantial excess diversions for the purpose of generating hydropower alone. The city has the
potential to generate hydropower in excess of municipal diversion needs at the existing Boulder
Canyon Hydro and Silver Lake Hydro and will soon have the capability for additional generation at
Lakewood and Betasso Hydros. There are additional opportunities for hydropower development that
historically have not been considered economically feasible, but values other than economics alone
could potentially affect decisions concerning if and when additional generation at existing facilities or
new projects are implemented. Historically, economic justification has been the overriding criterion
and thus has been the issue that has eliminated some new projects. The potential for streamflow
reductions has been the issue that has thus far influenced decisions to avoid some operational changes
that could increase hydropower generation.
On a year to year basis, the city leases water to various individuals and ditch companies north and
east of Boulder for irrigation. The agricultural leasing program is conducted on a year-by-year basis
after fulfillment of the city’s municipal needs and instream flow commitments. The city’s leasing policy
TROUT INHABIT BOULDER CREEK
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 18
has been to meet the needs of irrigators in District 6 first, then lease any additional water to other
users.
The city has a goal of maintaining the existing flow regime to allow for flow levels sufficient for
recreational kayaking and tubing on Boulder Creek from Eben G. Fine Park to 75th Street in the
month of June during normal to above-normal flow years. The flows desired for recreational use
represents a large quantity of water. A 24-hour period of flow within the kayaking range is equal to
about 10 days of water supply for the entire city. Therefore, the city has little ability to increase
recreational flows without jeopardizing municipal supply.
The maintenance of municipally-owned ponds and wetlands could potentially be improved by the city
in terms of physically improving water supply and using water rights for this purpose. Supplementing
flows to ponds or through wetlands is dependent on availability of excess water beyond what is
required for municipal and other competing non-municipal uses. If municipal water or municipal water
rights are dedicated to environmental enhancements, they will be taking away from other uses or
drought protection, so priorities must be established. The city can annually lease surplus water to fulfill
needs identified at Viele Lake and Thunderbird Lake.
Several city parks currently irrigated with treated water could be converted to a raw water
irrigation system, which would reduce treated water demand. Parks for which development of a raw
water irrigation system is feasible must be located near an irrigation ditch or lateral in which the city
owns water rights or could obtain water rights inexpensively. Striking the balance between
agricultural leasing, flow-based recreation, and environmental enhancement among other things will
continue to be an issue in considering future non-municipal uses.
As a landowner and water manager, the city, through its water utility conducts various watershed
management activities and coordinates extensively with other city and county departments as well as
outside organizations in the planning and execution of
these activities. Watershed management issues include
monitoring and managing:
6 Contamination sources,
6 Wildland fire risks in the source water watersheds,
6 Invasive and non-native species, and
6 Habitat protection and land management policy.
Watershed management activities are geared toward
protecting the quality of the city’s waters for drinking
water safety and to keep the costs of water treatment to a
minimum. In addition, these activities maintain the
functionality of facilities and enhance habitat.
Maintenance and rehabilitation of physical infrastructure
will be an important priority over the next 20 years. One
of the important outcomes of the SWMP was identification
of facilities condition issues including needed repairs,
improvements, modifications and upgrades to existing
The city’s highest priority
watershed management issues are:
• Invasive species in Boulder
Reservoir because of the recent
introduction of zebra and
quagga mussels to Colorado
• Pine beetle and increased
wildland fire danger
• Commercial, industrial,
agricultural and herbicide
runoff to the Boulder Feeder
Canal
• Urban runoff and wastewater
discharge from Nederland into
Barker Reservoir
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 19
facilities. Needed repairs/improvements were categorized as high, medium or low priority. Each
facility was also categorized in terms of importance to the source water system. Facilities with medium
to high importance and medium or high needs were identified as needing capital or other
improvements within the next 20 years. These facility conditions are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF FACILITY CONDITION AND CRITICAL POSITION IN WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT CRITICAL TO WATER SUPPLY FACILITY REPAIR/PROJECT NEED
Watershed dam
valves
MEDIUM – watershed dams are each a
small part of overall supply
HIGH – some (not all) of the watershed valves are old
with limited life spans
Green Lake #1 LOW – small volume, upstream of several
other reservoirs HIGH – outlet is not functional
Green Lake #2 LOW – small volume, upstream of several
other reservoirs HIGH – dam structure not functional
Albion Dam MEDIUM – moderate volume, upstream of
Silver Lake
MEDIUM – downstream face in poor condition and
will continue to degrade
Goose Dam MEDIUM – moderate volume, upstream of
Silver Lake
LOW – dam is fully functional, operator access and
operations could be improved
Island Dam MEDIUM – small volume, but has 1890
senior water right HIGH – concrete on crest needs immediate repair
Silver Lake Dam HIGH – large volume, critical location at
bottom of Silver Lake system
LOW – dam generally in good condition, bypass for
low flows and mechanical operation could be
improved
Lakewood Dam
MEDIUM – water can be supplied to
Betasso via the Silver Lake Pipeline bypass
to Lakewood Pipeline
LOW – appears to be in good condition, although
reported cracks should be evaluated
Silver Lake Diversion
MEDIUM – water can be supplied to
Betasso from Lakewood Reservoir via
North Boulder Creek
LOW – generally functional with some problems due
to freezing
North Boulder Creek
Diversion to
Lakewood Pipeline
MEDIUM – water can be supplied to
Betasso via the Silver Lake Diversion
LOW – generally functional, but not ideal due to
freezing issues and low flow measurement issues
Lakewood Pipeline HIGH – one of three major water supply
conduits in Boulder’s system
LOW – there are known weld flaws, but regular
inspection program is followed
Skyscraper Dam LOW – critical to supply, but not until
build-out
HIGH – valve and dam repairs are needed for future
operation
Barker Dam HIGH – large volume, critical storage
component of system
MEDIUM – dam structure is sound, but outlet works
need improvement
Barker Residence LOW – not a component of water supply LOW – location is not ideal for reservoir operations
Barker Canyon
Hydro System
Permitting
MEDIUM – water supply operations could
continue without use of hydro facilities
HIGH – permit needed for continued operation of
hydro facilities
Barker Gravity
Pipeline
HIGH – one of three major water supply
conduits in Boulder’s system
HIGH – advanced age and poor condition could result
in need to take offline
Middle Boulder
Creek Weir LOW – does not affect water supply LOW – some sedimentation observed
Kossler Reservoir HIGH – no bypass available HIGH – degradation of main dam concrete panels,
concrete cracking at outlet and seepage downstream
Boulder Canyon
Hydro Penstock HIGH – no bypass for this segment LOW – recent visual inspection did not show any
significant unexpected problems
Boulder Canyon
Hydro LOW – water can bypass hydro HIGH – reaching end of useful life and concerns
regarding operator safety
Boulder Feeder
Canal
HIGH – one of three water sources in
Boulder’s system
MEDIUM – water quality concerns and seasonal
limitations on use
Wittemyer Ponds LOW – will be critical to supply closer to
build-out demand
MEDIUM – will need substantial improvements for
water exchange
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 20
Section 6
WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ARE IDENTIFIED
IN THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN?
One of the goals of the SWMP is to develop recommendations for the city’s source water
management for the next 20 years, including evaluating costs and benefits as well as the timing of
expenditures. The SWMP provides guidance on which future actions should be developed further
through more specific efforts such as detailed studies, a project-specific CEAP, or development of
capital projects. A number of recommendations have been developed as a result of work efforts
associated with this master plan. The recommendations presented herein have been developed with
input from the following sources:
6 City Utilities Division staff and consultants involved in developing the master plan,
6 SWMP CSG, including members of the Water Resource Advisory Board and City Council, and
6 A survey of selected city departments and staff members.
Two sources of recommendations, the CSG and the staff survey, included detailed discussion and
recommendations, some of which were beyond the scope of this master plan. With regard to the
CSG, a final memo (CSG 2008) was prepared containing a summary table of recommendations that
the group and staff agreed should be brought forward in the master plan. This chapter is intended to
convey the recommendations contained in that table.
The staff survey contained numerous pages of comments and input from selected city departments
and staff members. In general, the SWMP brings forward recommendations that received the most
emphasis from surveyed staff. Individual suggestions that do not appear in the SWMP will be
followed up on separately.
The recommendations have been grouped into the following categories:
6 Policy assessment,
6 Facilities improvements, and
6 Studies and plans.
The policy assessment section (see Section 5 above) addresses changes to existing policies or
identification of the need for new policies. The facilities improvements section covers physical
infrastructure needs. The studies and plans section discusses information needed for future source
water system management decisions.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 21
The facilities improvements discussion is
separated into two sections: 1) capital
improvement projects and 2) minor projects.
Each section presents a summary table of
projects. A brief narrative description of
each the projects is available in Volume 2
of the SWMP, the detailed plan. Capital
improvement projects are those estimated
at over $50,000, and minor projects are
under $50,000. Capital improvement
projects would be listed in the annual CIP
and typically would require a formal
approval process including a CEAP. Minor
projects would likely be funded out of
operating budgets and would not require
a formal approval process.
Capital Improvement Projects - During development of the SWMP, source water facilities (physical
infrastructure) were evaluated to identify needed improvements and modifications. Recommended
capital projects are summarized in Table 3. Prioritization is based on staff’s judgment of the facility
condition and how important the facility is to the water supply system (see Table 2). In most cases the
priorities established by staff are representative of the feedback received from stakeholders
involved in the SWMP process. However, for some items, opinions on priority varied significantly
among stakeholders and the priority established by staff does not represent the breadth of opinions
on such items. Priority 1 projects should be completed in the next six years. Priority 2 and 3 projects
should be completed in years 7 to 20 and after 20 years, respectively. Top priority improvements
have been indicated in bold type in Table 3.
Estimated project costs and timing are shown in the 20-Year CIP (Table 6). Actual cost opinions in
January 2008 dollars are included as appendices to Volume 2.
The WRAB and the CSG recommended that the CIP be expanded to a 20-year period to allow for
evaluation of proposed near-term expenditures against long-term capital project needs and the
timing of expenditures. The 20-Year CIP is included at the end of this chapter as Table 6.
City staff recently updated the water system security vulnerability assessment. Based on this
assessment, costs for recommendations for security vulnerability improvements have been
incorporated in the 20-year CIP presented in Table 6. The security measures are considered
confidential and have not been expressly described in the SWMP.
COMO CREEK DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 22
TABLE 3. LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIORITY
Item #/
Funding
Plan Project Priority Project Description
North Boulder Creek Water Source
1a/AP Green Lake #2 Engineering
Evaluation 1 Evaluation of dam structure and study to determine
best method and likely cost for repairs
1b/AP Green Lake #2 Structural
Maintenance 2 Structural maintenance to dam
2a/AP Albion Dam Engineering Evaluation 2
Evaluation of dam structure and study to determine
best method and likely cost for repairs or potential
dam raise
2b/AP Albion Dam Liner, Crest and
Spillway Repair 2
a)Repair crest and spillway concrete
b) Evaluate and potentially repair poorly cemented
rubble below crest cap
c) Apply membrane to upstream face to seal off
seepage
2c/VP Albion Dam Raise and Liner 3 Same as 2b with concrete dam raise
3/FCP Island Dam Minor Repairs
(patches) 1 Patches in 5 to 7 locations on upstream face and splash
wall generally around high water mark
4a/FCP Miscellaneous watershed valve
replacement - Phase 1 1 Proactive valve replacement program in next 6 years
4b/FCP Miscellaneous watershed valve
replacement - Phase 2 2 Proactive valve replacement program for years 7
through 20
5/FCP Lakewood Pipeline† 1 Ongoing maintenance recommended in 5th inspection
report
Middle Boulder Creek Water Source
6a/AP Skyscraper Dam Evaluation and
Gate Replacement 2
a)Video inspection of gates to create gate
replacement plan
b) Use diver to open gates to drain reservoir
c) Replace gates and stem
d) Evaluate dam structure to determine best method
and cost for completing repairs
6b/AP Skyscraper Reservoir Lining and
Spillway Repair 3 Line reservoir and grout loose boulders on spillway
6c/AP Barker Residence 2
Purchase a residence within sight of Barker Dam to
improve access to and response time for operating the
system
7a/FCP Nederland WWTF Upgrade 1 Funds for advanced treatment at WWTF upstream of
Barker Reservoir
7b/AP Hannah Barker Hydro 2 Add hydro unit at toe of Barker Dam
7c/FCP Barker Dam Outlet Works
Replacement 2
Construction of vertical shaft near left abutment, inlet
tunnels and one outlet tunnel, an outlet distribution
facility, pipeline to Barker Gravity Line, and valve
house
7d/FCP Barker Dam anchor grout repair 1 Repair grout topping stabilization anchors (55 total)
7e/FCP Barker Permitting 1 FERC Exemption and USFS Land Use Authorization
8a/FCP Barker Gravity Line Land
Exchange 2 Land exchange for Barker Gravity Line lands with the
USFS
8b/FCP Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair -
Phase 1 1 Ongoing repair of sections with most critical needs
8c/FCP Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair -
Phase 2 2 Repair of remaining sections with less critical needs
9a/FCP Kossler Reservoir Main Dam
Repairs 1 Replace degraded concrete panels on upstream face
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 23
Item #/
Funding
Plan Project Priority Project Description
9b/FCP Kossler Reservoir Minor Repairs 1
a)Maintenance of the seepage weir
b) Determine capacity of overflow spillway
c) Upgrade topographic surveys
d) Hydraulic instrumentation and remote monitoring
capability
e) Tree growth control on north dam
f) Gate house paint and lighting
9c/FCP Kossler Outlet Repairs 1
a)Evaluate source of water downstream of road and
implement appropriate fix
b) Repair concrete damage at reservoir outlet and
add seepage controls
9d/AP Kossler Bypass 1 Connect Barker Gravity Line to Boulder Canyon Hydro
Penstock
10a/AP Boulder Canyon Hydro Penstock
Evaluation 2 Study to evaluate need for replacement or targeted
repairs with metallurgy and corrosion experts
10b/VP Boulder Canyon Hydro Penstock
Replacement 3 Eventual section by section replacement (if evaluation
deems necessary)
10c/AP Boulder Canyon Hydro
Replacement 2 Replace with appropriately sized hydro unit
Colorado River Water Source
11a/FCP Boulder Feeder Canal Stormwater
Diversions - Phase 1 1 Diversions of stormwater outfalls over canal described
in Black & Veatch (2007)*
11b/AP Boulder Feeder Canal Stormwater
Diversions - Phase 2 3 Diversions of stormwater outfalls over canal described
in Black & Veatch (2007)*
11c/AP Carter Lake Pipeline 1 Construction of pipeline from Carter Lake to Boulder
Reservoir for transbasin water supply
11d/VP Carter Lake Pipeline Hydro 3 Hydro added upstream of Boulder Reservoir water
treatment plant
12/VP Farmer’s Ditch Exchange Potential
Pipeline 3 Low pressure pipeline from Boulder Reservoir to mouth
of Boulder Canyon along Farmer’s Ditch alignment.
13/AP Wittemyer Ponds 2 Line Wittemyer ponds to use for exchange
14/AP Farmers Ditch Capacity
Restoration 2
Restore Farmers Ditch capacity sufficient to allow city
to fully divert the conveyed 13.52 cfs during times
when that water is not needed for instream flow
Priority Levels: 1 = next 6 years, 2 = next 7 to 20 years, 3 = long-term
Rows are shaded based on the Funding Plan: FCP = Fiscally Constrained Plan, AP = Action Plan, or VP = Vision Plan
†Maintenance efforts for Lakewood Pipeline are funded through a separate account from capital improvement projects
*Black & Veatch. (2007). Technical Memorandum 1. Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility Source Water
Contaminant Mitigation Costs. Dated August 21, 2007. Aurora, CO.
Other minor facilities improvement projects (each with a total cost less than $50,000) which could
potentially be funded through an operating budget are summarized in Table 4. All minor
improvement projects are included in the Fiscally Constrained Plan.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 24
TABLE 4. LIST OF MINOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIORITY (CAPITAL COST LESS THAN $50,000)
Item #/
Funding
Plan Project Priority Project Description
North Boulder Creek Water Source
1/FCP Green Lake #1 Outlet Repair 1 Repair non-functional outlet slide gate
2/FCP Albion Dam Gage and Outlet Access 1 a)Install staff gage
b) Install access to valve house patio
3a/FCP Silver Lake Dam generator 2 Portable generator to electrically actuate valves and
power lighting
3b/FCP Silver Lake Dam bypass repair 2 Repair non-functional bypass for low flows
4a/FCP Silver Lake Residence SCADA 2 Tie into the SCADA monitoring system with internet
capability via satellite
4b/FCP Silver Lake Residence and Bunk
House roof replacement 1 Replace with metal roofs
5/FCP Goose Dam control panel/actuator/
generator 1 Control panel on the top of the dam to actuate valves
with portable generator
6/FCP Instream flow gage installation -
North Boulder Creek 2 Gage installation on North Boulder Creek at
Sherwood Creek
7/FCP NBC instream flow recording
upstream of Lakewood 2 Redesign of current system to measure low flows
Middle Boulder Creek Water Source
8a/FCP Barker Dam floodgate conduit
inspection 1 Video or manual inspection of floodgate conduits
8b/FCP High water alarms upstream of
Orodell 1 Alarms to warn of rapidly increasing flows
9/FCP Kossler inlet erosion 2 Armor Barker Gravity Line outlet to Kossler Reservoir
to prevent further erosion
Other Minor Projects
10/FCP Raw water irrigation systems 2 Develop raw water irrigation systems for city
properties where feasible
Programs include recommended studies, environmental enhancements and other staff efforts.
Programs would probably be funded as part of the capital improvement program or through annual
operating budgets. Recommended programs are listed by water source followed by
recommendations that pertain to system-wide efforts. Each of the recommended programs is discussed
individually in Table 5.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 25
TABLE 5. RECOMMENDED SOURCE WATER PROGRAMS AND STUDIES
Item #/
Funding
Plan Program/Study Source Issue(s) Addressed Priority Cost
North Boulder Creek Water Source
1/FCP
Evaluate Lakewood Dam and report on
the longitudinal cracks observed in
2001
Staff Facilities condition
1
(within the
next year)
$15,000
Middle Boulder Creek Water Source
2/FCP FERC Part 12D Inspection Report
recommendations Staff O&M (Operations/
Maintenance) 1 $30,000
3/FCP
Collaborate with other entities to
prepare a community watershed
wildland fire protection plan for the
Middle Boulder Creek basin
CSG
Watershed
management
wildland fire
1
(ongoing)* $50,000
South Boulder Creek
4/FCP
Assist the Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department in developing an
approach and organizational structure
to provide instream flows in South
Boulder Creek
CSG
Water use -
instream flow
protection
1 Staff Time
5/FCP
Explore options for use of Utilities
assets within a comprehensive city
program for improved instream flows
on South Boulder Creek
CSG
Water use -
instream flow
protection
1
(ongoing)* Staff Time
Colorado River Water Source
6/AP
Continue to monitor developments on
the Colorado River Compact. If the
State study is inadequate, move ahead
with other interested parties to conduct
study of West Slope climate change
impacts and mitigation option.
CSG Water rights yields
and protection 2 TBD
7/FCP
Take immediate action to prevent or
delay the introduction of zebra and
quagga mussels to Boulder Reservoir
by improving oversight on recreation
and coordinating with NCWCD
Staff
Watershed
management and
invasive/non-native
species
1 Staff Time
8/FCP
Continue involvement in Boulder Feeder
Canal trail design to reduce potential
impacts to the water supply
Staff Source water
protection
1
(ongoing)*
Staff
Time/FCP
9/AP
Work with the Parks and Recreation
Department regarding planning for
recreational uses on Boulder Reservoir
Staff Source water
protection
1
(ongoing)*
Staff
Time/AP
10/FCP
Take an active role in NCWCD’s
activities to proactively protect the
quality of West Slope water supplies
Staff Source water
protection
1
(ongoing)*
Staff
Time/FCP
System-Wide
11/FCP Complete a source water emergency
plan CSG
Security, remote
operation and
monitoring
1 TBD/FCP
12/FCP
Update water demand projections
based on BVCP and changes in
demographic/water use projections
CSG
Water use -
municipal use and
conservation
1 $50,000
13/FCP
Complete modeling to define the level
of reliability resulting from updated
demand projections, water
conservation savings and supply
projections
CSG
Water use -
municipal use and
conservation
1 $100,000
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 26
Item #/
Funding
Plan Program/Study Source Issue(s) Addressed Priority Cost
14/FCP Update water use and conservation
studies/update 2003 drought plan1
CSG/WR
AB
Water use -
municipal use and
conservation
1 $50,000/
$50,000
15/AP
Explore the pros and cons of long-term
commitments to non-municipal water
uses
CSG Water use - non-
municipal uses 2 TBD
16/FCP
Update aquatic habitat studies to
assess effectiveness of current instream
flow program and, if needed, evaluate
options for providing enhanced habitat
in sufficient detail to identify impacts,
costs and benefits
CSG
Water use -
instream flow
protection
1 $100,000
17/AP
Evaluate environmentally and
economically feasible hydroelectric
sites within the water transmission
system
CSG Water use -
hydropower 2 TBD
18/FCP
Develop a maintenance plan and
corresponding maintenance logs for
each water source to document daily
and seasonal operations and
maintenance needs.
Staff
Maintenance
planning and
execution
1
(ongoing)* TBD
19/FCP
Evaluate the balance in reliance on
East Slope and West Slope supplies
and determine if a change in the
balance would cause a need for new
water supplies at build-out
CSG
Water rights yields
and protection and
balancing of water
sources
2 TBD
TOTAL COSTS FOR PRIORITY 1 PROGRAMS $395,000
Priority Levels: 1 = next 6 years, 2 = next 7 to 20 years, 3 = long term
Rows are shaded based on the Funding Plan: FCP = Fiscally Constrained Plan, AP = Action Plan, or VP = Vision Plan
*As information and opportunities arise
1 The CSG recommended updating water use and conservation studies and the drought plan was based on WRAB input.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 27
City master plans strive to categorize projects
and programs as:
Essential – programs, services or facilities
essential to ensuring the health and safety of
the people and property in the community and
municipal corporation.
Desirable – services that enhance programs or
facilities in ways that advance desired
community values.
Discretionary – creates or maintains
discretionary services/facilities that serve
limited purposes or specialized interests.
Following the above categorization, master
plans typically include discussion of budgets
and funding plans according to three
categories below.
Fiscally Constrained Plan - includes items that
are currently funded.
Action Plan - includes the next steps that
should be taken when funding is available to
either restore or expand services.
Vision Plan - Is the complete set of desired
services.
Section 7
HOW WILL THE RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS BE
FUNDED?
The City of Boulder uses a “fund” accounting
and budgeting system. Each fund is separate
and distinct from the others. While programs
and projects may be budgeted within or
across funds, the monies must be accounted for
in terms of balancing each fund. The
Department of Public Works uses four types of
funds in two categories to conduct most
business: governmental (general fund and
special revenue funds) and proprietary
(enterprise funds and internal service funds).
Water utility activities are budgeted primarily
under the water utility fund, which is an
enterprise fund.
Revenue earned by the city that is accounted
for within the water utility fund is mostly
derived from water sales and fees for
allowing taps into the city water system
(Figure 3). City utility rates and fees are
computed through an analysis of revenues
compared to expenditures. Increases in future
budgets are primarily due to recommended
replacements and additions, growth and
inflationary conditions. Projections of revenue
are based on the estimated future number of
customers to be served.
FIGURE 3. WATER UTILITY FUNDING SOURCES (2009 CIP)
User Fees
76%
Development Fees
9%Other
0%
Interest
8%
Hydroelectric
Revenues
8%
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 28
The SWMP looks at recommended replacements and
additions in the form of capital projects and programs for the
next 20 years. Capital, operating and maintenance costs
associated with the source water system as well as other
elements of the water utility (e.g. water treatment,
distribution, etc.) are considered in the normal city budgeting
cycle. Impacts on water rates as well as timing of
expenditures have also been considered. The recommended
projects and programs in the SWMP will have to abide all of
the applicable regulations, ordinances and charter provisions,
including enterprise status restrictions and TABOR constraints.
The city provides water, sewer and
stormwater services by virtue of
Article XX of the State Constitution
(Home Rule of Cities and Towns)
and the City Charter. The Utilities
Division of the Public Works
Department directs the day to day
operations of the three utilities. The
city operates its water, sewer, and
stormwater systems as individual
“enterprises” as defined in Article
X, Section 20 of the State
Constitution and Section 11-1 of
the City Code.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 29
Section 8
WHAT PERFORMANCE MEASURES WILL BE USED TO MONITOR
THE PLAN’S SUCCESS?
The water utility’s performance in managing the source water system can be measured in general by
answering the following primary questions:
1. Does the city have enough water to meet short and long-term demand?
2. Is the source water of sufficient quality for treatment and distribution?
3. Is the source water infrastructure reliable?
4. Are water utility rates reasonable?
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) provides measurement standards
and criteria for the overall performance of
the city’s management of the source water
system. The reliability criteria adopted by
City Council in 1989 provide measurement
standards for the water supply quantity.
Federal and State standards provide a
means for monitoring water quality. The
city’s annual budget approval process
provides a means for managing water
rates.
The BVCP provides urban service criteria
and standards (see inset) that provide
overall guidance on how the above
questions get answered. The urban service
criteria and standards speak to quantity,
quality and infrastructure reliability and
costs. The source water system currently
meets the urban service criteria and
standards presented in the BVCP.
Recommended studies, programs and
capital improvement projects have been
identified to ensure that the source water
system will continue to meet the service criteria in the future.
The reliability criteria adopted by City Council in 1989 provide a means for measuring the adequacy
of the city’s water supply quantity. The reliability criteria are as follows:
Since 1970, the city and Boulder County have
jointly adopted a comprehensive plan that guides
land use decisions in the Boulder Valley. The
facilities and services section of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) establishes policies
linking growth to service standards and provisions
found in the Source Water Master Plan and other
master plans. The BVCP describes water resources
protection policies for the following items.
• Protection of Water Quality
• Water Resource Planning
• Drinking Water
• Minimum Flow Program
• Protection of Aquifer and Groundwater
Recharge Areas
• Pollution Control
• Discouragement of Private Sewage Systems
The SWMP and its recommended projects and
studies are consistent with the goals, policies and
growth projections of the BVCP.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 30
For those water uses deemed essential to the maintenance of basic public health, safety and welfare
such as indoor domestic, commercial, industrial uses and firefighting uses, the city will make every
effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence intervals of up to 1,000 years.
For the increment of water use needed to provide continued viability of outdoor lawns and gardens,
the city will make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence
intervals of up to 100 years.
The BVCP contains urban service criteria and standards. Excerpts from the standards that apply to the
source water system are as follows:
• Public Water
Responsiveness to Public Objectives
Provide a sufficient degree of reliability for raw water, treated water, and an efficient
transmission/distribution system capacity to meet the demands of the population 24 hours per
day.
Provide full-time personnel 24 hours per day at the water treatment plant to assure water
quality, monitor equipment and make emergency repairs.
Have personnel on call 24 hours per day for water service emergencies.
• Sufficiency of Financing
Have revenue sources that are guaranteed so that revenues are available for water related
materials, capital improvement projects, equipment, facilities and personnel.
Use Plant Investment Fees as possible revenue for water rights acquisition, raw/treated water
storage, treatment plant improvements/expansions and construction of water mains.
Be organized to request and receive state, federal, and Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District funds, when available, for equipment, facilities and projects.
Have the ability to obtain financing through the use of revenue bonds.
• Operational Effectiveness
Use annual budget for personnel, equipment, projects, facilities and materials.
Meet standard specifications as exemplified by the American Water Works Association.
Meet or surpass acceptable levels of federal and state water quality standards.
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards should be used for standards for water
main design for the Boulder Valley.
• Location and Adequacy of Equipment and Facilities
Have capacity to deliver sufficient treated water to maximum day demand conditions.
Have existing treatment plant capacity with planned expansion that will be capable of
serving projected population of the Service Area.
Plan and provide treatment capability to meet required water quality standards.
Provide essential equipment and vehicles for water maintenance activities and emergency use.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 31
For the increment of water needed to fully satisfy all municipal water needs, the city will make every
effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence intervals of up to 20 years.
During the CSG meetings further refinement of the reliability criteria was discussed and identified as
potentially warranting evaluation.
One of the fundamental principles of protecting drinking water is to draw raw water from the
cleanest sources available to avoid having to remove contaminants and pathogens that might have
otherwise been prevented from ever entering the water supply. Key indicators of water quality are
monitored by the city at various locations in the source water system to identify changes that could
indicate quality issues. Ultimately, the measurement criteria for drinking water quality, which starts at
the source, is based on comparison with drinking water standards.
Colorado drinking water regulations include the National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NPDWS) that consist of all regulated contaminants and the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the
Treatment Technique (TT) that must be met for each contaminant in drinking water supplies. In addition
to the NPDWS list of contaminants, US EPA maintains a list of National Secondary Drinking Water
Standards, which are non-enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may cause cosmetic or
aesthetic effects in drinking water. Colorado recommends secondary standards to water systems as
“reasonable goals” but does not require compliance.
The Capital Improvements Program
schedules the necessary capital projects to
ensure maintenance of an adequate
range of urban services within Area I and
to provide urban facilities and services to
Area II through annexation on a phased
and orderly basis over the 20-year
planning period reflected in this plan. The
timing of capital improvement projects
within the source water system recognizes
the need to expand facilities to ensure
that the reliability criteria can continue to
be met as build-out population and
employment levels are approached.
Regarding water utility rates, each spring
city departments develop and submit
specific information on projects for the
six-year CIP to the Planning Department.
This information includes project
descriptions, justifications, discussion of
project goals, and estimates of project
costs. A determination is made by the
individual departments on what CIP projects are to be scheduled in the six-year time frame of the
CIP. Funding priorities provided by master plans are either reaffirmed or modified at this stage. For
major projects, funds for project planning, design, and construction are scheduled. This process
provides a means for monitoring and managing water rates.
The first year’s program in the CIP is adopted by
the City Council as the Capital Budget, as a
counterpart to the annual Operating Budget. Even
though fiscal resources are appropriated only in
the first year of the CIP, the succeeding five years
of the CIP are important in providing a long-term
plan for setting spending priorities, scheduling
projects in a logical sequence, and coordinating
and targeting CIP projects for all city
departments. Each year the CIP is updated by
adding a new sixth year of capital improvement
projects. Adjustments are made to costs and
revenues forecasted the previous year. Changes
may also be made to the year(s) in which a project
is scheduled, reflecting changes in fiscal conditions
and changes in overall funding priorities. New
capital projects may be added or deleted based
on new facility needs identified in updated or new
city master plans, area plans, or studies. Capital
improvements also may be on-going line items to
address continual capital needs.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Page 32
Section 9
WHAT DID THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN ACCOMPLISH?
In concluding the final community study group meeting, the group was asked what the Source Water
Master Plan would be known for in the future. Comments were:
6 For addressing the questions, “Does Boulder have enough water” and “What do we do with
it,”
6 For the coalescence of the climate change issue. It is part of everything we do, and the plan
will represent a comprehensive way of thinking,
6 For getting the city serious on deciding on growth control,
6 For being the first comprehensive planning document to deal with these issues,
6 For cementing the City of Boulder’s commitment to multiple uses,
6 For providing better input to planning decisions concerning water impacts,
6 For significantly advancing the ball in this era of sustainability,
6 For providing a good plan for managing and maintaining source water facilities, and
6 For addressing sustainability and City Council goals.
Only time will tell if the plan’s implementation will achieve the above-described identity. However,
during its creation, the SWMP did accomplish many of its objectives as follows:
6 Assembled pertinent information about the source water system in one place,
6 Summarized the current status of ongoing climate change studies, which indicate that Boulder
currently appears to have adequate water supply,
6 Identified issues to be addressed in the source water system,
6 Established a list and priorities of facilities needs as well as programs and studies to be
accomplished in the next 20 years,
6 Developed a 20-year CIP,
6 Provided an opportunity (staff survey/community study group) for staff and other interested
parties to help steer future management of the source water system, and
6 Was prepared to be compatible with the BVCP and other master and strategic plans.
Through development of SWMP, the stage is set for the source water system to continue to operate
reliably for the next 20 years and beyond. The project team is thankful to all who contributed to the
plan.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan Final – April 2009 Page 33 TABLE 6. 20-YEAR CIP Project Name Total Assumed Inflation Rate Estimated 2008 Cost Actual Revised Recommended Projected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 SOURCE WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM Lakewood Pipeline $28,699,718 $248,828 $113,124 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $1,238,060 $0 $119,405 $0 $126,677 $0 $8,063,498 $0 $142,576 $0 $151,259 $0 $9,347,804 $0 $170,243 $0 $8,778,243 $0 $0 Source Water Transmission Pipe Inspections $160,000 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $28,859,718 $248,828 $113,124 $180,000 $100,000 $0 $1,318,060 $0 $119,405 $0 $126,677 $0 $8,063,498 $0 $142,576 $0 $151,259 $0 $9,347,804 $0 $170,243 $0 $8,778,243 $0 $0 BARKER WATER SYSTEM Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair $22,610,041 $20,000,000 $907,699 $777,664 $360,500 $371,315 $382,454 $393,928 $405,746 $417,918 $922,405 $950,078 $978,580 $1,007,937 $1,038,175 $1,069,321 $1,101,400 $1,134,442 $1,168,476 $1,203,530 $1,239,636 $1,276,825 $1,315,130 $1,354,583 $1,395,221 $1,437,078 Barker-Kossler Penstock Repair $135,466 $100,000 $4,989 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,477 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Dam Outlet $799,448 $18,540 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $780,908 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Dam Outlet - Bond Proceeds $7,809,084 $7,055,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,809,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Dam $430,456 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $430,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Hydro System Integration $178,239 $76,994 $101,245 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Relicensing $1,769,486 $116,132 $400,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Instream Flow Release $58,824 $58,824 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Betasso Penstock $3,361,383 $272,671 $3,088,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Source Water Protection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Kossler Reservoir $1,300,451 1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $360,706 $939,745 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $38,452,879 $1,455,849 $4,367,621 $1,360,500 $732,021 $1,322,200 $393,928 $405,746 $1,198,827 $9,161,945 $1,203,432 $1,109,057 $1,007,937 $1,038,175 $1,069,321 $1,101,400 $1,134,442 $1,168,476 $1,203,530 $1,239,636 $1,276,825 $1,315,130 $1,354,583 $1,395,221 $1,437,078 RAW WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS Albion Dam $4,203,415 $3,075,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,241 $0 $0 $373,743 $3,737,431 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Silver Lake Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Island Lake Dam $108,150 $105,000 $0 $0 $108,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Green Lake 1 Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Green Lake 2 Dam $4,995,502 $3,875,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $86,946 $0 $0 $446,232 $4,462,324 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Green Lake 3 Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Goose Lake Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Boulder Reservoir $128,318 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,318 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lakewood Reservoir $137,751 $102,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,751 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Skyscraper Dam $167,990 125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $167,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Wittemyer Ponds $6,032,736 4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $587,413 $5,445,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $15,773,863 $0 $0 $108,150 $0 $0 $0 $86,946 $0 $92,241 $446,232 $4,462,324 $679,484 $3,737,431 $128,318 $587,413 $5,445,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER RAW WATER FACILITIES Farmer's Ditch $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Anderson Ditch $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Watershed Improvements $688,610 $440,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $317,437 $0 $0 $0 $92,241 $0 $0 $0 $0 $106,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Nederland WWTF $300,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Instream Flow Structures and Gaging $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Como Creek Diversion Structure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lakewood Diversion Structure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Silver Lake Diversion Structure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NCWCD Conveyance - Boulder Feeder Canal $739,623 $283,000 $98,636 $340,752 $0 $300,235 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline $3,936,618 $131,250 $1,118,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,686,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NCWCD Conveyance - Bond Proceeds $26,866,177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,866,177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan Final – April 2009 Page 34 Project Name Total Assumed Inflation Rate Estimated 2008 Cost Actual Revised Recommended Projected 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Subtotal $32,704,014 $25,000,000 $229,886 $1,459,502 $300,000 $300,235 $367,437 $0 $2,686,618 $26,866,177 $92,241 $0 $0 $0 $122,987 $106,932 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOURCE WATER PRV, PUMPING AND HYDRO Lakewood Hydroelectric $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Silver Lake Hydroelectric $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Betasso Hydro PRV Station $215,826 $0 $215,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Barker Dam Hydro $3,652,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,652,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Boulder Canyon Hydro $7,766,278 $3,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,766,278 $0 $0 Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric Facility Rehabilitation $4,402,900 $4,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $218,432 $224,985 $231,734 $238,686 $245,847 $253,222 $260,819 $268,643 $276,703 $285,004 $293,554 $302,360 $311,431 $320,774 $330,397 $340,309 Subtotal $11,734,830 $0 $215,826 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,871,157 $224,985 $231,734 $238,686 $245,847 $253,222 $260,819 $268,643 $276,703 $285,004 $293,554 $302,360 $311,431 $8,087,052 $330,397 $340,309
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Appendix A
Appendix A
COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP SUMMARY MEMO
1
MEMORANDUM
March 21, 2008
TO: Source Water Master Plan Project Team
FROM: Source Water Master Plan Community Study Group
SUBJECT: Report of the Source Water Master Plan Community Study Group
INTRODUCTION
The Source Water Master Plan Community Study Group (CSG) was formed on behalf of the
City Manager as a working group of invited stakeholders representing a wide range of opinions
and interests in the community. The CSG provided advice and input to the city staff and
consultants preparing the Source Water Master Plan (SWMP). Both the Water Resources
Advisory Board (WRAB) and City Council appointed liaisons to the CSG. The group roster is
contained in Appendix A of this report.
The CSG has developed this report with the assistance of the project team. It conveys to city
staff the issues related to the city’s source water system that were identified by the group and
provides suggestions concerning actions for addressing those issues. Staff will transmit this
report to the WRAB, Planning Board and City Council as the SWMP proceeds through the
review process.
The CSG initially developed and prioritized a list of important issues to be addressed by the
group and in the SWMP. The project team then used the issues list to develop the topics to be
addressed in subsequent meetings. The topics addressed by the group were:
• Water availability;
• Water use;
• Watershed management;
• Capital Improvements Program and proposed projects.
A complete list of the specific issues identified within each category and the prioritization
scores for the issues are included in Appendix B of this report (see Meeting Summary for CSG
Meeting No. 1).
This report is organized in sections titled “Recommendations,” “Process,” and “Conclusions.”
The recommendations section is an overview of the CSG member comments on a preliminary
tabulation of recommendations to potentially be included in the SWMP. Relevance to future
decision-making is identified for each recommendation. The group also identified which
recommendations should be considered “urgent” and therefore, pursued in the near-term.
2
The process section of the CSG
report provides a summary of
information provided by the
project team and CSG discussions
of each of the four topics listed
above. The conclusions section
includes group member opinions
concerning the strengths of the
city’s source water system
management and the long range
importance of the SWMP.
There were four overarching
questions that the CSG suggested
should be addressed through
pursuit of projects and programs
resulting from recommendations in
the SWMP. These broad questions
encompass many more specific
questions, some of which can be
answered with current knowledge
and some that will require pursuit
of more detailed information.
Information presented in the
process section of this CSG report
and the tasks identified in the
recommendations section are
organized to support the pursuit of
answers to these questions:
• Does Boulder have
enough water for its
municipal system?
• How should Boulder use
its municipal water
supplies?
• What should Boulder do to protect the watersheds supplying its water?
• How should Boulder prioritize water system expenditures and improvements?
The CSG was not a consensus-reaching group, and therefore, not all CSG members agree with
each of the comments and suggestions presented in this report, nor on the need to address some
issues. Please refer to the meeting summaries contained in Appendix B for a more detailed
accounting of the range of opinions concerning any specific issue.
BOULDER’S WATER SUPPLY SUSTAINABILITY
The SWMP will provide enough information to answer some of the
questions below such that a specific action can be recommended.
For other questions that do not have consensus on an answer, the
SWMP will supply the information necessary to support debate. For
remaining questions, the SWMP will define a road map for
obtaining answers during the next 20 years.
Does Boulder have enough water for its municipal system?
What factors might alter the current projection that Boulder has
sufficient water to meet build-out needs? What level of reliability is
acceptable at build out? How should population and employment
factors be accounted for in projecting adequacy of water supply?
How might climate change affect Boulder’s water supply and the
quality of life it supports? What sources should be pursued if
additional water is required? Is it strategic to buy new supplies now
before knowing if events may require it, or should we focus on
other priorities?
How should Boulder use its municipal water supplies? Once
municipal water needs are met, how should water be divided up
between other uses (e.g., preserving natural resources/ instream
flows, supporting local agriculture, landscaping, groundwater
recharge, etc.?) How does climate change affect these decisions?
What should Boulder do to protect the watersheds supplying its
water? What watershed management and wildfire protection
measures are necessary to protect Boulder’s water supply? How do
we deal with water quality impacts such as those associated with
Nederland's waste water treatment system? What measures are
required to sustain the supply treated at the Boulder Reservoir
Water Treatment Facility?
How should Boulder prioritize water system expenditures and
improvements? Are the benefits of the Carter Lake Pipeline
enough to make it a priority compared to other projects? What
improvements are needed to maintain the Barker System facilities?
How do we maintain reliability of the watershed dams? Should
storage enhancement opportunities be pursued?
3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The SWMP Team (city staff and consultants) presented a preliminary list of recommendations
to the CSG members in Table 1 below. One recommendation, highlighted in italics in the
table, received mixed reaction from the CSG members. Several studies and actions were
identified that the CSG felt were desirable to conduct in the near-term. The near-term items,
which are highlighted in bold in the table, include:
1) Update the water demand projections;
2) Update the water conservation plan as it relates to revisiting the reliability criteria;
3) Negotiate with Denver Water to secure a more reliable environmental pool at Gross
Reservoir.
Please refer to Appendix B for more detailed information on the CSG’s discussions.
The recommendations in Table 1 will have to abide all of the applicable regulations, ordinances
and charter provisions, including those governing the Boulder Water Utility enterprise.
4Table 1 Community Study Group Comments on Boulder Source Water Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Does Boulder have enough water for its municipal system? A Continue to monitor developments on the Colorado River Compact; if state study is inadequate or does not occur, city moves ahead with other interested parties to conduct its own study of West Slope climate change impacts and mitigation options Supports decision-making on interim balance between West Slope and East Slope water use; informs assumptions on West Slope source reliability for evaluations of need for any additional supplies for build-out and decisions about development/purchase of such supplies B Continue climate studies and related effects on Boulder’s source water (quantity and quality), including new scenarios as appropriate given advances in GCM resolution. Include scenarios that evaluate the need for more reservoir storage or reservoirs at other locations. Potential to identify thresholds of change for responding to climate-based alteration of water yields and /or water quality for input to decisions on development of new water supplies or capital improvements Water Availability Water Supply Reliability C Complete source water emergency plan Evaluate risks to city’s water system if there is a reduction in yield or quality of one of the city’s water sources as a result of climate change, localized drought, compact call, wildfire, infrastructure failure or contamination event and develop a decision-making framework to determine if action should be taken to reduce these risks. Timely implementation of emergency response Define city’s ability to deliver water (quality and quantity) in the event that a catastrophe disables a portion of the city’s source water system
5Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Decisions on most effective disaster recovery methods for watersheds Establish costs for differing levels of risk reduction D Continue efforts to protect yields of current water rights but do so in a way that preserves relationships with other entities to the extent practical. Provides guidance to city engagement in water court proceedings. May influence decisions on capital expenditures to manage supply. May affect opportunities for future collaborative action. Updated water demand and supply projections E F Update water demand projections based on BVCP and changes in demographic/water use projections; include updated estimates of savings from federal mandates, advances in fixture manufacture, the city’s water budget program and water conservation plan Complete modeling to define level of reliability resulting from updated demand projections, water conservation savings and supply projections Quantifies the build-out water demand associated with most recent BVCP update. Allows decision-making based on most recent information and supports future water system modeling efforts Future changes to the water rights portfolio G H I Evaluate balance in reliance on East Slope and West Slope supplies (including suggestions from CSG) Determine if changing balance in reliance on existing East/West Slope supplies will cause need for new water supplies for build-out Evaluate need to acquire new water rights. Will inform decisions on: Interruptible agricultural leases Groundwater use Acquisition of additional East Slope supplies and means of delivery to Boulder Sizing and future treatment processes of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facilities Use of more CBT and Windy Gap water West Slope replacement supplies Methods to increase stream recharge Keeping Windy Gap units and firming Windy Gap Repair and enhancement of storage capacity in Boulder
6Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Creek basin Use of Boulder’s exchange rights New appropriations How should Boulder use its municipal water supplies? Municipal water system use Reliability criteria refinement J K Refine reliability criteria to define quantitative assumptions of indoor and outdoor water usage Ask Council if re-affirmation of current reliability criteria is desired Will better define the effect of the reliability criteria and inform any proposed changes to the reliability criteria Water use and conservation planning L M Update Water Use and Conservation Studies Perform new runs of water system model with updated demand values and climate change information Define level of increased reliability attained by exceeding current water conservation goals Continue updates of water use data and water conservation plan see item F above Explore pros/cons of long-term commitment to other uses Informs decisions on water supply portfolio, municipal and non-municipal uses, and land planning decisions Informs water conservation policies and decisions on desirability of additional conservation measures Supports decision-making about trading increased municipal use reliability for non-municipal uses as a use of conservation savings above current goal level Bears upon the question: “What are we conserving for?” Instream Flows North and Main Boulder Creeks instream flow program with CWCB O Update aquatic habitat studies to assess effectiveness of current program and, if needed, evaluate options for providing enhanced habitat in sufficient detail to identify impacts, costs and benefits. Will provide input to evaluation of need for and feasibility of various measures to improve habitat, including suggestions presented in CSG memo
7Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Middle Boulder Creek instream flow releases from Barker Reservoir P Monitoring of water rights calls and flow rates in creek to track water released by city from Barker to Orodell Will provide input for calls to water commissioner to protect Barker releases in lower stream segments and decisions regarding need for formal CWCB program on Middle Boulder Creek Q Assist Open Space in developing an approach and organizational structure to provide instream flows in South Boulder Creek and through Open Space lands in sufficient detail to identify impacts, costs and benefits. Develop cooperative relationships with local ditch companies and other water rights holders where practical. Will provide input to: • Open Space decisions on water rights purchases for instream flow use and management of Open Space riparian lands for stream water quality protection Collaborating with South Boulder Creek water users on improving instream flows Determining the need for an expanded and/or more reliable Gross Reservoir environmental pool. South Boulder Creek instream flow program development R Explore options for use of Utilities assets within a comprehensive program with Open Space for improved instream flows on South Boulder Creek to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits respecting enterprise status restrictions and TABOR constraints. Will inform decisions on: Additional uses for lined Wittemyer Pond complex Additional use of Baseline Reservoir through water releases from new pipeline to South Boulder Creek for instream flow use and exchange to Gross Reservoir Windy Gap reusable water or CBT exchange to Gross Reservoir Hydropower Development of additional hydropower S Evaluate environmentally and economically feasible hydroelectric sites within the water transmission system Consideration of hydropower at: Barker Reservoir dam Carter Lake Pipeline discharge Other sites as may become feasible Negotiation of new power sales agreements and disposition of RECs What should Boulder do to protect the watersheds supplying its water? Watershed Management/ Source Water Quality Water quality and infrastructure protection through T Collaborate with other entities to prepare a community watershed wildfire protection plan Implementation of fire risk identification and fire hazard mitigation measures as part of a comprehensive watershed protection program with Boulder County, Nederland, Eldora, USFS and others
8Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making healthy forest and land use management U Continue working with Nederland, Eldora ski area, Boulder County, CDOT and State and US Forest Services on Middle Boulder Creek management Resolution of issues: WWTFs (Nederland and Eldora ski area ) BMPs for stormwater Septic systems Enforcement of animal regulations Response to Nederland’s potential proposal regarding boating on Barker Potential of hazardous spill or illegal dumping in Middle Boulder Creek watershed upstream of Nederland Wildfire contingency V See source water emergency plan under Water Availability Source water quality to Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility W Implement measures to improve water quality and security vulnerability along the Boulder Feeder Canal and in the Boulder Reservoir basin Improves water quality for municipal supplies taken through canal and Boulder Reservoir into Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility Provides protection of downstream water users and recreation use in Boulder Reservoir regardless of whether Carter Lake pipeline is constructed How should Boulder prioritize water system expenditures and improvements? Facilities Improvement & CIP Infrastructure Maintenance/ Development X Continue Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP and currently approved ROW acquisition and permitting Will inform decision on if/when to build Carter Lake Pipeline Y Develop a 20-year CIP with a comprehensive list of capital improvements/environmental needs and projects Optimize timing for facility improvements to provide system reliability, water quality protection, ,safety, environmental protection, and minimize impacts to water rates, including prioritizing improvements to: o Barker system o Silver Lake Watershed dams o Boulder Reservoir WTF source water quality
9
PROCESS
CSG discussions of each of the overarching questions of the SWMP are summarized below.
Does Boulder have enough water for its municipal system?
General questions and concerns with the city’s demand
projections, supply reliability and climate change planning
raised by the CSG included:
• Accuracy of the build-out demand projections in light of:
• Changes in population/jobs projections in the 2005
Update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
• Defining build-out based on current zoning instead of
what is reasonably likely to be built;
• Possible increased variability in hydrology (over that
reflected in the historic record) due to future climate
change;
Timing of build-out, in light of the need to incur costs today
to meet future water demands;
Magnitude of the shortfalls under the climate change
scenarios studied and quantification of additional supplies
needed to avoid shortfalls should they occur;
Public acceptance of potential changes to the reliability
criteria;
Adequacy of current climate change models to account for
factors specific to the city’s source waters (e.g., elevation,
warmer water temperatures, etc.).
The CSG was broken into two smaller groups and asked to identify strategies the city could
implement to deal with potential future shortfalls due to climate change or other factors should
they occur. Not every member of the group agreed with each strategy. Strategies identified by
the groups and the rationale for the suggestions were:
Table 2: Strategies for Potential Future Shortfalls
STRATEGY RATIONALE
SUPPLY-SIDE
Acquire agricultural water as a drought supply Easier and less expensive than new storage
(but there will be increased competition for
these supplies in the future).
Develop interruptible (agricultural) supply
contracts for drought use
Easier and less expensive now than they will
be in the future.
Protect existing water rights Don’t pay for the problems of others.
BACKGROUND
Staff supplied the CSG with the
following information to
facilitate group discussion:
• Current water use;
• Water availability;
• Colorado River
management;
• Future water demands;
• The city’s water system
operations and planning
software model;
• Projected supply
reliability;
• Potential effects of
climate change.
Please refer to the Meeting
Minutes for Community Study
Group Meeting #2 in Appendix
B for more information.
10
STRATEGY RATIONALE
Maximize use of available water rights and
infrastructure (existing Boulder Creek supplies,
existing CBT units and Windy Gap units)
The city is accountable for optimizing the use
of existing water supplies in lieu of or in
addition to asking the citizens to reduce
demand.
Expand Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Facility and use more CBT water
Boulder Reservoir WTF can use more
plentiful, lower quality water. Boulder is too
reliant on the upper watershed.
Evaluate ground water alternatives Groundwater is subject to different regulations
than surface water. It would require additional
storage to capture return flows.
Acquire more East Slope water supplies These will not be affected by Colorado River
Compact issues.
Use technology (e.g., porous pavement,
reducing storm runoff peaks) to increase
stream recharge.
No need to develop new sources.
Have growth bring new supplies to meet
additional demand
Growth pays its own way.
DEMAND-SIDE
Reassess build-out demand projections To answer questions about current demand
projections and ensure accurate planning
Use the existing water budget to assess and
contain demand.
The water budget program already exists and
can be used to maximize conservation.
Limit growth (in population and/or jobs) Reliability criteria can be met without asking
citizens to reduce demands.
Additional conservation; moving from
voluntary to mandatory conservation.
Minimizes impacts to streams from developing
new supplies or storage facilities.
Achieve optimal functional condition of
infrastructure (reduce system losses/leaks)
No need to develop new sources.
Cooperate with other water providers to share
infrastructure, increase efficiency and optimize
water exchanges
Makes the most of the existing resources.
11
How should Boulder use its municipal water supplies?
MUNICIPAL USES
CSG members discussed the need to be comfortable with
projections of water availability for meeting municipal water
system needs before considering additional permanent
commitments for these supplies. Concerns were expressed that
increases in conserved water might go toward supporting
increased growth if the reliability criteria were not more
specifically defined to establish and protect the types of water
use enjoyed by current city residents.
NON-MUNICIPAL WATER USES
Currently, the city supports the following non-municipal uses of
the source waters that also provide its municipal water supplies:
• Instream flows;
• Hydropower generation;
• Agricultural leases;
• Recreation;
• Environmental enhancements.
CSG comments and suggestions with regard to each of the current non-municipal uses are
summarized below. Not all group members agree with each comment.
Group members identified instream flow issues, why they are important and possible ways to
address them as follows:
Table 3: Comments on Instream Flows
BASIN COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Global Sufficiently develop specific instream flow enhancement plans to
the point where costs and reliability impacts can be quantified.
Main Boulder Creek Explore the possibility of extending the protected reach below 75th
Street to the county line to address significant habitat/quality
concerns on the lower creek.
Quantify the historic impact of Boulder’s exchange right on
Boulder Creek flows.
Middle Boulder Creek Conduct mitigation studies and make recommendations for the
2006 Barker Pipeline break to address downstream sediment
impacts.
Conduct independent EIS studies for the Barker Boulder Canyon
Hydro relicensing to evaluate flow regimes, sediment deposition
and wildlife impacts from hydroelectric operations.
BACKGROUND
Staff supplied the CSG with the
following information to facilitate
group discussion:
• Overview of current non-
municipal uses, programs
and policies;
• Overview of current
watershed management
policies and practices;
• Information concerning how
the SWMP relates to the
Water Quality Strategic
Plan.
Please refer to the Meeting Minutes
for Community Study Group Meeting
#3 in Appendix B more information.
12
BASIN COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
North Boulder Creek Treat more water at Boulder Reservoir rather than exchanging to
the upper watershed and treating at Betasso so that additional
instream flow can be provided for Middle and North Boulder
Creeks.
Increase minimum flows in North Boulder Creek to improve
aquatic habitat. Rehabilitation of Green Lake #2 Dam could
provide water for additional instream flows.
South Boulder Creek Provide more instream flows to South Boulder Creek to improve
fish habitat and aesthetics by purchasing water rights for instream
flows.
Line Wittemyer Ponds to increase municipal storage and exchange
opportunities and for improved instream flows.
Construct a return path pipeline from Baseline Reservoir to South
Boulder Creek to improve instream flows between Baseline
Reservoir and the confluence with Boulder Creek.
Stop suing FRICO so that FRICO will be more willing to work
with the city on South Boulder Creek flows.
Pursue Gross Reservoir environmental pool management and
strategic plan development through Denver Water’s ongoing EIS
for expansion of Gross Reservoir to provide increased municipal
and exchange opportunities for improved instream flows.
Be involved in discussions with Denver Water to possibly
restructure how water is delivered through Gross Reservoir.
CSG comments and suggestions concerning hydropower were:
• Add hydropower generation to Barker to generate clean energy;
• Generate hydropower if the Carter Lake Pipeline is constructed;
• Funding and rate impacts of hydropower generation projects need to be considered;
• Longer payback periods are acceptable for Water Utility investments in hydropower
facilities as long as payback occurs over the project life.
The question was raised as to whether or not hydropower is still cost-effective compared to other
alternative energy sources.
CSG suggestions concerning recreational use of source waters were:
• Develop a carrying capacity for recreation at Boulder Reservoir to manage impacts to
water quality. Have reasoned justifications if and when recreational use needs to be
curtailed.
• Allowing non-motorized recreation on Barker Reservoir could improve cooperation with
Nederland on other issues.
CSG comments concerning use of municipal water supplies for irrigated agriculture were:
13
• Make preservation of agricultural ditches within the city a priority due to their riparian,
storm water and other benefits and because they facilitate use of raw versus treated water
for irrigation.
• Trans-basin diversions should be minimized as part of the comprehensive plan and
watershed policies.
CSG suggestions for environmental enhancements were:
• Dedicate CIP funding to retrofit diversions for fish passage and other habitat
improvements above Barker Reservoir.
• With regard to channel maintenance flows below Barker Dam, are channel defining flows
important in maintaining flood conveyance capacity, and are minimum flows sufficient to
remove traction gravel from fish habitat?
• Nederland’s effluent should be treated at the point of discharge to Barker Reservoir to
avoid need for additional treatment capability at Betasso Water Treatment Facility.
• Erosion control is needed on the Barker Gravity Pipeline.
• Remove or reconstruct diversion structures on South Boulder Creek to provide fish
passage.
• Wildlife habitat management is needed to protect from non-native infestations, maintain
riparian zones, and minimize bank erosion through restricting grazing access.
• The city should participate in the Middle Boulder Creek Rogers Park Habitat
Improvement Project with the Boulder Flycasters through in-kind and CIP
appropriations.
• Watershed plans are needed for non-source water drainages within our watershed, such as
Goose Creek, Bear Creek, etc.
• Trans-basin diversions should be minimized as part of the comprehensive plan and
watershed policies.
CSG comments and concerns regarding prioritization of non-municipal water uses were:
• Can/should the city commit to new uses (municipal or non-municipal) based on current
knowledge and assumptions, or should it refrain because there will always be uncertainty
in forecasts?
• Customer buy-in on the reliability criteria is needed.
• Can the resource be used more carefully to increase reliability?
• The city’s legal obligations to provide water for non-municipal uses are the top priority.
• It is important that future commitments to non-municipal uses be flexible (such as
allowing for instream flow pull-back in drought years).to assure municipal needs can be
reliably met.
• Non-municipal uses should be prioritized according to what citizens expect Boulder to
provide and the water features that people see as a reason to live in Boulder.
14
Staff supplied the CSG with the following
information to facilitate group discussion:
• Overview of current watershed
management policies and practices;
• Information concerning how the
SWMP relates to the Water Quality
Strategic Plan.
Please refer to the Meeting Minutes for
Community Study Group Meeting #3 in
Appendix B more information
What should Boulder do to protect the watersheds supplying its water?
The city’s broad watershed management objectives
are water quality protection, facility protection and
environmental and habitat protection. Management
policies and practices differ by basin to address
specific conditions and risks to water quality.
CSG comments and suggestions concerning
watershed management are summarized below:
Table 4: Watershed Management Comments and Suggestions
BASIN COMMENT/SUGGESTION
All Basins Develop a plan for shutting off intakes/diversions in case of
wildfire.
Develop a plan for pine bark beetle infestation to protect the
water supply, because fire breaks won’t be sufficient if all of the
trees are dead.
Evaluate the adequacy of its water supplies if one source is out
of commission due to wildfire.
Monitor long-term nitrogen deposition in alpine lakes.
North Boulder Creek Keep the Silver Lake Watershed closed to public access to
protect the quality of the water supply and the wilderness aspects
of the watershed.
Look into whether the management of North Boulder Creek
should change in light of the changed status of the greenback
cutthroat trout.
Middle Boulder Creek Protect the quality and quantity of water supplies by addressing
forest health through fire hazard mitigation.
Work with Nederland to implement non-motorized boating on
Barker Reservoir, because the cost and risks are low, the benefits
are large, and it creates good will with Nederland in terms of
addressing other, larger problems.
Continued cooperation with Nederland is needed to minimize
impacts from all sources of pollution.
Address Nederland’s wastewater treatment plant effluent
discharge to Barker Reservoir to prevent having to construct
more costly treatment alternatives at Betasso Water Treatment
Facility. Possible methods of accomplishing this are “twisting
Nederland’s arms,” city funding of a solution, trading boating on
Barker for a discharge solution, piping the discharge around the
15
BASIN COMMENT/SUGGESTION
reservoir for discharge below Barker Dam or requiring
Nederland and Boulder County to pay for the city’s additional
treatment requirements.
Determine the number of potentially exempted domestic wells
and whether this could cause significant depletions to water
quantity.
Kossler Reservoir is the weakest link and highest risk in
Boulder’s raw water supply system because of easy access/
trespass and no dilution before the water enters Betasso Water
Treatment Facility.
Monitor Eldora Ski Area discharges.
Has Boulder County decided to ban cyanide heap leach gold
mining to protect water quality (as Summit County has)?
Boulder Reservoir /
Boulder Feeder Canal
Make stormwater bypass of high risk discharge areas to the
Boulder Feeder Canal a priority to manage risks to the water
supply.
Install turbidity monitors under bridges along the Boulder Feeder
Canal to provide pretreatment warning of turbidity spikes.
Limit dog and horse use of the Boulder Feeder Canal corridor to
protect water quality and decrease treatment costs.
Provide support for the completion of the Boulder Feeder Canal
trail.
Examine the justification for the Carter Lake Pipeline in light of
its high cost and questionable benefits.
Cooperate with other users to fund completion of the Carter Lake
Pipeline to address contamination issues and provide operational
flexibility.
Clarify cost estimates for the Carter Like Pipeline and cost-
sharing among communities receiving water from the Boulder
Feeder Canal.
Assess the adequacy of the number of water quality monitoring
stations to assure sufficient warning of a pollution incident.
South Boulder Creek Cooperate with Eldorado Springs Water and Sewer District to
protect Boulder’s open space and the South Boulder Creek
watershed.
Immediately establish a water quality monitoring program to
measure effects of pesticide and herbicide use, livestock grazing,
riparian buffer zones and enforcement of open space visitor
regulations.
Implement measures to decrease water quality impacts from
stormwater runoff (e.g., landscaping changes to mitigate parking
lot runoff).
West Slope Watersheds Develop a West Slope protection plan in cooperation with
NCWCD and other CBT users to create a more comprehensive
source water protection plan, define responsibilities, provide for
16
BASIN COMMENT/SUGGESTION
cooperative response to problems and develop a broad funding
base for addressing issues.
Monitor forest management of beetle-kill on the West Slope to
learn from their experience in preparation for East Slope
infestation.
The SWMP is being developed concurrently with and parallel to the Water Quality Strategic
Plan (WQSP) in preparation by the Water Quality and Environmental Services Group. There is
some overlap between the two plans because the SWMP is focused on all aspects of municipal
source water, and the WQSP looks at all of the broader aspects of water quality issues
throughout the city.
Because there is overlap between the SWMP and WQSP, the CSG identified issues and actions
which are pertinent to the WQSP. CSG suggestions for issues to address in the WQSP were:
• Septic systems and land use in North Boulder Creek and Middle Boulder Creek
watersheds
• Impacts to water quality from and treatment of runoff from wildfire or beetle kill areas
• Stormwater runoff improvement through a commercial landscaping ordinance
• Nederland’s wastewater effluent discharge and water quality improvement at Barker
Reservoir
• Continued cooperation with Nederland and others to control residential and urban runoff
through use of best management practices
• Provide financial and other support to Nederland in upgrading its wastewater treatment
plant
• Include a cross reference in the Source Water Master Plan and Water Quality Strategic
Plan to identify common issues
How should Boulder prioritize water system expenditures and improvements?
The CSG suggested that Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)
project costs and timing be
considered with regard to other
capital improvement needs and the
effects on water rates. Also, the
city’s debt load could be examined
to determine if delaying a project
would reduce necessary rate
increases. In addition to the line
item costs shown for projects in
the CIP, additional cost detail and
project timing information would be helpful. It is important that the city maintain its existing
infrastructure. The CSG suggested that cost and timeline estimates be developed for
BACKGROUND
Staff supplied the CSG with the following information to
facilitate group discussion:
• Overview of factors considered in determining the
overall CIP and funding priorities;
• Summary of CIP funding for source water projects
for 2008-2013.
Please refer to the Meeting Minutes for Community Study
Group Meeting #3 in Appendix B for more information.
17
recommended studies and non-municipal use options so that the merits and trade-offs of those
options can be evaluated along with more traditional CIP elements.
CSG comments regarding specific projects in the current CIP are summarized below:
Table 5: Comments on Current CIP Projects
PROJECT/ISSUE COMMENT/QUESTION
Carter Lake Pipeline The purposes of and needs for this project need to be
fully explained.
Will the pipeline be in the Boulder Feeder Canal?
(Answered: No, most will follow the alignment of the
existing pipeline to Broomfield.)
If the pipeline is built, will there be any water in the
canal? (Answered: The portion of Boulder’s water that
will be exchanged to Barker Reservoir and other
people’s CBT water will still be carried in the canal.)
Has the Boulder Feeder Canal trail been approved?
(Answered: Yes.)
Will completion of the Carter Lake Pipeline require a
rate increase?
Boulder is not alone in this project. Left Hand needs
the pipeline to have a reliable water supply.
Boulder Canyon Hydro Why is relicensing so expensive? (Answered: It
requires following a very specific process set out by
FERC. This will include compiling much information
and holding public meetings. A lot of the money is for
working with the USFS to get a new land use
authorization for the Barker Gravity Line.)
A break-out and justification of relicensing costs is
needed to accept that it will cost $2.8 million. Can this
be justified if Boulder Canyon Hydro generates only
$200,000 per year in revenue? (Answered: The license
covers all of the Barker facilities. A primary purpose
of doing an exemption instead of a re-licensing is to
redefine the project boundaries to separate the primarily
water supply facilities from the hydro facilities for
future federal regulation.)
What is the city doing with its Renewable Energy
Credits? (Answered: This is the subject of a settlement
agreement between the city and Xcel.)
18
CONCLUSIONS
At the final meeting of the CSG, the group was asked to identify the strengths in the city’s
current source water management and raw water system operations. CSG comments on the
strengths the city can build upon with regard to its source water supplies and raw water system
were:
• The city has accumulated much valuable information on water availability.through its
modeling of the water system.
• The city does a good job of managing its municipal water resources.
• The city does a good job of protecting the Silver Lake Watershed.
• In addition to good management on the supply side, the city has good water demand
management through its water budgets and conservation plan.
• The city is proactive on climate change.
• The city has done a good job of working to rebuild its old infrastructure.
• The city has persisted in maintaining its existing easement from the US Forest Service
for Lakewood Pipeline
• The city does a good job of aggressively defending its water rights portfolio.
In addition, group members were asked for their opinions on what the Source Water Master Plan
would be known for in the future. Comments were:
• For addressing the questions, “Does Boulder have enough water?” and “What do we do
with it?”
• For the incorporation of the climate change issue into our thinking about water supply.
• For helping the city better evaluate issues of growth control.
• For being the first comprehensive planning document to deal with some of these issues.
• For cementing the city of Boulder’s commitment to multiple uses of its municipal water
supplies that was first expressed in the 1988 Raw Water Master Plan..
• For providing better input to planning decisions concerning water impacts.
• For significantly advancing the ball in this era of sustainability.
• For providing a good plan for managing and maintaining raw water system facilities.
• For addressing sustainability and City Council goals.
Attachments: Appendix A: Group Roster and Charter
Appendix B: Meeting Records
19
APPENDIX A
GROUP ROSTER AND CHARTER
20 SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP ROSTER Name Interest Group Email Bart Miller Western Resource Advocates & WRAB bmiller@westernresources.org Jeff Drager or Ester Vincent NCWCD jdrager@ncwcd.org;evincent@ncwcd.orgCatherine Gates Silver Lake Ditch catherine@longsgardens.com Alan Boles Plan Boulder County aebolesjr@yahoo.com Jeannette Hillery League of Woman Voters jmhillery915@comcast.net Kirk Cunningham Sierra Club kmcunnin@juno.com Larry Quilling Trout Unlimited lquilling@comcast.net James McConnell Dept. of Commerce Federal Labs james.mcconnell@nist.gov Chuck Howe Citizen charles.howe@colorado.edu Steve Pomerance Citizen stevepom335@comcast.net Peter Gowen Citizen pjgowen@comcast.net Sasha Charney Boulder County Parks and Open Space scharney@co.boulder.co.us Sheila Murphy Boulder Creek Watershed Initiative sfmurphy@usgs.gov Cal Youngberg Citizen cal.youngberg@ci.longmont.co.us John Pavlovic IBM pavlovic@us.ibm.com Robin Byers WRAB robinbyers@aol.com Kelly DiNatale WRAB dinatalekn@cdm.com Ken Wilson City Council wilsonk@bouldercolorado.gov Matt Appelbaum City Council appelbaumm@bouldercolorado.gov Source Water Master Plan Team: Consultants: Ned Williams, Asst. Director of Public Works for Utilities AMEC (Lee Rozaklis) Bob Harberg, Utilities Projects Coordinator Catalyst Consulting (Barbara Lewis, Jenny McCurdy) Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator Kris Kranzush Joe Taddeucci, Utilities Project Manager MWH (Kevin Clark, Chip Paulson, Tracy Kosloff) Kim Elkins, Water Resources Specialist Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator Craig Skeie, Water Source Manager
21
Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Community Study Group Charter
This charter is intended to help clarify the role and process for the Community Study Group. In
developing this draft Charter, the facilitators incorporated ideas from individual interviews with
potential group members completed prior to our first group meeting. Group members were asked
for suggestions on how to make the group’s meetings and work most productive. This draft
charter will be reviewed and refined at the first meeting of the Community Study Group to
produce a final charter.
1) Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) is to support the city’s management of its
source waters and infrastructure such that the city has a sustainable, reliable supply capable of
meeting the city’s present and future water supply needs. The SWMP will provide guidance to
assure the city’s water supply needs are met through drought periods without violating the city’s
adopted reliability criteria. The master plan will also provide guidance on maintaining and
replacing raw water facilities so that source water deliveries are dependable. Finally, the master
plan will recognize and be compatible with other city master plans and strategic plans.
The SWMP will provide a snapshot of existing conditions and provide a general roadmap for
future source water studies and source water system improvements. The SWMP will focus on the
following objectives:
o Compile descriptive and background information for the assets and resources which
comprise the city’s source water system;
o Review and update water use statistics and water rights yields;
o Document policies which affect source water system development, use and management;
o Define current and emerging issues pertaining to the city’s source water assets, facilities
and resources;
o Review current operations and maintenance practices;
o Develop recommendations for future studies and improvements, and;
o Provide general budgeting information and project prioritization to guide development of
the ten-year Capital Improvement Plan
2) Deliverables
With the assistance of the project team, the Boulder Source Water Master Plan Community
Study Group (CSG) will develop a memorandum describing issues identified by the CSG related
to the city’s source water system and suggested actions for addressing those issues. The
memorandum will also list priorities identified by the CSG. City staff will present this
memorandum to the Water Resources Advisory Board, the Planning Board and the City Council.
22
3) SWMP Study Process
Through a series of regular meetings, the CSG will provide advice and input to the project team
regarding the SWMP:
1. What are the most important issues from CSG members’ perspectives?
2. What other items are of sufficient concern to include on a longer list of issues to be
addressed?
3. What are the group’s ideas on how to address the issues?
4. From a community perspective and given information on the implications of the ideas
suggested by the group, what are the most important ideas to act on through the SWMP and
what actions should be taken?
To facilitate discussion of these questions, the project team will prepare and distribute relevant
supporting information prior to each CSG meeting. Information and previous meeting minutes
will be compiled and distributed at least 1 week in advance of the next meeting. To provide the
information needed while avoiding information overload, background information will be posted
on the SWMP website. In this way, the information will also be available to other interested
individuals or organizations.
4) Roles and Responsibilities
The Community Study Group (CSG) is the working group of invited stakeholders representing
a wide range of opinions and interests in the community. CSG members will meet to develop a
list of issues to be considered by the project team for inclusion in the SWMP. CSG will identify
their priorities for suggested actions to be taken as part of the SWMP.
The Water Resources Advisory Board reviews and provides comment on annual utilities
budgets, Capital Improvement Programs, Community and Environmental Assessment Process
reports for specific utilities projects, utilities master plans and utilities strategic plans and advises
City Council, Planning Board and staff. The WRAB is one of two advisory bodies that will
submit comments and recommendations on the SWMP for consideration by City Council.
The Planning Board reviews and provides comment on annual department budgets, Capital
Improvement Programs, Community and Environmental Assessment Process reports for specific
city projects, master plans and strategic plans and advises City Council and staff. The Planning
Board is one of two advisory bodies that will submit comments and recommendations on the
SWMP for consideration by City Council.
The Boulder City Council is the policy-setting body for the city. City staff will submit the
SWMP, along with any comments or recommendations made by WRAB or the Planning Board,
to City Council. The Council will accept or reject the SWMP and may make specific
recommendations based on the SWMP.
23
Technical Consultants support the SWMP project manager in preparing the SWMP. The
Consultants serve as a resource to the city SWMP Team in providing information and data to the
CSG, developing white papers and presentation materials as needed to assist the CSG.
City Source Water Master Plan Team is made up of utilities department staff, including the
SWMP project manager, responsible for producing the SWMP. The Master Plan Team will
coordinate all work related to the SWMP, compile and review all documents, and present the
SWMP to WRAB, the Planning Board, and City Council.
The City Resources Team (CRT) is an interdepartmental team chaired by the SWMP project
manager, and supported by the Consultants. The Public Works, Planning, Environmental
Affairs, Open Space, Fire, and Housing and Human Services Departments are represented on the
CRT. The CRT supports the SWMP project manager in developing the SWMP by preparing
materials related to new issue areas that are affected by or affect management of Boulder’s
source water supplies.
The Facilitators will support the CSG in accomplishing the tasks at hand. The Facilitators are
responsible for keeping the process moving forward in an effective and productive way and are
responsible for maintaining the CSG ground rules.
Other Interested Individuals will have the opportunity to learn about the plan process through
the website. Meeting materials and supporting information will be posted on the website so that
people can track the progress of the SWMP process. Others may also attend CSG meetings as
observers. Interested individuals may submit comments via the website or through e-mail to the
project manager.
5) Ground Rules
• Practice inclusive participation
• Be efficient with our time for meetings
• Be accountable for meaningful participation
• Share responsibility to achieve our purpose
• Show respect for the process and the CSG’s role
24
APPENDIX B
MEETING SUMMARIES
The CSG met four times from October 2007 through February 2008. Meeting dates and topics
are listed below:
• October 16, 2007 – Issues
• November 27, 2007 – Water Availability
• January 15, 2008 – Non-municipal Uses, Watershed Management, CIP/Facilities
Assessments
• February 28, 2008 – Synthesis of Discussions
The project team prepared and distributed relevant supporting information prior to each CSG
meeting to facilitate the CSG’s discussions. Background information is available on the city’s
SWMP Web page and in an appendix to the Source Water Master Plan.
1
CITY OF BOULDER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS – UTILITIES DIVISION
SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP MEETING #1
Meeting Minutes
OCTOBER 16, 2007
Group Members Present: See attached roster
City Utilities Division Staff Present: Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Carol Ellinghouse,
Craig Skeie, Joe Taddeucci, Kim Elkins, Betty Solek
Consultants Present: Barbara Lewis, Jenny McCurdy, Kevin Clark, Lee Rozaklis, Kris
Kranzush
Next meeting: Tuesday November 27, 2007, 4:00-6:00 p.m. East Boulder Senior
Center, Panorama Room
I. Introductions and Welcome, Ned Williams, Asst. Director of Public
Works for Utilities
The Source Water Master Plan will be an update of the 1988 Raw Water Master Plan.
The city is asking the group to help city staff identify issues and discuss topics which
will be included in the plan. The city’s source water facilities include water rights,
reservoirs, water transmission facilities and treatment plants. Topics which could be
sorted out in the master plan or subsequent efforts include climate change, source
water contaminants, etc. The Community Study Group (CSG) process will be a
several month effort. Other sources of input to the plan will be the Water Resources
Advisory Board, City Council and other members of the public. The CSG will help
both Utilities and the community to implement a plan to guide water resources
management over the next 15-20 years.
Barb Lewis and Jenny McCurdy (Catalyst Consulting) introduced themselves. They
are the CSG meeting facilitators. Members of the CSG, as well as city staff,
consultants and others introduced themselves (please refer to the attached roster).
Barb went over the meeting agenda.
II. Water System Overview, Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources
Coordinator and Craig Skeie, Water Resources Facility Manager
Carol presented a Powerpoint slide show giving an overview of the city’s source
water system. Copies of the slides are available upon request. The city’s source
waters include both east slope and west slope sources. At present, about 70% of the
city’s annual water supply is provided from east slope sources through Betasso
Water Treatment Plant. About 30% is west slope water provided through Boulder
Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. The city manages about 40 water rights decrees;
about 9500 acres of land between the Continental Divide and the eastern Boulder
County line; ten reservoirs; major raw water transmission pipelines; 8 hydroelectric
power plants and; the Boulder Creek instream flow program.
Boulder’s first municipal water supply diversions from Boulder Creek began in the
1880s, but the water was polluted by mine drainage from further upstream.
Therefore, the city looked upstream to the Boulder Creek headwaters and Arapaho
Glacier for pure water supplies. The Silver Lake Watershed consists of lands
2
acquired through Congressional grants and land purchases in the early 1900s. Dam
construction in the watershed began in 1906. Lakewood and Silver Lake Pipelines
were first built in 1906 and 1919, respectively.
The Barker Reservoir System was constructed in 1909 by a predecessor to Public
Service Company. Boulder has used Barker Reservoir/Middle Boulder Creek water
since 1954 and purchased the Barker system in 2001.
The Colorado/Big Thompson Project is operated by the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (NCWCD) and supplies water to all of northeast Colorado.
Boulder joined NCWCD and built Boulder Reservoir in the 1950s. Boulder is the third
largest holder of CBT units, after Fort Collins and Greeley.
The Windy Gap Project was conceived by a group of cities in northeast Colorado.
Water from the Windy Gap Project is transported through CBT facilities.
Craig Skeie explained how source water decisions are made on a daily basis. His
first concern in selecting which sources or water rights to use is the call on the
creek. He makes his decisions based on daily conversations with:
• Water treatment plant staff concerning the anticipated municipal water
demand;
• The Water Commissioner to determine which of the city’s water rights are
available for use on any given day.
The second concern in selecting water sources/rights to use is water quality.
During certain times of year, factors such as turbidity or pH make certain waters
difficult for the water treatment plant to treat. His goal is to select the highest
quality water that is available on any given day.
The third concern is hydroelectric power generation, which is a by-product of the
water system. Hydroelectric power is generated as long as it can be done within the
city’s water rights and while providing a high quality water supply to the citizens.
Exchange rights are exercised to fill the city’s reservoirs in the spring. In April,
there is no snowmelt occurring in the watershed, but the ditches with senior water
rights are turned on and operating. The city’s water rights are usually called out of
priority before snowmelt begins. The CBT exchange can be exercised if there is a
call downstream of the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant and all senior users
between 75th Street and the watershed can be satisfied. It takes a flow of about 200
cfs in Boulder Creek between 75th Street and Barker Reservoir to satisfy the latter
users before an exchange is possible. After that, the city can release water from
Boulder Reservoir to satisfy downstream senior water rights and in return, store a
like amount in the watershed reservoirs. The exchange right can be exercised on
either the “uphill” or the “downhill” side of peak flow.
The city has a relatively junior direct flow right on Middle Boulder Creek and can use
the CBT exchange to take direct flow when that right is not in priority.
Boulder White Rock Ditch water rights are senior to the city’s. The city has an
agreement with the ditch company to reduce diversions at the headgate which the
city then replaces with CBT water. The city can then use or store a like amount of
water upstream.
3
The city is generally taking water from storage from July through April of the next
year.
III. Source Water Master Plan Purpose and Scope, Joe Taddeucci, SWMP
Project Manager
Joe gave a Powerpoint presentation on the development of the Source Water Master
Plan (SWMP). Copies of the slides are available upon request. The city has
implemented many of the recommendations from the 1988 Raw Water Master Plan
(RWMP) including: adoption of reliability criteria; maximization of exchange rights;
maintaining or increasing storage in the Silver Lake Watershed; establishing a
drought storage reserve in the Boulder Creek reservoirs and; converting the Boulder
Reservoir Water Treatment Plant from seasonal to year-round operation. Actions
resulting from the RWMP include: sale of 43 of the city’s original 80 Windy Gap
Project units; use of the proceeds from that sale to purchase additional shares in
ditch companies, Caribou Ranch (joint ownership with Boulder County) and the
Barker System; postponement of increasing water treatment plant capacity until
2004 and; development of a drought response plan to address severe droughts or
system failures. Facilities improvements since the RWMP have included: watershed
dam rehabilitation; replacement of Silver Lake and Lakewood Pipelines; construction
of Silver Lake and Lakewood hydro plants; continuing rehabilitation of Barker system
pipelines and; reconstruction of diversion structures to allow measurement of
instream flows.
The SWMP is being undertaken at the current time to respond to a number of
changes since the RWMP, including: the city’s better understanding of the source
water system and improved modeling of its operation; the necessity of operating the
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant year-round; the current water supply
management and drought reserve; the purchase of the Barker system and its
integration into the source water system, and; hydropower and possible future
opportunities for additional hydropower. The plan is also needed to examine: the
city’s commitment to the instream flow program; source water protection needs;
agricultural leasing policies; water system security requirements; effects of climate
change on the city’s water supplies and; increased concerns about wildfire and its
effects on city water sources.
Tasks to be completed include: compiling information on assets and resources;
updating water rights yields and use information; documenting policies; defining
issues relative to assets, facilities and resources; identifying future studies and
improvement project; reviewing operations and maintenance practices and;
supporting budgeting priorities for the 20-year Capital Improvements Program.
The city has guidelines for preparing master plans which must be followed. The city
desires its master plans to be somewhat consistent while allowing for the needs of
the individual program. Certain things are outside the scope of the master planning
process. For example, the master plan may recommend that the city charter or code
be modified, but actually do that is not within the master planning scope.
There are two project managers for the SWMP. Joe is in charge of managing the
overall efforts by staff and consultants to actually prepare the plan document. Carol
is really in charge of the content of the plan.
4
The SWMP schedule includes: four CSG meetings between now and February 2008;
three check-ins with the WRAB (November 2007-April 2008); presentation to the
Planning Board (April 2008) and; presentation to the City Council (May 2008).
QUESTIONS ON THE PRESENTATIONS:
Q: Is the policy content of the 1988 RWMP assumed to remain in place or is policy
under consideration?
A: Departmental policy is fair game. However, contract provisions, the City Charter,
the City Code and things adopted by City Council as policy are not. (There may be
recommendations that the latter be studied or modified, but modifications will not be
undertaken as a part of this study.)
Q: How much influence is there from EPA and the Source Water Planning Process?
A: The Water Quality Strategic Plan will address EPA requirements. For the
purposes of the SWMP, the city will assume that the water sources will be maintained
at a quality which allows their continued use. The specifics methods used to
maintain that quality are a part of the Water Quality Strategic Plan. The SWMP will
examine current watershed management practices.
Q: You said the proceeds from the sale of Windy Gap were used to purchase Caribou
Ranch with the County. Did we buy land, water or both?
A: The city and County purchased Caribou Ranch together. The city’s interest is
watershed protection and the Silver Lake Pipeline. The County owns most of the
land, and the city has a conservation easement over it. The city owns the Silver
Lake Pipeline corridor, and the County has a conservation easement over that. That
was in part due to the cryptosporidium issue.
Q: Will the plan examine improving exchange yields?
A: There are limited remaining opportunities to do this, but there is some flexibility
in whether we operate exchanges or not. The previous direction was to do as much
as possible with exchange. However, we can perhaps look at whether or not we
could fill reservoirs with junior rights on the “downhill” side of the peak flow.
Q: What is the difference between a Raw Water Master Plan and a Source Water
Master Plan?
A: “Raw Water” refers to the untreated water that is delivered into the city’s
system. That physical supply was the focus of the RWMP. Since then, a broader,
watershed perspective has been adopted. “Source water” refers to all water within a
watershed, not just that which is diverted by the city.
Q: From 1988 to now, how much reliance has shifted to CBT, and what are the
effects on water quality and reliability?
A: The city has grown since 1988. All future growth will be handled through the
Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant. We are already pushing the Boulder Creek
side as much as we can. Shifting reliance to Boulder Reservoir began in the mid-
1990s. We also now keep a drought reserve to ensure there is water to deliver
through Betasso, and that difference is made up through Boulder Reservoir. This has
increased system reliability. The 1988 plan was based on prior years, which were
wet years. 1988 through 1994 were dry years, and 2000 to 2006 were drought
years. During drought years the city has to rely more on CBT.
5
Q: In regard to the 70%/30% split between east slope and west slope supplies, how
much of the 70% is from the Silver Lake Watershed and how much is from the main
stem?
A: At present, 20% of that 70% delivered through Betasso Water Treatment Plant
derives from the CBT exchange. At build out, it is anticipated that about 55% will be
delivered through Betasso and 45% will be delivered through the Boulder Reservoir
Plant. However, the water available through exchange varies from year to year.
IV. Charter Review, Barbara Lewis, Catalyst Consulting
Barb developed a charter, ground rules and process based upon group member’s
comments concerning past experiences with successful groups and processes. She
presented a Powerpoint presentation on the CSG role in the SWMP including:
• Purpose – to provide thoughtful community input to the WRAB, Planning
Board and staff on the issues and priorities for the SWMP.
• Deliverables – a memorandum to the WRAB reflecting input on commuity
issues and perspective; suggestions for how to address key issues in the
SWMP and feedback on draft sections of the plan.
• Four questions asked of CSG members– what issues should be addressed,
which issues are most important, what are ideas for how to address these
issues and what are the most important ideas to act on in the SWMP?
• CSG commitments –
o Practice inclusive participation – by keeping open minds, listening
well, allowing time for everyone to be heard, being honest, respecting
each participant and their ideas and assuming there is time for public
comment at each meeting.
o Be efficient with meeting time – by sharing responsibility to keep the
conversation focused and on the agenda, coming to meetings
prepared, agreeing to “agree to disagree” and moving on,
participating in subcommittees when needed and avoiding rehashing
past meetings.
o Be accountable for meaningful participation – by consistently
attending meetings and getting up to speed if absent, communicating
between meetings with the project team and among members and
calling in experts if needed.
o Share responsibility to achieve our purpose – by seeking common
ground, understanding different perspectives, knowing the final
decision-maker and the process and focusing on the big picture.
o Show respect for the process and the CSG role – by maintaining the
integrity of the process, accepting that City Council is the final
decision-maker, presenting individual views and only documented
information and avoiding characterizing the opeinions or positions of
others.
The group agreed with the Charter and Ground Rules by nod.
BREAK
V. Review of Issues Identified to Date: Issue Map, Jenny McCurdy and
Barbara Lewis, Catalyst Consulting
Barb mentioned that two group members – Larry Quilling and Cal Youngberg are
absent today. In addition, Kelly DiNatale of the WRAB will be joining the group but
6
was unable to attend this meeting. There may also be a member of City Council
attending future meetings.
Group members have been provided with a comment sheet if they wish to write out
questions, suggestions or issues.
Jenny presented the City of Boulder Source Water Issues of Concern map provided to
the members. Issues were identified from interviews with the study group members
and also by city staff. These were grouped into common themes designated by the
letters on the map. Some of the letters are tied to a geographic area and some are
system-wide.
The comment was made that the reliability issue appears to be restricted to just the
CBT component of the system, but we should be considering the reliability of the
other sources, too.
QUESTIONS
Q. The water use issues are all tied to the demand side. Don’t we also need to treat
the supply side?
A. We look at demands on the source waters and realize there are different ways to
meet them. Municipal demands and how they are affected by the conservation goals
is one type of demand. Our focus is how we balance the various different demands
with the supplies.
Q. The reliability criteria and issues about them are the target of the master plan.
The reliability criteria have no definitions in terms of how much use they represent.
We can say that outdoor use will be cut in one of 20 years, but what real output is
the city guaranteeing? What do these scenarios mean in light of climate change?
What is the city guaranteeing residents and businesses in terms of water supply for
the future? Are the numbers set in the water budget targets for the indefinite future,
or will the numbers get cranked down to increase the supply available for future
development? For the reliability criteria to be meaningful, they must be defined
in absolute terms with respect to types landscaping to be supplied for outdoor uses
and specific per capita end use deliveries for indoor uses.
A. This process is for general planning and to bring together all existing data so we
can examine it comprehensively. It’s to provide a current snapshot of the system.
The specification of a number of gallons per square feet is in other processes, for
example, the water budget/rate process. The SWMP will point out if there is a
concern and may recommend that we need to study it.
Q. In the RWMP, the reliability criteria were used to evaluate the system. The
probabilities assumed are no longer valid because the future will not be the past. We
need to know, “What’s the output?” Are we meeting the target and if yes, what’s the
target? Both quantity and probability need to be examined. The ability of the City to
meet the reliability standards should be based on reasonable, worst-case forecasted
conditions, not historical conditions, which are likely to be much better than what we
can expect in the future. The reliability criteria may not need to be changed, but
they do need absolute definition given the water budget structure.
A. The intent is to bring together and compile all we know now on these issues. The
RWMP laid out the reliability criteria, and the City Council voted to adopt them.
Since then, our efforts, for example the Drought Plan, have been based on the
criteria. Now, we need to look at what we have done. What does it say we need to
7
do next? The SWMP will identify what we need to do next, but it will not do it. It is
intended to get a picture of what needs to be done, so that a roadmap showing how
we get there can be developed. The plan may result in a recommendation that the
reliability criteria need to be defined in terms of actual numbers in order to be
meaningful.
Each group member was asked to briefly identify which issues they see as most
important and why:
Bart Miller – the conservation piece, which may involve reliability criteria; embedding
the conservation goals in the supply plan; instream flow issues.
Ned Williams- the adequacy of the supply for future needs; the role of other
departments, such as Parks and Recreation and Open Space and Mountain Parks.
Sasha Charney – collaborative planning with other entities in the area; examining
their portfolios and working together to achieve objectives; agricultural use.
Jim McConnell – reliability of supply; NIST is one of the largest water users in
Boulder, and we need plenty of water at constant pressure to function.
Nichole Seltzer – water quality standards compliance; compliance of the streams;
protecting CBT and Windy Gap yields and however Boulder can help NCWCD in this
regard; general source water quality protection for the Fraser River and the 3 lakes;
Carter Lake Pipeline.
Robin Byers – WRAB should probably not advocate; there is not adequate
representation of the private sector in this group.
Chuck Howe – collaborative planning; the relationship to CBT regarding large and
costly projects for Boulder.
Catherine Gates – other providers; irrigation ditches as providers to the citizens and
the land; collaborative planning to allow working together and not promote
competition for sources.
John Pavlovic – reliability for the future in terms of running the IBM facility;
competition for water resources; how does IBM’s irrigation with ditch water play in
the big picture?
Steve Pomerance – reliability criteria (previously discussed); that this process will
lead to results, but action won’t be taken at the required velocity, thereby preventing
the city from being proactive in terms of doing what is needed while you still can.
Sheila Murphy – watershed management issues; instream flows in South and Middle
Boulder Creeks; water conservation.
Alan Boles – what are we conserving water for? Is it to support growth, or is there a
greater purpose; how we came up with the demand projections; reliability.
Kirk Cunningham – defoliation and forest die-back; definition of build out (is it
consistent among city agencies?).
8
Peter Gowen – reliability to meet future demands of the city; optimally efficient
operation and utilization of the system; optimal external efficiency (while Boulder is
at the top of the watershed, there may still be some opportunities for cooperation
with other providers).
Jeannette Hillery – (also President of the Howard Ditch); understanding of ditches
and what they are; wildfire and water quality in terms of impacts to the water
system; facility control system upgrades to ensure the system keeps going;
collaboration.
Bob Harberg – confirming the priority of Capital Improvements Program projects;
Carter Lake Pipeline and confirming that this alternative would result in the biggest
positive effect.
Carol Ellinghouse – taking a comprehensive look at where we are and what we are
doing; we are at the end of what we can tack onto the old framework and need a
new framework.
Joe Taddeucci – operations and maintenance; making sure we are taking care of our
facilities in an organized and timely fashion.
From the “audience:”
Kim Elkins – has no issues.
Lee Rozaklis – there are trade-offs between reliability and uses, and we make
choices in this regard. Information is needed to revisit the available choices, what
the trade-offs are and are we happy with the mix?
Craig Skeie – has no issues.
Betty Solek – is the Project Manager for the Water Quality Strategic Plan and is
interested in hearing about water quality issues.
Kris Kranzush – as a resident, interested in reliability; also wildland fire, which can
rapidly have major, significant effects on the source water system.
Jim Knopf – issues shared with Lee and Bart; the water budget needs to work really
well; what is conserved water used for?
Dan Johnson – concerned as citizen; also infrastructure maintenance and hardware
prioritization.
Barb summarized the new issues identified in the meeting. (See attached “map” of
“sticky board”). She asked the CSG to pick the four most important issues and mark
them on the sticky board with the dots provided as the members leave. The data
from this exercise will be summarized and distributed before the next meeting. This
is only intended to give staff an indication of the relative importance of the issues to
the group.
Reading materials – draft information concerning existing data and facilities – will be
sent to the CSG a couple of weeks before the next meeting, November 27.
9
Meeting Evaluation –
Pluses: staying on time; the meeting was fast; snacks; attendance and
participation.
Minuses: wish there had been more time for discussion; hope decision pieces have
adequate time.
10“Snapshot” of sticky board: Issues Map – 10/16/07 New Issues: Collaborative water rights planning Collaborative planning/see opportunities across portfolios Internal/external efficiencies of water operations What do we do with water that is conserved? Confirm priority of CIP projects, including Carter Lake Pipeline What is the city guaranteeing residents/businesses in the future? Deforestation/die-back Reliability beyond CBT (make it broader) Revisit mix of choices RELATED STUDIES Water Quality Strategic Plan -water quality standards compliance PARKING LOT Definition of build out – is it consistent across city agencies? Open Space and Recreation were not envisioned as covered
CSG Issues Prioritization
10/16/07 CSG Meeting
Category Issue Dots Dots in Category
A. Water Availability
Adequacy of supply for future needs 4 15
Reliability Criteria:4
Current water right yields 2
Reliability of CBT 2
Possible effects of climate change 1
Collaborative water rights planning 1
Reliability beyond CBT 1
Need for new reservoir storage and/or rights
Protection of existing water rights
B. Watershed Management
Wild land fire risk management 2 6
Overall category of watershed management 1
CBT west slope source watersheds 1
Integration of land water quality & water yield protection 1
Recreational water quality impacts 1
North Boulder Creek & Caribou Ranch
Barker Reservoir (Nederland wastewater, stormwater, septic)
CBT east slope source watersheds
Invasive Species
Deforestation/dieback
C. Streamflows 6
South Boulder Creek habitat flows 3
North & Boulder Creek programs 1
Middle Boulder Creek program 1
Gross enlargement & instream flow storage 1
Recreational water flows
Note: Priority issues identified from the dots exercise are shown at the top of the list in each category. Blue italicized issues are new issues identified at
the 10/16 CSG Meeting 1
CSG Issues Prioritization
10/16/07 CSG Meeting
Category Issue Dots Dots in Category
D. Infrastructure Maintenance & Improvements 6
Confirm priority of capital improvement program projects including the Carter Lake Pipeline 2
Overall Category of Infrastructure & maintenance Improvements 1
Raw Water system Capital Improvement Program 1
Carter Lake Pipeline 1
Green Lake no. 2 reconstruction 1
Internal efficiency of water operations and also external/cooperative efficiency
Barker Gravity Pipeline
Albion system rehabilitiation & replacement schedulilng
Lakewood Pipeline monitoring
E. Security & monitoring 1 1
Raw water facilties security systems
Facilities constrol systems upgrades
F. Conservation & Drought Response 9
Accuracy of demand projections 4
Priority of uses served in drought 2
Adequacy of Drought Plan 1
What is the city guaranteeing residents in the future? 1
Modification of existing integration of demand management planning 1
Modification of demand projection methods
G. Water Use Values 9
What do we do with the water conserved 3
Hydroelectric power generation 2
Collaborative planning: opportunities across portfolios/agricultural use - esp. w/ NWCCD 1
Revisit the mix of choices 1
Irrigation ditch contributions 1
Balancing municipal agricultural & environmental water needs 1
Recreation (Boulder Feeder Canal, Boulder & Barker Reservoirs, Boulder Creek
Water utility support of non-municipal water uses (ag. leasing, instream flow, hydro)
Open space and recreation not envisioned as covered
Total Dots 52
Note: Priority issues identified from the dots exercise are shown at the top of the list in each category. Blue italicized issues are new issues identified at
the 10/16 CSG Meeting 2
11Roster of Participants: Name Interest Group Phone Email 9 Bart Miller Western Resource Advocates 303-444-1188 x 219 bmiller@westernresources.org 9 Nicole Seltzer NCWCD 970-622-2277 nseltzer@ncwcd.org 9 Catherine Gates Silver Lake Ditch 303-442-4801 catherine@longsgardens.com 9 Alan Boles Plan Boulder County 303-447-3280 aebolesjr@yahoo.com 9 Jeannette Hillery League of Woman Voters 303-494-7718 (h) jmhillery915@comcast.net 9 Kirk Cunningham Sierra Club 303-939-8519 303-442-2335 kmcunnin@juno.com Larry Quilling Trout Unlimited 303-543-0939 larry_quilling@maxtor.com 9 James McConnell Dept. of Commerce Federal Labs 303-497-5660 james.mcconnell@nist.gov 9 Chuck Howe Citizen 720-562-8089(h) 303-492-7245(o) charles.howe@colorado.edu 9 Steve Pomerance Citizen 303-447-8026 stevepom335@comcast.net 9 Peter Gowen Citizen 303-494-1536 pjgowen@comcast.net 9 Sasha Charney Boulder County Parks and Open Space 303-678-6200 scharney@co.boulder.co.us 9 Sheila Murphy Boulder creek Watershed Initiative 303-541-3023 sfmurphy@usgs.gov Cal Youngberg Citizen 303-651-8399 cal.youngberg@ci.ongmont.co.us 9 John Pavlovic IBM 303-924-7820 pavlovic@us.ibm.com Judy Bigger Boulder Tomorrow 303-449-0228 judy@bouldertomorrow.com 9 Robin Byers WRAB 303-440-3413 robinbyers@aol.com These people would like to receive emails but will not be at the meetings Boyd Sheets Farmers Ditch/North Boulder Farmers Ditch/ Boulder and Lefthand Ditch 720-220-0137 boyd49@aol.com Mike Cuskelly School District 303-447-1010 mike.cuskelly@bvsd.k12.co.us John Tayer Roche 303-442-1926 (o) 303-499-5444(h) john.tayer@roche.com Jonathan Akins University of Colorado 303-492-1275 Jonathan.Akins@Colorado.EDU 9 In attendance 10/16/07
1
CITY OF BOULDER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS – UTILITIES DIVISION
SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP MEETING #2
Meeting Minutes
November 27, 2007
Group Members Present: See attached roster
City Utilities Division Staff Present: Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Carol Ellinghouse,
Craig Skeie, Joe Taddeucci, Kim Elkins, Bret Linensfelser
Consultants Present: Barbara Lewis, Jenny McCurdy, Tracy Kosloff, Lee Rozaklis,
Kris Kranzush
Next meeting: Tuesday January 15, 2007, 4:00-6:00 p.m. East Boulder Senior
Center, Panorama Room
I. Introductions and Welcome, Ned Williams, Asst. Director of Public
Works for Utilities
Ned reiterated that the Source Water Management Plan is an update with new
focuses of the Raw Water Master Plan completed 20 years ago.
The City Council appointed two liaisons to this committee – Ken Wilson and Matt
Applebaum. In addition, there is WRAB representation on the committee. These
individuals are not speaking on the direction of their Board. Both the City Council
and WRAB will have legislative functions with regard to the Source Water
Management Plan next year. This group is engaging in executive type meetings
under the City Manager’s focus.
Jenny McCurdy went over the topics for tonight’s meeting. Tonight the group will
discuss water availability, infrastructure maintenance and improvement and demand,
conservation and drought. The three overarching questions being asked are:
• Are supplies adequate?
• If not, what options are available?
• What input does the group want to provide concerning project prioritization in
the Capital Improvement Program?
The January meeting will focus on nonmunicipal water uses and watershed
management. There will also be key questions on those subjects.
The subject of collaborative planning/processes comes up in each of the discussions.
The results of the discussions will be packaged and provided to lead to a memo from
the group to the WRAB. That memo will be prepared during the fourth group
meeting in February.
Barbara Lewis provided handouts to the group including comment forms from the
first meeting and an email from Steve Pomerance concerning information on the
Colorado River and CBT. Group members with information to share should get it to
Joe Taddeucci. Chuck Howe commented that he has a paper to share that would be
better on the city’s website. Joe explained that it is difficult to put information on a
2
city Web site and maintain impartiality. Group members were asked to indicate on
the sign-in sheet if they would like to receive Chuck’s information.
Robin Byers noted that there should be a change in the meeting summary from the
first meeting. She had commented that there is not adequate representation of the
private sector in the group.
II. Water Availability Overview, Lee Rozaklis, Hydrosphere Resources,
Inc.
Lee Rozaklis presented a Power Point presentation on water availability, including
information on:
• Future water demands
• The Boulder Creek model
• Projected supply reliability
• Potential effects of climate change.
The Power Point slides are attached and will also be available on the city’s project
website at www.bouldercolorado.gov. Go to the Utilities page and select Source
Water Master Plan from the Projects and Programs list.
III. Questions and Responses
Steve Pomerance asked if instream flow is external and fixed. Lee replied that in the
model, it is a demand other than municipal demand.
Chuck Howe asked what the time frame is for build out. Carol Ellinghouse replied
that a year is not specified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan for build out,
but in general build out is about 30 years out. Chuck commented that costs are
incurred today for future water demand.
Sasha Charney asked if the 2003 Drought Plan modeling treats each year discretely
or are multi-year droughts accounted for with each year considered sequentially with
reservoirs carrying over water to the next year. The longest below normal hydrology
in the 300 years modeled is 14 years from 1875 to 1889.
Chuck Howe asked how the 1-in-20 criterion could fail to be met and the 1-in-100
criterion be met (for 28,600 acre-feet of demand in 2030). Lee explained that the
reliability criteria are increments of demand. Minor reductions could occur every 10
or 15 years. The 100-year criterion involves restrictions so severe that permanent
landscaping would be impaired.
Matt Applebaum asked how much do we miss by and how frequently. Lee explained
that it is assumed that no Colorado River interstate compact calls would be made on
the city’s CBT supplies. (The State will begin to study this next spring). It is also
assumed that there are no adaptations to current operations. It is possible that
changes in operations could make some of the violations go away.
Chuck Howe asked if it is assumed that infrastructure is reliable. Lee replied that
infrastructure is assumed to be reliable.
Steve Pomerance asked about the range of climate change models used. If the
models are close to each other, the distinctions between them may not be
3
meaningful. Lee replied that the dry model is one of the worst in regard to annual
precipitation. Another one has a dryer winter and wetter summer. Kelly DiNatale
asked if the model is for wetter summers above 9000 feet. Lee said that the current
models don’t deal specifically with elevation. They are based on a 200 mile grid.
The next generation of models will be based on a 20 X 20 mile grid, and they may
allow elevation to be considered.
Kelly DiNatale asked if the models address water quality. Warmer temperatures
would lead to greater algae growth and deposition of nutrients. Bob Harberg replied
that the city assumes that water quality will be useable with treatment.
Kelly asked what happens if the model is run with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan build out demands. Lee said there would probably be a significant difference,
and they are trying to decide whether to do that model run.
Chuck Howe asked if CBT water is reusable. It is not. It is considered to be owed to
the people downstream.
Steve Pomerance said there is a piece missing. What happens if there is increased
variability? The hydrology is historic. Lee said that the numbers in the model
change year to year. The numbers in the climate change model also vary from year
to year.
Matt Applebaum asked if using the numbers from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan would reduce the number of bad years. How much more water would it take to
avoid a 1-in-1000 year situation?
Kelly DiNatale said there are two ways to deal with shortages: decreasing demand
and increasing supplies. But first we need to look at whether we have a realistic
projection of future water demand.
Bart Miller said that perhaps 7000 acre-feet would assure against the very worst
scenario. Does the model include agricultural leases in a dry year? Lee said that the
model is based on the city’s use of its entire portfolio. Instream flows can be pulled
back to gain 1500-2000 acre-feet of water, but it is not pulled back in the model.
Carol said the city took back instream flow water in 2002, but stream flow was
maintained in spite of that by downstream calls.
Sasha Charney asked how the reliability criteria were determined. Was there a
survey to determine public tolerance? Would the population be tolerant of a change
in the criteria? Lee and Steve Pomerance said the reliability criteria were based upon
what sounded good at the time. There was community support of instream flows.
Chuck Howe said there is a 1990 study about attitudes with regard to reliability and
the willingness to pay for it. Boulder is willing to pay for reliability. He will send that
study out.
Steve Pomerance pointed out that nobody within the community had a clue what it
would be like until 2002. Attitudes have changed. He also pointed out that build out
is based on what is reasonably likely to be built, not current zoning.
4
Barbara Lewis divided the group into two groups to discuss suggestions to improve
assessment strategy as well as to identify strategies for addressing potential
shortfalls due to climate change or other factors.
IV. Table Groups on Water Availability Options
The group was divided into two small groups for discussions and then reported back
to the large group. Group #1 identified:
• Protect existing water rights (don’t pay for others’ problems).
• Use the water budget to move to/assess/contain demand.
• Options on ground water.
• Agricultural water as a source (in drought years).
• Ground water sources.
Group #2 identified:
• Interruptible agricultural water contracts (pursue these now as they will only
become more expensive in the future).
• Additional conservation (once in a shortage).
• Maximum usage of available water/optimal functional condition of
infrastructure.
• Technology to increase system efficiency.
• Limit growth (population and/or jobs) so that the supply is never exceeded.
• Cooperation among providers (e.g., sharing infrastructure and optimizing
water exchanges).
• Acquiring more East Slope supplies to buffer against a Colorado River call.
V. Considerations for Prioritizing Projects and Water Uses
Due to a lack of time, this discussion will be carried over to the next meeting.
Group members have been provided with a comment sheet if they wish to write out
questions, suggestions or issues.
VI. Wrap-Up
Meeting Evaluation –
Pluses:
• Lee did a great job.
• We got done on time.
• Face-to-face discussions are productive.
• Small group discussions are effective.
• Lee raises confidence in what the city is doing.
•
Minuses:
• Avoid asking for prioritization in group discussions (e.g., “top 3”).
• A room with better acoustics is needed for small group discussions.
5“Snapshot” of sticky board: One suggestion for Improving Boulder’s Assessment of Water Availability is……………. QUESTIONS PENDING ISSUES/ACTIONS -Put Lee’s slides on the Web site. -Distribute project list with CIP. #3- 1/15 EBCC #4 – 2/28 WBSC
6 Roster of Participants: Name Interest Group Email Present 11/27 1 Bart Miller Western Resource Advocates & WRAB bmiller@westernresources.org √ 2 Nicole Seltzer NCWCD nseltzer@ncwcd.org 3 Catherine Gates Silver Lake Ditch catherine@longsgardens.com √ 4 Alan Boles Plan Boulder County aebolesjr@yahoo.com 5 Jeannette Hillery League of Woman Voters jmhillery915@comcast.net √ 6 Kirk Cunningham Sierra Club kmcunnin@juno.com √ 7 Larry Quilling Trout Unlimited larry_quilling@maxtor.com 8 James McConnell Dept. of Commerce Federal Labs james.mcconnell@nist.gov 9 Chuck Howe Citizen charles.howe@colorado.edu √ 10 Steve Pomerance Citizen stevepom335@comcast.net √ 11 Peter Gowen Citizen pjgowen@comcast.net √ 12 Sasha Charney Boulder County Parks and Open Space scharney@co.boulder.co.us √ 13 Sheila Murphy Boulder creek Watershed Initiative sfmurphy@usgs.gov √ 14 Cal Youngberg Citizen cal.youngberg@ci.longmont.co.us √ 15 John Pavlovic IBM pavlovic@us.ibm.com 16 Robin Byers WRAB robinbyers@aol.com √ 17 Kelly DiNatele WRAB dinatalekn@cdm.com √ 18 Ken Wilson City Council wilsonk@bouldercolorado.gov √ 19 Matt Appelbaum City Council appelbaumm@bouldercolorado.gov√
1
Presentation to SWMP
Community Study Group
Lee Rozaklis
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants
November 27, 2007
Outline
• Boulder’s future water demands and
how they are estimated
• How the Boulder Creek model works
• Boulder’s projected water supply
reliability
• Potential effects of climate change
2
Characteristics of Boulder’s
Water Demands
Water Demand by Customer Sector
Losses
/Unaccounted For
8%
Municipal
Metered
3%
Residential
Multi-Family
Metered
28%
Commercial/
Industrial
Metered
26%
Residential
Single Family
Metered
35%
3
Indoor and Outdoor Uses
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
JFMAMJJASONDDaily Use, million gallonsOutdoor Use Indoor Use
Indoor Use as a Percent of Total Use
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
4
Trends: Total and Per Capita Demands
167
162
175
190
178
174
169
181184
197
170169
187
182
191194192
209
202
185
177
195
182
198
170
184187
196
185
201
194
168
158
148
155
162
148
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006acre-feet120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
gallons per capita per dayTrends in Outdoor Uses
Boulder's Outdoor Water Use Compared to Net ET
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006Per Capita Outdoor Use, gpcpd0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%Net ET, % of averagePer Capita Outdoor Use, gpcpd Net ET, % of average
5
Factors Considered in Estimating
Boulder’s Future Water Demands
• Demographic factors:
- service area population
- service area employment
• Water use factors:
- per capita residential use
- per job non-residential use
- per capita municipal use
Boulder’s Build-out
Water Demand Projections
• 2003 Drought Plan: based on build-out
population and employment projections, and
water use factors reflecting Boulder’s adopted
Comprehensive Water Conservation program
• 2005 BVCP Update: most recent population
and employment projections—15,000 fewer
residents and 7,400 more jobs than those
assumed in the Drought Plan
6
Population and Employment Values
26,500
(preliminary estimate)28,60019,400
(avg. 2003-2006)
Annual Water
Demand
(acre-feet)
171,970164,600101,100Employment
125,560140,500111,500Population
2005 BVCP Update
Build-out Projection
Drought Plan
Build-out Projection
(2003)
2004 Actual
• Drought Plan and 2005 BVCP Update projected water demands assume water
savings from Boulder’s adopted Comprehensive Water Conservation Program
as estimated in the Water Conservation Futures Study
The Boulder Creek
Watershed Model
7
Assessment of Boulder’s
Water Supply Reliability
• Model runs done for specified water demand level
• Modeled water demands reduced in years meeting
drought response triggers from Drought Plan
• Modeled drought year demands reduced according to
Drought Plan water use reduction goals
• Result is determination that a particular demand level
meets or fails the reliability criteria
1989 Reliability Criteria
For droughts of the following severities:
• Up to 1-in-20 year severity — fully satisfy all municipal water needs
• 1-in-20 year to 1-in-100 year severity — water use restrictions
except as necessary for continued viability of landscaping
• Up to 1-in-1000 year severity — ensure reliability of supply for
“essential uses” (indoor domestic, commercial, industrial, fire
fighting)
Reliability criteria are goals for how much water
must be provided during droughts
8
2003 Drought Response Plan
Drought Stages based on Reliability Criteria
No drought declaration in 19 out of 20 years on average.
For a drought severity occurring:
• 20 to 50 years on average
Stage I – meet all municipal water needs
• 50 to 100 years on average
Stage II – survival of landscaping
• 100 to 1,000 years on average
Stage III – may lose landscaping
•≤1,000 years
Stage IV – meet health and safety needs
Drought Stages and Water Use
Reduction Goals
55%40%ExtremeIV
30%22%SevereIII
20%14%SeriousII
10%8%ModerateI
Irrigation
Season Water
Use Reduction
Goal
Total Annual
Water Use
Reduction
Goal
DescriptionDrought
Alert
Stage
9
What the Model Simulates
¾Streamflows, water rights, diversions, exchanges,
reservoir releases, return flows
¾Facilities: reservoirs, pipelines, ditches, WTPs,
WWTPS
¾Boulder’s water supply system operations, including
drought response triggers and demand reduction
goals
¾Ability to meet specified annual water demand up to
level of reliability criteria using Boulder’s existing
water rights
Expanded Hydrology Based on Tree Ring Data
Reconstructed Flow, Boulder Creek Near Orodell
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1566 1596 1626 1656 1686 1716 1746 1776 1806 1836 1866 1896 1926 1956 1986Acre-Feet
10
Boulder Creek Basin Network (partial)
CBT Units Owned
COB Units:21,174
Boulder Reservoir Account Balances CBT Units Owned:
Baseflow through Boulder Reservoir WTP COB Acct Balance
Summer Base Flow through WTP (MGD):0.00 NCWCD Acct Balance
Winter Base Flow through WTP (MGD):7.00 COB CBT Borrow Volume
COB Winter Water Requirement
CBT Units Owned:200
CBT Units O
COB Annual Demand
25,000
Baseline Reservoir Accounts
COB Acct Balance
Lafayette Acct Balance
Dry Creek Acct Balance
LBD/CRD Acct Balance
Common Pool Acct Balance
COB Account
PSCO Account Barker Reservoir
Caribou Creek
Como Creek
City of Boulder Watershed
North Boulder Creek
Sherwood Creek
Lakewood Reservoir
Barker Reservoir
Middle Boulder Creek
Boulder Creek
Gross
Reservoir
Gordon Gulch
Silver Lake Reservoir
Jasper Creek
Middle Boulder Creek
Four Mile Creek
Davidson Ditch
Boulder
Reservoir
Goodhue Ditch
Baseline Reservoir
Leggett Reservoir Hillcrest Reservoir
Nederland Municipal Demand
Watershed Reservoir
Community Ditch
SB & Coal Cr. Ditch
Marshall Reservoir
Louisville Pipeline
Note: Nederland diverts around the gage and is turned off...
Anderson et. al. Conveyed ISF Rights to Space
Silver Lake Ditch
Farmers Ditch
NB Farmers Ditch
Anderson Ditch
Smith & Goss Ditch
McCarty Ditch
Green Ditch
Marshalville Ditch
Dry Creek No. 2 Ditch
SB & Bear Creek Ditch
Schearer Ditch
Boulder
Reservoir
6 Mile Reservoir
McGinn Ditch
Howard Ditch Baseline Reservoir
Valmont Reservoir
Hillcrest Reservoir
Valmont Reservoir
Butte Mill & Jones Donnelly Ditch
Boulder & Whiterocks Ditch Direct Flow Only
Boulder & Whiterocks Ditch
East Boulder Ditch
Farmers ISF To Space
Farmers ISF To Muni
G. Berkley Ditch
Boulder WWTP
6 Mile Reservoir
Butte Mill Ditch
Wellman Canal
South Boulder Canyon Ditch
Erie Municipal Demand
Boulder Reservoir
1
2
3
4 5
6 7
10 11
12
13
14
15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26 27
28
29 30
42
43 44 45 46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
76
77
78
79
80
82 83
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
122
123
124 125
126127
128
129
130
131
132
136
144
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154155
157
158
159
162
163
164
166
167
168
169
170
172
173
180
181
182
183
184
185 186
187
188
189
190
191
194
195
196
197
198
199
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
219
220
221
222 223
224
225
226 227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
261
262
267
269270
271
272
273
275
276
277
278
281
282
283
284
285
287288
289
290
291 292
293
303
304
306
308
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
331
332
334
336
337
338
339
341
MB1
MB10
MB104
MB105
MB107
MB11
MB112
MB117
MB118
MB119
MB12
MB13
MB15
MB16
MB17
MB18
MB19
MB2
MB20
MB22
MB23 MB25
MB3
MB31
MB32
MB33
MB34
MB35
MB4
MB44
MB45
MB46
MB5
MB52
MB53
MB54
MB56
MB57
MB59
MB6
MB63
MB65
MB66
MB7
MB73
MB74
MB78
MB79
MB81
MB83
MB84
LINK 1
LINK 3
L4
LINK 5
LINK 6
LINK 9
LINK 10
LINK 12
L13 L14 L15 L16
LINK 17
LINK 18
L19
LINK 21
LINK 22
L24
LINK 25
L26
LINK 27
L28 L29
LINK 41
LINK 42 L43 L44
LINK 45
L46
L47
LINK 48
L49
LINK 50
LINK 51
LINK 52
L53
LINK 54
LINK 55
LINK 56
LINK 57
LINK 58
LINK 59
L60
LINK 61
LINK 62
L63
LINK 64
LINK 67
LINK 68
L69
LINK 70
L71
L72L73
L77
L78
L79 L80
LINK 81
L82 L83
LINK 95
LINK 96
LINK 97
L98
L99
L100
L101
L102
L103
L104
L105
L106
L107
L108
L109
L130
LINK 131
L132 L133
L134
L135L136
L137
LINK 138
LINK 139
L
LINK 144
L
LINK 155
LINK 156
LINK 157
LINK
LINK 159
LINK 161
L162
LINK 163
L164
L165
LINK 166
L167
LINK 168
L170
L171
L172
LINK 173
LINK 174
LINK 175LINK 176LINK 177LINK 178LINK 179
LINK 180LINK 181
LINK 182
LINK 183
LINK 184
LINK 185
LINK 186
L188
L189
L197
L198
L199
L200
L201
L202
L203
LINK 204 LINK 205
LINK 206
LINK 207
LINK 208
LINK 209
LINK 210
LINK 211
LINK 212
L213
LINK 214
LINK 216
LINK 217
LINK 218
LINK 219
L220
LINK 229
LINK 230
LINK 231
L232
L233
L234
L235
L236
L237
LINK 244 LINK 245
LINK 247
LINK 248
LINK 249
L251
L252 LINK 253LINK 254
LINK 255
LINK 256
LINK 257
LINK 258
LINK 259
LINK 260
LINK 261
LINK 262 LINK 264
LINK 266
LINK 267
LINK 268
LINK 269
LINK 270
LINK 271
LINK 272
LINK 273LINK 274LINK 275
L276
L277LINK 278
L279
L280
L281
L282
LINK 283L284
L285
L286
L287
L288
LINK 307
LINK 311
LINK 312
L331
L336
LINK 337
LINK 338
LINK 339
LINK 340
LINK 341
LINK 342
LINK 343LINK 344LINK 345
LINK 346
LINK 350
LINK 351
LINK 352
LINK 353
LINK 354
LINK 355
LINK 356
LINK 357
L
LINK 362
LINK 365
LINK 366
LINK 367
LINK 370
LINK 374
LINK 376
L377
LINK 378
LINK 379
LINK 380 LINK 381
LINK 386
LINK 388 L389
L390
LINK 398
LINK 399
L400
LINK 401
LINK 402
LINK 403
LINK 405
LINK 407
LINK 408LINK 410LINK 411
LINK 412
LINK 415
LINK 417
L420
LINK 427
LINK 428
LINK 429
LINK 430
LINK 431
LINK 432
LINK 435
L441
L442
LINK 444
LINK 450
LINK 451LINK 452
LINK 453
LINK 454
LINK 455
LINK 456
LINK 457
LINK 465
L466
LINK 467
LINK 468
LINK 472
LINK 476
LINK 477
LINK 478
LINK 479
LINK 489
LINK 490
LINK 499
LINK 65
LINK 406LINK 448
L332
LINK 447
L335
L76
LINK 437LINK 439LINK 20LINK 438
LINK 160
LINK 416LINK 475
LINK 473
LINK 23
LINK 471
LINK 66
LINK 481
L440
L436
LINK 443
LINK 2
LINK 215
LINK 404
INFL 1
INFL 2
INFL 3 INFL 4
INFL 5
INFL 6
INFL 7
INFL 10
INFL 11
INFL 12
INFL 13
INFL 14
INFL 15
INFL 16
INFL 18
INFL 26
INFL 28
INFL 29
INFL 30
INFL 25
DEMN 2
DEMN 3
DEMN 4
DEMN 5
DEMN 7
DEMN 8
DEMN 10
DM17
DM18
DM19
DM20
DM21
DM30
DM31
DM32
DEMN 38
DEMN 39
DM40
DEMN 42
DEMN 43
DM45
DEMN 49
DEMN 51
DEMN 52
DEMN 58
DEMN 59
DEMN 63
DEMN 65
DM67
DEMN 68
DEMN 78
DEMN 79
DECR 2DECR 3
DECR 5DECR 6DECR 7
DC8 DC9
DC10
DC11 DC12
DECR 13
D
DC17DC18
DC19
DECR 20
DECR 21
DECR 22
DECR 23
DECR 24
DECR 25
DECR 26
DECR 27
DECR 28
DECR 30
DECR 31
DECR 34DECR 35DECR 36DECR 37
DC38
DC39
DC40
DC41DC42
DC43
DECR 47
DECR 48
DECR 49
DC50
DC51
DC52
DC53
DC54
DC55
DC56
DC57
DC58
DC59
DC71
DC72
DECR 74
DECR 75
DECR 76
DECR 78
DECR 81
DECR 89
DECR 92
DECR 96
DC97
DC98
DC99
DC103
DECR 4DECR 1
DECR 100
DECR 102
DECR 33
DECR 32
RESV 1
RESV 4
RESV 5
RESV 6
RESV 11
RESV 12
RESV 3
L446
L250
LINK 246
DC93LINK 433LINK 434
DATA11
DATA1
DATA2
DATA3
DATA4
DATA5
DATA6
DATA7
DATA8
DATA9
DATA10
347
LINK 500
MB120
DEMN 83
MB121
INFL 31
LINK 375
LINK 334
LINK 445
349
LINK 263
LINK 501
MB127
Gravity Line Losses
350
LINK 11
LINK 502
ISF 5
MB128
Gravity Line Losses
351LINK 503
LINK 504
LINK 505
LINK 506
LINK 507
LINK 419
352
LINK 508
MB129
DEMN 85
MB130 INFL 33
LINK 509
Time Series Inputs: Natural Inflows
¾North Boulder Creek at Silver Lake
¾North Boulder Creek gains at Lakewood
¾Middle Boulder Creek at Nederland
¾Boulder Creek gains at Orodell
¾South Boulder Creek at Gross Reservoir
¾South Boulder Creek gains at Eldorado Springs
¾Colorado River near Hot Sulphur Springs
11
Other Time Series Inputs
¾Boulder Creek gains between Orodell & 75th Street
¾Boulder Creek Gains between 75th Street & mouth
¾CBT Imports
¾Windy Gap Imports
¾South Platte Calls
¾Temperature and Precipitation (for ET calculations)
Results of 2003 Drought Plan Modeling
None0017,160Level IV Extreme
(40%)
1888, 20023222,308Level III Severe
(22%)
1851, 1887, 18895324,596Level II Serious
(14%)
1842, 1848,
1852, 1885, 1890 7526,312Level I
(Moderate (8%)
All years but
those below28529028,600Full demand
satisfied
Model Year of
Occurrence
Number of
Occurrences
Allowed by
Reliability
Criteria
Number of
Occurrences in
300 Model
Years at 28,600
af Demand
Annual
Water
Supply
Amount
Provided
(af)
Drought Alert
Stage
(% Use
Reduction)
Reliability Criteria are met
12
Potential Effects of Climate Change
– What We Know (we think)
•Warmer
• Maybe drier, maybe wetter
• Earlier spring runoff
• Decreased late summer stream flows
• Increased ET (evapo-transpiration)
Matrix of Scenarios Modeled
• Three greenhouse gas emission scenarios:
A2, A1B, B1 (worst, moderately bad,
moderate)
• Three global circulation model types: dry, mid
and wet
• Two time horizons: 2030 and 2070
• Result: 187 runs, each modeling 435 years of
Boulder’s water supply system operations
13
Potential Impacts to Water Supplies
– What Might Happen (we think)
• Increased irrigation demands
• Increase or decrease in Boulder’s water supply
yields
-- more or less precipitation
-- earlier runoff could increase yield of Boulder’s
storage water rights
• Reliability criteria met in most scenarios
• Increase in frequency of minor drought alerts
Summary of Model Results – Reliability Criteria
(assuming 28,600 acre-feet annual demand)
yes yes yes
yes yes yes
B1 Wet 2030 yes yes yes
B1 Mid 2030 yes yes yes
B1 Dry 2030 no yes yes
A1B Wet 2030 yes yes yes
A1B Mid 2030 yes yes yes
A1B Dry 2030 no yes yes
A2 Mid 2030 yes yes yes
A2 Dry 2030 no yes yes
B1 Wet 2070 yes yes yes
B1 Mid 2070 yes yes yes
B1 Dry 2070 yes yes yes
A1B Wet 2070 yes yes yes
A1B Mid 2070 yes yes yes
A1B Dry 2070 no yes no
A2 Mid 2070 no yes yes
A2 Dry 2070 no no no
1-in-1000
year
criterion
met?
Emission
Scenario
Model
Type Year
1-in-20
year
criterion
met?
1-in-100
year
criterion
met?
Drought Plan (300 years)
BASE CASE
Note: “yes” = criteria met in each of the 11 traces
14
Major Assumptions
• Boulder’s modeled demands are higher than
recent BVCP update
(28,600 AF v. 26,500 AF est.)
• Colorado River Compact calls met via
replacement arrangements (reduced CBT/WG
supplies based on climate change effects to
physical supply only)
• No modeling of attempts to adapt water system
operations to climate change
Summary
• 3 of 8 scenarios in 2030 would result in more
minor drought water use reductions (1-in-20
year events), but no violation of the other
reliability criteria
• 2 of 8 scenarios in 2070 would violate 1-in-
100 or 1-in-1000 year reliability criteria
15
Conclusions – Planning Efforts
• Boulder is “ahead of the pack” in planning for effects of
climate change on its water supply system
• Explicit modeling of climate change scenarios
• 400+ years of stream flow data
• Adopted reliability criteria
• Modeling of drought recognition and response
Conclusions - Findings
• Reliability criteria met in majority of future climate change
scenarios
• Major uncertainties regarding Colorado River aspects
• Insufficient basis for immediate expenditures for climate
change solutions
• Best current action is to define when information becomes
“actionable”
• Consider “No regrets” actions – good now, good “if”
16
Future Options, if…
• Additional demand reduction measures
• Change reliability criteria to allow more years with
minor water use reduction
• Transfer from agriculture (Boulder Creek?, other
South Platte?, West Slope?)
• Storage options (limited)
• Reuse options (very limited)
1
CITY OF BOULDER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS – UTILITIES DIVISION
SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP MEETING #3
Meeting Minutes
JANUARY 15, 2008
Group Members Present: See attached roster
City Utilities Division Staff Present: Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Carol Ellinghouse, Craig Skeie,
Joe Taddeucci, Kim Elkins, Brett Linenfelser, Betty Solek
Consultants Present: Barbara Lewis, Jenny McCurdy, Lee Rozaklis, Tracy Koslof, Kris Kranzush
Public Present: Jim Knopf, Bill DeOreo (WRAB Members), Jennifer Rice (Western Water
Assessment)
Next meeting: Thursday February 28, 2008, 4:00-7:00 p.m. West Boulder Senior Center,
Creekside Room
I. Introductions and Welcome, Ned Williams, Asst. Director of Public Works for
Utilities
Ned Williams welcomed the group. The purpose of the group is to learn more about Boulder’s
water system and to help develop recommendations for future studies. All WRAB members are
present today. There are three appointees from WRAB, Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale and Bart
Miller. There are also two City Council appointees – Matt Appelbaum and Ken Wilson.
Barb Lewis asked for revisions to the meeting #2 summary. Barb has one revision – the exact
language of the question about water shortages asked of the group should be used. Final
summaries for both meeting #1 and #2 will be distributed prior to the next meeting.
There is a lot to get done today. First will be a presentation from Lee Rozaklis on non-municipal
water uses, and then Kim Elkins will do a presentation on watershed management. Time is
available for questions and answers. There is a sticky wall on which we will gather the group’s
ideas and then discuss the key policy questions about non-municipal uses and watershed
management.
Joe is last with the facilities assessment and Capital Improvements Program. Then there will be a
wrap up.
This session is being taped because Kris is having some wrist problems and can’t take the usual
notes.
Designing this meeting was a challenge. We tried to accommodate people with detailed
comments and people who don’t have detailed comments. Some of the comments we received in
the homework were not directly pertinent to tonight’s discussions, but they will reviewed and
addressed in the Source Water Master Plan.
At the final meeting, we will return to the big picture policy questions. Before the next meeting,
the group will get a draft memorandum that reflects what the group has told us to date. This will
be important to review.
II. Non-Municipal Water Use Overview, Lee Rozaklis, AMEC Earth and
Environmental (formerly Hydrosphere)
Lee gave a Power Point presentation on non-municipal water uses, which include instream flows,
hydropower, irrigated agriculture, flow-based recreation and environmental enhancements.
2
Copies of his slides are attached. They are also available on the city’s project Web page at
www.bouldercolorado.gov . Go to the Utilities page and select Source Water Master Plan from the
Projects and Programs list.
III. Questions and Responses
Q: How much over-committed are Boulder Creek and the South Platte River?
A: Those rivers are called over-appropriated. There is not a deficit all days of the year, but most
months of most years have a deficit and some water rights will not be satisfied. In dry or below
average years, there may be no free river for long periods of time.
Q: What is the definition of “deficit” and “over-appropriated”? Is demand the sum total of all
diversion rights?
A: The definition of over-appropriated is that demand for water exceeds the supply, with
windows where supply exceeds demand. We look at demands behind the water rights, what is
actually needed.
Q: Does “natural flow” mean flow with no diversions?
A: We define shortages as reductions below that natural flow. It is not the ideal flow rate. For
this discussion, instream flow needs are reductions below the natural flow regime.
Q: Are instream flows based on biological need? The CWCB instream flow right is way above
what’s actually there.
A: CWCB rights are usually less than the natural flow regime. Instream flows are based on
biological needs and natural flows. They are intended to protect the natural environment to the
greatest extent possible.
Q: How would the South Boulder Creek fish and aquatic life look if they got natural flows? Would
there be a lot more fish? Would the plant life be changed?
A: In general in this region, fish populations are limited by the low flow seasons (winter and late
summer). Habitat assessments take in to account several factors such as natural flow, depth,
flow rate. There would be significantly more fish with natural flows, but it’s also a function of
water quality, flow and physical conditions of the streams. Instream flow is intended to protect
the natural environment, which is based on habitat defined in terms of fish and
macroinvertebrates. Plant life isn’t necessarily accounted for.
If you address the low flow limitations on the fish, then peak flows become a limitation for
Boulder Creek. Low flows limit the adult population, but peak flows tend to limit the number of
small fish.
Q: We can provide for some non-municipal uses and it costs us nothing, but for others, water
has not been available.
A: Hydropower is a slam-dunk. We have to reduce the water pressure, and instead of spending
money on pressure reducing valves, we can generate hydropower.
One of the trade-offs in deciding about non-municipal uses is the ability to make a difference. For
some non-municipal uses, for example, irrigated agriculture, the city can’t make a large scale
difference. Non-municipal uses can be conditioned to be year-to-year. If there is a large
commitment needed to make a significant difference, there may not be enough water for other
uses. There are matters of scale and ability to meet needs to a reasonable scale. It may be
possible to supply water for irrigated agriculture in three out of 5 years, but, for example, fish
need water every day.
3
Comment: When the CWCB files for an instream flow right, the purpose is to protect the natural
environment to a reasonable degree. The water for that purpose must reasonably be there and
available. They can’t file for what is needed by the natural environment if the water is not
reasonably expected to be there.
Comment: The city exchanges a lot of CBT water up to the watershed. If the city did want to
make a choice, the city could expand the Boulder Reservoir plant to handle more and return more
of the natural flow to Boulder Creek. This has trade-offs of loss of hydropower.
Q: Assuming 100% of return flows from instream flow are for instream flow, do particular
downstream users benefit from the city’s instream flows?
A: The city gets that part of the instream flows that was historically consumed. The part that
historically went to downstream farmers still goes to downstream farmeres. The city can and has
on occasion leased it’s part. For Barker, though, water is just operationally bypassed and the city
cannot specify the use.
Q: Who downstream benefits from the city’s instream flows?
A: Ditch companies and those who need augmentation.
Q: Is the only reason Silver Lake Hydro is not used (to capacity) the instream flow requirements?
A: No. At times there is extra capacity (beyond municipal needs) in Silver Lake Pipeline. There
are plenty of times when flows are way beyond instream flows that the city could generate
additional energy. The city has not done that to date. There are stakeholder concerns about
taking water out of the creek solely for hydropower generation.
IV. Watershed Management Overview, Kim Elkins, Water Resources
Kim gave a Power Point presentation on watershed management for North and Middle Boulder
Creeks and Boulder Reservoir/Boulder Feeder Canal. She focused on the issues regarding the
city’s water sources. Boulder has not taken the lead in watershed management on the West
Slope. The Utilities Division has not taken the lead on South Boulder Creek watershed
management, because it is not a source water and Utilities does not own land in that basin.
Other city departments, such as Open Space and Mountain Parks, could take the lead in that
basin with Utilities support for those efforts.
Kim also introduced the Water Quality Strategic Plan and talked about its relationship to the
SWMP. Copies of her slides are attached. They are also available on the city’s project Web page
at www.bouldercolorado.gov . Go to the Utilities page and select Source Water Master Plan from
the Projects and Programs list.
V. Questions and Responses
Q: Is there drainage that by-passes the Boulder Feeder Canal?
A: There are pipes over the feeder canal. On the slide, the purple shows the areas where
drainage is not carried over the canal. These areas drain agricultural lands, roads and
commercial and industrial properties. The city is now addressing high priority outfalls to the
canal.
Q: South Boulder Creek is routed through KOA Lake when it should flow around it. Is that a
concern?
4
A: Open Space has taken the lead so far on the physical aspects of South Boulder Creek.
Utilities has worked with Boulder County on the lower end of the stream near the gravel pits.
Xcel will have to take the lead on the water temperature issue, since they cause it.
Q: Is there any water quality concern with chemicals used in snow making at Eldora?
A: There is currently an augmentation plan in water court pertaining to the snow making, but it
doesn’t include water quality aspects. There is information on septic systems compiled by
Boulder County. The city is not aware that chemicals are added in snow-making at Eldora.
Q: Has Boulder County evaluated how the fire hazard ratings may change in light of the beetle-
kill problem?
A: The information presented here is older. It is not known how far down the road a beetle-kill
assessment will be.
Q: With regard to National Forest lands, how do you expect to deal with beetle kills and fire?
The Forest Service is placing more emphasis on controlled burns. Thinning projects have been
poorly done and have led to new roads. City interaction with USFS will be interesting.
A. The Forest Service is forming a task force with the Colorado State Forest Service and water
providers and wants to make greater use of individual watershed management plans. Middle
Boulder Creek is the city’s most vulnerable water supply with regard to fire. We will have to work
with USFS and Boulder County in that area.
Q: There are new state standards concerning water temperature as a part of water quality. Is
the city taking water temperature for habitat into account?
A: Water temperature is part of the city’s water quality monitoring program. On the lower
portions of the system, where the city can have problems with temperature, 15-minute
monitoring has been implemented.
Q: Does the city post its water quality data anyplace?
A: No.
Q: Who is taking part in the watershed plans for forested areas?
A: It will come out of groups like the regional task force and will include stakeholders in
individual basins.
Q: Will a Middle Boulder Creek watershed plan take into account sediment retention as a
safeguard against fire problems?
A: That would be a strategy, if it’s appropriate to individual basins.
Barb asked group members to post their ideas concerning non-municipal uses and watershed
management by area or as global issues….what would you like to see, why do you think it’s
important, and what is the mechanism by which that would get accomplished. These may be
changes to consider or things you would like to see not change. There is an area to make
comments about the Water Quality Strategic Plan. There is an area to comment on watershed
management.
If you have extra time, please get with Kris to refine why you thought any water supply ideas for
the future are good ideas. We would like the memo to contain information on why you thought
these were good ideas.
5
Following the exercise, the comments were read. Comments from the sticky board are attached
to this summary. General questions and comments related to the exercise were:
• Nobody mentioned bypassing Barker Reservoir with Nederland’s effluent and discharging it
below the dam.
• BASIN.org has monthly water quality monitoring data posted on its Web site.
• Minimizing trans-basin water diversions is good.
• Nederland has received DRCOG approval for modifying its wastewater treatment plant and
is in the process of constructing. Costs range from $1.4 to 1.7 million. Nederland has
asked if Boulder is interested in contributing the $300,000 increment that would add a
membrane bioreactor to improve pathogen removal. The city might be able to make this
funding available in 2009.
• Does the Nederland effluent create taste or odor problems? (It is primarily a concern with
pathogens.)
• Effluent also contains endocrine-disrupting compounds, such as estrogens.
• The effluent from Nederland is diluted by a big reservoir. There is no dilution for effluent
discharges from the Eldorado Springs waste water treatment plant.
• How much of Nederland is served by the wastewater treatment plant vs. septic systems.
(Nederland has voted to connect the Big Springs subdivision directly south of Barker
Reservoir and construction has begun. That will take care of a large part of the concern
for Barker Reservoir.)
A discussion concerning policy considerations, trade-offs and factors to be considered in
evaluating the ideas, as well as priorities followed. Which of the suggestions are priorities or
seem most important? Can commitments to new uses (municipal or non-municipal) be made
based on our current knowledge and assumptions? Or should we refrain because there will
always be uncertainty? Comments from the discussion are summarized below:
• In terms of prioritizing non-municipal uses, the city’s legal obligations are at the top of the
list.
• How flexible the commitments are is important.
• “No regrets” opportunities are important. It’s important that any non-municipal use is not
forever and is flexible.
• A more global perspective is that the non-municipal uses are what citizens expect Boulder
to provide to maintain the water features that people live here for.
• Higher priority should be given to uses with multiple benefits, for example, if water can
first be used for instream flow, then for agricultural lease. The benefits of sequential uses
should be considered.
• Other storage opportunities further up in the watershed need to be evaluated in terms of
how much they would cost and how much they would help.
• At Gross Reservoir, there is the potential for a little additional storage to go a long way.
• Enlargement of Gross Reservoir will inundate a significant reach of stream, and there will
likely be mitigation requirements for doing so.
• Adding hydropower generation at the base of Barker Dam is a benign use of an existing
dam which has very little impact on Middle Boulder Creek.
• The payback period for hydro projects is the life of the project.
• The city has a preliminary design for new outlet works for Barker Reservoir which could
have hydro put on it. The full range of discharges from the reservoir was cost-effective.
This project may be pursued after the Boulder Canyon Hydro exemption process is
completed.
• The city is repairing Barker Gravity Line to restore its capacity, not replacing it to increase
its capacity.
VI. Capital Improvement Projects Overview, Joe Taddeucci, SWMP Project Manager
Joe gave a Power Point presentation on the Utilities Division Capital Improvements Program.
Copies of his slides are attached. They are also available on the city’s project Web page at
6
www.bouldercolorado.gov . Go to the Utilities page and select Source Water Master Plan from the
Projects and Programs list.
The SWMP will define the projects to pursue over the next 10 to 20 years. The Capital
Improvements Program is just the beginning of the approval process each project must go
through. The SWMP will contain a list of projects based on input from the CSG, from the MWH
facilities assessment being prepared for the SWMP and from a staff survey.
Carter Lake Pipeline has a budget of $1 million for 2008. This is intended to start permitting
efforts, complete a Community and Environmental Assessment Process, and complete some right-
of-way acquisition activities. This funding will keep the door open on the project, but the real
decision on the project is upcoming.
VII. Comments, Questions and Responses
Q: Will the Carter Lake Pipeline operate year-round?
A: Yes. Carter Lake Pipeline will increase the flexibility of operations. It is important for water
supply as well as water quality.
Q: Why is relicensing for Boulder Canyon Hydro so expensive?
A: Relicensing is an extensive and complicated federal process. The budgeted amount is for
obtaining an exemption from licensing, which is substantially less than relicensing.
Comment: It is hoped that WRAB will see a cost break-out for Boulder Canyon relicensing in the
next budgeting process. It’s not clear that it is cost-effective.
Q: Is $2.8 million in relicensing cost-effective to get $200,000 in annual revenue?
A: The exemption would remove all but the power plant from federal jurisdiction. There is
currently a license which the city has to do something with. If Boulder were to abandon the
project, there would be expenses related to that, and someone else could take the project over,
potentially causing impacts to municipal water deliveries. An existing license cannot just be
walked away from.
Q: Is the city receiving Renewable Energy Credits, and what is being done with them?
A: This is being discussed by the City Attorney’s Office and Xcel. The current contract with Xcel
does not cover Renewable Energy Credits.
Comment: It would be helpful to develop costs and timing for things suggested by the CSG. This
would allow them to be evaluated as part of the mix in the CIP.
Q: What are the reasons for Carter Lake Pipeline?
A: One aspect is water quality protection. Carter Lake Pipeline would also increase system
flexibility by providing a means of delivering to the water treatment plant in winter and a third
means of delivering water to Boulder Reservoir. There are water quality problems related to
taking water from the reservoir at certain times of year.
Q: Has the Boulder Feeder Canal trail been approved?
A: The city and Boulder County are developing the funding to build the trail. Approval from
NCWCD is still needed. Approval of the transportation tax last fall will allow the project to move
ahead.
7
Q: Will the pipeline be in the canal?
A: Most alternatives for the Carter Lake Pipeline will follow the existing Southern Water Supply
Pipeline which transports water to Louisville and Broomfield.
Q: Will there still be water in the canal if the pipeline is built?
A: Water that is being delivered to users other than Boulder will remain in the canal. The city’s
exchange water will remain in the canal. WRAB has reviewed a lot of information on the Carter
Lake Pipeline which is available.
Comment: Consideration of project timing and cost in relation to other CIP needs and the need
to significantly raise rates is needed.
Q: Will Carter Lake Pipeline require raising rates?
A: Yes, but treatment upgrades that could be needed if the pipeline isn’t built might also require
raising rates.
Comment: Carter Lake Pipeline is also needed by Left Hand Water to provide a reliable source of
water.
Q: Why are the city’s water rates in the mid- to high-range of Front Range communities when
the city has had its water rights for so many years?
A: Two-thirds of the cost of the system is related to infrastructure, not acquisition of water
rights.
Q: The 1988 Raw Water Master Plan suggested that the city should examine the utility of its
water right associated with Skyscraper Reservoir. Has this ever been done? Has the city ever
done any maintenance work on the dam since purchasing the reservoir in 1967? Granted this is a
small reservoir, but like all the other source water facilities it makes sense to maintain it.1
A: The 2003 Drought Plan recommended that the city formally incorporate the operation of
Skyscraper Reservoir into its water supply system on a normal basis. Skyscraper Reservoir
maintenance will be included in the long-range capital improvement projects list being prepared
for inclusion in the SWMP.
Comment: In terms of approving any major expense, the CIP has had a short-window and much
uncertainty beyond five years. What else needs to be done? When will bonds be paid off? Could
rate increases be minimized by delaying a project until after some debt is retired? That kind of
information would make it easier to approve the CIP.
VIII. Wrap Up
The next meeting will be at the West Senior Center. It is the last meeting of the CSG.
Pluses/What Worked Well Minus/What Could be Done Better?
-The food is appreciated. -Break out sessions would help discussion.
-The sticky wall was useful. -If there will be an exercise, advance
-Power Point Presentations were helpful. explanation would be helpful.
-Advance feedback was helpful. -More time is needed if there is an
1 This comment was submitted via email in advance of the meeting, but not discussed at the
meeting.
8
- Attendance was great. exercise.
- Better acoustics are needed.
Attachments: 3 Power Points
Summary of “Sticky Board”
Roster
1
Non-Municipal Water Uses
City of Boulder
Source Water Master Plan
Community Study Group
January 15, 2008
What Are Non-Municipal Uses?
Instream Flows
Hydropower
Irrigated
Agriculture
Flow-Based
Recreation
Environmental
Enhancements
Adopted Policies
Regarding Non-Municipal Water
BVCP 3.10 Utility Provision to Implement Community Goals
The city will consider the importance of other objectives of the
comprehensive plan in the planning and operation of water,
wastewater, stormwater and flood management utilities. These
other objectives include instream flow maintenance,
enhancement of recreational opportunities, water quality
management, preservation of natural ecosystems, open space
and irrigated agricultural land, and implementation of desired
timing and location of growth patterns.”
(Hydropower policies set in Climate Action Plan and Council
approvals for hydro program development)
Instream Flow Considerations
Basis for instream flow: natural conditions
Deficits are due to diversions
Needs can be quantified by flow/habitat studies
Specific amounts, locations and seasons
Minimum ISF needs in Boulder Creek basin are
relatively small – potentially within Boulder’s
ability to address
Hydropower Considerations
Defined as hydropower generation appurtenant to
Boulder’s water supply system
No trade-offs with other uses except for Boulder Canyon
Hydro and part of Silver Lake Hydro generation
Other hydros generate using only municipal deliveries
Silver Lake Hydro could also generate using additional
stream flow, subject to ISF needs, in addition to
municipal deliveries; returns to NBC at Lakewood
Boulder Canyon Hydro water returned at Orodell,
subject to Boulder’s municipal deliveries and ISF
bypasses
Irrigated Agriculture Considerations
Deficits are due to Colorado’s semi-arid
climate: irrigable land vastly exceeds available
supply
Needs are based on human expectations
Needs exist throughout South Platte basin
Shortages in nearly all years
Needs are relatively large – beyond Boulder’s
ability to address
2
Recreation Considerations
Defined as flow-related uses: kayaking, tubing
Deficits due to snowmelt-driven hydrology
Needs can be estimated based on hydraulic
analysis and human expectations
Primary location: Boulder Creek from Eben G.
Fine Park to Broadway, but others as well
Needs are relatively large - beyond Boulder’s
ability to address
Environmental Enhancements
Considerations
Defined as municipally-owned ponds and
wetlands
Deficits due to physical supply and water rights
Needs based on site-specific studies
Specific amounts, locations and seasons
Needs are relatively small – potentially within
Boulder’s ability to address
Current Status – Instream Flow
1.North Boulder Creek and Main Boulder Creek
•Donation agreements partially address needs
•Issues: late summer/fall/winter flow deficits on Main
Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek
Estimated Flow, North Boulder Creek Below Silver Lake Pipeline,
Irrigation Year 2004
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-
Nov
1-
Dec
1-
Jan
1-
Feb
1-
Mar
1-
Apr
1-
May
1-
Jun
1-
Jul
1-
Aug
1-
Sep
1-
Octflow, cfsEstimated Flow CWCB Junior ISF Right Flow Attributable to CWCB-Boulder Agreement
Estimated Flow, North Boulder Creek Below Lakewood Spillway
Irrigation Year 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Octflow, cfsEstimated Flow CWCB Junior ISF Right Flow Attributable to CWCB-Boulder Agreement
Minimum Recorded Flow in Boulder Creek Between Orodell & 75th Street
Irrigation Year 2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-OctFlow, cfsObserved/Estimated Flow (cfs)
Flow Attributable to CWCB-Boulder Agreement & 1 cfs G Berkley Right
CWCB Junior ISF Right
3
Current Status – Instream Flow
1.North Boulder Creek and Main Boulder Creek
•Donation agreements partially address needs
•Issues: late summer/fall/winter flow deficits on Main
Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek
2.Middle Boulder Creek
•Boulder’s bypasses address needs as defined by
habitat studies
•Issues: There is no CWCB ISF right, is it needed? Are
3 cfs and 7 cfs sufficient?
Typical Flow Above and Below Barker Meadow Reservoir (WY1998)
Prior to Boulder's Purchase of Barker
0
50
100
150
200
250
1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sepstream flow, cfsAbove Barker (Nederland gage)Below Barker
Typical Flow Above and Below Barker Meadow Reservoir (WY1998),
With Boulder's Bypasses
0
50
100
150
200
250
1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sepstream flow, cfsAbove Barker (Nederland gage)Below Barker
Current Status – Instream Flow
1.North Boulder Creek and Main Boulder Creek
•Donation agreements partially address needs
•Issues: late summer/fall/winter flow deficits on Main
Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek
2.Middle Boulder Creek
•Boulder’s bypasses address needs as defined by habitat
studies
•No CWCB ISF right, but is it needed? Are 3 cfs and 7 cfs
sufficient?
3.South Boulder Creek
•November – mid-April flow deficits from Eldorado
gage to South Boulder Road
•More extensive flow deficits in downstream reaches
•Solutions would involve multiple parties: Boulder
Utilities, OSMP and Parks; Xcel Energy; Lafayette;
FRICO; Denver Water
2001-2004 Estimated Mean Daily Flow, South Boulder Creek at US Highway 36
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Decestimated flow, cfsEstimated Stream Flow ISF Need, Based on CDOW R2Cross
Current Status – Hydropower
Hydroelectric power generated as by-product of city water
supply system driven by water demand
Hydro generation counted as part of meeting City Climate
Action Plan goals; to date, city hydro production has offset
burning of 23,000 tons of coal and provides clean, renewable
power for 8200 homes
Currently, generation uses only municipal water deliveries,
except at Boulder Canyon Hydro which uses mostly natural
streamflow, subject to Boulder’s bypasses below Barker
Reservoir and minimum flow limits for turbines
Generation at Silver Lake Hydro could be increased by
diverting additional streamflow
Sites remain for new generation facilities (Betasso discharge
pipeline, Barker Reservoir outlet hydro, 101 Pearl Street)
4
Current Status – Irrigated Agriculture
Boulder leases lower elevation source water to
Boulder Creek and Left Hand Creek farmers
Leases are single-year only, subject to filling Boulder’s
reservoirs, meeting Boulder’s municipal needs, and
meeting needs of the existing instream flow program,
wetlands enhancement, and ponds
Leased sources include CBT water, Baseline
Reservoir water, Left Hand Ditch water, reusable
instream flow water and Windy Gap return flows
Current Status - Recreation Flows
Utilities-defined goal of maintaining existing flow
regime to allow for peak flow levels sufficient for
recreational boating on Boulder Creek from Eben G.
Fine Park to 75th Street in the month of June during
normal to above-normal flow years.
Kayaking: preferred flows 250 – 450 cfs (class IV &
down to 150 (class III-) below Orodell through Water
Park to 30th
Tubing: preferred flows 150 – 250 cfs Eben G. Fine
to Broadway
Current Status – Environmental
Enhancements
In addition to the instream flow program, the
City may annually lease surplus water for
wetlands enhancement, ponds, and aesthetics
Currently identified potential needs:
Viele Lake, Burke Lake
Moving Forward
Considerations and Questions
5
Water Supply Status-
Recap from 11/27 presentation
System can meet at least 28,600 AF build-out
demand in all but worst climate change
scenarios
New build-out demand estimate will be lower
due to new demographic projections and
additional water conservation savings (beyond
projected 10% savings) that are likely to occur
Conservation as New Supply for
Non-Municipal Uses
Some of conserved water may be available for
other uses – mostly water from reservoirs
Some (34%) of Boulder’s needs in May -July are met
with CBT supplies.
Most (72%) of the Boulder’s needs in August - April
are met with CBT supplies and releases from
reservoirs.
Water rights considerations affect what types of
uses can be made
Current Priorities for Available Water
First: assure that adopted municipal water
supply reliability criteria and contractual
water delivery obligations are met
Next: satisfy other uses with supplies not
required to meet above priorities
Policy Considerations
Problem recognized in 1988 RWMP:
long-term commitment of City’s municipal water
supplies to non-municipal uses would reduce water
system reliability
Solution: reliability criteria for municipal service were
established, allowing Boulder to address non-municipal
uses so long as criteria are met
Reliability effects of potential commitments to non-
municipal uses can be assessed via modeling.
Questions - Uncertainty
Can commitments to new uses (municipal and non-
municipal) be made based on our current
knowledge and assumptions?
Or should we refrain from new commitments
given there will always be uncertainty regarding our
ability to meet municipal use reliability criteria?
Or should new commitments be limited in some
way - i.e. only for new municipal uses, or for non-
municipal uses with drought reservations?
Questions - Motivations
City Council adopted a water conservation program with a
goal of 10% reduction in per-capita use by build-out.
To what degree is customers’ “buy in” to this program
(and to additional conservation) based upon a desire to:
Simply use resources more carefully?
Increase reliability of existing municipal uses?
Increase instream flows?
Provide more water to agriculture?
Meet other non-municipal uses?
Serve new growth?
Other?
6
Questions – Priorities
Which non-municipal uses should have priority?
Instream flows? Hydropower? Recreational flows?
Agriculture? Neighborhood lakes?
Instream flow: Only downstream of Boulder’s municipal
diversions? South Boulder Creek? Colorado River? Lower
South Platte?
Agriculture: Boulder Creek? South Platte? West Slope?
Should Boulder’s Water Utility finance new hydro
plants given payback periods of greater than ten years?
For hydro within municipal water system?
For hydro using streamflow diversion and stream discharge?
Priority of new hydro financing versus other municipal and
non-municipal needs?
Questions - Roles
City Council establishes policy on non-municipal water
uses and approves funding if needed.
Where should the City take the lead in addressing non-
municipal uses, particularly instream flows and
environmental enhancements?
For which of these uses should the Water Utility take
the lead in implementing the policy and which should
be lead by other departments?
Are additional staff and financial resources needed?
Possible “No-Regrets” Options
Non-municipal use arrangements that avoid reliability
impacts even if water yield is reduced by climate change
Interim arrangements until build-out demand is realized
Drought reservations to minimize impacts if drought
recognition thresholds are reached
Downstream storage to recapture instream flows for later
exchange upstream for municipal & non-municipal uses
Recharging alluvial aquifers during high streamflow to
increase returns to stream in low flow periods
Improved municipal water system facilities that increase
flexibility and reliability for municipal use and, therefore,
more possibility of meeting non-municipal uses
1
Watershed Management
City of Boulder
Source Water Master Plan
Community Study Group
January 15, 2008
Overview
Objectives of watershed management
Issues within each source water basin
Introduction to the Water Quality Strategic
Plan
Objectives
Water quality protection
Maintain or enhance quality of water
Facility protection
Maintain functionality of facilities to supply
water to treatment plants
Environmental and habitat protection
Security Vulnerability Assessment
Finishing a vulnerability assessment for water
system assets
Facilities assessed following a standard
methodology for vulnerability assessment:
Risks
Consequences
Current security system effectiveness
Identifies options, costs and priorities for
improvement measures
Source Water Basins
North Boulder CreekMiddle
Boulder
Creek
Boulder Reservoir
West Slope
South Boulder Creek
North Boulder Creek
2
North Boulder Creek
Wildfire Hazard
North Boulder Creek
Few Potential Sources of Contamination
North Boulder Creek
Interests
Preserve alpine research
site in Silver Lake
Watershed
Wildlife habitat protection
Elk calving area
Greenback cutthroat trout
Protect from non-native
aquatic plants and animals
Instream flowCourtesy of the Colorado Division of Wildlife
Photo by Tom Wolff Mussehl
City of Boulder
Middle Boulder Creek
Middle Boulder Creek
Wildfire Hazard
Middle Boulder Creek
Potential Sources of Contamination
3
Middle Boulder Creek
Potential Sources of Contamination Septic systems
Septic systems
•Nitrogenand
phosphorus
enrichment
•Pathogens
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
•Nitrogen and
phosphorus
•Pathogens
• Heavy metals
Urban and Residential Runoff
Urban/Residential
Runoff
•Nitrogen and
phosphorus
•Suspended
sediment
•Herbicides and
pesticides
Dog Waste
Dog Waste
•Pathogens
Boulder Reservoir
4
Boulder Reservoir
Wildfire Hazard
Boulder Feeder Canal
Wildfire Hazard
Boulder Feeder Canal
Potential Sources of Contamination
Boulder Feeder Canal
Low Security Along the Canal
Road Crossings &
Proposed Trail
Boulder Feeder Canal
Numerous Septic Systems
Water quality:
Septic Systems
Boulder Feeder Canal
Numerous Drainage and Outfalls
Water quality:
Drainage and outfalls
5
Boulder Reservoir
Water Quality
Human activity in and
around reservoir affects
water quality
High turbidity from wind
events
High mineral content
because of basin soil
Low oxygen concentrations
in summer
Invasive aquatic plants and
animals
Curly leaf pondweed Photo by A. Bove
High winds at South Dam City of Boulder
West Slope
Watershed Management
Vulnerability to Debris Flow Post-Fire
(USGS)
CBT Nutrient Project (NCWCD, BOR)
Sediment in Shadow Mountain Reservoir
Rooted aquatic vegetation in Shadow Mountain
Reservoir
Algae toxins and blooms in Three Lakes system
Effect of Windy Gap project of Three Lakes
system water quality
South Boulder Creek
Issues
Instream flow
Temperature of discharge from Valmont
ponds
Lack of channel definition on the lower
end near Valmont ponds
Water Quality Strategic Plan
Parallel process by
city‘s water quality
group
Supports city and
regional water quality
protection and
enhancement
How do the plans relate?
• Wastewater
• Stormwater
• Groundwater
• Water Conservation
• Watershed Outreach
• Recreation and
Aesthetics
• Regulatory compliance
•Source water
quality
•Environmental
protection
•Land
management
QUALITY: WQSPQUANTITY: SWMP
• Source water assets
• Water rights and yields
• Raw water supply
infrastructure
• Water use and
availability
• Water supply/demand
• Policies and goals
•Hydrology
Questions?
1
Facilities Assessment / Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP)
Community Study Group Meeting 3 – January 15, 2007
CITY OF BOULDER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Utilities Division
What projects get built?
• How does the process work?
• What considerations guide
the CIP?
• What projects have city staff
identified as important
candidates?
Where does the CIP fit?How do projects get approved?
• Project Planning and Approval Process
Handbook
– outlines city review and approval process
for capital improvement projects
• Community and Environmental
Assessment Process
• Checks and balances
CITY OF BOULDER
2008 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
2008 thru 2013
PROJECT NAME
PROJECTED
TOTAL
Source Water Transmission System
Lakewood Pipeline (various accounts) $5,200,000
Source Water Transmission Pipe Inspections $160,000
Subtotal - Source Water Transmission System $5,360,000
Barker Water System
Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair $5,750,000
Barker Dam Outlet $1,000,000
Barker Hydro System Integration $200,000
Barker Relicensing $2,800,000
Subtotal - Barker Water System $9,750,000
Raw Water Storage Reservoirs
Albion Dam $150,000
Green Lake 2 Dam $1,100,000
Lakewood Reservoir Dam $250,000
Subtotal - Raw Water Storage Reservoirs $1,500,000
Other Raw Water Facilities
Instream Flow Structures and Gaging $50,000
NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline $19,220,000
Subtotal - Other Raw Water Facilities $19,270,000
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric
Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping $100,000
Subtotal - Source Water PRV, Pumping and Hydro $100,000
Water System Monitoring and Metering
Water System Security Upgrades $600,000
Subtotal - Water System Monitoring and Metering $600,000
SUBTOTAL (SELECTED SOURCE WATER PROJECTS) $36,580,000
Project Example
• Carter Lake Pipeline
– CIP status
– Cost/funding
– Next Steps
2
CITY OF BOULDER
2008 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
2008 thru 2013
PROJECT NAME
PROJECTED
TOTAL
Source Water Transmission System
Lakewood Pipeline (various accounts) $5,200,000
Source Water Transmission Pipe Inspections $160,000
Subtotal - Source Water Transmission System $5,360,000
Barker Water System
Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair $5,750,000
Barker Dam Outlet $1,000,000
Barker Hydro System Integration $200,000
Barker Relicensing $2,800,000
Subtotal - Barker Water System $9,750,000
Raw Water Storage Reservoirs
Albion Dam $150,000
Green Lake 2 Dam $1,100,000
Lakewood Reservoir Dam $250,000
Subtotal - Raw Water Storage Reservoirs $1,500,000
Other Raw Water Facilities
Instream Flow Structures and Gaging $50,000
NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline $19,220,000
Subtotal - Other Raw Water Facilities $19,270,000
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric
Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping $100,000
Subtotal - Source Water PRV, Pumping and Hydro $100,000
Water System Monitoring and Metering
Water System Security Upgrades $600,000
Subtotal - Water System Monitoring and Metering $600,000
SUBTOTAL (SELECTED SOURCE WATER PROJECTS) $36,580,000
What considerations guide the
CIP?
1. Reliability of water supply,
treatment and delivery
2. Water quality and other
environmental regulations
3. Public and worker health and
safety
4. Opportunity to collaborate with
other projects and programs
5. Potential for operation and
maintenance cost savings
6. Accommodating new growth
and development
Questions
1
January 15, 2008
Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Community Study Group Sticky Wall Comments
Wall 1
Non-municipal Use - Instream Flows
Main Boulder Creek
1. Explore the possibility of extending main-stem instream flow along Boulder
Creek to the County Line. There are significant habitat/quality concerns on
the lower creek.
2. What: Quantify historic impact of Boulder’s exchange right on Boulder
Creek flows
Middle Boulder Creek
1. What: Conduct mitigation studies and recommendations for the Barker
pipeline break of 2006
Why: To address downstream sediment impaction resulting from the
pipeline break
2. What: Conduct independent EIS studies for the Barker Boulder Canyon
Hydro relicensing.
Why: to evaluate flow regimes, sediment deposition and wildlife impacts
from hydroelectric operations
North Boulder Creek
1. What: Treat more water at Boulder Reservoir rather than exchange to
Betasso
Why: Can provide for additional flow in Middle and North Boulder Creek
2. What: Increase minimum flows in North Boulder Creek
Why: Improve aquatic habitat
How: Rehabilitation of Green Lake #2
2
South Boulder Creek
1. What: More Instream flows to South Boulder Creek.
Why: To improve fish habitat and esthetics
How: Buy more water rights
2. What: Line Wittemeyer Ponds
Why: To increase municipal storage and exchange opportunities and for
improved Instream flows
How: Provide funding for the lining & also for a return pipeline from
Baseline reservoir
3. What: Stop suing FRICO
Why: FRICO would be more willing to work with the City on South Boulder
Creek flows
4. What: Remove/reconstruct diversion structures on South Boulder Creek
Why: To provide fish passage
How: CIP funding
5. What: Construct a return path pipeline from Baseline Reservoir to South
Boulder Creek
Why: Improve Instream flows between Baseline and the confluence
6. What: Improve Instream flows
How: Buy South Boulder Creek water rights as available
7. What: Gross Reservoir environmental pool management and strategic plan
development regarding Denver Water’s pending EIS for Gross expansion
Why: For increased municipal and exchange opportunities for improved
Instream flows
How: Set aside CIP funding for Boulder to participate in Denver Water’s
Gross Enlargement to firm the environmental pool. Renegotiate the Gross
environmental pool agreement to be permanent storage.
3
8. What: Be involved in discussions with Denver Water to possibly restructure
how water is delivered through Gross Reservoir
Wall 2
Non-Municipal Use – Hydropower
1. What: Add Hydro to Barker
Why: Source of clean energy
How: Add to CIP
2. What: Generate hydropower if Carter Lake pipeline is constructed
3. Comment: Is hydropower still cost-effective compared to other alternative
energy sources?
4. Comment: Funding and Rate Impacts
Non-Municipal Use – Recreation
1. What: Develop a carrying capacity for recreation at Boulder Reservoir.
Manage impacts to water quality. Have reasoned justifications if/when use
needs to be curtailed.
2. What: Non-motorized recreation on Barker Reservoir
Non-municipal Use – Irrigated Agriculture
1. What: Make preservation of agricultural ditches within the City a priority
due to their watershed benefits.
2. What: Preserve agricultural ditches in the City.
Why: Riparian, stormwater and other benefits, and reduces chemical uses
by using raw versus treated water for irrigation
Non-Municipal Use – Environment
1. What: Dedicate CIP funding to retrofit diversions for fish passage and other
habitat improvements above Barker Reservoir.
4
2. What: Are channel defining flows an important physical consideration (to
deal with floods)? Are minimum flows adequate to remove traction gravel
from fish habitats?
Why: Sedimentation in Boulder Creek below Barker
3. What: Speculative Water Quality security question: Will EPA’s current
rule-making on 1080 allow grater availability of this chemical to pollute
water supplies (comment deadline is in 45 days!)
4. What: Water quality at Barker (treat at Nederland discharge)
Why: Less water quality treatment at Betasso
5. What: Barker Pipeline erosion control
6. What: Wildlife habitat management.
• Protection from non-native infestations (e.g. Eurasian Milfoil, New
Zealand mud snails, Whirling Disease)
• Maintenance of riparian zones
• Establish restricted grazing access to minimize bank erosion
(temporary snow fencing during grazing periods)
7. What: Participate in the Middle Boulder Creek Rogers Park Habitat
Improvement project with Boulder Flycasters through in-kind and CIP
appropriations.
8. What: Watershed plans for non-source water sections of our watersheds –
Goose Creek & Bear Creek, etc.
9. What: Minimize trans-basin diversions as part of the comprehensive plan
and watershed policies.
Wall 3
Watershed Management – Global Issues
1. What: Develop plan for shutting off intakes in case of wildfire erosion.
Why: Can’t prevent all fires. Do we have enough supply if one water supply
is out of commission?
2. What: Monitor long term nitrogen deposition in alpine lakes.
Why: To monitor long term nitrogen deposition in alpine lakes.
5
3. What: Develop a plan for pine bark beetle infestation.
4. What: Protect water supply
Why: Fire breaks won’t provide the needed protection if all of the trees die.
Watershed Management – Boulder Reservoir/Feeder Canal
1. What: Make stormwater bypass of high risk discharge areas to the Boulder
Feeder Canal a top priority.
Why: These areas may have the potential of putting our water supply at
risk.
2. What: Install turbidity monitors under bridges along the Boulder Feeder
Canal if concerned about turbidity spikes.
Why: This could provide adequate pre-treatment warning.
3. What: Water Quality along Boulder Feeder Canal.
Why: Decrease treatment costs.
How: Limit dog and horse use.
4. What: Support trail along the feeder canal.
5. What: Justification for Carter Lake Pipeline
Why: High cost and questionable benefits
6. What: Move ahead with Carter Pipeline
Why: Addresses contamination issues and provides operational flexibility
How: cooperate with other users to fund pipeline
7. What: How many more water quality monitoring stations are needed on the
Boulder Feeder Canal to give adequate warning of a pollution incident?
8. What: Price estimate for pipe lining Boulder Feeder Canal seems lower than
estimates mentioned in the Camera. How much cost-sharing with other
communities getting Southern Water Supply Water through the Boulder
Feeder Canal?
6
Watershed Management – Middle Boulder Creek
1. What: Protect water supplies (both quality and quantity)
How: Fire hazard mitigation/ forest health
2. What: Allow non-motorized boating on Barker
Why: Large benefits, low cost
How: Arrange with Nederland
3. What: Allow limited recreation use at Barker
Why: Risks are low and creates good will with Nederland on other greater
risks.
4. What: Continued cooperation with the town of Nederland
Why: To minimize impacts from all sources of pollution
5. What: Nederland pollution sources
Why: Direct influence on Barker
How: Continue to treat and intercept contaminants or make Nederland and
County pay for additional treatment)
6. What: Determine number of potential exempted domestic wells, and
whether this could cause significant depletions to water quantity.
7. What: Reduce Nederland’s discharge of effluent into Barker
Why: Improve water quality
How: Twist Nederland’s arms and /or pay
8. What: Kossler Reservoir is the weakest link and highest risk in Boulder’s
raw water supply
Why: Easy access (trespass) makes contamination relatively simple as it is
next to a road and there is no dilution of these flows before they enter the
Betasso Water Treatment Plant
9. What: Address Nederland’s discharge to Barker
7
Why: Trade boating on Barker for a solution to the Nederland discharge
10. What: Construct bypass of Nederland wastewater around Barker
11. What: Eldora Ski area discharges
12. What: More vigilant supervision of Barker Reservoir to control wastewater
from Nederland. Maybe strong watershed planning
Why: Reduce more costly treatment
13. What: Regarding old mines - Has the County decided to ban cyanide heap
leach gold mining to protect water quality, like Summit County?
Watershed Management – North Boulder Creek
1. What: Keep Silver Lake Watershed closed to public access
Why: To protect the quality of the water supply, and to protect the
wilderness aspects of the watershed.
2. What: Should management of North Boulder Creek change is light of
changed status of the greenback trout?
Watershed Management – West Slope
1. What: Develop West Slope protection plan in cooperation with other CBT
users
Why: Defines responsibilities and provides cooperative response to
problems. Also combines funding for addressing issues
How: Work with Northern to create a more comprehensive SWPP (Source
Water Protection Plan?)
2. What: Watch what the West Slope is doing with forest management
following beetle-kill
Why: Learn from their experiences as we are behind them
Watershed Management – South Boulder Creek
1. What: Cooperate with Eldorado springs Water and Sewer District to protect
the boulder Open Space/ South Boulder Creek watershed
8
2. What: Establish immediate water quality monitoring to measure the effects
of:
• Pesticide & herbicide use
• Livestock grazing
• Riparian buffer zones
• Enforcement of open space visitor regulations
3. What: Decrease water quality impacts of stormwater runoff
Why: Improve water quality after storm events
How: Landscaping changes (e.g. mitigate parking lot runoff)
Water Quality Strategic Plan Comments and Questions
1. Septics, land use in North Boulder Creek and Middle Boulder Creek
2. Wildfire or beetle kills of trees and impacts from runoff on water quality and
treatment
3. Stormwater runoff improvement through commercial landscaping ordinance
4. Water quality improvement at Barker (Nederland wastewater)
5. Continued cooperation with Nederland and others to control residential and
urban runoff through best management practices
6. Support Nederland (financially and otherwise) in upgrading its wastewater
treatment plant
7. Public accessible water quality monitoring throughout the watershed (all
reaches)
Boulder Source Water Master PlanCommunity Study GroupJanuary 15, 2008Name Interest GroupEmail Present 1/151 Bart Miller Western Resource Advocates & WRABbmiller@westernresources.org√2 Jeff Drager or Esther VincentNCWCDjdrager@ncwcd.org;evincent@ncwcd.org3 Catherine GatesSilver Lake Ditch catherine@longsgardens.com√4 Alan Boles Plan Boulder Countyaebolesjr@yahoo.com√5 Jeannette HilleryLeague of Woman Votersjmhillery915@comcast.net√6 Kirk CunninghamSierra Club kmcunnin@juno.com√7 Larry QuillingTrout Unlimitedlquilling@comcast.net√8 James McConnellDept. of Commerce Federal Labsjames.mcconnell@nist.gov9 Chuck HoweCitizen charles.howe@colorado.edu√10Steve Pomerance Citizenstevepom335@comcast.net11 Peter GowenCitizenpjgowen@comcast.net√12 Sasha CharneyBoulder County Parks and Open Spacescharney@co.boulder.co.us√13 Sheila MurphyBoulder creek Watershed Initiativesfmurphy@usgs.gov√14 Cal YoungbergCitizencal.youngberg@ci.longmont.co.us√15 John PavlovicIBMpavlovic@us.ibm.com16 Robin ByersWRABrobinbyers@aol.com√17 Kelly DiNateleWRABdinatalekn@cdm.com√18 Ken WilsonCity Councilwilsonk@bouldercolorado.gov√19 Matt AppelbaumCity Councilappelbaumm@bouldercolorado.gov√Jennifer RiceWestern Water Assessmentjlrice@email.arizona.eduBill DeOreoWRABbill@aquacraft.comJim KnoffWRABjim@knoffjim.comCraig SkeieCity of Boulder Bret LinenfelserCity of Boulder Carol EllinghouseCity of Boulder Joe TaddeucciCity of Boulder Kim ElkinsCity of Boulder Public/visitors & SWMP Team PresentIf anyone from the public wishes to receive materails and notification for subsequent CSG meetings, please add you name and email address to this roster. Thank you!
Boulder Source Water Master PlanCommunity Study GroupJanuary 15, 2008Ned WilliamsCity of Boulder Bob HarbergCity of Boulder Lee RozaklisSWMP Team AmecKris KranzushSWMP TeamTracy KosloffSWMP Team MWHBarbara LewisSWMP Team Catalyst Jenny McCurdySWMP Team CatalystIf anyone from the public wishes to receive materails and notification for subsequent CSG meetings, please add you name and email address to this roster. Thank you!
1
CITY OF BOULDER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS – UTILITIES DIVISION
SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN
COMMUNITY STUDY GROUP MEETING #4
Meeting Minutes
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
West Boulder Senior Center, Creek Side Room
Group Members Present: See attached roster
City Utilities Division Staff Present: Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Carol Ellinghouse, Joe Taddeucci,
Kim Elkins, Bret Linenfelser
Consultants Present: Barbara Lewis, Jenny McCurdy, Lee Rozaklis, Tracy Koslof, Kris Kranzush
Public Present: Jim Knopf, WRAB Member,
I. Introductions and Welcome, Ned Williams, Asst. Director of Public Works for
Utilities
Ned explained that this was the final meeting to complete the CSG efforts. He hopes the group
members will advocate as the master plan moves forward through formal review.
Barbara walked through the meeting agenda and reviewed the ground rules from the CSG
charter. There will be no small groups tonight, and all members need to contribute. She
reminded the group that the focus of the master plan will be to identify needed studies but not to
actually complete those studies as part of the plan. The staff team would like to know which of
those studies the CSG feels is most important.
Joe reviewed the SWMP schedule and the schedule for remaining CSG tasks. Staff will supply
WRAB with the master plan document for introduction at the April WRAB meeting. WRAB will be
asked to review the plan and provide comments for the May WRAB meeting. The plan will be
finalized in June, and then scheduled with the Planning Board and City Council. There are
opportunities for public participation at each step.
Carter Lake Pipeline and the Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP are separate processes. Each key item or
project will have a separate public process of its own, such as a CEAP, inclusion in the Capital
Improvements Program, etc.
If group members want to submit written comments on the memo or recommendations table
circulated for discussion tonight, they should be submitted by the end of the day tomorrow
(Friday, Feb. 29). Staff will circulate a revised memo to the CSG by Friday, Mar. 7. CSG
comments on that document will be due Friday, Mar. 13. The CSG memo will be finalized by
Friday, Mar. 21.
Barb listed the handouts that were provided to group members at the meeting (SWMP tentative
schedule, cover letter, agenda, draft CSG memo, preliminary recommendations table, final
minutes for CSG meeting #1 and final minutes for CSG meeting #2). Draft minutes for CSG
meeting #3 had been circulated earlier in February. There were no comments or corrections to
meeting #3 minutes.
II. Strengths in Water Management
Barb asked for CSG comment on what the city of Boulder is doing well with regard to its source
water system:
• The city has its studies of water availability in line.
2
• The city does a good job of managing the resources it has.
• The city does a good job of protecting the upper watershed.
• In addition to good management on the supply side, the city has good demand
management through its water budgets and conservation plan.
• The city is proactive on climate change.
• The city does a good job of rebuilding its old infrastructure.
• The city has persisted in maintaining its existing easement from the US Forest Service for
Lakewood Pipeline.
• The city does a good job of aggressively defending its water rights portfolio.
III. Draft CSG Memo Comments
Barb and Jenny asked for CSG member comments on how well substantive issues have been
captured in the memo (editorial comments can be emailed or handed in) and asked if the team
has represented the CSG well so far. Comments have been received from Peter Gowen and
Chuck Howe. Peter appreciated how the memo captured everyone’s ideas without suggesting
consensus. Chuck’s comments were generally positive too.
Comments included:
• The memo presents a smoothed over version. Specifically, the question concerning what
guarantees the city is providing through the reliability criteria is missing. The tension is
missing for some issues, e.g., regarding conservation vs. reliability, what are you getting
for your conservation – water, conservation for conservation sake?
• Ninety percent of the memo presents what was presented. Only two or three pages
discuss the issues and concern. It would be better to highlight what came from the CSG
vs. what was presented by the project team.
• The recommendations table brings all the discussion together as a path for moving
forward, and it should be presented and explained in a page or two at the front of the
memo.
• Will the memo have something on risk assessment (of loss of yields) by watershed and
overall? That may be in the SWMP as opposed to the memo.
• There is not sufficient information to assign probabilities to some of the risks, and that
makes it difficult for decision makers.
• The tables have too much detail and are confusing and hard to read. They should go at
the end of the document.
• The tables are a good way of conveying information.
• Table 2 presents a list, but a summary of the group discussions is needed.
• The memo would benefit from a brief explanation from the City Attorney’s Office
concerning the constraints of a water utility enterprise fund, especially pertaining to how
money is spent. It would be a useful adjunct to the instream flow part of the memo, i.e.,
where are we with TABOR, and does it constrain uses of the water?
• The CIP provided by staff was not discussed in the last meeting and is not discussed in the
memo. Seventy to eighty percent of the costs in the spreadsheet were for Carter Lake
Pipeline and we did not discuss that project. (The memo talks about concepts. Projects
and costs will be in the master plan document and can at that point be commented on.
The handout was the 5-year CIP from last year. Staff is working with MWH to develop a
20-year CIP.)
• Will the SWMP be tied together with the Water Quality Strategic Plan? (We will make sure
that the portion of the strategic plan that overlaps with the SWMP is coordinated with the
SWMP.)
IV. Discussion of Major Topics
There are several topics for which discussion has not been completed, and the project team has
not gotten a sense of the CSG’s thoughts. The topics to be discussed are:
• Reducing reliance on West Slope supplies in the interim to buildout
3
• Non-municipal uses
• Use of conserved Water
Reliance on West Slope Supplies
Major points in the discussion were:
• We now bring West Slope water over to lease it. Maybe we shouldn’t bring that water
over.
• The interim to buildout is not a reliability issue. The issue is at buildout.
• Why are we considering reducing reliance on West Slope supplies? Is it to gain a more
reliable supply? To avoid the black eye of trans-basin diversions? Both?
• Could the city be doing something else with CBT water to provide either West Slope or
East Slope enhancements?
• Can CBT water be left in the Colorado River?
• If we use less West Slope water in the interim to buildout, could we do something better
for the environment with it? There are major legal, political and institutional obstacles to
overcome to do this. The city can’t earmark its quota or dictate its use for instream flow.
If the city doesn’t take their water, it might not stay in the river.
• There is more potential for instream flow use of Windy Gap water. CBT water is owned by
the Bureau of Reclamation.
• This isn’t the first time the city has had a policy on something in which they cannot effect
change. We can still express the desire to see instream flow use of CBT water.
• This shouldn’t be a unilateral position statement. The downside and what values would be
impacted should be examined.
• There would not be as much water to lease to Division 6 farmers. We should use caution
in expressing interest in this. We are an allottee of the project.
• The three-state Platte River agreement would be affected. Colorado’s contributions are
based on return flows from CBT.
• It would be useful to say in the CSG memo that the discussion came up. Making this
change would involve many institutional arrangements of enormous complexity, but the
issue does come up a lot. There is logic to the idea, but there are many hidden issues.
• In light of the hurdles, CBT water could be used to the maximum benefit of the Front
Range. For example, more water could be left in Boulder Creek if the city uses more CBT
water.
• If there are long-term uncertainties with yields from CBT, do we pursue alternate West
Slope arrangements or procure East Slope sources to try to come out of a shortage whole?
• Meeting demand at buildout is dependent on increased reliance on West Slope sources.
We now bring the quota over. The water is already here, and the question is where it is
going on the East Slope.
• The city takes one third to one half of its Windy Gap water now. The city is also not
participating in projects to firm Windy Gap storage.
• Should the city expand its portfolio while it can or wait to deal with the issue later?
Waiting would be more expensive.
• Do we do something sooner rather than later? If we buy additional supplies, should they
come from the East Slope or West Slope? Do we jettison West Slope supplies to buy East
Slope sources?
• The CBT source is just across the Divide from the Boulder Creek watershed. If West Slope
sources are reduced by climate change, then Boulder Creek will also be affected.
• The city already gets the maximum CBT water it can have for municipal purposes. The
city would have to consume more water to be eligible for additional municipal use CBT
water.
• These are big questions that cannot be resolved this evening. We need to identify the
issues first. The concern is the issues won’t be dealt with until it’s too late. We should not
lose sight of these issues now.
4
• The city shouldn’t do lots of expensive studies to address the issues. Others are studying
what would happen if there is a Compact call. The city does however need to be at the
table for these discussions.
Conserved Water
• We start taking water from storage in July. This means that we really only have more
water than we need, in a good year, in May and June. Conserved water is part of our
savings account for the next season. In general, we need to keep it in the savings
account.
[NOTE: A discussion of non-municipal uses occurred later in the meeting and is summarized in
Section VI, below.]
V. Response to Preliminary Recommendations
Staff prepared and circulated a preliminary list of recommendations to be included in the SWMP
(see attached table). The group was asked for their opinions concerning the recommendations
and for any additions. Which recommendations are most important to pursue?
[NOTE: Wording changes from individual group members are not included in this list, but will be
reflected in the revised table.] Main points from the CSG discussion are:
• Prioritization could be approached from the bottom up. Are there any recommendations
that you don’t think are important? Prioritization is not meaningful if all the
recommendations are important.
• The table was compiled on the basis of CSG discussions. There will be additional staff
recommendations advanced in the master plan.
• The items listed in the table are not “apples-to-apples” comparisons. It’s difficult to
prioritize them.
• Are there items that need to be done sooner because they may provide answers to
questions that are needed as a basis for near-term action? Are there others that provide
information that will be needed over time?
• A stand-out issue is do we need to acquire additional water rights? These are strategic
and expensive transactions which involve things outside of the city’s control. It is urgent
that we find a way to think about this as soon as possible.
• There has to be a commitment to the demand projection numbers.
• This is not just a question of whether Boulder grows more or not. There could be serious
effects from a multi-year Compact call.
• Future water demand will most likely be less than the current buildout number. But even
at the current level, impacts of some climate change scenarios could be significant. Do we
want to try to insulate ourselves more than we already have? What can we control?
• What actions should be taken to help figure out if we are going to need more water, and if
we do, what water sources should be pursued?
• The city could figure out the effects of new plumbing fixtures, lower demands, etc. and run
that number through the model with information from the climate change study. The city
could examine what happens if it doesn’t have a CBT quota and what happens if we don’t
have one of the sources for 4 or 5 years.
• The full range of possibilities/dimensions/implications needs to be explored, especially in a
decision-making process with a high degree of uncertainty.
• One question is do we want to increase reliability and how much are we willing to pay for
it?
• The city’s source water system is reliable now, unless there is a system failure. Should the
city spend a lot of money to address something with a low probability?
• There are not a lot of options for increasing supplies. Locating something to replace the
function of CBT would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
• These issues need to be dealt with soon and comprehensively. There is nothing to gain by
waiting.
5
• The city could evaluate the risks to the source water system if an individual water supply
has bad things happen including reduction in quality. Long-term nitrogen deposition data
could be analyzed.
• There needs to be a way to resolve disputes (e.g., city and ditch companies) within our
own community.
• The city needs to define why to conserve water, to what end does conserved water go, and
what does the community want or not want?
• The city needs to define what reliability means. What level of water do we want to commit
to specific uses, such as landscaping? The basic idea and wording of the water budget is
to maintain existing landscaping. That needs to show up in the reliability. This is an
urgent issue.
• The city needs to determine what the citizens think they are getting for conserving water.
• It would be useful for decision-makes to know if we are talking about new appropriations
or already adjudicated rights. We need to decide if we want to take the heat for
something “un-PC” or focus on already adjudicated rights.
• The recommendations need to be organized by main questions, such as, “Does Boulder
have enough water?” Then recommended studies can be listed from biggest to most
specific.
• If the city does acquire additional sources, it should maximize what they can be used for.
New water should be made available for multiple uses.
• The city should immediately study the effects of the Eldorado Springs wastewater
treatment plant to understand its effects to South Boulder Creek. Below the plant, the
flow will be 100% effluent. This information could affect what kind of treatment plant they
build. (The Eldorado Springs plant is to be built this year.)
• If Gross Reservoir is expanded, there is a great opportunity for the city to fill it with water.
Whatever the fix is for Denver’s North side (Leyden or Gross) it will take a very senior
water right to make the Gross environmental pool useful.
• The city needs to use caution in what funds are used for what purposes.
• Flushing flows are needed for Main Boulder Creek, since PSCo peaking flows are no longer
available. While spring flows are many times the PSCo flows, the peaking flows occurred
more frequently.
• Even if Carter Lake Pipeline is built, the city should not turn its back on the Boulder Feeder
Canal.
• The preliminary recommendations table captures the main items. It should be presented
at the beginning of the memo.
• The recommendations table should be ordered by main questions, such as:
o Does Boulder have enough water? What recommendations will help us decide if
additional supplies are needed?
o How should Boulder use its water?
o How do we protect the environment?
• The city is keeping the options open for Carter Lake Pipeline, and other priorities need to
also be kept in mind. Funding has been approved for the CEAP and acquisition of key
rights-of-way. There will be opportunities for discussion of all individual projects in the
approval process.
VI. Non-municipal Uses
The main comments concerning commitment to new non-municipal water uses were:
• Costs and impacts for instream flows need to be quantified. New instream flows should be
subject to pull-backs.
• There is an implied priority concerning where excess water goes first. We can do
something about instream flows, but there will always be unsatisfied demand for
agricultural water.
• The current instream flow program is permanent, and it did affect reliability. Leasing is
currently only on an annual basis. Should this policy be changed?
6
• If more water is used for instream flow, then the impacts to other uses should be
considered.
• The city should commit to additional instream flows in judicious, small amounts that can
be interrupted in a serious drought.
• Other city departments are not paying for the water they use. If we allocate water to
Open Space, maybe Open Space should pay for it. Revenue and expense streams could
be segregated to see who is paying for what.
• Some think that in the future, there will be a much higher emphasis on local farming. Lots
more thinking would have to go into a decision on new non-municipal uses.
• It’s probably true that instream flow has a higher value to the community than agricultural
leasing, but this may be shifting. The city should maintain the ability to reconsider any
decision.
• Water should be leased for agriculture only in a good year for water in May and June.
• There needs to also be a decision to either support instream flow or agriculture instead of
new jobs.
• Constraints that state laws put on water utility enterprises need to be considered.
VII. Wrap-Up
In concluding the meeting, the group was asked what the Source Water Master Plan would be
known for in the future. Comments were:
• For addressing the questions, “Does Boulder have enough water?” and “What do we do
with it?”
• For the coalescence of the climate change issue. It is part of everything we do and the
plan will represent a comprehensive way of thinking.
• For getting the city serious on deciding on growth control.
• For being the first comprehensive planning document to deal with these issues.
• For cementing the city of Boulder’s commitment to multiple uses.
• For providing better input to planning decisions concerning water impacts.
• For significantly advancing the ball in this era of sustainability.
• For providing a good plan for managing and maintaining source water facilities.
• For addressing sustainability and City Council goals.
The project team members thanked the group for its involvement and input and for providing an
opportunity for staff to listen to concerns and issues. The CSG thanked staff for the opportunity
to participate.
7
Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Flipchart Notes
February 28, 2008 Community Study Group Meeting
Strengths
• City studies are in line with water supplies and availability
• Managing the resources that we have
• Good job of protecting the upper watersheds
• Good work in looking at demand side: water budget and conservation plan
• The city is proactive on climate change
• The city does a good job of re-building old infrastructure
• Lakewood pipeline isn’t the Forest Service’s yet!
• Aggressively defending the water portfolio.
CSG Memo Round 1 Comments
• More emphasis on what guarantees City is making to citizens using reliability criteria.
What are you getting from conservation?
• Structure it to capture CSG concerns - Highlight what is higher level than reporting.
• Distinguish what came from committee vs. the team.
• Recommendation Table should bring the whole memo together. An executive summary
should be developed that segues to the recommendations table
• Final memo should have information on risk assessment? (Change in yields, etc.) (in rec.
studies chart) – in SWMP (Lee – not enough information to assign probabilities)
• Table 2 is confusing – should be in an appendix. Table 5
• Likes the tables
• Include the synthesis or take-home message on the table (Jenny asks - Recommended
action table?)
• Include a city attorney’s office discussion on constraints for what cand be done with
ratepayer funds – specifically as it relates to using for non-municipal uses, and especially
as it relates to Tabor.
• Put background information and narrative first before tables in the watershed
management section
• Where do the CIP list & comments fit in? (Will be included in the SWMP) 70 – 80% of
costs were related to the pipeline project.
• How will the Water Quality Strategic Plan be tied to the SWMP (late fall 2008 for WQSP)?
Need a reference in the SWMP to connect the 2 documents.
Decreasing West Slope supplies
Advantages - None Recorded
Disadvantages
• Less Boulder Creek instream flow enhancement
• Less water to lease to District 6 water users
• Platte River Agreement relies on CBT returns
8
Miscellaneous comments recorded during the discussion that started out as a dialogue of the
Advantages and Disadvantages of reducing reliability on West Slope supplies
• Maximize CBT use for improving instream flows in Boulder Creek
• Buildout assumes increase reliability on West Slope water (LQ)
• Should we expand our water portfolio
• Advantage of west slope acquisition vs. east slope (MA)
• Window of opportunity – Opportunities should be identified sooner than later
• Don let issue sink into a morass of paper (SP)
• Don’t go it alone in evaluating climate change – (impacts to Colorado River supplies)
because the state/everyone is working together on this issue. (For our own system it’s
OK to do so)
• Evaluated risk to system if there are disruptions/failures (from wildfires etc.)
What should the plan be known for?
• Managing and maintaining source water facilities
• Significant advancement of the ball in an era of sustainability
• Climate change
• Jobs versus farmers issue
• Need better input to our planning decisions – Tie into “calculating” planning process
• Got the city serious about deciding on source control
• This is the first comprehensive source water master plan
• Boulder’s commitment to multiple uses is cemented
• In 20 years we could be talking about “global cooling”
DiNatale comments 9Boulder Source Water Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations Desired Outcomes: 1. Identify where CSG as a whole concurs with preliminary recommendations 2. Identify which recommendations are most important to CSG 3. Understand CSG reservations for those items not fully endorsed This table presents preliminary recommendations for inclusion in the BSWMP. The recommendations are organized by the four topics addressed by the CSG: water availability, non-municipal water uses, watershed management/water quality and facilities improvements in the CIP. Recommended studies and actions are based on technical analysis completed to date and the CSG’s input. The column labeled “Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making” suggests how studies might influence future decisions. In several cases, the CSG’s ideas are included as options that could be evaluated following the studies. Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments Continue to monitor developments on the Colorado River Compact; if state study is inadequate or does not occur, City moves ahead with other interested parties to conduct its own study of West Slope climate change impacts and mitigation options Supports decision-making on interim balance between West Slope and East Slope water use and informs assumptions on West Slope source reliability for evaluations of need for any additional supplies for build-out Water Availability Reliability of water in the future Continue climate studies and related effects on Boulder’s source water and water quality, including new scenarios as appropriate given advances in GCM resolution. Evaluate potential impacts on Potential to identify thresholds of change for responding to climate-based alteration of water yields and/or water quality for input to decisions on development of new water supplies or capital improvements
DiNatale comments 10Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments ability to capture and divert water at existing high altitude reservoirs and potential impacts to raw water quality Evaluate risks to city’s water system if there is an individual watershed failure or shortage as a result of climate change, localized drought, compact call, infrastructure failure or contamination event and develop a decision-making framework to determine if action should be taken to address these risks Provides analysis by watershed of impacts to ability to deliver water in event of catastrophic event. Continue efforts to protect yields of current water rights but do so in a way to preserve relationships with other entities to the extent practical Provides guidance to City engagement in water court proceedings. May influence decisions on capital expenditures to manage supply May impact future actions by city that involve cooperation with or can be impacted by other entities
DiNatale comments 11Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments Accuracy of demand projections Update water demand projections based on BVCP and changes in demographic/water use projections; include updated estimates of savings from federal mandates, advances in fixture manufacture and the city’s water budget program and water conservation plan Will inform decisions on water supply portfolio and municipal and non-municipal uses and support future water system modeling efforts Use of conserved water Update Water Conservation Study Define level of reliability resulting from updated demand projections, water conservation savings and supply projections Define level of increased reliability attained by exceeding current water conservation goals Ask Council if re-affirmation of current reliability criteria is desired Explore pros/cons of long-term commitment to other uses Will inform water conservation policies, decisions on desirability of additional conservation measures and decisions about trading increased reliability for non-municipal uses as a use of conservation savings above current goal level Will establish a new buildout water demand that will be incorporated into supply model to develop new results for meeting reliability criteria Future changes Evaluate balance in Will inform decisions on:
DiNatale comments 12Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments to the water rights portfolio reliance on East Slope and West Slope supplies (including suggestions from CSG) Determine if changing balance in reliance on existing East/West Slope supplies will cause need for new water supplies for build-out Interruptible agricultural leases Groundwater use Acquisition of additional East Slope supplies and means of delivery to Boulder Sizing and future treatment processes of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facilities Use of more CBT and Windy Gap water West Slope replacement supplies Methods to increase stream recharge Keeping Windy Gap units Repair and enhancement of storage capacity in Boulder Creek basin Continued use of Boulder’s exchange rights Non-Municipal Uses – Instream Flows North and Main Boulder Creeks – adequacy of flows to protect habitat under existing instream flow program with CWCB Update aquatic habitat studies to assess effectiveness of current program and evaluate options for providing enhanced habitat to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits Will provide input to evaluation of various measures to improve habitat, including suggestions presented in CSG memo
DiNatale comments 13Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments Middle Boulder Creek – adequacy of releases from Barker Reservoir to protect habitat Monitoring of water rights calls and flow rates in creek to track water released by city from Barker to Orodell Will provide input for calls to water commission to protect Barker releases in lower stream segments and decisions regarding need for formal CWCB program on Middle Boulder Creek Assist Open Space in developing a recommended approach and organizational structure to provide instream flows in South Boulder Creek and through Open Space lands to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits. Develop cooperative relationships with local ditch companies and other water rights holders, where practical. Will provide input to: • Open Space decisions on water rights purchases for instream flow use and management of Open Space riparian lands for stream water quality protection Collaborating with South Boulder Creek water users on improving instream flows Working with Denver Water on use of Gross Reservoir environmental pool South Boulder Creek – adequate flows to protect habitat Explore options for use of Utilities assets within a comprehensive program with Open Space for improved instream flows on South Boulder Creek to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and Will inform decisions on: Additional uses for lined Wittemyer Pond complex Use of Baseline Reservoir water released through new pipeline to South Boulder Creek for instream flow use and exchange to Gross Reservoir
DiNatale comments 14Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments benefits CBT or Windy Gap reuse water exchange to Gross Reservoir Non-Municipal Uses – Hydropower Development of additional hydropower to provide more clean, renewable energy and offset water costs to customers Evaluate environmentally and economically feasible hydroelectric sites within the water transmission system Consideration of hydropower at: Barker Reservoir Carter Lake Pipeline discharge Other sites as may become feasible Negotiation of new power sales agreements and disposition of RECs Watershed Management/ Source Water Quality Water quality and infrastructure protection through healthy forest and land use Collaborate with other entities to prepare a community watershed wildfire protection plan Implementation of fire risk identification and fire hazard mitigation measures as part of a comprehensive watershed protection program with Boulder County, Nederland, Eldora, USFS and others
DiNatale comments 15Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments management Continue working with Nederland, Eldora Ski area, Boulder County, CDOT and Forest Service on Middle Boulder Creek management Resolution of issues: WWTFs (Nederland and Eldora Ski area) BMPs for stormwater Septic systems Enforcement of animal regulations Response to Nederland’s potential proposal regarding boating on Barker Potential of hazardous spill or illegal dumping in Middle Boulder Creek watershed upstream of Nederalnd Wildfire contingency Complete source water emergency plan Timely implementation of emergency response Decisions on most effective wildfire recovery methods for watersheds Source water quality to Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility Implement measures to improve water quality and security vulnerability along the Boulder Feeder Canal and in the Boulder Reservoir basin Certain measures have been identified and additional measures may be needed depending on the outcome of the decision regarding the Carter Lake Pipeline NOTE REWORD ABOVE SENTENCE AND ADD A NOTATION ABOUT CONTINUED NEED FOR PROTECTION OF BFC EVEN IF CLP IS CONSTRUCTED
DiNatale comments 16Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments DUE TO REC USE AT RESERVOIR AND DOWNSTREAM USERS Facilities Improvement & CIP Infrastructure maintenance/ development Continue Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP and currently approved ROW acquisition and permitting Will inform decision on if/when to build Carter Lake Pipeline Develop a 20-year CIP with a comprehensive list of needs and projects Optimize timing for facility improvements to provide system reliability, water quality protection and safety and minimize impacts to water rates, including: o Prioritizing improvements to Barker system o Prioritizing improvements to watershed dams o Prioritizing improvements to Boulder Reservoir WTP facility source water quality
Quilling comments 17Boulder Source Water Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations Desired Outcomes: 4. Identify where CSG as a whole concurs with preliminary recommendations 5. Identify which recommendations are most important to CSG 6. Understand CSG reservations for those items not fully endorsed This table presents preliminary recommendations for inclusion in the BSWMP. The recommendations are organized by the four topics addressed by the CSG: water availability, non-municipal water uses, watershed management/water quality and facilities improvements in the CIP. Recommended studies and actions are based on technical analysis completed to date and the CSG’s input. The column labeled “Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making” suggests how studies might influence future decisions. In several cases, the CSG’s ideas are included as options that could be evaluated following the studies. Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments Continue to monitor developments on the Colorado River Compact; if state study is inadequate or does not occur, City moves ahead with its own study of West Slope climate change impacts and mitigation options Supports decision-making on interim balance between West Slope and East Slope water use and informs assumptions on West Slope source reliability for evaluations of need for any additional supplies for build-out Continue climate studies and related effects on Boulder’s source water, including new scenarios as appropriate given advances in GCM resolution Potential to identify thresholds of change for responding to climate-based alteration of water yields for input to decisions on development of new water supplies or capital improvements Water Availability Reliability of water in the future Continue efforts to protect yields of current Provides guidance to City engagement in water court When do the city’s efforts to protect rights become
Quilling comments 18Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments water rights proceedings. May influence decisions on capital expenditures to manage supply predatory? Numerous ditch companies and citizens have been adversely affected by city water policies. Do we need community oversight for dispute resolution? Accuracy of demand projections Update water demand projections based on BVCP and changes in demographic/water use projections; include updated estimates of savings from federal mandates, advances in fixture manufacture and the city’s water budget program Will inform decisions on water supply portfolio and municipal and non-municipal uses and support future water system modeling efforts Use of conserved water Update Water Conservation Study Define level of reliability resulting from updated demand projections, water conservation savings and supply projections Define level of increased reliability attained by exceeding current water conservation goals Ask Council if re-Will inform water conservation policies, decisions on desirability of additional conservation measures and decisions about trading increased reliability for non-municipal uses as a use of conservation savings above current goal level Our citizens believe they are receiving environmental benefit from their water conservation. What is that environmental benefit? We need new policy discussions in this area. We have energy credits, why not water credits?
Quilling comments 19Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments affirmation of current reliability criteria is desired Explore pros/cons of long-term commitment to other uses Future changes to the water rights portfolio Evaluate balance in reliance on East Slope and West Slope supplies (including suggestions from CSG) Determine if changing balance in reliance on existing East/West Slope supplies will cause need for new water supplies for build-out Will inform decisions on: Interruptible agricultural leases Groundwater use Acquisition of additional East Slope supplies and means of delivery to Boulder Sizing of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facilities Use of more CBT and Windy Gap water West Slope replacement supplies Methods to increase stream recharge Keeping Windy Gap units Repair and enhancement of storage capacity in Boulder Creek basin Continued use of Boulder’s exchange rights Non-Municipal Uses – Instream Flows North and Main Boulder Creeks – adequacy of flows to protect Update aquatic habitat studies to assess effectiveness of current program and evaluate Will provide input to evaluation of various measures to improve habitat, including suggestions Studies must include flushing flow regiments for reduced sediment impaction.
Quilling comments 20Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments habitat under existing instream flow program with CWCB options for providing enhanced habitat to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits presented in CSG memo Macroinvertabrate studies need to be conducted in conjunction with water quality data. Middle Boulder Creek – adequacy of releases from Barker Reservoir to protect habitat Monitoring of water rights calls and flow rates in creek to track water released by city from Barker to Orodell Will provide input for calls to water commission to protect Barker releases in lower stream segments and decisions regarding need for formal CWCB program on Middle Boulder Creek Assist Open Space in developing a recommended approach and organizational structure to provide instream flows in South Boulder Creek and through Open Space lands to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits Will provide input to: • Open Space decisions on water rights purchases for instream flow use and management of Open Space riparian lands for stream water quality protection Collaborating with South Boulder Creek water users on improving instream flows Working with Denver Water on use of Gross Reservoir environmental pool Please refer to the 12-06 memo from Ned Williams outlying the priorities for improved South Boulder Creek in-stream flows. This issue has been studied for the past four years and we are ready for real policy discussions and funding options with WRAB and City Council. South Boulder Creek – adequate flows to protect habitat Explore options for use of Utilities assets within a comprehensive program with Open Space for improved instream flows on South Boulder Creek Will inform decisions on: Additional uses for lined Wittemyer Pond complex Use of Baseline Reservoir water released through new pipeline to South See Above.
Quilling comments 21Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments to a level of detail sufficient to identify impacts, costs and benefits Boulder Creek for instream flow use and exchange to Gross Reservoir CBT or Windy Gap reuse water exchange to Gross Reservoir Non-Municipal Uses – Hydropower Development of additional hydropower to provide more clean, renewable energy and offset water costs to customers Evaluate environmentally and economically feasible hydroelectric sites within the water transmission system Consideration of hydropower at: Barker Reservoir Carter Lake Pipeline discharge Other sites as may become feasible Negotiation of new power sales agreements and disposition of RECs Watershed Management/ Source Water Quality Water quality and infrastructure protection through healthy forest and land use management Collaborate with other entities to prepare a community watershed wildfire protection plan Implementation of fire risk identification and fire hazard mitigation measures as part of a comprehensive watershed protection program with Boulder County, Nederland, Eldora, USFS and others An immediate study of the effects of Eldorado Springs effluent WTP flows in South Boulder Creek is critical. Current winter flows of 2-3 cfs or less mixed with new effluent will be a habitat disaster.
Quilling comments 22Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments Continue working with Nederland on Middle Boulder Creek management Resolution of issues: WWTF BMPs for stormwater Septic systems Enforcement of animal regulations Response to Nederland’s potential proposal regarding boating on Barker Bypassing Barker and putting Nederland effluent flows directly to Boulder Creek is an unacceptable option. Wildfire contingency Complete source water emergency plan Timely implementation of emergency response Decisions on most effective wildfire recovery methods for watersheds Source water quality to Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility Implement measures to improve water quality and security vulnerability along the Boulder Feeder Canal and in the Boulder Reservoir basin Certain measures have been identified and additional measures may be needed depending on the outcome of the decision regarding the Carter Lake Pipeline Certain measures should be implemented regardless of the outcome of the Carter Lake Pipeline decision. (ie: improved drainage from roadways and other drainage sources averting flows into the canal) Facilities Improvement & CIP Infrastructure maintenance/ development Continue Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP and currently approved ROW acquisition and permitting Will inform decision on if/when to build Carter Lake Pipeline I do not support this issue. It has already been determined not to be a high priority by the WRAB. I support their decision. Develop a 20-year CIP with a comprehensive list Optimize timing for facility improvements to provide The 20 year CIP list should include all
Quilling comments 23Category Issue Recommended Studies and Actions Relevance of Studies/Actions to Future Decision-Making Comments of needs and projects system reliability, water quality protection and safety and minimize impacts to water rates, including: o Prioritizing improvements to Barker system o Prioritizing improvements to watershed dams o Prioritizing improvements to Boulder Reservoir WTP facility source water quality projects, not just water delivery and treatment systems. Your list does not contain any of the recommended non-municipal projects detailed earlier.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 – Summary Plan
Final – April 2009 Appendix B
Appendix B
STAFF SURVEY SUMMARY
Executive Summary
City of Boulder
Source Water Master Plan Staff Survey Responses
December 2007
There were 49 respondents to the Source Water Master Plan survey from different divisions and
departments within the city. Staff were asked to identify the “top 3 to 5” most urgent needs
within the city’s source water system. Responses to that question are listed in the attached table.
The two most commonly mentioned, high priority capital improvements were:
• Construction of Carter Lake Pipeline to protect water quality and address the
security/vulnerability of Boulder’s Colorado-Big Thompson and Windy Gap water
sources and;
• Rehabilitation of the Barker Gravity Pipeline due to its age, poor condition and critical
position in Boulder’s water supply system.
Other high priority projects included:
• Boulder Reservoir management plan and BMPs along Boulder Feeder Canal;
• Improvements to security and vulnerability at Kossler Reservoir;
• Boulder Canyon Hydro improvements, and;
• Repairs to Lakewood Pipeline.
Common Themes
Many facilities are old and will likely need partial replacement or modernization in the next 10
years.
Water resources planning and the status of water rights are generally considered to be good. The
instream flow program could be evaluated and formalized in cooperation with other entities such
as Boulder County. Several comments involved improvements to upper Boulder Creek
watershed storage facilities such as improvements to Silver Lake Dam outlet works and repair of
Green Lake #2 Dam.
The security and vulnerability of facilities were frequently mentioned by staff along with the
following ideas:
• Staff are needed to patrol facilities;
• Capital improvements are needed for security, and;
• Security upgrades could potentially be combined with remote monitoring, recording, and
operation capabilities for outlying facilities.
Overall, facilities maintenance has improved in the last decade. There is still room for
improvement and a need for more funding and training for maintenance staff. Maintenance
planning, scheduling, and documentation should be improved.
Detailed responses were received regarding particular needs for most of Boulder’s source water
facilities. These responses will be documented in the SWMP.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
2
Source Water Projects Listed as “Top 3 to 5” Most Urgent by Group
Project
Water Quality /
Water Treatment
Utilities
Project
Engineering
Water
Resources
CAO /
CMO / Util
Admin
OSMP
/ P&R
Boulder Feeder Canal
Security & Water Quality /
Carter Lake Pipeline
11 2 2
Barker Gravity Line Repair 3 3 2
Boulder Reservoir Plan &
BMPs 4 1
Kossler Reservoir Security
& Vulnerability 2 1
Improve Boulder Canyon
Hydro 1 1 1
Repair Lakewood Pipeline 1 1 1
Wastewater & Septic
Tanks Affecting Barker 2
Move Barker Caretaker
Residence 1
Barker Dam Rehab 1
Repair Green Lake #2 1 1
Line Wittemyer Ponds 1
Silver Lake Dam Outlet
Works Improvements 1
Lakewood Reservoir Dam
Assessment/Improvements 1
Kossler Reservoir Dam,
Valving and Intake
Improvements
1 1
N. Boulder Creek Water
Quality Protection 1
Ordinance specifically
requiring Silver Lake
Watershed Closure
1
Clarify Silver Lake
Reservoir Ownership 1
Rehab / Expansion of
Existing Watershed
Reservoirs
1
Energy efficiency &
production via hydropower 1
Retention of RECs 1
Diligent management of
easements 1
Instream Flows on S.
Boulder Creek 1
Better Control &
Distribution of Water
Pressure
1
Improve Water Portfolio to
Address Growth & Climate
Change
1
Note: The Water Quality & Water Treatment work groups provided additional responses to the survey that
are not included here. Responses related to treatment plant needs are not included, since these needs
are addressed through the treated water master planning process.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
3
Detailed Summary
The survey responses are summarized below. Some responses have been combined to avoid
repetition. In some cases, survey respondents were contacted to provide additional explanation.
Key words are highlighted in blue text.
Sections include:
A) Facilities Condition
B) Operations, Maintenance, and Staffing
C) Water Rights Yields and Storage
D) Water Use
E) Watershed / Land Management / Source Water Quality Protection
A. Facilities Condition
North Boulder Creek Facilities
Green Lake #1 has an inoperable outlet valve.
Green Lake #2 has a filling restriction due to structural damage.
There is seepage from Albion dam and spalling on the downstream face of the dam. This is not
structural damage; it could be repaired with grout or membrane Albion Reservoir needs a gage.
There is spalled concrete on the Island Lake splash wall. It could be repaired with grout or by
replacing the concrete).
The Silver Lake Dam outlet valves should be evaluated to determine their condition and possibly
repaired / updated.
Silver Lake Hydro needs a SCADA upgrade and the PLCs should be changed to the same type as
water treatment plants have.
The Silver Lake Diversion (North Boulder Creek diversion into Silver Lake Pipeline) ices at
night in the winter and the pressure transducer for flow doesn’t work, The instrumentation needs
better protection from the environment (there is potential for a small wind turbine or other back-
up for solar heaters). Larger storage capacity would provide a cushion for hydro operations when
there isn’t any water for hydro and would hold debris.
The Silver Lake caretaker residence and bunkhouse need new metal roofs.
The North Boulder Creek diversion to Lakewood Reservoir and pressure transducer for flow ice
up sometimes.
The Lakewood Reservoir outlet works have been redone, but the dam’s structure/condition may
need to be assessed. Lakewood Reservoir has limited security. It could use cameras on the hydro
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
4
building doors and pipe inlet. The reservoir inlet to Lakewood Pipeline is located near the shore,
and water quality can be affected by shoreline influences such as storm runoff. The volume is not
large enough to allow for settling after storm events and spring runoff or dilution for security
purposes. It could be dredged for more capacity.
Como Creek can cause high turbidity and other water quality issues in the Lakewood system.
Earlier this year, water was being diverted from Como Creek when a private landowner
unexpectedly was using heavy equipment in the pond system thus releasing very highly turbid
water that was then taken into Lakewood Reservoir. Historical mines may also affect the quality
of this source. The North Boulder Creek and Como Creek diversion structures do not provide
enough flexibility to deal with upstream effects. It also shows the great importance of
notification of the city by that land owner whenever a planned activity could impact the city's
source water.
The management plan for Caribou Ranch doesn’t sufficiently protect water quality entering
Lakewood Reservoir (inadequate mitigation identified, insufficient forecasting and planning).
Source water quality issues could potentially worsen with future development and recreation
uses. The city needs to monitor its easements to ensure protection of source water, continue to
coordinate with the county and monitor pest management techniques and use of chemicals.
Lakewood Pipeline substandard welds and ongoing monitoring needs are concerns.
Communication of inspection results to staff could be helpful in terms of confidence in the
system. It may be necessary to reline and rebuild parts of the pipeline. Also, there are issues
with the flow meter on the downstream (Betasso) side and communication problems /
discrepancy between two flow meters. There is therefore no reliable way to determine minor
leaks.
Middle Boulder Creek / Barker
The Skyscraper Reservoir outlet valve is inoperable and has a seepage problem Repairs might
be made with a membrane on the upstream face of the dam or grout.
Barker Reservoir has a plan in place to manage and improve supply. The outlet works need an
overhaul along with provisions for remote operation and monitoring capability. This could
potentially be implemented for the hydro plant too. The city should add capability to record flow
rates through Barker Gravity Line and into Boulder Creek. Work on the Barker water system
should be implemented as defined in the 2008-2013 CIP.
There are several water quality concerns:
• Receiving Nederland’s wastewater will become more of a problem with emerging
contaminants becoming of more importance. Possible solutions are to move the outfall
downstream of the Barker Gravity Line inlet or improve the wastewater treatment plant. A
Lewis study showed that effluent can short circuit to the Barker Gravity Line under certain
conditions. Pathogen and nutrient removal upgrades are planned.
• Urban runoff from Nederland could be a problem, and there were several suggestions for
improvement of facilities surrounding the reservoir. The city doesn’t own the land around
Barker Reservoir, so better coordination with Nederland regarding source water protection,
such as intergovernmental agreement(s) and/or a watershed manager, is needed. A desire was
expressed to develop some facilities at the west end of Barker consistent with Nederland’s
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
5
downtown redevelopment goals. The new Nederland skate park/facilities have been a good
change.
• There is a potential for contamination from septic systems..
• Security is poor.
• The caretaker’s house is too far from the dam. Rent should be eliminated.
The 100-year-old Barker Gravity Pipeline is in poor condition and has a high potential for failure
which could limit supplies during critical times. The entire length should be replaced, except for
those sections that were recently replaced. The pipeline could use a leak detection system.
Access points are not secure.
The intake from Kossler Reservoir to Boulder Canyon Penstock is in poor condition and is a
vulnerable access point. The dam needs refacing. It's heavily damaged from freeze/thawing.
The small reservoir volume is not sufficient for settling or dilution of contaminants from the
watershed or an attack, and there is no way for source water to bypass the reservoir if it is
contaminated.
Boulder Canyon Hydro is very old, inefficient, not up to modern standards, and could be
considered dangerous. A unit could be replaced when the B unit is retired in 2009-10. Eventual
replacement of one of the units with a modern hydroelectric unit could have benefits in greater
power production and improved safety. A bypass valve is needed to continue to release instream
flows during hydro outages. Exemption from FERC permitting is being pursued.
A section of the Betasso Penstock from Boulder Canyon Penstock to Betasso Hydro is in the
process of being replaced. This will resolve its inadequate small size and resulting hydro
generation limitations.
Boulder Reservoir System
Boulder Reservoir needs plans for recreation management, wildlife, weed management, bank
stabilization, and invasive species (boat washing station). Planning should be coordinated with
Parks and Recreation and the Boulder Reservoir Watershed Management Group. Boulder
Reservoir source water can have taste and odor issues (low DO, manganese) and requires more
chemicals for treatment than water from the Boulder Feeder Canal. Boulder Reservoir is not
designed or sited well for drinking water supply due to poor soils, shallow depth, large surface
area and increasing recreation use. The land surrounding the reservoir is not managed by the
Utilities Division.
Boulder Feeder Canal has numerous water quality issues because it is open, and there were many
suggestions to supplement the canal with a pipeline (discussed in more detail in the Water
Quality section, below) or a partial pipeline (under roadways, to protect from outfalls and to
eliminate access for recreational activities). Source water concerns include algae, weeds,
turbidity, contaminated runoff into the canal and security. The diversion structure to the water
treatment plant cannot always meet demands at the WTP and gets clogged with weeds. NCWCD
deliveries are getting more and more variable as fewer farmers are calling for water. The city
should work with NCWCD to discontinue pesticide use on the canal banks and adjoining
properties. Stormwater BMPs should be installed.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
6
Farmers Ditch does not have enough capacity for Utilities to get its share. Suggestions to line
the canal, put in pipe and limit ditch users to their share were made. It could also be a security
risk, but it does have the benefit of providing for dilution in Boulder Reservoir.
B. Operations, Maintenance, and Staffing
Utilities is moving from a reactive mode to a proactive maintenance mode gradually as facilities
have been updated and fewer demands are placed on staff for keeping up with the maintenance
backlog from old facilities. The city still seems to be lacking resources in terms of people,
training and tools to really be following a maintenance plan similar to a car’s maintenance
schedule. Most facilities are informally inspected. More documentation of formal inspections
could be provided. Hydro facilities have a plan for regular maintenance, but other facilities may
not. The city should develop standard operating procedures for all facilities. A raw water pipe
inspection program is needed.
Maintenance staff is underpaid and undertrained, which affects the quality of personnel that can
be retained. The city needs experienced and well-trained technical staff who can maintain the
more technical equipment and computer systems that have been and are being added to the
system. In order to retain experienced technical staff, the city needs to meet industry-wide
salaries and benefits. Staff with daily interaction with facilities know what problems are
developing, but information is not always conveyed to others so adequate budgets can be
developed.
It is not clear which group is responsible for “stranded facilities” like air relief vaults and the raw
water fire systems.
Facilities could be improved to allow remote operation and monitoring. All facilities should be
considered from this standpoint. There are communication needs including fiber back-up for
Betasso WTP to some hydros and reservoirs to increase reliable operations and security. A
means to identifying leaks in Lakewood Pipeline is needed.
The city should look into software to help track maintenance schedules and activities and look
into outside help to manage and do the maintenance. A consultant(s) to help coordinate
maintenance and a contractor(s) to help get it done may be needed. The city should prepare a
formal annual report based on inspection of facilities condition. The report could be used to
support a scheduled maintenance program.
Federal regulations, climate change, and population increase all result in an increased burden on
existing Utilities Staff. The water resources and water quality groups may be understaffed. The
water resources group’s responsibilities will only be increasing with global warming and
increased federal treatment requirements. Water resources could use administrative support in
the areas of document production and basic project support. There should be a point person
within the city for coordination with Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District concerning
Carter Lake Pipeline and interim management of Boulder Feeder Canal. Another water
resources specialist and/or project manager may be needed to deal with increased water
accounting needs, on-going maintenance tracking, and increased public interest in water
supplies. Another full time employee may be needed (move from 1 to 2) for the conservation
program.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
7
A Utilities GIS person who is able to focus on utility GIS analysis and mapping is needed. GIS
data on creeks and ditches should be updated and merged with OSMP files, which are
maintained separately.
C) Water Rights Yields and Storage
The city generally has sufficient water for build-out conditions (assuming there is low growth
potential in the service area), but drought and climate change result in some uncertainty. The city
is on the cutting edge in terms of climate change planning, working with NOAA and
Hydrosphere. Some staff are not familiar with the city’s efforts regarding drought protection and
climate change simulation.
The reliability criteria are adequate, but the city needs to make them easier to convey and
understand.
The city needs to increase storage space in the upper watershed. The Green Lake No. 2 dam
restriction reduces water supply storage.
Wittemyer Ponds could be lined for storage of reusable water.
The technical, biological basis for supporting instream flow in Boulder Creek is not clear. Since
the instream flow water rights were established before the city purchased Barker, an update of
the biological evaluation seems appropriate. This would help to determine if instream rights are
addressing the correct aquatic ecosystem goals and support adjusting or maintaining the currently
dedicated instream flow rights. The instream flow program on North and Middle Boulder Creeks
is not fully developed. Utilities should coordinate with OSMP, Parks and Recreation, and the
community in continuing to develop goals and formalizing the instream flow program. The city
should work with the state to reestablish the gaging station at Sherwood Creek because it is
difficult to estimate flows below Lakewood Reservoir for the instream flow program in North
Boulder Creek. Some of the existing gaging devices around Lakewood Reservoir don’t measure
flow well below 1 or 2 cfs. The city should do additional fisheries studies to document
improvements from the North and Middle Boulder Creek instream flow programs.
Instream flow water rights for South Boulder Creek should be considered. This might be
challenging given that Utilities’ water rights are on Boulder Creek. The city should consider
expansion of Gross Reservoir and coordinate with Louisville, Lafayette, Denver Water and
CDOT as US Highway 36 improvements go forward. A South Boulder Creek management
group should be established. OSMP should lead effort on South Boulder Creek.
The city needs to make conditional water rights (Windy Gap) absolute. The city should use
North Boulder Farmers and Lower Boulder rights to make the exchange absolute. The city
should use the 1999 Barker storage right and make it absolute. The city should store more water
in Boulder Reservoir.
The city should decide if the Park Reservoir site will be necessary for future municipal water
supply or not. The city could potentially pursue a land trade with USFS for Barker Gravity Line
land or pursue selling it to the county to create contiguous open space.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
8
An increase in capacity of Farmer’s Ditch to carry city foreign water, lining of the ditch and
regulation of ditch users to limit them to their share should be considered.
The Silver Lake Reservoir / Silver Lake Ditch company dispute should be resolved.
D) Water Use
The city needs to identify a contractual or institutional method for maintaining irrigation ditches
within the context of their varied ownerships with ditch riders retiring. There could be issues
with safety, water loss and potential flooding/piping. The city should consider lining ditches to
increase conveyance capacity.
Legal and illegal discharges to ditches occur. There may be a need to reconfigure some drainages
if unwanted discharges and stormwater are entering source water ditches. Trash racks and
various grates, railings, fences etc. may be necessary safety elements where ditches run through
publicly accessible land.
Anderson Ditch needs improvements.
Parks and Recreation would like to utilize raw water irrigation in more parks, but delivery
systems are not in place for many parks. The complex pumps required to deliver the water and
the technical, costly maintenance requirements are challenging for Parks and Recreation.
Moisture sensors should be integrated with the raw water irrigation systems. Current funding is
not adequate for maintaining or expanding the raw water system. Troubleshooting should be
done on a cyclical basis, but funding is not available. The water utility may have the expertise to
help in design, installation, and maintenance for the city’s park pumping system. The city should
explore the idea of a raw water utility for large irrigation users.
The city should identify remaining park sites that are suitable for raw water irrigation and pursue
implementation. Stazio Ballfields could be converted to raw water irrigation if Jones and
Donnelly Ditch water rights are purchased. Also, Pleasant View Soccer Fields and Elks Club
park could get supplemental Farmers Ditch water.
Over the past two years, Parks managers have not been able to get monthly water use reports
relevant to metered parkland. In the past, these reports were a very useful tool in our efforts to be
efficient, effective and conservative in our park water use efforts.
The current hydro program is good but could do more. Energy efficiency and production could
be improved. The revenue that hydros produce should go back into the hydro system for updates
and operator education and training. Monthly hydro tests to earn capacity payments from Xcel
compromise water treatment and stress the distribution system. It is paramount that we retain
ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) in the future as the contracts for the hydro
facilities with Xcel come up for renewal. Instream flows need to be balanced with hydro needs.
Boulder's conservation program is probably the best in the State of Colorado, with the rebate
program, specific water budgets based on irrigable areas and city residents who possess a good
conservation ethic. Conservation education should stress the real gains of water conservation,
which (without more storage) is longevity of facilities, drought protection, and instream flows
(also more stored water during certain times of year). The conservation program should support
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
9
more sustainable landscapes, not turf (should coordinate with Parks, Forestry, Office of
Environmental Affairs, FAM and Planning & Development Services in these discussions). We
absolutely need to require, not just encourage, water conservation. The habit of conservation is
the most responsible method for achieving water conservation.
There is a need to work more with the irrigation community to help them understand the new
water budget rate structure (which can be confusing) and ways that they can improve their water
use efficiency. The city could try to reach small to mid-size businesses with water audits. There
have been complaints that water audits don’t provide useful information. Water conservation
staff could develop specific projects to implement and have consistent communication with other
city staff. Water conservation staff could work with Planning and Development Services and
Parks to implement conservation goals.
The water conservation plan should be updated every 2 to 5 years to reflect the new water budget
rate structure and incorporate anything else new.
Drought planning is good, but Parks and Recreation should have a plan for which areas should
be cut off of water first in a drought.
The city doesn't have any policy on dewatering for residential development. The effect of this
has been to reduce the groundwater table in some areas with wells or seepage water rights. The
indirect effect has been to lose some wetlands (specifically in the Norwood/19th St. area).
E) Watershed / Land Management / Source Water Quality Protection
Internal source water quality protection goals need to be clearly defined, communicated broadly
and reviewed and revised at least annually. A precautionary principle in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive plan is needed to protect water quality and security of supplies. Additional
support from city management may be needed to more strictly enforce the source water
protection program.
The utility has inconsistent public access and management policies (no access in Silver Lake
Watershed and contact recreation in Boulder Reservoir).
Keep Silver Lake Watershed closed, through an ordinance that addresses this land specifically,
not just Utilities property.
The utility should have management and planning documents for all properties owned. Utilities
should consider hiring an integrated pest management (IPM) coordinator to manage Utilities'
owned land. A full time IPM coordinator could develop projects year-round and manage the
temporary Greenways Crew. Continuity of having a year-round coordinator rather than a
temporary crew leader will lead to more effective management of Utilities properties
The city could benefit from more interaction with the Boulder Creek watershed initiative.
Speakers from the utility could reach interested members of the public at the forums.
The Boulder County Health Department should tighten septic system regulations. Jefferson
County is a good model.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan
Survey Results Summary
10
More coordination with Parks and Recreation is needed for implementing stormwater BMPs in
locations tributary to the source water system.
Wildfire poses a risk for water quality which is compounded with beetle kill. A plan for beetle
kill should be in place. Define the wildfire risk in the Silver Lake Watershed. Reduce wildfire
risk in the watershed above Barker Reservoir. Protocols for security and water quality at Kossler
Reservoir should be developed with the fire district. The city should cut trees around pipelines
to reduce wildfire risk. The city should coordinate with USFS, Colorado State FS, and Boulder
County concerning wildfire risk reduction.
Additional funds are needed to enhance security of source waters. This includes capital costs for
equipment and possibly new staff to address security issues and do patrols. The city should
consider a full time security staff that, in part, would focus on source water security. An
inspection/maintenance/security crew is needed for all water pipes and the related equipment on
them. The city needs to develop a notification process and emergency response protocols.