5B - Recommendation to City Council concerning the Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) and approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensiv...an (BVCP) Source Water Master Plan Summary CITY OF BOULDER
P1,ANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 19, 2009
AGENDA TITLE:
Public I Tearing and consideration of:
1. A recommendation to City Council concerning t:he Source Water Master Plan and
2. Approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Source Water Master
Plan Summary.
REQUESTING DEPARTMEN'T':
P 1 aru ri n~ D ~artment
Ruth VleHeyser, Executive Director for Community Planning
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Chris Mcsc}~uk, PIanner
Public Works Utilities Division
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
I3ob I-Iarberg, Utilities Project Management Coordinator
Carol Illinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator
1<im Hutton, Water Resources Specialist
Joe "I'addeucci, Utilities Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUM'VIARY:
The purpose of this meeting is to review the Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) and provide a
recommendation to City Council and approve the BVCP Source Water Master flan Summary.
The SWMP is a comprehensive analysis of the city's raw water resources and facilities and is
intended to guide future source water utility decisions. "['he SWMP serves to update and
supplement the 1988 Raw Water Master plan. The SWMP provides updated data, analysis of
alternatives, and a recommended improvements plan including costs and project prioritization.
The document is divided into two volumes: Volume I is the summary overview of the plan and
funding. Volume II includes significant detail and analysis, as well as assembly of critical system
information.
The SWMP identifies a recommended Capital Improvements Program (CIP) project list for
source water facility improvements for the next 20 years. 't'his project List includes 34 capital and
13 minor improvement projects which are organized into three categories (Priority I, Priority 2,
and Priority 3). The capital projects range in cost from $90,000 to $20,OOO,OOU, and the minor
projects are evnsidered to be under $50,000 each_ The water utility fund does not have adequate
funding to construct all the improvements identified in the recommended projects list, but the
AGENDA ITEM # SR I'a~c 1
improvements are coded according to the city's business plan model of fiscally constrained plan,
action plan, and vi:Sion plan. While fi.rnding priorities are identified in the plan, changes and
opportunities will arise over time and influence the priority of projects. The list of identified
projects is reviewed annually as part of the city's budget process related to priorities and
availability of funding.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides a general statement of the
community's long-teen desired future. Departmental and system master plans take the goals and
policies of the BVCP and provide specific guidance for delivering city services. Master plans
establish detailed policies, priorities, service standards, facility and system needs and capital
budgeting for the delivery of services.
The Planning Board's role in reviewing master plans is to look for consistency with the BVCP
goals and policies before the plans are considered by the City Council. Because of its role in
reviewing the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the Planning Board also reviews master
plans to ensure that they identify needed improvements and financial strategies to meet adopted
service standards. Master plans provide a bridge between the Comprehensive Plan, service
delivery, future capital needs, and the CIP. The questions that are the focus of the Board's
review are:
1. Is the master plan consistent with the goals, policies, and growth projections of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
2. Does the Master Plan outline the E3VCP Service Standards and a plan to meet them into
the future'?
3. Uoes the plan describe and assess capital needs and a funding plan for them?
~~aff recornrnends that the Planning Board recommend acceptance of the Source Water Master
Plan and approve the revisions to the BVCP Source Water Master Plan Summary. After the
Planning Board's review of the Source Water Master Plan, the document will be forwarded to
City Council for its consideration. The Planning Board's recommendations will be included in
the staff memorandum. The City Council will consider acceptance of the plan this spring.
Revisions to the BVCP Master Plan and Program Summaries are included in the BVCP
following acceptance of plans by City Council.
Attachment A contains the Source Water Master Plan Volume 1. Attachment B contains
revisions to the BVCP Source Watc;r Master Plan Surmnary.
The appendices to Volume I, and all of Volume lI may be found electronically at
http://www.boulderwater.net anti click on "projects and programs."
BACI{GROL"NI) AND SOtiRCr WATER MAST'F.R PLAN OVI+:RVIIH~W
Boulder's raw 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, 1 1,700 acre-feet of storage in Barker Reservoir on Middle
Boulder Creek, and has use of up to 8,500 acre-feet of storage space in Boulder Reservoir.
Boulder's two water treatment facilities are the Betasso Water Treatment: hacility (WTF), with
approximately 45 million gallons per day (MGD) of treatment capacity and the Boulder
AGENDA iTEM_# 513 Page 2
Reservoir WTF at about 16 MGD. The city operates eight hydroelectric (hydro) 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 fouz- 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 need 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 from both the local I3oulder Creek basin and from tributaries of the Colorado
River. 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. I3oulder also owns rights to
delivery of water tram the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT) and the Windy Gap Nroject.
Both of these projects divert water from the western slope and deliver it through the C;BT
facilities, which are operated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Like most western communities, Boulder depends on stored water most of the year. High
streamflows from melting snow pack occur for only a few spt-ing 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. "fhe
city owns seven reservoirs and several natuz-al lakes in the headwaters of the North Boulder
Creek basin within the Silver Lake Watershed. In addition, the city owns Boulder Keservoir
northeast of I3oulder and the Barker Reservoir facilities on Middle I3oulder Creek.
Water provided by the city serves a variety of purposes ranging from those uses which require an
assured supply such as drinking water and firefighting, to those uses which can tolerate
occasional restrictions, such as lawn irrigation and car washing. It is recognized that no
municipal water supply can ever be 100 percent reliable against all risk factors and that the
economic and environmental opportunity costs of reducing the risks of occasional water
shortages are significant- The reliability standards for the city's municipal water supply that were
adopted by City Council in 1989 are:
(a) 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 shall
make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence intervals vf'up
tv 1,000 years.
(b) For the increzY~ent of water use needed to provide continued viability of outdoor lams and
gardens, the city shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with
occurrence intervals of up to 100 years.
(e) For the increment of water needed to fully satisfy~all municipal water needs, the city shall
AGENDA ITEM fl' SB Page 3
make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence intervals of up
to 20 years.
The SWMP anticipates that the city will maintain a diversity of water supply sources (both
eastern and western slope sources) in order to hedge against droughts and increase water supply
reliability. It includes an assessment ofcur-rent climate change scenarios in teens of projected
effects on the city's water supplies (SWMP Vol. I, page 15}. The master plan also identifies
multiple-purpose uses for the city's municipal raw water supplies. In addition to residential and
commercial consumptive uses, the city's raw water supply has been used for maintaining
stream#low and enhancing stream habitat in Boulder Creek and its tributaries and for leasing to
downstream agricultural and recreational users (SWMP Vol. 1, page 17).
About 20 years have passed since the city's last major source water master planning effort took
place. The current SWMP is therefore a major update in planning for the source water system.
The SWMP has focused on a number of di#Terent objectives:
1. Compile descriptive background information for the assets and resources that coznprisc
the city's source water system;
2. Review and update water use statistics and water rights yields;
3. Document policies that affect source water system development, use and management;
4. Define current and emerging issues pertaining to the city's source water assets, facilities
and resources;
5. Review cun•ent operations and maintenance practices;
6. Develop recommendations for future studies and improvements, and;
7. Provide general budgeting information and project prioritization to guide development of
the 20-year Capital [mprovcments Program.
The SWMP presents facilities improvements and studies and plans to guide the city's source
water management for the next 20 years, including evaluating costs and benefits and the timing
of expenditures. The Water Resources Advisory Board and the SWMP Community Study Group
(CSG) both. recommended that the Capital Improvements Plan be expanded to a 20-year period
to allow for evaluation of proposed near-teen expenditures against long-term capital project
needs, timing of expenditures and impacts to water rates.
Facilities improvements including capital improvement projects and minor projects (costing less
than $50,000) are assigned priorities in tams of timing based upon facility condition and how
important the facility is to the water supply system. Priority 1 projects (13 capital improvement
and 6 minor projects) should be completed in the next 6 years. These projects represent a fiscally
constrained business plan. Priority 2 projects, representing the action plan scenario, are likely to
be completed within the next 7-20 years. There are 15 capital improvement and 7 minor Priority
2 projects. Priority 3 projects (6 capital improvement projects) comprise the vision plan. They
would be completed sometime after the 20-year planning period, but could be completed sooner
if additional funding becomes available. 1'he city would follow its usual project planning and
approval process for the individual projects as they are funded.
Recommended studies and plans identify in#~u-rnation that will be needed for future source water
management decisions. The SVl/MP recommends 14 Priority 1 and 5 Priority 2 on-going or
proposed studies and programs
AGENDA ITEM tt SB Pale 4
The SWMP document itself does not propose policy changes as these: will reciuire specific
approval by the City Council or the City Manager and designated staff as appropriate. Previously
existing policies will continue to guide system operation and management until water utitity staff
brings spedfic policy change recommendations to City Council. Many of the items described as
studies and plans in the SWMP may have eventual policy implications following in-depth
evaluation.
STAFr RECOMMLNDA'1'IO1V:
Staff recornrncnds that the Planning Board:
1. Recommend that the City Council accept the Source Water Master Plan, and
2. Approve the proposed changes to the RVCP Source Water Master Plan Summary.
PUBLIC PRC)CESS, 1' H;h.DBACK & AUVISOi2Y BOARD I2EVIEVV:
Preparation of the SWMP was guided by tlic SWMP (:SCE, which 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 met four times from October 2007-February 2008 to
address water availability, water use, watershed management and t}ze Capital Improvements
Program and proposed projects. The meetings were open to the public. Both the Water
Resources Advisory Board (WIZAI3) and City Council appointed liaisons to the CSG. The CSC
developed a summary memo to convey to city staff the issues related to the city's source water
system that were identified by the group and to provide suggestions concealing actions for
addressing those issues.
The SWMP has its own project Web page at www.boulderwater.net including a comment and
question submittal feature.
Boulder's City Council held a Study Session on the SWMP on September 23, 2008. The
SWMP was discussed in context with other topics under consideration by City Council,
including the legislative agenda, plant investment fees and the 200) budget.
The SWMP was reviewed by the internal city master plan review group in November 2008.
The WRAI3 was provided with updates on the SWMP by city staff~at its regular.rncetings in July,
August, October and November 2008. WRAI3 discussed the SWMP at its November and
December 2008 meetings and on January 12, 2009, voted unanimously to recommend that City
Council accept the plan.
A member of the public expressed concern to the city manager about groundwater protection and
has inquired about how the SWMP covers this topic. In response, the city manager mentioned
the future studies discussed in the SWMP that among other things recommend evaluating
groundwater as a potential source. -The city manager also mentioned the upcoming planning
board and city council meetings as a further opportunity to provide feedback.
AGENDA ITEM SB P~~e 5
ANALYSIS:
I. is the master plan consistent with the goals, policies, and growth projections of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan?
Staff considers that the SWMP is consistent with the goals, policies, and growth projections
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the following BVCP policies are
most relevant to the SWMP:
• Principles of Environmental Sustainability (1.02)
• Agricultural Land (2.09)
• Protection of Water Quality (4.26)
• Water Resource Planning (4.27) ,
• Water Acquisition (4.28)
• Drinking Water (4.29)
• Stonn Water (4.30)
• Minimum blow Program (4.3 l )
• Uroundwater (4.32)
1.U2 Principles of Environmeutal S~istainability.
'there are limits to the capacity of the biosphere to support the life of human beings at current
levels of consumption and pollution. "Iliere are limits to the land and soil available for food
production, to available water, to resources such as trees, fish and wildlife, to industrial
resources like oil and metals, and to the ability of nature to absorb our waste.
With this in mind, the city anti county acknowledge the importance of natural capital, which can
be kept at healthy levels for the tong term only when we are able to do the following:
a) Renewable resources should not be used faster than they are recharged or replenished by the
environment.
b) Non-renewable resources should be used with the greatest care and efficiency, and some of
those should he used to develop renewable: replacements.
c) Waste should not be dumped into nature any faster than nature can absorb it.
The Sustainability policies describe that the city will strive to create a healthy, vibrant and
sustainable community for fixture generation in various ways, including master planning efforts.
The SWMP supports the principles of environmental Sustainability described in BVCP Policy
1.02 in a number of ways as follows:
• By recognizing the adopted reliability criteria and rccrnrnncnding further clarification of
the criteria;
¦ By recommending continued evaluation of conservation through updating supply and
demand related studies;
• Tlu•ough recommendations aimed at continued support of the city hydroelectric power
generation program; and
• Through recommended maintenance and rehabilitation of critical infrastructure facilities.
The SWMP Supports sustainable management of the city's source waters so that the city can
supply the quantity and quality of water required to meet the city's needs at buildout population
and employment levels through drought periods without violating the adopted reliability criteria
AGENDA I'I'IsM # SB Pa2e 6
(SWMP Vol. 1, pages 30-31). `I'fte adopted reliability criteria recognize that it is not cost-
effeciive to design a system to meet unrestricted water demand in the face of any and all
droughts. 'fhe costs of such a system would be socially unacceptable in terms of water rates and
environmental impacts due to water development as compared to the inconveniences and minor
damages that would result from occasional demand reductions in response to droughts. The
reliability criteria define the community's preferences in terms of the level of water service to be
sustained by specifying the frequency at which several levels of water shortages maybe expected
to occur. The SWMP recommends that the city revisit the water supply reliability criteria to
either reaffirm or moth fy them based on current public preferences.
The city's water conservation policies and goals further contribute to system sustainability by
reducing municipal water demand which prevents or delays the need to expand or upgrade the
source water system. The SWMP reco~~unends that water demand projections be updated in
conjunction with water conservation and drought plans to provide an accurate view of water
supply reliability in terms of current levels of conservation.
Hydroelectric power generation within the city's source water system provides renewable energy
as well as a significant source of revenue to the water utility. prom 1985, when the city's first
hydroelectric facility began production, through 2007, the city generated a total of over 425
million kilowatt hours of hydroelectricity, which displaced the need to consume over 200,000
tons of coal. from 200] through 2007, revenue from the sale of hydroelectricity has a~unually
offset from $1.3 million to $19 million of water utility costs that would otherwise have to be
paid by water users through higher water rates. The SWMP recommends that the city continue
to evaluate environmentally and economically feasible hydroelectric opportunities within the
water transmission system.
Irnpletnentation of infrastnteture maintenance programs helps to ensure that the city has access to
the maximum amount of water available under the city's water rights for use by the city. Total
system losses for the city's source water system are estimated to be about 8% which is similar to
or less than other municipalities in the region. By eliminating excess leakage in source water
storage and transmission infrastructure, water that was previously lost to the city becomes
available for use. The SWMP recommends maintenance pro~-ams for dams, reservoirs and
pipelines to control water losses. The recommended on-going repairs to the Barker Gravity
Pipeline will significantly reduce losses of Middle Boulder (:reek watershed supplies.
2.09 Agriculturall,and.
The city and county will encourage the preservation and sustainable use of agricultural lands as a
current and renewable source of both food and fuel and Ior their contribution to cultural,
environmental and economic diversity. The city arnd county will encourage the protection oI'
significant agricultural areas and related water supplies and facilities, including the historic and
existing ditch systems, through a variety of means, which may include public acquisition, land
use plaruning, and sale or lease of water for agricultural use_ (See Policy 5.13 Role of
Agriculture.)
Non-municipal water use was one of the subjects that SWMP Community Study Group
considered in detail. The SWMP looks in detail at current and potential "non-municipal water
uses" (SWMP Vol. 1, Section 5) including leasing of water not needed to rncet municipal
demands to agricultural interests. On a year to year basis, the city leases water to various
AC.ENllA ITEM # SB Page 7
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 corrtmitrnents. The city's leasing policy has been to meet the needs of irrigators in
District 6 first, then lease any additional water to other users. From 2001 through 2007, the city
provided a total of approximately l 3,300 acre-feet of water to agricultural lessees. Leases in
individual years vary widely based on hydrologic conditions and ranged from 0 acre-feet in 2002
to 4100 acre-feet in 2007. The SWMP is consistent with the 13VCP Policy 2.09 through its
recommendations that the city study the costs and benefits of long-term commitments of water to
non-municipal uses such as agricultural leasing (other non-municipal uses include instream
flows, environmental enhancements, recreation) to ensure the city is achieving the appropriate
balance among potential uses.
4.2G Protection of Water Quality.
Water duality is a critical health, economic and aesthetic concern. The city and county will
protect, maintain and improve water quality within the Boulder Creek basin and Boulder Valley
watersheds as a necessary component of cxistuig ecosystems and as a critical resource for the
human conununity. The city and county will seek to reduce point and nonpoint sources of
pollutants. Special emphasis will be placed on regional ef'foris such as watershed planning and
protection.
The SWMP is consistent with BVCP Policy 4.26 through its recommendations that the city
develop source water protection policy or goals to actively pursue protection of the city's source
water quality (SWMP Vol. I, page 14}. Specifically, issues to be addressed include wildland fire
hazard mitigative, point and non-point source pollution and nuisance aquatic species. "I'he plan
recommends collaboration with Nederland, Eldora Ski Area, Boulder County, CDOT and State
and US Forest Services to develop land management strategies to protect Boulder Creek source
water quality and support for the Town of Nederiand's efl~~rts to upgrade its wastewater
treatment facility and cotulect septic systems to the town's wastewater system. For Boulder
Reservoir water supplies, the plan recommends that the city support Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District and other CBT water users in their development of source water protection
strategies, as well as working with local drainage area stakeholders to address Boulder Reservoir
and Boulder Feeder Canal water quality concerns.
4.27 Water Kesource Ptanuinh.
'I71e city and county will work together and with other governmental agencies to develop and
implement appropriate water quality standards, water resource allocations, and water quality
protection programs. Water resource planning efforts will include such things as water quality
master platming, surface and ground water conservation, and evaluation of pollutant sources.
"l~hc SWMP will further implement BVCP Policy 4.27 through its recommendations for a variety
of studies and programs to address planning concerns (SWMP Vol. I, Section 6), including:
• Protecting the yield from existing water rights to ensure the city's ability to continue
to meet the water supply reliability criteria;
• Implementing water management and system operations measures to enhance source
water system flexibility, provide for emergency response planning and rneet system
maintenance and staffing needs;
• Establishing priorities among non-municipal water uses;
• Watershed management activities to protect the quality of the city's source waters for
drinking water safety, keeping water treatment costs tv minimum, maintaining
AGENDA ITEM # SR Pace 8
functionality of facilities and enhancing habitat, and;
• Completing repairs, improvements,"modifications and upgrades to existing facilities
according to a prioritised plan developed to address budget and capital improvement
plan requirements and i?npacts to water rates.
A separate but parallel planning effort, the Water Quality Strategic Plan, is in process to support
city and regional water quality protection and enhancement. The strategic plan addresses water
quality issues for all city water resources, including wastewater, stormwater, grow~dwater, water
conservation, watershed outreach, recreation and aesthetics and regulatory compliance, whereas
the SWMP considers water yuality, environmental protection and land management specific to
the city's source water supplies.
4.28 Water Acquisition.
'I'h~ city will seek to minimize or mitigate the environmental, agricultural and economic impacts
to other jurisdictions in its acquisition of additional municipal water supply to further the goals
of maintaining instream Vows and preventing the permanent removal of land from agricultural
production elsewhere in the state. The city will contnXUe to errilance instream flows and provide
water to agricultural [ands vl a manner that protects and minimizes adverse impacts to the
municipal water supply.
The SWMP concludes that based on current information, the city has enough water to meet
municipal water needs at currently estimated buildout levels. 'Therefore, acquisition of
significant additional water supplies is not recommended at the present time. Should the need
arise to acquire additional water supply in the future, the most likely options would be to build
additional reservoir storage and/or to purchase existing water rights, mast likely as shares in
irrigation ditch companies. In the absence of a clearly demonstrated need, the economic, social
and environmental impacts of these actions, including those that could impact other jurisdictions
as descr7bed in 13VC;P Policy 4.26, are not warranted.
"The SWMP recommends that the city pursue "no regrets" actions to ensure a robust and flexible
source water system (SWMP Vol. I, Section 4}. No regrets actions are defined as measures that
would increase reliability and flexibility of the city's existing source water system 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 conditions change in the future. They are actions that can
be taken without unnecessary impacts to water rates. Examples of no-regrets actions include:
• Water- system management changes to increase efficiency,
• More integrated use of the city's water rights portfolio,
• Initiation of the water exchanges allowed under city water rights earlier in the year to
increase water in the city's upper water system reservoirs, and
• Facilities improvements that increase operational flexibility whether or not negative
climate change effects occur in the future.
4.29 llrinking Water.
"I'he city and county will protect the quality of its water sources and will meet all State of
Colorado drinking water standards and source water protection requirements. It is also the goal
of the city to meet secondary druiking water standards established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and to evaluate additional voluntary standards as appropriate.
The city and county will continually seek to improve the quality of drinking water and work with
AGENDA ITEM # SB Page 9
other water and land use interests as needed to assure the integrity and quality of its drinking
water supplies.
4.3U Storer '~'Vater.
"I'he city and county will protect the quality of its surface waters, meet al.l state and fedezal
requu-ements for storm water quality and evaluate additional voluntary standards as appropriate.
The city manages its source waters with acknowledgement that one of the fundamental principles
of providing high quality drirzlcing water is to draw raw water froze the cleanest sources available.
As an essential function of water system management, Boulder's multi-barrier approach begins
with protecting water quality at the source, in collaboration with other gover-runents and
stakeholders. .Preventing contamination is better than increasing or changing treatment after the
fact. Such protection maximizes public health protection acrd avoids or delays costly treatment
plant improvements that are needed to maintain treated water quality and regulatory compliance.
The SWMP is consistent with the drinking water and stone water policies through its
recommendations to improve protection of source water quality (SWMP Vol. I, Section 6).
4.31 Minimum stow Program.
The city will pursue expansion of the existing in-stream flow program consistent with applicable
law and manage streamflows to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems within the Boulder
Creek watershed.
North, Middle and main Boulder Creeks currently have formal or informal instream flow
programs to maintain a wet stream year round. The SWMP is consistent with BVCP 4.32
through its recommendations for updating fisheries habitat studies to determine the effectiveness
of the current instream flow program, and, if needed, evaluating options for providing enhanced
habitat in sufficient detail to identify impacts, costs and benefits (SWMP Vol. I, Sections 5 and
6). While South Boulder Creek is not a part of the qty's source water system, the SWMP also
furthers BVCP 4.31 by recommending that the Utilities Division assist the Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department in efforts to improve instream flows for South Boulder Creek and
explore ways in which Utilities Division assets could contribute to a city program for improved
South Boulder Creek instream flows (SWMP Vol. I, Section 6).
4.32 C=roundwater.
'The city and county will continue to evaluate aquifers, groundwater recharge and discharge
areas, and sources of groundwater pollution within the Boulder Creek watersheds and formulate
appropriate pollution and source protection protnams. Impacts to groundwater will be
considered in land use planning, development review and public Land management practices.
The CSG expressed mixed opinions concerning whether the city has the appropriate balance
between East Slope and West Slope water supplies to best meet future challenges, goals and
objectives. Among t}je future studies discussed in the SWMP, an analysis of-the costs and
benefits of changing the current reliance on East Slope and West Slope supplies was
recommended (SWM:P Vol. I, Section 6). Within this study, evaluation of future use of
groundwater supplies was recommended, which will provide an opportunity for implementation
of BVCP Policy 4.32. Groundwater is currently not used as a source for Boulder's water supply
system due to quantity and quality limitations.
AGENDA 1'I'EM # SR Page 10
Groundwater as a topic spans across a number of city depariznents and workgroups including,
Planning and Development Services, Water Quality, Drinking Water, Stonn Water and Water
Resources. The 2004 Comprehensive Flood and Storm Water Utility Master Plan contains a
recommendation to address the effect of groundwater dewater-ing on local water wells and
wetlands and include groundwater quality issues in an updated Storm Water Collection System
Master Plan. In addition to the SWMP and other departmental master plans, it may be necessary
to examine the city's design and construction standards to fully address groundwater concerns.
2. Does the master plan outline BVCP Service Standards and a plan to meet them into the
future?
Policies 3.01 (Provision of lJrban Services in the Boulder Valley), 3.02 (Definition of Adequate
Urban Facilities and Services), 3.03 (Phased Extension of Urban Service /Capital Improvements
Program) and the defined Urban Service Criteria and Standards describe the service standards,
service delivery expectations and the capital planning process.
The BVCP outlines service standards (Appendix D in the BVCP, also described on page 31 of
SWMP Vol. I)) for public water. The source water system currently meets the service criteria
and standards as outlined in the BVCP. The plan addresses the capital projects required to
maintain and improve the source water system into the future through the city's Capital
Improvements Program. Standards related to personnel, training, and operation of the water
facilities are addressed in detail in Chapters 5 and 6 of Volume II, with a summary in Chapter S
of Volume I, page 17}.
Boulder's future water demands were most recently evaluated during 2003 after the 2002
drought. Modeling done at that time shows that the city's present water rights poz-tfolio would
provide sufficient water to meet all demands at full buildout of the BVCP area during 27.5 ;ears
out of a period of 285 years. Voluntary use reductions or moderate use restrictions would be
necessary in about nine years due to reduced supplies during drought. Severe use restrictions
would be required in only one year out of 285 years when drought conditions would reduce water
yields significantly. At no time during the modeled scenario did water yields drop below the level
of meeting essential indoor needs. This model outcome meets the adopted reliability criteria fir
the city's water supply system.
The 2005 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan projected lower population
and higher employment numbers than were used in the 2003 analysis of the drought. Although
the mode] has not been re-run with the updated projections, the number of years in which the
reliability cr-itcria are not met under the updated water demand values should be lower, and the
city should be more capable of providing water service in compliance with the reliability criteria.
3. Does the plan/update describe and assess capital needs and a fuiuiinl; plan for them?
The SWMP identifies a 20-year CIP of approximately $130 million in potential source water
related projects. The water system is operated as an enterprise firnci in accordance with the
Colorado State Constitution and City Charter. 'The funding sources of the water utility fund
primarily come from user fees, with the remaining income from development fees; hydroelectric
revenue, and interest on fund balances. The water utility fund accounts for the entire water
system, including the source water and treated water systems.
AGENDA ITEM # 513 Pale 1.1
As part of the development of the SWMP, the Utilities Division was requested to develop a 20-
year CIP, rather than the traditional 6-year CIP. The 2O-year CIP assists in ensuring that
expansion of the system as remaining growth and annexations occur can be provided while still
meeting the reliability criteria and service standards established by the city.
A detailed analysis and condition assessment of source water facilities is contained in Volume II,
with a summary chart in Volume I, Section 6. A summary of major and minor projects is also
contained in Volume I, Section 6. The projects are organized by Priorities 1, 2, or 3. Priority 1
projects should be completed in the next 6 years, priority 2 projects in years 7-20, and priority 3
projects after 20 years. The projects are also tied to the city's business plan funding model. The
20-year CIP chart on page 34 outlines the funding plan based on priorities, funding levels, and
increases in user fees.
Several capital projects outlined in the plan are called out as having a high project or repair need,
and are considered to have a high critical need to the city's water supply. Barker Gravity
Pipeline is a critical component of~the city's source water system because it conveys the city's
Barker Reservoir/Middle Boulder Creek water to Betasso WTF. Stored water from Barker
Reservoir and direct flows from Middle Boulder Creek are used to meet approximately 35
percent of the city's arulual wafer needs. "1 he city, as part of an ongoing maintenance effort, has
already replaced and rehabilitated segments of the 1 i -mile Barker Gravity Pipeline that showed
the most degradation or highest likelihood of failure. The city should continue its annual
maintenance program, where priority of maintenance is based on the must critical needs.
Keplacemcnt or Iinirlg of segments are options that may each work well in different parts of the
pipeline.
Kossler Keservoir, a component of the Barker system, needs repairs related to the cracked
concrete at the reservoir outlet and the seepage that occurs along the Iow-head section of the
penstock. A bypass pipeline coru~ecting the Barker Gravity Line to the Boulder Canyon Hydro
Penstock is needed to ensure that the city can still deliver Middle Boulder Creek water tv Betasso
WTF when the reservoir is nut in operation.
A significant project identified in the 20-year CIP is the Carter Lake Pipeline to provide year-
round delivery of CBT and Windy Gap water to Boulder Reservoir, while protecting this water
supply from contamination in transport. The addition of the Carter Lake Pipeline would
increase the city's flexibility in using this water source since it would allow water delivery via
the pipeline to the Boulder Keservoir WTF year-round. Currently, water is delivered to the WTh
through the Bvulder Feeder Canal, which operates seasonally. Assuming acceptable financing for
this project can be arranged, construction of the Carter bake Pipeline should commence within
the next six years in order to take advantage of opportunities to share costs and collaborate with
other stakeholders.
In additive to projects, a number of studies and on-going programs are recommended in the
SWMP to ensure that future source water management decisions are based on current
information. The CSG recommended that the city develop a source water emergency plan to .
evaluate risks to 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, wildf re,
AGENDA I`I'I;M # SR Pale 12
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. Other recommendations include assisting in efforts
to improve instream flow in South [3oulder Creek; implementation of measures to prevent or
delay the introduction of nuisance species in Boulder Reservoir, completion of a wildland fire
protection plan in coordination with other stakeholders for the Middle Boulder Creek watershed,
and; development of a maintenance plan and documentation system for source water
infrastructure. The SWMP includes a complete list of recommended studies.
CONCLUSION:
In answering the questions before the Planning Board, staffbelieves that:
1. The Source Water Master Plan is consistent with the goals, policies and growth
projections ofthe BVCP.
2. T'he Source Water Master Plan outlines the BVCP service standards, and identifies the
needs to ensure adequate compliance into the future.
3. The Source Water Master Plan identifies potential capital projects and anticipated costs.
Although current funding levels for all improvements is inadequate to address all these
needs, this plan will be used to assist in prioritization of funding in the Water Utility
Enterprise Fund.
Approved 13y:
1 ~
r
- - - - LI - '~-~L.IL
Ruth McIIeySCr
Executive Director of Cc~ mity Planning
A'I'TACIIiV1ENTS:
A: Source Water Master Plan
13: Revisions to the BVCP Source Water Master Plan Summary
AGENDA ITI~;M ~ SB Pa:;e 13
Attachment A
i
_
'jiG~''j~~~
1.•
} ~ ~ 1
~ t i
4 ~ ~F• f
~1:
f }I r f tf ,,i- v , d t`1 w~~~, S/!R ~~l ~~f ~i ~ ~M1 •!'.:p ~i. ~ i~. ~r
~r ~
.cA.f r~".•:'~ r ~r Irv ~a+~~, _ '"~'r-R'^ •~Fe~,4i.~'t~ •_-c \ ~~1~•%.*!r
;•r~ y 'tic -{;.tom y~$. iw-
~ 4 )•y l ~P.a
y~.~O~r ~'f ~ Ix~r1h~P 1., - `
~ r2r _ 7.~`
. ~ 1rir~ ~r7 t'y ~y~~•IfLf: S~Jfr _ 1. ..1•~ _
- .wa -i a fj •f "y1 ~-prr h1 7~:1r:a1~ t C
_ ti t. i t; ; V ; r~
1 J'f T~ ,~.~~'C r~~i{S. 'I~f~Y• I,{. :4 ~(1~. 7, f ~ r L 1 ' } .
~ - ~~'';c i`i-'rrlf+o*~r~,l1'~'rf_Y,.t. 119rc.-!.ate 'Y:.. ~ tGr:~,ry I
~A i~ r:, jI '~r~~J h~',i~ lt~;~ { r{~~\Y=.O r~ 1 r f J. ~ ~•1'~ ~ f•l~. ,2'
1 1 Wr ~.:~rX~fl ~lc~• s lfi,,? 1~ ' ! `~i: P :i• ~~,i•11!4.
' - ' _F' ;°.it'S Irz~ y' ~~,~r 1 l'• ~~;.7 , ~c ' ~ , c, ~1• ~a~j~9 ~ r
,as . r r• ~•~"~.F~ \!~o . ~i ~yl : ~ r ~a ~ ~.i 1~ rt 11 a..
q~"t' t~ 41~i1~i![~ ~ ry~q~~ i~~. il~f.~ - 5 7.+ `..r. ®~c ~t Ir7~' : l~i~ •a! N- 1'.,, 'r
~d~•-~f):'t...•~~#~!'1~1~+/r~~-~ ~~ff 11 1 . j,~ ~I.t~` Jwf} +Q„pj, t i ~ a;~ S.
Y. F•• '~.4 '~..L /rt 1,' i!''`,''. c I :LV, YY d~71 _ ~~t'^' Y ~ ' Il
-.RY + p<.., c~ ~ .~y~ Y Si 1~{,t~•: Tr/' ="°.-c - '7: r jli7' F1 i fv. - m! 1,''~. ~ A~. .i
I'' ~ jl ~'`i 1• ~ ~ rti~SJor.~,~~ 1FZ`~xc:;Yy~~y.sv".~T\`L~ L~.. - ~ ~ ! ~1 I ~S_~ ~ '~~1 ~ se'_ a~
r r~ t.firF'~5~j7~ .'Y ~~W~+'~, ~ f^ -~~~1• 1P,19..~q~~ ler ~.f/~
fJ t cf ,i ~ ~ a ~ ~~ttt 1 1 l is ~t :f y ~y- '
f ~c~~'~ ' -~~#''tl rr} i I ~.~i~~ ~ Y i. 1 1 f 7 rr~ f ~ y io y~
' ~ 4 ' 1 i'~(,:~a ,7, r1. _ ;4{v~ 1~ 1 i It,- i 1 1 i 1 ~ ~ ! ~ 1 I' ).U :4~ ~ `7t!:
' 1 1 t;~••: ~tcti'~ ~1;- t~ f f 1 4... , #x:'.~.~. , 1}..~li>' = :~ri Y~
qr .1~w~~J~k~ `a°`~';'~ ~'x;~+~t'xT ±~n i•1 it d'<:1~'~•l 14. r ~ ~ c a_r/t}r~ :_i:~~ c~~?;4 -'I~;~"' - Z.~7:
` .5c i L '~-,lftlo,T~"s:Jy'~h },~yf ~ ) ~ ~ 1 T' ~ f 1( 5 i ' •
# ~c ~i1~ ~i•~ti ~~3 r ~ ~ .,,.~Y•ca~~'~,~,..,:3•~~ f{{ ~•{4 •,'..l.r~~ ~~y'; I, ~ Y ~ ~
Y;7 ~r 1• _ - 1 ~ \ 1 ~~r`• j
_ ~ rl,.cr~ a~•.a; t !~%'vi,rr. 1 Ft :Y~ `••~a=.1~~° •1. Da1~S' , #rr-w i~'r t,S.y.~,rpij.,~i~' ,4~j~.... ~
A 1 'Y 'ii ~'S' r r„ fa h ~ S~, [~"~r Z jS~, ~ ~~1~cr s:•~~ •'~k'i~~ .2 1
k s ~ ~ as ` r f=+ 1 ' ~ i { +p•~'~ t +..Y, ~,i t , ~{j ~ 1r1 , ,t '~`~x y+ . ' i. {,:{{*i"tSlS.l. JW
r~l J• 13 r' Z aN,.l r7 r ti GL I .y J..~ •k~ C.•~, J
r 99 .1~~.•~ ~ ~ , J A~' ' -fir X 3r J ,i pry, 1
~ ~1 ..i+~~r~i j ri Y~ ni f~•~ Y~-:r t~Y:' ' r~~'.'~ i~~~~l~.~~~z ~ i t.~L~c ~~r~,1~ ~ r 1 - .Ji. f ~ ~ .i~tY it .4•~'
i~, y ~ r 1~y.*Z.r'•{ ^ rlq • \•1 1_. z~ f '¢r a.•' • _.'fr4a /Mlv~ _Y~i•' f
r~~:,,
~~•.''''''''f ~iy~i-•.~ ~ .t'`~ J~%iffj F•~t,1 ~>~~S r~, r~1 ~ i tSe,.+tty'{i~ J ••`1' fih! 1 `~f.~'~0~. IM, s. 4~LS _1~1'~~,+.r"i1,
t{~f''?~,l',.~ .'2~=' ~_'~°_~~~l;,i~ t~i.~'y~~' ~,lT ~~'k1 .SI''`:t3 ~'~'f`'._ ~J/f _c I ~1: ,~~.:.~`n!"~L"_jt!
AQs~ bl~m ~
~-?1~~ P's~gs ~
~
'~t
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
Group ~ -
2008 City Council: Shaun McGrath, Mayor
Crystal Gray, Deputy Mayor
Suzy Ageton, Matthew Appelbaum, Macon Cowles, Angelique Espinoza,
Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Ken Wilson
2008 Water Bart Miller, Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan lott
Resources Advisory
Board (WRAB):
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 Qualify, 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 Western Resource Advocates and WRAB -Bart Miller
Group: 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
Draft -January 2009 Page i
ApBnda Iloem ~ ~
Pet,~t L~,~.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Ptan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -WHAT IS THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN? 1
SECTION 1 -WHAT IS BOULDER'S SOURCE WATER SYSTEM? 3
SECTION 2 -WHERE DOE5 THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN START? 6
SECTION 3 -HOW WAS THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN DEVELOPED? 8
SECTION 4 -WHAT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE tN THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN? 12
SECTION 5 -WHAT ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN?............ 15
SECTION 6 -WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE
SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN? 21
SECTION 7 -HOW WILL THE RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS BE FUNDED? 28
SECTION 8 -WHAT PERFORMANCE MEASURES WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE PLAN'S SUCCESS? 30
SECTION 9 -WHAT DID THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN ACCOMPLISH? 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Source Water Policy Recommendations ....................................................................................................12
Table 2. Summary of Facility Condition and Critical Position in Water Supply ................................................20
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 ....................................................................................................................................................34
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) ...............................................................................................28
List cif Appendices
Appendix A -Community Study Group Summary Memo
Appendix i3 -Staff Survey Summary
Draft -January 2009 Page ii
City of Boulder Source Water Master Ptan Votume 1 -Summary Plan
Executive Summary
WHAT IS THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAN?
The Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) is
intended to be a foundation document that a o ~
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 ~;:A ,;~;;~L~ .
reliable and sufficient water suppfy. The = _ ~i„?4~,r ~ '~•:k~~~:!RU
SWMP documents the current status of the ~ _ - - ~;~..~„<i,(,I_,
city's water resources and raw water _ _
facilities and defines issues to be addressed ~ -
to provide for the city's future water supply I - _
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 j -
needs are met through drought periods ~ _ _ _ -
without violating adopted reliability criteria.
The SWMP Community Study Group (CSGj, ,
a key component of the SWMP public -
process, identified four important questions ~ ~~;'~rti
,1
(see inset on the previous page). While all = ~i~~tR~~:' •.~fi~
four questions are central to the SWMP, the - jr i 1" z'f
~ ~-'.fit.=1~•ie: ...el~ ~'.}r
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 _ >=+[,r~'tjL; .a~:
enough water in the future, even with climate =r~i; • • • _
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
Draft -January 2009 Page ~
~11f~A SIT! ~ I'~3
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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:
? Defining emerging issues that affect how the city will manage and operate its source water system
in the future.
? Recommending future studies and actions that should be undertaken.
? Providing general budgeting information and project prioritization to guide development of the
fiwenty-year Capital Improvements Program (ClP) so that source water deliveries are dependable.
? 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.
? Reviewing water use levels and water rights yields to assist in periodic re-evaluation of future
demands.
? 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 I 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 II provides the
details necessary for future execution of programs and projects. Volume 11 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 2
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
Section 1
WHAT lS BOULDER'S SOURCE WATER SYSTEM?
Boulder's water supply system includes many storage,
i
conveyance, hydroelectric and treatment facilities. ` o
The city owns approximately 7,200 acre-feet of I _ _ _ , _
reservoir storage space in the North Boulder Creek
watershed, owns 1 1,700 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).
F{GORE 1. HISTORIC YIELD5 OF BOULDER'S WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLIES
40000
35000- -
3ooao -
zsooo - - - - - - -
0
o zoooo - - - - - - -
u
Q
15000 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
10D00 - - - - - - - - -
_ ~ I
Sooo - ! ~i - :f - - - ~ - - -
- ~ i r'~
1905 1995 1997 1898 1999 2000 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008
C aDirecl Flow BStorage ?Basollno Rooorvoir OCBT OWllxfy Gap
Draft -January 2009 Page 3
City of 8ovlder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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.
-o.,, .tea-~ , - Boulder a{so owns rights to delivery of water from
.'t;,~:;~7,~~~ ~,•5'~,~~'';t~kf
~~},}`}{y``'!,tt 1' ,'i tWindol GadoPBo'ect Both of Phese projectpd'dvert
t water from the western slope and deliver it
~I _ ~ : : ~ through the CBT facilities, which are operated by
t ~ ` J ^ .~_~-r -r-~'~~~-~.: the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
y ~ Like most western communities, Boulder depends on
~ ~ stored water most of the year. High streamflows
SILVER LAKE WATERSHED 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 an 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 faci{ities on Middle Boulder Creek.
Boulder's source water facilities are depicted in Figure 2.
Draft -January 2009 Page
Cily of boulder Sourco Wotc: Mosfar Plon Volum¢ 1 - Summory Plan
Color Code
~ ¦ Untreated Udo[er S.ora~c Rescrloirs
~ FIGURE 2. CITY OF BOULDER SOURCE WATER FACILITIES ¦ Rav~waterTransmission Facilities and Diversion Strictures
~^oF eoJO
¦ WaterTreatment Facilities
¦ Raw Water Hydroelectric Facilities
t ~1_ ? ea..~-,v~:-~? r - ~~cr~,~~l~"4`+ . _ - sti'trmPr~" ~Y~1-"~s.;ra rn t ~ ~ y: e - ' 7{)~ ~~-ice ` _ , ~ - *
.
. r'~ ~Zc cS: r,. 5~~~' - JT~ ~ - ~ % •a ~ A?:• ~ ~1 ~ f ~ .4 `~,.a. \,'a ~ ~t'.'
c ~>-.,•.r ' - r..~ f '¢'/°'jC . E~... r.a- ~,y~,' rr=i' Q ~y~~ri~~C' ~ i ~ ~ J . T~ ~"T' ~ . ~ Y ~ ~ ` j ~ ~
,
.~-~i F' Tr t ~ ''t: ~ S,, ~ I .r i ~~\n L Ins (':o-c~~ e~f.rt. ~`r..'~'~-.~ 'cr r 1p
'Lcinyr~a.. r.. °~p¢'uio~: o~Drvc r: ion S ;u.: t c~~ _ ~ Y f y4•~% k`'~ '
' Lakt tixrocLRcservvir,~North Boulr a Grcc~ ! r - - Y ~ _ : r ~ '
t. ( ~ ~ - r.i a: ~^~,'vPark'Re~ser-vfoicS~te w.'., ,.r ~ ~ ~
s•dh-~.. a~n.l:CcmoCrc"c.<uimrston a~~l ,ice i~~ "ae+~ -~.i~ ~ ~ /s•v
Y . , t . ~ ~ Cantiou Ranch i• "1 - '1r ~,ti', ~ t y c~~~!
° b:
~rng ~a~. '~~•,a ,Silver Lalcc hyclro~ ~ ' .-1 ~ ! ^ - - T=~. ~-~''A' ~ < ~~..._1' . - r••'~~
~~.1' 1
~4 - ~ =4, .,Boulder Cariyoir ~?9 - '0` ~ ! v : ' ~ ^ ~
~ y .-.r y r 1~ - c. i i ~rl. 1 L~~ : ; ~ R ~ f r• I ~ r ` _
Z?- ~ ._Y~E$Jri;Cr GIJVIt Line ' ~ ~ ) ' ! . ~ .r-,>:- s , ~ ~ --'-y ,.r n~ •y
~ss1~e -~,"i gyp? ~x tf i ' , i ti .ti ~ ~tpCl~~ 'rfl r 1"~r , ~t ~ ~P< ~ _ ~~,{i?.~ ~ ~ '
r , ref'-~~- _ rf/~ _ - p' i v~~ ,.~11~fj' ~ rY: `l ~i~ 'r ~ 1 ~~1~'~ ~r,r, ~li_
r ~ rLN~
? _ 7~ 11 ~M 'r T
.r-/.~ ~'.f ..mgr-!.. ~ - , _ r,` ~d -1 ~ T S I ' 4~ - - i I'Y- _ ~ '{'.1 _ ~
„SouldenCanyon•llydro Penstoy ~ L a o`Pen tocr /`r 4 • AIT.,:~f + _ .:r'.-'
l1~('i ~ j >,n. ~ JJ')~ s. mot: i= 9 j ? ?
_S ~ ` r~ ,e ~ ~ betasso SVaterLGeatment Fat.th ty,~ F'• ~ '^a~°- j i-~ '
~Z',7~.`a` ~ ,ic•r Hesurvutt
J. -^d°.~~~r• - IM~~[.tr ~i~ , ~ • - ~ r~ < ''~C~' ~ -
/.,o ~ .Y v . Ala ~-:'~:F"<`- r _ ~ - fJ ' ~ ~r°r,%'
' • j' 1 ~ L c vvood~H~ dro~aoa L'etasso H dro ~ ~ _ ~~..71~~-~"~ - - -
,~JEoulcler,C^a'/o:o~li• c ru ~ .t~~ - _ w,,,ti j~ ~ - ~t ~ _ ~ ,
~''t°,~,~e,~/'°°' 8' - ~-+t.O~,?Si'*ta' OrocicllHydro , 5 f/ `
~iV(~' i''" t/f~' j"~ /r ~ 1~~'al.~~'2so.:~ ref ~ ~'x _cv ~ t ~ '.?L ti i ~..--_r` f
r ~~1; ~8~ t+` ~ ~
q~q~~ ~w~Ci-~~• ( tao. ~ ~ Cam' j : ~~I?' ~•l ` \a
~ ~ ` ~ - ~9ouldec, 1~~ F3oulder Feeder G7ne1 ~ \
C! ~ ~~M - 1~. ' _ sw~Wer R.w.arvrtF y ~ ~
. ~
_ - ~'~'Buulder Reservoir WaterTreatment•Facility ~ ~ ' ~ ~
/ I r• EJsclut~ kcs~vu \ _,h ~ ~ •tanrw _
I~ ~ \ , 1 T- i \ 1~'ictcmvcrPonrl ..~:c.,•i~ t tt•;r ~ac,:~..:,u.,oK~Fa~
Draft-January 2009 Pagc S
-1~
Cify of Boulder Source Wafer Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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 fhe 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.
• o • v 0
- -
- - - -
- - - -
I~ -
- -
- - -
,I - - • ~
- - - - -
I -
i . - - - - -
_ _ - e. - -
~ - -
_ _
- -
i - - -
Draft -January 2009 Page b
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
One of the key findings of the RWMP was that ~ u- ~ -
the city owned sufficient supplies to meet its . ~~+'s , 4,: sx , `-~r 'si'r
build-out water needs. Although this > 'r' ~
determination still appears to be valid, changes y.- P
I::,
since 1988 might have affected this conclusion, 'I~Ii~ai~l "(]j' ~h'~' a
either positively or negatively. This finding r ir~ii' ~i ~ , :~`i
among others will be the subject of future ',~~~'~iil~~,,l~~'~I;i~j ~ ~
evaluation. The current SWMP develo ment of ~ ` ~ 4• ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
l p ~ '^~~s~`t'~k ts-'+~'~ ~i t { (~,tl si1'1 r sry(~t 3
which began in earnest during the summer of t ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c,•t ~ .;M~~`a~ ~ ,
~ ~ wr ~`r ~ ~ r. ,tea;
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
Draft -January 2009 Page 7
~ ~
~v~ r.
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume I -Summary Plan
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:
? Conducting a public process through formation of a community study group.
? Conducting a staff survey.
? Gathering and compiling a vast amount of existing information.
? Consideration of water availability, water use and water rights.
? Evaluation of the city's source water infrastructure.
? Preparation of a 20-year budget.
? Coordination between the SWMP and the Water Quality Strategic Plan.
? Drafting and assembling the plan. ,
,
»Y,~ ,
-
_ , 1,
fA'• -
I
_ _ _a -~~w
BOULQER'S EARLY PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Draft -January 2009 Page 8
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
The Source Water Master Plan Community _ _ ~
Study Group (CSG) was formed on behalf of ~ ~~-''li 1
. ,a°~
the City Manager as a working group of - ~ ~ ~
invited stakeholders representing awide - - .~r~~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
range of opinions and interests in the - : - ~p~r`~i :
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. (t conveys to city staff fihe 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 9
~~J
Cify of Boulder Source Wafer Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
- Development of the SWMP also included
,.,=24Fct-~rirr, ~a~°iL~k,.~.,~ - - consideration of wafer avaitabilify, wafer
" ' ~ ~ use and water rights. Yields of Boulder's
i
I - - _ ~ water rights are influenced by streamffow
_ _ I 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 contractua)
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 cify's source wafer infrasfruefure 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:
? Toured major facilities with city staff,
? Reviewed existing documents and reports,
? Evaluated and followed up on staff survey comments,
? Developed budgetary cost estimates for capital projects and studies, and
? Prepared a 20-year budget.
Coordination between the SWMP and the
r.. , 4_
Water Quality Strategic Plan was ~>~i.- ar;:
required because development of the two ~ {~'~!~~;Ar?~,~~
plans occurred concurrently and along ~ r. ~ ~ _~g,~~~:_;::; .K„~~ .~r
parallel paths. The Water Quality ~ ~ ;_,r , . .~t
Strategic Plan (WASP) was led by the - '"k"'~.~,
-
Water Quality and Environmental ' ' ; 4 ~~,rf--.
Services Group. There is some overlap ~ i- _ ~ - .
between the two plans because the ~ L J`~ F
SWMP is focused on all as ects of ! r''•' - ~~y ~ d ~
munici al source water, includin source ~ 5~1~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ - y~
water quality, and the WASP looks at ~ ''G~ 4 4~;, ~;~~~~y-~t~'=,~~~,;
~
~y ~;~'~~',Z~` ~~,~,rk~'
broader water quality issues including ~ °~7~ ~
T
treated water, waste water, and LAKEWOOD t
stormwater throughout the city. RESERVOIR
Draft -January 2009 Page 10
Cify oP Boulder 5ouree Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary PEan
Because there is overlap between the SWMP and WASP, 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
WASP 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page ~ ~
~
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
Section 4
WHAT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN HE 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
• •
Continue taking reasonable steps to increase water
supply reliability and system flexibility without System Staff Water supply quantity
causing negative economic impacts to the water Wide
utility.
Reaffirm or modify current water supply reliability System CSG Water supply quantity
criteria. Wide
Water supply quantity
Formalize policy guiding the intended uses for System CSG and non-municipal
conserved water. Wide
uses
Develop source water protection policy or goals. System Staff Water supply quality
Wide
Do not pursue any further sales of Windy Gap water Colorado
until studies re-evaluating its utility to the city are Staff Water supply quantity
River
complete
System Flexibility (I) -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 valve 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.
Draft -January 2009 ~P-a~ge ~ 2
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan _ _ Volume 1 -Summary Ptan
Examples of potential no-regrets actions are as follows:
? Continuing to develop hydro power potential in an environmentally responsible manner where
opportunities exist within the city's water system.
? Improving municipal water system facilities such as rehabilitating Green Lake #2 Dam to eliminate
operating/storage-level restrictions.
? 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.
? Establishing downstream storage facilities to recapture instream flows for later exchange
upstream for municipal and non-municipal uses.
? Recharging alluvial aquifers during high streamflow to increase returns to stream in low flow
periods. Recharge facilities would be required for such a program.
? Assuming an acceptable funding/water rate plan can be accomplished, construction of Carter
Lake Pipeline.
? 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 far 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
~ _ - - "z.i ~ ~ t r ` ~ indoor and outdoor water use. The
~ ~ - current reliability criteria employ
~ . ,;t.:; ~ ~ ~ t ,r , - qualitative standards without defining the
Y1 ~ ~~i.,~ quantity of water necessary to meet
r rte- -~,~I~~
- _ - ~{1'~-~ those standards. "Essential needs "
_E - ' "exterior landscaping needs" and "all
.~+.s .3i..
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
~ -
i s - every day? (s viability of exterior
~ ~ landscaping limited to drought-resistant
species only? These refinements would
SILVER LAKE DAM SP{LLWAY allow the community to more fully
Draft -January 2009 Page 13
City of Boulder Source Water i'~7aster Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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 sireamflow 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 wece 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 14
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Voluttte 1 -Summary Plan
Section 5
WHAT ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN 1~ME SOURCE WATER
MASTER PLAN?
Source water system and facility issues were identified through:
? Facilities inspection and assessment,
? Review of historical city documents pertaining to facility condition,
? Staff survey,
? CSG discussions, and
? Additional information provided by Utilities Division staff.
Issues were grouped into the following general categories:
? Water rights yield issues,
? Water management and system operations issues,
? Water use issues,
? Watershed management issues, and
? Facility (physical infrastructure) condition and improvement issues.
The city must continue to protect its water rights y+elds to ensure that it can continue to meet the
water supply reliability criteria. Key water rights yield issues include:
? Potential effects, if any, of climate change on the city's water rights yields,
? Possible uncertainties of future West Slope water supplies, and
? 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 15
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 - Summary Plan
H drolo is than es will also like) occur in the West Slope basins that supply a portion of the city's
Y g g Y
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 (imitations 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 droughls.
The city's highest priority water management and system operations issues at the current time are:
? Maintaining operational flexibility to address variability in annual water supply,
? Source water system emergency planning, and
? 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 (imitation. 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 Lal<e 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 16
i)
City of Boulder Source Wafer Master Plan _ _ Volume 1 -Summary Plan
_ - _ 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
.t.~ spring and summer high flow periods when
I . water is physically available at the high
I
I 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. Qocumentation 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:
? Instream flow protection,
? Hydropower,
Draft -January 2009 - - - Page 17
n ,1
SJ~ _
City of Boulder Source Wafer Master Plan Vo{ume 1 -Summary Ptan
j - _
? Agricultural leasing,
? Flow-based recreation, and ~ ~ ~ .'~',~>i; 1,
? Environmental enhancement. ~ ''.'i ~ v~+ ~ -,;~3
In some years, the city s water supplies ' ~ ' - ~ - -
exceed the municipal demand. In these ~ ~ ~ `~,,4,
years, there are opportunities to use the 4"~` ~ tf F ~ .
cit 's excess water supply for other r,~;a;~.~.:'-~ ~ ~
Y
purposes. In some cases, there are multiple ~ - • -
potential beneficial uses of the water, , '
some of which can be fulfilled at the same - ~~``I ~ . _ , ~ • t.
time, or some that can be fulfilled to a .
higher degree by reducing the amount of TttOUT INHABIT BOULDER CREEK
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 (easing 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
Draft -January 2009 P°g~' i 8
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan _ ~ _ Votume 1 -Summary Plan
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 75'" 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-municipa! 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:
~ Contamination sources,
~ Wildland fire risks in the source water watersheds,
~ Invasive and non-native species, and
Habitat protection and land management policy.
Watershed management activities are _ l
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 -c~l~~~_:__
habitat. - - - ~Y
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 -
Draft -January 2009 Page ] 9
c~ J
J
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
facilities condition issues including needed repairs, improvements, modifications and upgrades to
existing faci{ities. Needed repairs improvements were categorized as high, medium or low priority.
Each facility was also categorized in tears 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
~ ~
Watershed dam MEDIUM -watershed dams are each a HIGH -some (not all) of the watershed valves are old
valves small art of overall supply with limited life spans
Green Lake #1 LOW -small volume, upstream of several HIGH -outlet is not functional
other reservoirs
Green Lake #2 LOW -small volume, upstream of several HIGH -dam structure not functional
other reservoirs
Albion Dam MEDIUM -moderate volume, upstream of MEDIUM -downstream face in poor condition and
Silver Lake will continue to de rode
Goose Dam MEDIUM -moderate volume, upstream of LOW -dam is fully functional, operator access and
Silver Lake operations could be improved
Island Dam MEDIUM -small volume, but has 1890 HIGH -concrete on crest needs immediate repair
senior water ri ht
HIGH -large volume critical location at LOW -dam generally in good condition, bypass for
Silver Lake Dam bottom of Silver Lake system low flows and mechanical operation could be
improved
MEDIUM -water can be supplied to LOW -appears to 6e in good condition, although
Lakewood Dam Betasso via the Silver Lake Pipeline bypass reported cracks should be evaluated
to Lakewood Pi cline
MEDIUM -water can be supplied to LOW -generally functional with some problems due
Silver Lake Diversion Betasso from Lakewood Reservoir via to freezing
North Boulder Creek
North Boulder Creek MEDIUM -water can be supplied to LOW -generally functional, but not ideal due to
Diversion to getasso via the Silver Lake Diversion freezing issues and low flow measurement issues
Lakewood Pipeline
Lakewood Pipeline HIGH -one of three major water supply LOW -there are known weld flaws, but regular
conduits in Boulder's system ins ection rogram is followed
Skyscraper Dam LOW -critical to supply, but not until HIGH -valve and dam repairs are needed for future
build-out operation
Barker Dam HIGH -large volume, critical storage MEDIUM -dam structure is sound, but outlet works
component of system need improvement
Barker Residence LOW - not a component of water suppl LOW -location is not ideal for reservoir operations
Barker Canyon MEDIUh1-water supply operations could HIGH -permit needed for continued operation of
Hydro System continue without use of hydro facilities hydro facilities
Permittin
Barker Gravity HIGH -one of three major water supply HIGH -advanced age and poor condition could result
Pi cline conduits in Boulder's s stem in need to take offline
Middle Boulder LOW -does not affect water supply LOW -some sedimentation observed
Creek Weir
Kossler Reservoir HIGH - no bypass available HIGH -degradation of main dam concrete panels,
concrete cracking at outlet and seepage downstream
Boulder Canyon HIGH - no bypass for this segment LOW -recent visual inspection did not show any
Hydro Penstock significant unexpected problems
Boulder Canyon LOW -water can bypass hydro HIGH -reaching end of useful life and concerns
Hydro regarding operator safety
Boulder Feeder NIGH -one of three water sources in h1EDIUh1 water quality concerns and seasonal
Canal Boulder's s stem limitations on use
Wittemyer Ponds LOW -will be critical to supply closer to MEDIUM -will need substantial improvements for
build-out demand water exchange
Draft -January 2009 Page 20
J ~ ~L
City of Boulder Source Water Master Ptan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
Section 6
I~VHAT RECOMMENDATIONS /~N{~ NEXT S~'EPS ARE IDENTIFIED
IN THE SOURCE WATER MASTER PLAI~1?
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, aproject-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:
? City Utilities Division staff and consultants involved in developing the master plan,
? SWMP CSG, including members of the Water Resource Advisory Board and City Council, and
? 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:
? Policy assessment,
? Facilities improvements, and
? 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.
The facilities improvements discussion is separated into two sections: 1) capita! 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 C1P and typically would require a formal
Draft -January 2009 Page 21
C'~
7-
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plon Volume 1 -Summary Plan
_ _ --1
_ ~u ~ ast~
iz1~
..j~^ ~~;x:'•k approval process including a CEAP. Minor
r, ~
I i~.. ~ ~y F L .~~.'ti projects would likely be funded out of
I t; f;.._yr ~ - operating budgets and would not require a
~,n~ "?~*~~`~i,,~~ r-, formal approval process.
r ~ ` + "'~r`L'"+'~ Ca ita! !m rovemenf Pro ects - Durin
I ~,d e , . Y: t . , development of the SWMP, source water
'y:~ Y:, ~
~'y"~~ ,~4;Ill = ' ' _ facilities (physical infrastructure) were
i` 4 X it y ~ ~ h;._ 3` ~ ~ evaluated to identify needed improvements
I ~ • ! - ~ and modifications. Recommended capital
. y ,
}'~`.i.Y,.~..' - 1¢`t,?~- ice.
~ ~ projects are summarized in Table 3.
~,~;r,;; ~ Prioritization is based on staff's judgment of
~:r
,,.,,,f ~~,,~t'~~,:'~
h~~"n~~ _ - the facility condition and how important the
- facility is to the water supply system (see
COMO CREEK DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION 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 C(P presented in Table 6. The security measures are considered
confidential and have not been expressly described in the SWMP.
TABLE 3. LIST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIORITY
-
North Boulder Creek Water Source
/ Green Lake ~k2 Engincering Evaluation of dam structure and study to determine
1 a AP Evaluation ~ best method and likely cost for repairs
1 b/AP Green Lake #2 Structural 2 Structural maintenance to dam
Maintenance
Evaluation of dam structure and study to determine
2a/AP Albion Dam Engineering Evaluation 2 best method and likely cost for repairs or potential
dam raise
a} Repair crest and spillway concrete
Albion Dam Liner, Crest and b) Evaluate and potentially repair poorly cemented
2b/AP Spillway Repair 2 rubble below crest cap
c) Apply membrane to upstream face to seal off
see age
Draft -January 2009 - - Page 22
~~3
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
2c .VP ~ Albion Dam Raise and Liner 3 Same as 2b with concrete dam raise
/ Island Dam Minor Repairs Patches in 5 to 7 locations on upstream face and splash
3 FCP (patches) ~ wall generally around high water mark
4a/FCP Miscellaneous watershed valve 1 Proactive valve replacement program in next b years
replacement -Phase 1
4b~FCP Miscellaneous watershed valve 2 Proactive valve replacement program for years 7
replacement -Phase 2 through 20
S~FCP Lakewood Pipelinet 1 Ongoing maintenance recommended in 5rh inspection
report
Middle Boulder Creek Water Source
a) Video inspection of gates to create gate
replacement plan
/ Skyscraper Dam Evaluation and b) Use diver to open gates to drain reservoir
6a AP Gate Replacement 2 c) Replace gates and stem
d) Evaluate dam structure to determine best method
and cost for completing repairs
6b/AP Skyscraper Reservoir Lining and 3 Line reservoir and grout loose boulders on spillway
S illway Repair
Purchase a residence within sight of Barker Dam to
6c~AP Barker Residence 2 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
Construction of vertical shaft near left abutment, inlet
7c/FCP Barker Dam Outlet Works 2 tunnels and one outlet tunnel, an outlet distribution
Replacement 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 i FERC Exemption and USFS Land Use Authorization
/ Barker Gravity Line Land Land exchange for Barker Gravity Line lands with the
8a FCP Exchange 2 USES
8b/FCP Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair - 1 Ongoing repair of sections with most critical needs
Phase 1
8c/FCP Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair - 2 Repair of remaining sections with less critical needs
Phase 2
9a/FCP Kossler Reservoir Main Dam 1 Replace degraded concrete panels on upstream face
Repairs
a) Maintenance of the seepage weir
bj Determine capacity of overflow spillway
c) Upgrade topographic surveys
9b/FCP Kossler Reservoir Minor Repairs 1 dj Hydraulic instrumentation and remote monitoring
capability
e) Tree growth control on north dam
f) Gate house paint and lighting
a) Evaluate source of water downstream of road and
9c/FCP Kossler Outlet Repairs 1 implement appropriate fix
b) Repair concrete damage at reservoir outlet and
add see age contro{s
9d/AP Kossler Bypass 1 Conned Barker Gravity Line to Boulder Canyon Hydro
Penstock
l0a/AP Boulder Canyon Hydro Penstock 2 Study to evaluate need for replacement or targeted
Evaluation repairs with metallurgy and corrosion ex erts
l Ob~VP Boulder Canyon Hydro Penstock 3 Eventual section by section replacement (if evaluation
Replacement deems necessary)
Draft-January 2009 - Page 23
_
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
r'
1 Oc/AP Boulder Canyon Hydro 2 Replace with appropriately sized 'Hydro unit
Replaccrncnt
Colorado River Water Source
/ Boulder Feeder Canal Stormwater Diversions of stormwater outfalls over canal described
1 1 a FCP Diversions -Phase 1 1 in Black & Veatch (2007)*
/ Boulder Feeder Canal Stormwater Diversions of stormwater outfalls over canal described
1 1 b AP Diversions -Phase 2 3 in Black & Veatch (2007)*
1 1 c/AP Carter Lake Pipeline 1 Construction of pipeline from Carter Lake to Boulder
Reservoir for transbasin water supply
1 1 d/VP Carter Lake Pipeline Hydro 3 Hydro added upstream of Boulder Reservoir water
treatment plant
/ Farmer's Ditch Exchange Potential Low pressure pipeline from Boulder Reservoir to mouth
12 VP Pipeline 3 of Boulder Canyon along Farmer's Ditch alignment.
13 AP Wittemyer Ponds 2 Line Wittemyer ponds to use for exchange
Farmers Ditch Capacity Restore Farmers Ditch capacity sufficient to allow city
14/AP Restoration 2 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
tMaintenance 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.
TABLE 4. LIST OF MINOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND PRIORITY (CAPITAL COST LESS THAN $50,000)
North Boulder Creek Water 5ovrce
1 Green Lake #1 Outlet Repair 1 Repair non-functional outle! slide gate
2 Albion Dam Gage and Outlet Access 1 aj Install staff gage
b) lnstall access to valve house patio
3a Silver Lake Dam generator 2 Portable generator to electrically actuate valves and
power lighting
3b Si{ver Lake Dam bypass repair 2 Repair non-functional bypass for low flows
4a Silver Lake Residence SCADA 2 Tie into the SCADA monitoring system with Internet
capability via satellite
4b Silver Lake Residence and Bunk ~ Replace with metal roofs
House roof replacement
5 Goose Darn control panel/actuator/ 1 Control panel on the top of the dam to actuate valves
generator with ortable generator
b instream flow gage installation - 2 Gage installation on North Boulder Creek at
North Boulder Creek Sherwood Creek
7 NBC instream flow recording 2 Redesign of current system to measure low flows
upstream of Lakewood
Draft -January 2009 - - - - - - Page 24
Cify of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 Summary Plan
Middle Boulder Creek Water Source
8a Barker Dam floodgate conduit 1 Video or manual inspection of floodgate conduits
inspection
8b Higli water alarms upstream of 1 Alarms to warn of rapidly increasing flows
Orodell
9 Kossler inlet erosion 2 Armor Barker Gravity Line outlet to Kossler Reservoir
to prevent further erosion
Other Minor Projects
10 Raw water irrigation systems 2 Develop raw water irrigation systems for city
ro erties 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.
TABLE 5. RECOMMENDED SOURCE WATER PROGRAMS AND STUDIES
North Boulder Creek Water Source
Evaluate Lakewood Dam and report on 1
1 /FCP the longitudinal cracks observed in Staff Facilities condition (within the $15,000
2001 next year)
Middle Boulder Creek Wafer Source
2/FCP FERC Part 1 2D Inspection Report Staff 08~M (Operations/ 1 $30,000
recommendations Maintenance)
Collaborate with ocher entities to Watershed
prepare a community watershed 1
3/FCP CSG management * $50,000
wildland fire protection plan for the wildland fire (ongoing)
Middle Boulder Creek basin
South Boulder Creek
Assist the Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department in developing an Water use -
4/FCP approach and organizational structure CSG instream flow 1 Staff Time
to provide instream flows in South protection
Boulder Creek
Explore options for use of Utilities Water use -
5/FCP assets within a comprehensive city CSG instream flow 1 ,r Staff Time
program;for improved instream flows (ongoing)
on South Boulder Creek protection
Draft -January 2009 Page 25
City of Boulder Source Wafer Master Plan Volume 1 Summary Plan
Colorado Rivet Water Source
Continue to monitor developments on
the Cclorado River Compact. If the
b/AP State study is inadequate, move ahead CSG Water rights yields 2 TBD
with other interested parties to conduct and protection
study of West Slope climate change
impacts and mitigation option.
Take immediate action to prevent or Watershed
delay the introduction of zebra and management and
7/FCP quagga mussels to Boulder Reservoir Staff 1 Staff Time
invasive/non-native
by improving oversight on recreation
and coordinating with NCWCD species
Continue involvement in Boulder Feeder Source wafer 1 Staff
8/FCP Canal trait design to reduce potential Staff protection (ongoing)* Time/FCP
impacts to the water su ly
Work with the Parks and Recreation Source water 1 Staff
9/AP Department regarding planning for Staff protection (ongoing)* Time/AP
recreational uses on Boulder Reservoir
Take an active role in NCWCD's Source ,water 1 Staff
10/FCP activities to proactively protect the Staff protection (ongoing)* Time/FCP
quality of West Slope water su plies
System-Wide
Complete a source water emergency Security, remote
1 1 /FCP plan CSG operation and 1 TBD/FCP
monitoring
Update water demand protections Water use -
12/FCP based on BVCP and changes in CSG municipal use and 1 $50,000
demographic water use projections conservation
Complete modeling to define the level
of reliability resulting from updated Water use -
13/FCP demand projections, water CSG municipal use and 1 $100000
conservation savings and supply conservation
rojections
Water use -
14/FCP Update water use and conservation CSG/WR municipal use and 1 $50,000/
studies/update 2003 drought plant AB conservation $50,000
Explore the pros and cons of long-term Water use - non-
15/AP commitments to non-municipal water CSG municipal uses 2 78D
uses
Update aquatic habitat studies to
assess effectiveness of current instream Water use -
16/FCP flow program and, if needed, evaluate CSG instream flow 1 $100,000
options for providing enhanced habitat protection
in sufficient detail to identify impacts,
costs and benefits
Evaluate environmentally and
17/AP economically feasible hydroelectric CSG Water use - 2 TBD
sites within the water transmission hydropower
s stem
r The CSG recommended updating water use and conservation studies and the drought plan was based on WRAB input.
Draft -January 2009 Page 26
`f~
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 _ Summary Plan
Develop a maintenance plan and
corresponding maintenance logs for Maintenance 1
18~FCP each water source to document daily Staff planning and TBD
(ongoing)`
and seasonal operations and execution
maintenance needs.
Evaluate the balance in reliance on Water rights yields
East Slope and West Slope supplies and protection and
19~FCP and determine if a change in the CSG balancing of water 2 TBD
balance would cause a need for new
sources
water supplies at build-out
TOTAL CO5T5 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
Draft -January 2009 Page 27
- - - - ~J
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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 I _
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 i _ - _ _
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% Hydroelectric
Revenues
8%
Development Fees
Other Interest 9%
0% 8%
Draft -January 2009 Page 28
Cify of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Vo?ume 1 -Summary Plan
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 I -
associated with the source water system as well as other ~ - o •
- -
elements of the water utility (e.g. water treatment, i . - - -
distribution, etc.) are considered in the normal city budgeting - r
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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 29
. - . _5~ -
- -t-
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Valume 1 -Summary Plan
Section S
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 _ ~ ~ _ r
0.p1,5JC~J~_~~~~.!~, ~~-tl!~Ir 1-.
system. The reliability criteria adopted by ~ e~~~,,~~,~~~~e.«~?~,~~r1;~[r,
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:
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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 30
City oP Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
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.
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 wafter 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 wafer supply. Key indicators of water quality are
~ - - - - -
- - - -
- - - -
I
• . .r .
- - - - =itr'41^il~i~c, er!oii l~J
L
- - -
- • -
-
~Il
1 - - -
• rr! C I,l,: 1!~1 atrc oJ~t i~'.~ - - - - • C~xI~A`~,!k;'
Draft -January 2009 Page 31
. ~f-~
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
j _ -,,;;.;t 3.~ ~ _ monitored by the city at various locations in
X~r`r f ~ ~ _ _ : ~ r ~'~i the source water system to identify changes
• A •,F,i .
a • - - - - 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 wafer regulations include
• -1~±?.~a~ = the National Primary Drinking Water
`I'`4Fr Standards (NPDWS) that consist of all
rz~~~,- . : ~ - - regulated contaminants and the Maximum
•
~ • l • ` r=~~~~~;._'_~~ - Contaminant Level (MCL) or the Treatment
• • ~``j - Technique (TT) that must be met for each
F~i~i`~Y~7. i~a - contaminant in drinking water supplies. In
-i~~f<+~~1=r°~~ - addition to the NPDWS list of contaminants,
• _'''ar~i`_°flt`~_'~_' 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 If 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 GP 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.
Draft-January 2009 Page 32
. ~
City of Boulder Source Water Master Plan Volume T ~ Summary Plan
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:
? 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 goad plan for managing and maintaining source water facilities, and
? 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:
? Assembled pertinent information about the source water system in one place,
? Summarized the current status of ongoing climate change studies, which indicate that Boulder
currently appears to have adequate water supply,
? Identified issues to be addressed in the source water system,
? Established a ?ist and priorities of facilities needs as well as programs and studies to be
accomplished in the next 20 years,
? Developed a 20-year C(P,
? 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
? 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.
Draft -January 2009 Page 33
City of 6oulde: Source Wcler A4asler Plan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Volumo 1 -Summary Pbn
TABLE b. 20.YEAR C1P
t0:a0l .iAtlr 1,AnVH)n0>r ll)(IM
2>{r.mf rn•~'1+ 411./alit t:al1S 311).1:+ II W.O:N ~ IIlV,Oa_ l0 111,}}Raw w 11 ,>..Oi 10 I /,:Aen 70 IO.J01+'.e lJ 11.;1I0
I w 1111 :1f w tvll>,aLV w 11 M,1•1 w flJff,:o 1u SO
. •a• slnwo » w suAx so sc sw,cao w to io so w w lD » w w » w is w so so so w
tv,u>nl a tan ulsiv uw.oco uoo,ow to r,n f.aa so nn,nf So aa,an w fe,oW,af 1o u.l.r1 w snr,pf u tf,]u.wa
u fuo,;o w Svle.JU » so
foul run 1m1s1
Ma.Gmnrr.•Sra.• tf),tleoal lla0CQ0]0 SvJJp>0 7]»,eu lNA.S00 SAI,]11 wf zai. i]iJ,>:1 74}Jy Sall alf 1>J].Wl f>h`.Yr 3>)Iy10 1.,00!>U 11,0141!5
I,H>,)l1 31.101,+00 1,,1114] St,la>,nf II,Nl,3w {I,]l>,e1a 31,ITMlI t1a13,1w Sl,lxll3 it lai]I1 i!a]],OJt
. r.l++. j1)MN 3,00.000 la,YO> Sa w w 10 10 iJ w s0 » f11Qa:! w w U 10 f w 30 w w ID 40 w t0 w
ta.+.. o.-0..1 pve.u ultin w w to m w w salafo. to so to w » » to w so so u u to » w u
...ago.... ta.cf,ofl sJASSAOa So w w so so w so w taw>,a. u w to so to so w w w w w so w m u
ml..o~ p]a.u ssowD w to u to so w w w ia)o,ue to » w w w so w w w so w w w tv w
»,w.l.... a..r.,.. urf.n, Vl>v. uo,.Jas w w to so fo w sD w » w u w w w w w w w u w so w
f....raa.~..l tvef,a. slaw: sexwo S+.aOacW sa w u iD w to s]salsa w w so w w w j w w w » w w so w
fr:...rv.=-M.S•b•r s11.1:1 Sf3,1:a {0 w f0 I 70 W w w t0 w w w s0 w w w w w 70 {0 I w w 3o w
I••or wsr. WII.IU 1):]sr1 wilful] w 30 I 10 w w w 10 w fu w b w w w w » to So w w 3o w
.•i.~u V•'••+I.•.•o~ w t0 » w w l0 w w w SO w IO w w w w w w iD t0 3a tv w t0 w
.inwr l•••rw S1JD1N11 I,:w,000 w 10 w waver Sa19Ja) 10 w iD f0 w w w {0 w w t0 w w 30 30 10 w SO w
L.Ya? LlA12IM 1t,a33ln S110lA )1 lIJW,300 SI)JA)1 ll,]f:,»J 1f 1),>If l.aUaf 11,110.1!! 11,1/1,>af il,gl,a)) t,,100A3: 71,OW,>ll IIAXi)1 !'.Mf,1]I
t1,lOf,100 l1,1 ]IN] w,IMOI 11,)O1,1]A 31,)]f,wf w,Jlawf 11.111.1w 11,w1]JS fl,)».1:1 11,.Y,N1
ur N.Iq aouwsvstulvan
Aw,o.. xsw.lls uA)s:aao w w w w » u w w t>z].I w w un.:a) wn],w1 w w w so w so w to w w w
sw•. Ir. ur w So N » w t0 w w w 10 w w w w w 10 w w t0 w w w u f0 w
w.a laa. o.. t1D0.11o slaaao » » sloauo w w w So to Sa w » So w w io so so w io u w to w u
a....1.+. 1 0>. w w u » w zv w w w to » w w w w w so w w w w w w is w
G•w l.+. ]0a x.>s.u3 w.aJsew w » u 1o so w s>ao.e w w u.a:l: x.1].1]. w w w w w to » se w » w to w
Gwwlr.l a.• w w w w w so w » w » u » w w w so w u » se so to w to u
G•n.lr•o.. w u w w zo so u w w sa w so w so w to w u w w u w to w w
..•af..f....... twulf svcAO] » w w u u u so w to w so w w w]fa11 w w w w w » w sv w w
Iw.-w1fn.,. s]lJS1 slosroo w u w w I Sa so w w to u w svJS1 w w w w to w w to So w w w
4..r•m••v,. llw,.fo 1wAw w w w 10 So l0 30 sD 3J u 1D 11W,N0 w w t0 w » w » w 10 w fa u
)w,...f~r..f, xafvl. a,woool w 1D w to So w iD so u w so N w sD lwr,ali ts,aas~Jf w w w w to se w w
l.l.w•.I 110.!ll,M] w w wot.iw w w w 3MVa1 10 3eJ.:.1 S.af,
`]J 3l a{1.1:a lNO.al. 31JL,.11 31].,111 t31],f t] 15,aaa])) w w w 10 )0 fo 10 w
ooallurrwdrnwtat
e•r:nm N]],fN w w t0 w w fa 1e » So 1J 70 w U]),lA SO tJ w » so so Se w f0 7e w
u•Ow, tD so w w 10 f0 w w s0 » w so w » w to 10 30 {0 SD » w w so w
.wa.a+...«•, s.fa.lo s..osaa so w w to u1: a1> » So w s>::.. u u so u tloow) w u u w s1».ro) a so w to w
re..w wwtf tfmaw w w 1!0),000 w w la so w so » 30 w w w w w Y) » w w w » la w
,.er •r.a..++e.lo>o.J aDAw w w u ~ w ssawo w w u w » w u w w w w w w to » so sv w u
~c...o..Ws.•e.. w fo w u w w w w So so I w w so to w w so w w so u w I to w w
«•..w a...+. s+Mw.. to w w w w w w 30 to » w 3o w Iv w io w w u 30 w 10 7o w w
:e•.•i.l. sr.r•1~s1A.,.• s0 w w w w w U iD f0 l0 w t0 w w w 30 w t0 w f0 w t0 » w w
l+cww vn.•.. s.u.,r r.wc r va>,.]1 sn)AOe sacs. uaa]s] u ux]ss w w w w w a to so w w so fa w sD to a sa w w w
oc.•..r-+.~c1..•urh•a.• w,uw111 t1]I,]>J i!t1~]]o w w w w w.Nep11 » w fo w w u w ID w 30 w w w w w w w
Draft - Jonuory 2009 Pago 34
~~n
+J
Cify of BDalrler Source Wafer ivlafter Plan Volume 1 -Summary Plan
i
. ,~.r+. r. s. e,lr, ' s. t: s~: sc - so sc I so I I s~= 3c
sos,~~~ sl:aw,cll ~ rr ole.ccu s1)s;es si.lsc,cl: slwsw s: 1. ns r:er. u: ~ sn ~ s: nls ea ~s]e.soo., s:, sr c.9a: s•o,.c:: r s.~
_ ~ _ solaw s-. ro- _ _ i m s~
fDwu w,lnt r6v, rlu6nxo uxo Hrto
xwa Mya~wW.~F4 f0 SO f0 tD 30 30 tJ SO 30 SO I N SO f0 SO 30 30 t0 I U 30 30 f0 f0 f0 30 30
Slnrlw.Ilydrw~r~~c So 30 W 30 30 SO W SO SO 30 10 SC 30 Sv 10 30 30 W 30 30 SO f0 SO f0 30
swlda t.>,r.o6 n+eb aA P.ng3-p 3104000 SO SV 3!00,000 SO 30 30 30 30 3C j0 t0 f] f0 30 30 t0 f0 30 SO 30 30 SO 30 SO
wwyaro 9pV bwnm 3114616 ]0 f313,1I0 SO f0 f0 30 f0 N 30 b f0 30 N 30 30 I f9 S7 30 30 30 30 SO W M
6en.r Dan MYOe {3.631 Y1f SO i0 t0 b j0 10 30 S] 31,bSZ)13 SO So 10 30 30 W f0 f0 W f0 SD 30 W t0 30
6otlGr ^.onlon 11>dw f)J66,V1 SJ)OJA00 b !J 30 SO fJ SG 30 30 Sv SO SO 30 f0 30 SO 30 30 i0 30 30 f0 3))00.1)1 30 SO
Owa V+enr rF.r..ra t.MAp, h,.ynp etl 36.501x/00 fx,1D1.000 30 W SO 30 30 i0 SO 30 3]r 4x1) 311x.063 3]f173x S]3BAt6 31x3,60 f15:,1]1 (]60,610
5:64641 S17oJOJ 1115,00+ 33913:e 3102100 UII,x11 U]07)x 30IO,S0) iN4309
Irbe.wv.k FCOley S.•abltaaen
SAW f11J33,i10 f0 1113,610 fIrN,000 30 f0 f0 30 to 11,6)l,Ip SYxrOi S]31)L 3)36.666 ,t1x46x) 1](1,111 5160.4 rp 31060x1 31)6)01
313S,Wx 3191,1(1 1]02,]00 fJl l,xll 53,037.031 5110.19) S3x0,f00
t
Draff - Jomsory 2009 Page 35
I
f~f
f1~~ .
' Attachment B
6. Water Master Plan Summary
TLie 2009 Souz'c~ Water Master Pla __z~~WMP e~i
s1~~'liere earl icr planning efl'9rts leave
off "The 1988~~Water Master Plan ~ cused~.~he vlivsical water sub~~lYCiclivered
into t]ze city's water_~~ietir~~inc~
tc
lien, a broader watershed peI'Spec i h , ee
dcvel~~ed to guide source ~~Jater maoa.~~s'nt. The ~W1V1~' lo2ks t a_l,water within a
Yv_ate~s~ie~and of lust that which•is diverted by the city,
Background Information
The city gets its water from the Boulder Creek Basin and from the western slope though
the Colorado-Big "fhompson (CBT) Project and Windy Gap Project. Flows in the
watershed basins supplying each source are highly variable from year to year. Because
of this, the amount of water derived from each of Boulder's water sources and delivered
into the municipal system also varies.
(1) Boulder Creek Basin Water Rights
The city's water rights in the Boulder Creek basin include direct use and storage rights on
both Middle and North Boulder Creek and exchange rights. The city's exchange rights
allow the city to release water into lower Boulder Creek near 75th Street from Boulder
and Baseline Reservoirs in exchange for increased diversion at the city's direct use and
storage points on Middle and North Boulder Creeks. Most of the city's water rights are
absolute. The city also has several conditional rights that are being developed for future
use.
(2) The Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project
Boulder receives western slope water at Boulder Reservoir from the CBT Project
facilities. The city Utilities owns 21,015 CBT units out of a total of 310,000 units in the
project. At present, CS'I' deliveries to Boulder can only he made from April through
October of each. year due to winter operating limitations on canals. Boulder uses CBT
water for direct treatment at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant, either diverted
directly from the Boulder Feeder Canal or pumped out of Boulder Reservoir, and as a
source of exchange water to increase water deliveries to the Betasso Water Treatment
Plant.
(3) The Windy Gap Project
The Windy Gap Project delivers westenl slope water to municipal and industrial water
users on the east slope through CBT facilities. The city has an allotment contract for 37
units out of a total of 480 units in the project. These units, when used in conjunction with
storage space in Boulder and Barker Reservoirs and "borrowing" of CBT water, can
deliver up to 3700 acre-feet per year. Unlike much of the rest of Boulder's water, the
Windy Gap water is fully consumable, meaning that the return flows (wastewater effluent
and Lawn watering runoff) from this source can be reused either for exchange back into
Boulder's water system or by leasing to other downstream users.
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, 11,686 acre-feet of storage in Barker
Reservoir on Middle Boulder Creek, and 8,500 AF in Boulder Reservoir. Boulder's two
water tz•eatznent facilities are the Betasso plant, with approximately d5 million gallons per
day (MGD) of treatment capacity and the Boulder Reservoir plant at about 16 MGD. The
city operates eight hydroelectric plants located within the municipal water supply system.
Four of these hydra plants are located ou raw water pipelines, and four are on treated
water transmission pipelines. Electricity generated at these plants is sold to Xeel Energy.
Water provided by the city serves a variety of purposes ranging from those uses which
require an assured supply such as drinking water and firefighting, to those uses which can
tolerate occasional restrictions, such as lawn irrigation and car washing. It is recognized
that no municipal water supply can ever be 100 percent reliable against all risk factors
and that the economic and enviromnental opportunity costs of reducing the risks of
occasional water shortages are significant. The reliability standards for the city's
municipal water supply that were adopted by City Council in 1989 are:
(a} 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 shall. make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with
occurrence intervals of up to 1,000 years.
(b) For the increment of water use needed to provide continued viability of outdoor lawns
and gardens, the city shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against
droughts with occurrence intervals of up to 100 years.
(c) For the increment of water needed to fully satisfy all muzucipal water needs, the city
shall make every effort to ensure reliability of supply against droughts with occurrence
intervals of up to 20 years.
The SWM f anticipates that the city will maintain a diversity of
water supply sources (both east and west slope sources) in order to hedge against
droughts and increase water supply reliability. Tt includes_an assessment of current
climate chap 7e scenarios in tez-zns of ~ro'ected effects on the city's water sun icy. In
addition, the master plan identifies multiple-purpose uses for the city's municipal raw
water supplies. In addition to residential and commercial consumptive uses, the city's raw
water supply has been used for maintaining streamflow and enhancing stream habitat in
Boulder Creek. and its tributaries and for leasing to downstream agriculhiral and
recreational users.
Future Service Projections and Programs
Based on extensive modeling of the city's municipal water system and its water supply
basins, it is believed that the city has sufficient raw water supply holdings to meet the
ultimate municipal water needs of expected development levels within the city's water
service boundaries based on the current BVCP planning area. Future water needs were
evaluated in the Raw Water Master Plan in 1989. Water demand forecasts have been
updated several tunes since then based on demographic and land use forecasts provided
by the city Planning Department and expectations of results from conservation practices.
Boulder's future water demands were most recently evaluated as part of the Drought Plan
process in 2003 and are shown below. Current modeling shows that the city's present
water rights portfolio would provide sufficient water to meet all demands at full buildout
of the BVCP area during 275 years out of a period of 285 years. Voluntary use
reductions or moderate use restrictions would be necessary in about nine years due tv
reduced supplies during drought. Severe use restrictions would be required in only one
year out of 285 years when drought conditions would reduce water yields significantly.
At nv time during the modeled scenario did water yields drop below the level of meeting
essential indoor needs. This model outcome meets the adopted reliability criteria for the
city's water supply system.
The 2005 Maior Update to t7~e B~irlile~• Vallev omvi•eherrsive Plan ~:-n~ prviecte~
lgwcr no~zla~iyI1 ~.n~i
h~her employment n~iee-tj-e~~m~n~ er, tha» ~~e used iitthe 2 03
Drought Plan. The number of vears in which the reliability crite~ri_<i1ire not met u~~d~r~
~?Sl~~.ed wat~d~.~a~ci v~l~~s_ sl~oi~ld be lower, an_d_tlt~~t_y should be_ n1~~c_3pable
~f
nrovidine water service in compliance with tie reliability criteria t 1n rU CVIOUSI~~
~u _ eta
The SW L presents _
a°• facilities improvements a~
i studies and_~lans to ~u' e t>,ze city's source
water mana nt for the next 20 vears. including evaluating costs and benefits as as t1L
timizt-~of cx~enditure~ t~rT~t~md°~~,=~~
.,,1 „ ,~„°.,,°.,r „a „t. „t: .,~l;,u-~„~~ it t ,
^ -
rez~,-;T;~r,~;m~a-Facilities imurvvemcnts ancl~zdin~ capital im~~rovement~roiects and
minor proiects are aSSi~h~riyrities in teens of timing based uuon facility condition ai~d_
how i>_n~ortant the facility is to the wate~~~zp~1~Y~tcn~. Reconi ed studies anal
Mans idcntifv infonnatiyn that will be needed for futures urce water manaeeme~t
s_~Q_._.. f ..Fri a.,~.. motor 1,,,1.7' _ •~~c. Lv~_n~~iTu-i~ivjiiia,
d_ec_iS ns._ ' b
m.~ ~~4'.,.7-.'.,h l~.> >..'--~~f:il'-ii~31f. .1 4asr.
T__ lze ,SWMP document itself will n~t~~tl~~.~~~n_t a» new _i _'e, a, these will renuire
specire approval by the City Council or the City Manager and desienated staff aS 1S1S
~orQnriate. Many of the itcm_s describcd_as
sty udies and plans in_the SWMP may have
eventual nolicv implications fyllowin in-depth eva uatiQtl,~lic s~eeific direc~t9n~z~c1~
policies would take will not become apparent until the studies and Mans arc com 11Zete•
Previously existing uolicics w~c0ntii~ue to wide s s~ oi~eratiyn and znana~ement.
ji
~ J l
Water Supply vs. Demand
a5ooo
aoooo ~ - - -
35000
~ 30000 ' I ~ , . ~ - - -
u i
25000 ~ J'.
m
a 20000 ~ as
15000 ~ ~ ea -
10000 ~ as -
3
5000 . ~ ~ a.,r~ as - - - _
a
Crought eater supply present demand Buildout demand Buildout w/o water
available conservation
®Unrestrained Water Demand 24000 28600 31460
Onon-drought supply ~-39600
B 1-in-20 year drought supply 34000
91-in-50 year drou ht su pl 26600
lS 1-in-100 year drought supply 23600
f~ 1-in-1000 year drought supply 17700
Scenarios
More information on Boulder's water resources as well as a Boulder Watershed Map can
be found on the Web at: -
http://www.boulderwater.net^;.'~~„'a~r.~ ~~r„'~1;~YT,~~'~~~~'°~+
~,~.'"~'m'
Cam-
• JJ