HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 - Update on the draft Water Conservation PlanCITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ~DVISORY B4ARD
AGEND~ ITEM
l~~TEETING DATE: February 25, 2005
t~GENDt~ TITLE: Information Item - City of Baulder Water Conservatian Plan
PRESENTER/S: Paul Lander, Water Conservation Specialist
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services
Coordinatoi-
EYECUTIZ~ E SLTNIl1~Z~RY:
The City of Boulder, as a retail water provider delivering more than 2000 acre-feet/year,
was required under State law, in 1994, to submit a~rater conservation plan to the State of
Colorado, Colorado ~?Vater Conservation Board (Ct~'CB). The attached draft City of
Boulder Water Conservation Plan (Plan) {Attachment ~) replaces the City plan submitted
to the State in 1996. The 2t~04 State law required all covered entities to submit a new
plan following new guidelines. ~ftei• the Water Resources Advisoiy Board (WRAB)
reviews the Plan, it will ultimately be submitted to the Ct~VCB. As part of the State
approval process the City is required to have a 60-day public comment period for the
Plan, and the WRAB process will count as part of the public comment period.
Once the State approves the Plan, the City is then eligible to apply for State g7•ant fiinds
for implementation proj ects, with 75% of the cost born by~ the St~te. This represents an
opportunity to obtain outside funds to cornplernent current conserv~tion efforts or offer
new services to City water customers. In addition, the Plan can provide baseline
information for internal review, evaluation, and revision of cur~~ent City ~-ater
conservation programs and policies.
COUNCIL FILTER INIPACTS:
Economic: The Plan is an organized presentation of existing conservation programs, and
is therefore not expected to have any ne~~v rej~enue requirements. Ho~i~evei•, once
adopted, this plan makes the City eligible for grant funds frotn the State, to implement
conservation programs for• the Uenefit of large users and other customers ~~~ithin the
community.
AGENDA ITERZ # 7 P~GE 1
Environmental: The Plan outlines the existing City of Boulder water conservation
program, which offers many em~ironmental benefits, primarily, directing the efficient use
of i~vater resources within the community.
Social: The Plan outlines existing conservation programs which offer social benefits to
the community through water efficiency, which can lead to lower water costs and an
increase in water services, plus provides grant funding opportunities.
OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
None
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
None to date. The February 25, 2008 WRAB meeting is the beginning of a 60-day public
comment period on the Plan as required by the State.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review and provide staffwith comments on the draft Plan. All public comments will be
recorded and included as a part of the submittal to the State of Colorado, anticipated in
April of 2008.
ANALYSIS:
Conservation has long been an important component of the City of Boulder's water
management strategy, including outreach, education, and technical assistance programs
that date back over 20 years. In 2004, a new State of Colorado law required all covered
entities in the State, those delivering 2000 acre-feet, or more, of retail water per calendar
year, to submit a water conservation plan to the State of Colorado Water Conservation
Board (CWCB). The law outlined key elements that were required to be present in all
submitted plans. Once its plan is approved by the CWCB a covered entity is then eligible
to apply for grant funds from the CWCB Office of Water Conservation and Drought
Planning. Grant funds are available, for the first time, for conservation implementation
programs, with the State providing 75% of the funding for any approved grant project.
The City of Boulder completed their current Water Conservation Plan in 1996, but as
required under the 2004 State of Colorado law, water conservation plans need to be
resubmitted under new guidelines, and updated every seven years to be eligible for water
conservation grant funding from the CWCB. With an approved water conservation plan
the City of Boulder can apply for grant funding or the City can assist other entities within
the City of Boulder to apply for grant funding to support water conservation efforts. The
ability to obtain grant funding was only one of the reasons for updating the City's water
AGENDA ITEM # 7 PAGE 2
conservation plan as the updated draft Water Conservation Plan (Plan) also pro~~ides
guidance in updating and implementing the City of Boulder's conservation program in a
way that is compatible with the City's water supply system, existing conservation
programs, water resources management strategy, and values of the community.
The City of Boulder Plan (Attachment A) addresses each of the necessary elements of a
water conservation plan as required by the State, including characterization of the City
water resources, treatment and delivery system, typical demand patterns, existing
conservation efforts, and plans for future enhancements in any of these areas. The Plan
also includes detailed information regarding the City's historical and projected water
demands and supplies. Additionally, the Plan includes discussion of the City's water
conservation goals and the greatest potential water savings through conservation, as well
as a portfolio of conservation measures and programs. Implementation and monitoring
methods are also addressed to assess the effectiveness of each measure and program.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan. Preliminary Draft. February
2008.
AGENDA ITEM # 7 PAGE 3
CITY
BOULDER
Water Conservation Plan
February 2008 `
Prepared by: T~:_
The Brendle Group, Inc. Water Conservation Office
22G S. Remington Street, #g Water Quality and En~~ironmental Services
Fort Collnis, CO So524 Public Works/Utilities
City of Boulder
www.brendlegroup.com
~~~pL~ GRoG
~ -o
~ Z
2 ~
H
FR~NG CoN~'
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Executive Summary
Conservation has long been an important component of the city of Boulder's water management
strategy, including outreach, education, and technical assistance programs that date back over 20
years. The purpose of this Conservation Plan (Plan) is to provide guidance in updating and
implementing the City of Boulder's conservation program in a way that is compatible with the
City's water supply system, existing conservation programs, water resources management
strategy, and values of the community.
The city of Boulder provides potable water to approximately 113,000 residents in its service
area, which encompasses a total of just under 26 square miles. The City's total annual treated
water demand is approximately 20,300 acre-feet, primarily supplied by surface water withdrawn
from Boulder Creek, and secondarily from the Colorado-Big Thompson and y~4'indy Gap Projects
on the western slope. Residential single-family users make up most of the 28,500 connections in
the service area. Across all sectors, citywide annual demand per connection totaled just over 233
thousand gallons (kgal) in 2006. The City's total daily per capita water use has varied fi•om year
to year, fi•om a low of 148 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to a high of 201 gpcd. Since the
adoption of the City's comprehensive conservation program follo~i--°ing completion of the Water
Conservation Futures Study in 1999, per capita ~i-~ater use has significantly declined, particularly
fiom the severe drought year of 2442 to present.
The city of Boulder is approximately 94% built out and any additional improvements or
additions to its water system swill focus more on improving system operating flexibility than
increasing capacity. In 2007, water revenues totaled over $19,38,000 for all customer classes in
the city. Single family residential customers contributed to approximately 44 percent of
revenues, followed by commercial and industrial users (26 percent), and finally multifamily
residential and sprinkler users( 19 and 15 percent). As of 2407, the City uses afive-block rate
structure based on established "water budgets" for each type of customer, an important
component of the city's overall water consen=ation strategy.
In 1999, the city completed its yA~ater Consei•~~ation Futures Study to examine existing water use
patterns and recent. trends, update firture ~~-ater demand projections and reliable supply capability,
and reassess the role of water conservation programs in helping to meet the city's needs. The
Study led to the adoption of a Comprehensive Conservation Scenario to aggressively manage
and conserve water. The study was followed in 2000 by the Treated Water Master Plan, which
provides guidance for improvements to the City's water system. In 2443, a Drought Plan was
developed that established water use reduction measures to be implemented in the event of a
severe drought that would quickly, but temporarily, greatly reduce water demands during the
critical drought period. The drought response measures work in concert with, but are separate
from, the city's on-going water conservation efforts. Both an updated Source Water Master Plan
and Water Quality Strategic Plan are presently under development.
Today, the city operates a wide range of conservation programs that address both indoor and
outdoor water use, as well as a variety of customer categories. City Council has adopted a
comprehensive water conservation program for the city to achieve an overall reduction of water
i
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
use at build-out. Implementation of the city's goal has been accomplished through an extensive
water conservation program that continues to develop. Achievement of these targets will result
in an expected overall reduction in total demand in the range of 19 percent at build-out as
compared to water use at build-out absent the Comprehensive Conservation Program. Per capita
water use at build-out may be greater than 2006 levels due to increases in the population to jobs
ratio, but will be less than without the water conservation program.
As its water conservation program has evolved, the city has developed a number of criteria to
screen both existing programs and potential new programs. These criteria, along with ongoing
and potential new conservation programs, will be integrated into modifying forecasts as part of
update of the 2000 Treated Water Master Plan, which the city anticipates will take place in the
next few years.
Completion and approval of this Plan are anticipated to occur bet«~•een February and April 2008.
Monitoring of the city's conservation progress will be carried out in a variety of ~~~ays, including
but not limited to the tracking of billing system data, daily ater and waste~~-ater treatment and
production, daily operations of the city's surface water supply system, annual program costs,
number of rebates, and feedback from the public.
ii
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................v
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................................v
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Profile of Existing Water System .................................................................................................................2
2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Existing Water Supply Systeraz ..................................................................2
2.2 Sources of Water 6
2.3 System Limitations 8
2.4 Water Costs and Pricing 9
2.5 CurrentPoliciesandPlanninglnitiatives ................................................................................................11
2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities
.....................................................................................................13
3.0 VtTater Use and Forecast Demand ..............................................................................................................24
3.1 Current Water Use 24
3.2 WaterDemandForecastingMethod ........................................................................................................29
3.3 WaterDemandForecast
...........................................................................................................................30
4.0 Proposed Facilities .......................................................................................................................................32
4.1 Potential Facility I4reeds ...........................................................................................................................32
4.2 Incremental Cost,4rzalysis, and Preliminary Capacity and Cost Forecasts 36
5.0 Conservation Goals .....................................................................................................................................36
5.1 i~'ater~ Conser~~ation Goals .......................................................................................................................36
5.2 Goal DevelopmentProcess ......................................................................................................................37
6.1 Ongoing Consetwatton Measures and Programs 37
6.2 Screening Ct~ter~ia for Conservation Measures 39
6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs 39
7.0 Selection of Conse~•~ration 11'Ieasures and Programs .................................................................................40
7.1 Create Combinations of
Measures and Programs ....................................................................................411
7.2 Estimate Costs and Water Savings of Conservation Options ...................................................................40
7.3 Benefits and Costs 40
7.4 Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................................40
7. S Select Conservation Measures and Programs 40
8.0 Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts ...............................................................................................40
iii
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
9.0 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................................................42
9.1 Develop Implementation Schedule 42
9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation 42
9.3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes 42
9.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan 42
9. S Defane Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date 42
10.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................43
11.0 References ....................................................................................................................................................44
Appendix A: 1999-2006 Revenues and Consumption by Customer Class ..............................................................1
Appendix B: Additional Information on 2007 Water Budgeting Procedures ........................................................1
iv
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Service Area Characteristics ...............................................................4
Table 2.2: Annual Water Demand 5
Table 2.3: Service Connections 5
Table 2.4: Water Demand 6
Table 2.5: Average and Peak Demand 6
Table 2.6: Summary of System Conditions 8
Table 2.7: 2006 Revenues by Customer Class ........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2.8: 2007 Water Revenues, January through August....Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2.9: Monthly Water and Wastewater Service Charges 10
Table 2.10: Monthly Quantity Charges Per 1,000 Gallons~~ 11
Table 2.11: Summary of Past and Current Conservation Activities 13
Table 3.1: Top Water Users 28
Table 3.2: Water Use by Customer Class (per thousand gallons) 29
Table 3.3: Projected Demand by Customer Class 32
Table 4.1: Proposed Facility Improvements 34
Table 6.1: Conservation Measures Screening Tool 39
Table 9.1 Major Milestones in Implementation Schedule 42
List of Fi ures
9
Figure 1.1 Boulder Water System Nlap 3
Figure 1.2 City of Boulder Treated Water Service Area 4
Figure 3.1 Total and Per Capita Treated Water Use, 1972-2006 25
Figure 3.2 Total Indoor Water Use, 1972-2006 26
Figure 3.3 Total (hrtdoor Water LTse, 1972-2006 27
Figure 3.4 Total Indoor tt'ater Use as a Percent of Total Use, 1972-2006 27
Figure 3.5 Comparison of 2006 Treated t?Vater Use with Highest Year's Use 28
Figures 3.6-3.8 Projected Average Day, Peak Day, and Peak Hour Demand, Treated Water
I~•Iaster Plan 31
v
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
1.0 Introduction
Throughout Colorado, municipalities face potential shortages of water supplies in the future as
the competition and expense for surface water supplies increases and as climate change
progresses. Fortunately, water system modeling under present hydrologic conditions shows that
Boulder owns sufficient water supply to meet its buildout needs with planned, but infrequent,
reductions in use during severe drought years. Even though modeling demonstrates an adequate
water supply for Boulder under all but the most extreme climate change scenarios, it is based on
assumptions that city-wide water conservation efforts will continue. Any «-~ater conservation
savings above goals set by City Council will make the city's water supply even more resilient
during drought periods and in the event that climate change conditions actually do result in
reduced water availability for Boulder.
Programs to conserve water are important components to maintain water demand levels that are
in alignment with Boulder's available water supply. T1ie conservation of water can also reduce
expenses associated with conveyance and treatment of both potable ~~-~ater and wastewater.
Finally, conservation not only reduces water demand, but also decreases the amount of energy
needed to pump, treat, and heat water.
Conservation has long been an important component of the city's ater management. strategy,
including outreach, education, and technical assistance programs that date back over 24 years.
The city recognizes that conservation plans are useful tools in evolving and improving on
conservation programs to more effectively conserve water while minimizing associated costs.
They are most effective when incorporated into an overall water resources management strategy,
as the city of Boulder has done in the past with its 1999 Water Conservation Futures study and
its 2400 Treated Water Master Plan.
The purpose of this Conservation Plan (Plan) is t«--~ofold: 1) to comply with state law requiring
water providers delivering 2444 acre-feet or more of retail water to submit a water conservation
plan to the Colorado Water Consen-ation Board, and 2) to provide guidance in updating and
implementing the city of Boulder's conservation program in a way that is compatible with the
city's water supply system, water rights, existing conservation programs, water resources
management strategy, and values of the community.
This Plan includes information regarding the city's historical and projected water demands and
supplies. The plan also includes a discussion of the city's water conservation goals and the
greatest potential titer savings through conservation, as well as a portfolio of conservation
measures and programs. Implementation and monitoring methods are also addressed to assess
the effectiveness of each measure and program. The Plan is organized into the following
sections:
• Section 1 -Introduction
• Section 2 -Profile of Existing Water System
• Section 3 -Characterization of Water Use and Forecast Demand
• Section 4 -Proposed Facilities
• Section 5 -Conservation Goals
• Section 6 -Conservation Measures and Programs
1
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
• Section '7 -Evaluation and Selection of Conservation Measures and Programs
• Section 8 -Integration of Resources and Modification of Forecasts
• Section 9 -Implementation
• Section 10- Monitoring and Evaluation
2.0 Profile of Existing Water System
The following section provides a profile of the city of Boulder's existing v=ater system, including
major system components, water use, demographics, water supply, and water demand.
2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Existing Vllater Supply System
The city of Boulder provides potable water to approximately 113,000 residents in its service
area, which encompasses a total of just under 2b square miles (Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2). V4~ater is
treated at the city's two treatment plants, Betasso ~~'ater Treatment Plant and Boulder Reservoir
WTP, and conveyed to users by over 400 miles of water distribution pipelines. Table 2.1
summarizes the city's service area and system characteristics.
2
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
I, ~ I` -
k ~I
~ ~ 'q '~r ~
i r ;v ti s
~l ~ ~ ~ ~ir -._v-- ~
t I~
~ ~ ~ I~
`I '4 •r~ 1 r ~ ~ a~
a~ F
~
~ r~ ~
~ ~
a
i
~ ~ ~fl
~s. ~J9 `4~ 4
ii ~
'
_ ~I~ ~ k
~ ~ 5'~ ;~i ;~4 ~ ~
I'
E~ F. f_
I
t ;fir ~
I i.,_ ~
i~
r ~ ~ ~ J~
j 1
~,~i I ~1er..tt ~
' ~ ,~~'si ~ FLL
~ r~ r I_
Figure 2.1 Boulder Vllater System Map
3
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
i-::a -
JF~. F .
,I
i' ; ~ ~
~ - I MI'1MOT
- T _
:r,
A.
r
~ ~
_ i~'
eou~~R ~
T¦ ~ I
i - ± i
I • ~ ! - '
I; 1
~ ~ _LL Wl1iSYILLE
lid ~ ~ 4prR+bR ~ .
` J f_I /
f
~u~u~k :nlnr "
s..r M.
AI f:,~l~TY
LEGEND
sLCrnce ~s ecunAm
COUNTY LINE
~W E~. I
_ .AEA IIA
aar~ uta
,arA n, FICsl1RE a-2
CITY OF B~OtlLDEI2
~ TRFJITE[} WATER
~ SERVICE AR@A
Figure 2.1 City of Boulder Treated Water Service Area
4
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Table 2.1: Service Area Characteristics (2006}
Characteristic Number
Estimated service population 113,000
Estimated service area s uare miles 26
Miles of treated water pipelines 408
Number of treatment plants 2
Number of separate water systems 1
Interconnection with other systems 1 (Left Hand Water District)
The city's total annual treated water demand is approximately 20,340 acre-feet, primarily
supplied by surface water withdrawn from Boulder Creek, and secondarily from the Colorado-
Big Thompson (CBT) Project and Windy Gap Project. The city is also 100 percent metered
(Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: Annual Water Demand (2006) '
Source Annual volume Number of intakes or source Percent metered
(acre-feet) points
Groundwater 0 0 NA
Surface water 20,311 2 (Betasso WTP (Boulder Creek 100
basin sources) 65% and Boulder
Reservoir WTP thru CBT 35%
Purchases: raw 0 0 NA
Purchases: 0 0 NA
treated
Total demand 20,311 2 100
The city provides ~~-ater to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional users as well as
irrigation users. Residential single-family connections make up most of the total connections. In
2006, there were just over 28,00 connections in the service area, with sales of approximately
6,100,000 thousand gallons (kgal) (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Service Connections (2006
User Category Connections Water sales {kgal) Percent metered
Residential, single- 22,351 2,348,280 100
family
Residential, multi-fam* 2,483 1,246,652 100
Commercial, industrial 2,096 1,545,399 100
and institutional**
Irrigation 1,622 960,913 100
Total connections 28,552 6,101,244 100
Source: 2006 Annual Report
*Includes wholesale purchase by Hoover Hills, which is classified as one multi-family account with 254 units
All non-residential, non-irrigation service connections counted as one connection under current system
5
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Table 2.4 depicts water demand for 2U06. Residential sales constituted the largest share of water
demand, with nearly ~4 percent of total demand. Non-residential sales to commercial, industrial,
and institutional customers totaled just over 23 percent of sales by volume; however, annual
demand per connection was significantly higher for non-residential sales at approximately 737
kgal per customer, compared to just under 145 kgal per customer for the residential sector.
Across all sectors, citywide annual demand per connection totaled just over 233 kgal (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4: Water Demand 2006
Sector Annual Volume (kgal) Percent of Total Per Connection
(kgallcustomer]
Residential sales 3,594,932 53.91 144.8
Nonresidential sales 1,545,399 23.18 737.3
Wholesale sales 0 0.00 0.0
Other sales # 960,913 14.41 592.4
Non-account water* 566,782 8.50 19.9
Total system demand 6,668,026 100.00 233.5
(total use}
Source: 2006 Annual Report
# Bulk water sales; sub-district sales
* Non-account water estimated at 8.5% of total volume due to authorized hydrant flushing and losses during general
distribution system maintenance.
Table 2.5 depicts average and maximum daily and hourly demand in the city..
Table 2.5: Average and Peak Demand 2000
Demand Volume (mgd] Total supply Percent of total
capacity (mgd] capacity
Average-day demand 20 56 35.7
Maximum-day 53 56 94.6
demand
Maximum-hour N/A 2.33 NIA
demand
Source: Treated Water Master Plan, 2000
2.2 Sources of Water
The city of Boulder obtains its water from two surface water basins, the upper watershed of
Boulder Creek and the upper Colorado River basin via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project
(CBT) trans-mountain di~~ersion facilities which also carry Windy Gap Project water. Boulder
Creek sources are further subdivided into the North Boulder Creek basin, including the city-
owned Silver Lake Watershed area, and the Middle Boulder Creek basin above Barker
Reservoir. The Colorado River trans-mountain diversion supply includes units of the CBT
system, which is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and operated by the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) and units of the more recent Windy Gap
Project, which is owned and operated by the municipal sub-district of NCWCD.
b
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
The city of Boulder's water system consists of raw water collection, storage, and conveyance
facilities; hydropo~~~er facilities; two treatment plants; and transmission, storage, and distribution
facilities. This section provides an overview of the system, a current listing of equipment and
facilities at the City's water treatment plants, and major elements of the distribution system.
Silver Lake Watershed
The city of Boulder ovens the 10 square mile Silver Lake Watershed, having been granted the
right to purchase most of the area by Congressional acts between 1907 and 1927. Source water
derived primarily from snowmelt is stored in seven reservoirs and released as required. Silver
Lake is the last reservoir in the series of Silver Lake Watershed reservoirs. Raw water released
from Silver Lake is diverted from North Boulder Creek into the Silver Lake Pipeline
approximately two miles below the reservoir. The Silver Lake Pipeline, originally built in 1919,
was replaced during 1997 and 1998 to improve system reliability. A ne« hydroelectric
generating facility was constructed along with the ne~i~ pipeline.
The Silver Lake Pipeline terminates at Lakewood Reservoir, a small impoundment located north
of Nederland used for flow equalization and as an additional diversion point from North Boulder
and Como Creeks. From Lakewood Reservoir, water is conveyed approximately 9.5 miles to the
Betasso Water Treatment Plant via the Lakewood Pipeline. This pipeline «~as originally
constructed in 190b and was first rebuilt in the 1940s and 1950x. A second replacement of the
lower 1.1 miles of the Pipeline was completed in 1995 with the remainder replaced in the early
2000x. A hydro plant was added at the end of Lakewood Pipeline at that. time.
Barker Reservoir System
Barker Reservoir «~as constructed in 1909 by predecessors to Public Service Company of
Colorado (PSCo, no~~ Ycel Energy) to supply a hydroelectric generating facility in Boulder
Canyon near Orodell. Raw water is piped from Barker Reservoir to Kossler Reservoir, and then
from Kossler Reservoir to the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Plant. After spinning the turbine,
the water discharges to Boulder Creek.
Water destined for municipal use is diverted from the penstock (high pressure pipeline feeding a
hydroelectric turbine) immediately upstream from Boulder Canyon Hydro Plant and flows under
high pressure through a pipeline to the Betasso Hydro Plant and Betasso Water Treatment Plant.
The system from Barker Reservoir to the Boulder Canyon hydroelectric generating station was
owned and maintained by PSCo until the city purchased the entire system in 2001. The city first
entered into an agreement to use the Barker facilities for municipal water supply in 1954 and the
system has gradually increased in its importance to the municipal water supply system since that
time.
Trans-mountain Water Deliveries
Water is collected in a series of reservoirs located in the upper Colorado River watershed and
diverted to the eastern slope of Colorado via the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project. In
addition, the small Windy Gap Reservoir at the confluence of the Fraser River and the Colorado
River serves as a diversion point into a pipeline pumping water up into the CBT system for use
7
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
by participants in the ~~'indy Gap Project. Water conveyed to the eastern slope through the CBT
system mixes with water from the upper Big Thompson River watershed in Lake Estes. From
Lake Estes water is directed to a number of Front Range storage reservoirs, including Carter
Lake, for distribution to users by NCWCD.
Boulder's allocation of this water is conveyed by the open channel Boulder Feeder Canal from
Carter Lake to Boulder Reservoir. The City owns units in both the original CBT project and the
Windy Gap project, entitling it to a certain amount of water annually. Each Windy Gap unit has a
potential yield of 100 acre-feet of water annually. Each CBT unit has a maximum yield of one
acre-foot per year with an average yield of 0.7 acre-feet. The quota per unit is set each year by
the NCWCD and varies from year to year depending on the pret-pious year's precipitation and
water use. The city leases some of its unused water to agricultural users on an annual basis.
Water Resources Management
The city's raw water resources are managed by the Water Resources Group. This group is
responsible for collection, storage, and delivery of raw eater supplies to the city's water
treatment facilities. In addition to operating and maintaining the city's raw water storage
reservoirs and raw water pipelines and canals, this group maintains the water rights accounting
for raw water used by the city and negotiates sales, acquisitions, and transfers of water between
the city and other users. They also determine the amounts of ~i-~ater to be diverted from each
source at any given time for optimal use of the city's ~i~ater resources based on a complex
combination of interrelated factors including water rights priorities, storage levels, snow pack
projections, and water quality.
2.3 System Limitations
No significant system limitations have been identified in the city's water system. The system
does not experience frequent shortages or supply emergencies, nor does it have substantial
unaccounted for or lost water. In addition, the city of Boulder is approximately 90% built out and
any additional improvements or additions to its «~°ater system will focus more on improving
system operating flexibility than increasing capacity (Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Summary of System Conditions
Planning Questions Yes No Comment
Is the system in a designated critical water X There are no known critical water
supply area? supply areas.
Does the system experience frequent X There are no frequent shortages
shorta es or su I emer encies? or su I emer encies.
Does the system have substantial X System leaks are an estimated
unaccounted-for and lost water? 8.5 percent.
Is the system experiencing a high rate of X No, the City is largely built out.
population andtor demand growth?
Is the system planning substantial X Only as required by regulations
im rovements or additions? or for o erational im rovements.
Are increases to wastewater system capacity X None anticipated.
anticipated within the planning horizon?
8
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
2.4 Water Costs and Pricing
Revenues
From the period of 1999 through 2005, the city's annual total water revenues increased from just
over $14 million to $19 million. This period, however, saw two years in which revenues
dropped fiom the prior years; 2002 (a drought year) and 2004 (a year with a wet summer).
During these years, the city saw decreases in revenues across every user category with the
exception of commercial/industrial. During this period, residential revenues comprised
approximately 40 to 43 percent, multifamily residentia120 to 23 percent, commercial/industrial
19 to 23 percent, and irrigation-only accounts use 9 to 1b percent of total revenues. Appendix A
contains more detailed revenue and consumption history by customer class for the period from
1999 through 2005.
Table 2.7: 2007 Revenues by Customer Class
January thru December 2007
BILLED WATER REVENUES BY C'UST011'IER CLASS
Single- Nlulti-
Family Family Commercial) Irrigation % of
Residential Residential Industrial Only TOTAL TOTAL
Service Charge $2,425,158 $768,230 $795,229 $254,238 $4,242,855 21.5%
Block 1 3,179,027 1,620,897 1,683,352 539,120 7,022,396 35.6%
Block 2 843,648 609,628 923,646 297,830 2,674,752 13.5%
Block 3 682,179 427,125 760,127 448,605 2,318,035 11.7%
Block 4 250,898 176,123 312,353 342,743 1,082,115 5.5%
Block 5 382,700 225,097 699,763 1,102,175 2,409,734 12.2%
Bill
Adjustments (72,945) (84,573) (112,632) (94,365) (364,515) 100.0%
TOTAL $7,690,665 $3,742,526 $5,061,836 $2,890,345 $19,385,373
of TOTAL 40% 19% 26% 15% 100%
Rate Structure
The city had a flat water rate structure until 1988 when it first implemented an increasing block
rate structure. The three-tier structure used Average Winter Consumption (AWC) as the basis,
defined as the average monthly use from December through March by each account, allowing
this amount to be charged at Block 1 rates. Block 2 was set at 350 percent of Block 1 usage,
allowing for reasonable outdoor use, with any usage above this amount charged at the highest
rate in Block 3. In December of 2004, the City Council adopted a new structure, the water
budget rate structure, which was implemented in 2007.
9
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
The following tables summarize the city's current rate structure, which became effective in
January 2447. Beginning January 2447, the city converted to a five-block rate structure based on
established "water budgets" for each type of customer. As the amount of water use increases and
moves into the next block, the cost per thousand gallons increases. Bulk water and metered
hydrant rates are set at $8 per 1,444 gallons of water used. Tables 2.8 and 2.9 summarize the
city's current water rate stricture. h•Iiscellaneous charges range from $14 to mail a water service
termination notice to $244 for purchase of a water monitor, and also include meter reading and
other account services (opening or closing an account, etc.).
Table 2.8 also summarizes city's monthly wastewater service charges. During the four-winter
month AWC calculation period, wastewater quantity charges are billed using actual water use for
those months. For the remainder of the year, wastewater charges for residential customers are
billed based on AWC or actual use, whichever is less. Non-residential customers are billed for
wastewater quantity charges based on each month's actual «ater use. Quantity ch~~rges per 1,444
gallons inside the city are $3.54, and $5.25 outside of the City.
Charges for water and wastewater are billed to customers monthly. All utility charges are due
within 14 days after receipt of the bill. The billing date is detei7nined by the area of the city in
which a customer is located and the normal monthly reading cycle. The city has not recently
experienced any unusual billing or revenue issues (e.g., nonpayment of «-•ater bills, fines for
violations of water restrictions, revenue shortfalls, etc.).
Table 2.8: Monthly Water and Wastewater Service Charges 2aQ7
Water Service Charges Wastewater Service Charges
Meter Size Inside City Outside City Inside City Outside City
314" $8.55 $12.81 $0.74 $1.12
1" $14.65 $21.93 $1.33 $1.99
1112" $31.93 $47.89 $2.98 $4.47
2" $56.20 $84.29 $5.30 $7.94
3" $125.46 $188.18 $11.91 $17.87
4" $222.40 $333.61 $21.17 $31.76
6" $499.55 $749.33 $47.65 $71.47
8" $887.53 $1,331.29 $84.71 $127.06
14
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Table 2.9: Monthly Quantity Charges Per 1,000 Gallons* 2007
Blocks Inside City Outside City
Block 1 $1.88 $1.88
Block 2 $2.50 $2.50
Block 3 $5.00 $5.00
Block 4 $7.50 $7.50
Block 5 $12.50 $12.50
Quantity charges apply to all customer classes.
2.5 Current Policies and Planning Initiatives ~
Treated Water Master Plan
In 2000, the city completed a Treated Water I~iaster Plan that provides guidance for
improvements to its water system. The purpose of the Plan «as to update the master plaza to
current conditions and serve as a guide for capital improvements plazuling and budgeting. The
Plan evaluated existing treatment and distribution facilities for adequacy and compatibility with
long-term needs, and it identified capacity limitations or underutilized capacity. The updated
Plan provided the direction necessary to meet the follo«~ing objectives:
• Provide the necessary facilities to meet future demands;
• Ensure that treated «ater delivered to customers meets or exceeds regulatory requirements at
all times;
• Ensure that treated eater quality and service meet customer expectations;
• Provide operating flexibility to meet variations in demand and raw water quality;
• Provide facilities that have adequate capacit}~ and redundancy to satisfy the City's reliability
criteria for water sez~~ice; and
• Provide high quality water service to the City's customers at a reasonable cost.
The planning period for the Plan spans the 20 years from 2000 to 2020. Projections were made
from 1999 conditions to the end of the planning period in 2020, which coincides approximately
with projected build-out of the service area. The city anticipates that an update to this Plan will
commence in the next fe«~• years.
Source Water Master Plan
In 1987, the city initiated a public review process to evaluate the water supplies that Boulder
owned and to discuss options for future uses of this water. These studies resulted in the 1988
Raw Water Master Plan (RWMP). The focus of the RWMP was mainly on water yield and uses
in the city and less on raw water system infrastructure. The Source Water Master Plan (SWMP),
currently under preparation, will build on the previous RWMP and will focus on the following
objectives:
11
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
• Compile descriptive and background information for the assets and resources that
compromise the city's source water system;
• Review and update water use statistics and water rights yields;
• Document policies that affect source water system development, use and management;
• Define current and emerging issues pertaining to the city's source water assets, facilities
and resources;
• Review curY•ent operations and maintenance practices;
• Develop recommendations for future studies and improvements; and
• Provide general budgeting information and project prioritization to guide development of
the ten-year Capital Improvement Program.
Current information on the impact of climate change on Boulder's e=ater supplies and possible
city responses to climate change factors will also be included in the SWMP. The SWMP is
anticipated to be completed in 2008.
Water Conservation Futures Study '
In 1999 the city of Boulder completed its Water Conservation Futures Study to examine the
city's existing water use patterns and recent trends, update future water demand projections and
reliable supply capability, and reassess the role of ~~-ater conservation programs in helping to
meet the city's needs, not only in the area of treated water supply, but. in several important and
related areas.
The Study led to the adoption by the city of the Comprehensive Conservation Scenario as
defined in the Study. The Comprehensive Conservation scenario promotes the indoor and
outdoor conservation measures most likely to have a lasting impact on demand in the city. This
program has helped to reduce future peak demand to a level that can be handled by current
facilities upgraded to their rated capacities «~ithout adding new water supply facilities. Section
2.6, belo«=~, describes the various conservation measures implemented under this Scenario in
more detail. The Study also recommended revisiting of the city's rate structure, which also led to
adoption of the city's new water budget-based rates in January 2007.
Drouaht Plan
In 2003, the city completed a Drought Plan to provide a guidance document for recognizing
droughts that will affect water supply availability for the city and for responding suitably to these
droughts. The Plan consists oftwo volumes. Volume I is the Drought Response Plan, which
includes summary information on Boulder's water supplies, a categorization of drought levels
according to severity, and detailed information on the particular actions that might be taken to
respond to each drought alert level. Volume II is the Drought Technical Information and
Analysis that provides the supporting documentation for the Drought Response Plan.
Specifically, Volume II contains the detailed analysis (including what happened during the 2002
Drought), data and history to help assess Boulder's water supply system. Throughout the
Drought Response Plan, emphasis is placed on education and voluntary efforts with more
restrictive mandatory response elements reserved for the most severe drought situations. In
addition, the Drought Response Plan focuses on implementation of activities that will result in
12
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
rapid reduction in water use during the critical drought period «~ith the expectation that the
severe use restrictions will be relaxed when wetter conditions return. The city's drought
response measures work in concert with, but are separate from, the on-going water conservation
efforts.
2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities
The city operates a wide range of conservation programs that address both indoor and outdoor
water use, as well as a variety of customer categories. Table 2.14 provides a summary of the
city's past and current conservation activities, including a description of the program,
implementation date, program results in terms of water savings potential, cost, and customers
affected.
Table 2.10: Summary of Past and Current Conservation Activities
a~ ~ ~ ~
~ o
o N~
Water Conservation Measures and ~ ~ y ~ U w
Programs ~ ~ ~ ~ E = u
o ~
I` ~ ~ ~ ~
m ~
Q O ~
~ a a U
Treated Water Master Plan: Recommended
hiring a water conservation staff person to
deliver an all-voluntary information and 1990 5 Medium All
education program designed to reduce water
consumption, the most cost-effective way to
address increasing demand.
Water Conservation Office (WCO}:
Staffed with 1.0 FTE to deliver 7-pronged
program designed to increase awareness of 1992 5 Medium All
water resources, water use patterns, and
efficienc o ortunities.
The Water News-Yearly Insert:
Produce adouble-sided 11 x 17 insert that
outlines current WCO activities including 1992 2 Low All
rebates, outreach, landscape seminars, design
tips, and local resources. Delivered to all
30,000 accounts each March.
Xeriscape Seminars:
The WCO continues to contract services to 1993 2 Low SF, MF
deliver free 3 to 4 free xeriscape seminars
each spring.
13
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
o ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I` ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
~ a a U
Buffalograss Truckload Sale:
One-time sale to promote experimentation with
new turf-type buffalograss variety 609; 1993 4 Low SF, MF
delivered a truckload to over 40 water
customers.
Resident Surveys:
The City conducted four surveys of City water
customers to assess their awareness of water
issues, of the WCO, of water conservation 1993- NIA High All
opportunities, preferred City policies, and 1999
programs. Delivered in conjunction with the
City survey group (93, 94) and National
Research Group of Boulder (96, 99).
Xeriscape Awards Program:
Two-year program that provided xeriscape
awards in both residential and commercial
landscape categories. I n conjunction with the 1993 2 Low All
Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art.
Publications received an award from the
national American Society of Landscape
Architects.
Landscape Consultations:
Free, on-site review of existing conditions and
conservation opportunities. Includes
appropriate plant selection, system 1993 3 Med SF, MF
maintenance, local resources, handouts of
free soil probe and rain gauges, and
information materials.
Placemats for Kids:
Created a series of placemats that used
cartoon-style drawings to convey local water
supply, conservation, and pollution prevention 1994 2 Low Comm
messages. Provided free to local restaurants,
who used regularly for several years. New
designs and distribution in 2001.
14
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
o ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ E
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Soil Moisture Sensor Study:
In cooperation with Aquacraft Engineering and
faculty and staff of University of Colorado
School of Engineering. Published results 1995 4 Medium All
showed effective control of irrigation water
use, and limited monthly and annual
maintenance.
Rebate Program:
Start of an ongoing program offering money
back on the purchase of conservation products
and services. Slow and steady growth in the
early years has led to a robust program
handling over 425 rebates each year. Highest
numbers are for residential clothes washers
{75 percent}, with the balance to outdoor 1995 4 High All
items.
Rebate items have included: buffalograss sod,
drip irrigation systems, irrigation audits, soil
amendments, smart irrigation controllers, mini-
rotorirrigation nozzles, compost tea, high
efficiency toilets, and commercial clothes
washers.
Xeriscape CD ROM:
Created with local xeriscape expert Jim Knopf,
and Hobbs Design, this CD was the first in
Colorado to included information on the 7 1995 2 Medium All
fundamentals of xeriscape, plant profiles, and
listings of landscape supply centers. Made
available for free check-out at local video
stores and public libraries.
Heatherwood End Use Study:
In cooperation with Aquacraft Engineering and
faculty and staff of University of Colorado
School of Engineering. Published results 1996 3 High SF
showed residential water use patterns and
saving potential, leading to nationwide
American Water Works Association {AWWA)
study.
15
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I` ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Land & Water Fund Project:
This project addressed bath landscape water
use savings and stormwater runoff quality
control through an award-winning design that
redirected site runoff for the benefit of both 1997 4 Low brig
plants and water quality. WCO staff provided
technical assistance, design budget support,
outreach efforts, and creation of project video
through local Channel 8. National award from
the National Geographic Society.
AWWARF End Use Study & Report:
Boulder was one of 12 nationwide utilities
participating in this ground-breaking research
documenting single-family residential end-use 1998 3 High SF
patterns. Published report is one of all-time
best-selling
AWWARF reports.
Urban Tree Budget Support:
Initiated financial support of City street tree
program in an effort to maintain the many 1998 4 Low All
water-related environmental benefits of the
urban forest.
Urban Forest Report:
Created a baseline study of the environmental
benefits derived from Boulder's Urban Forest.
Multi-year study that combined field data from
over 35 sites with remote-sensing data (land
cover, tree canopy, impervious surfaces, etc.} 2QOQ 3 Medium All
to create first-time data on the energy, carbon-
storage, stormwater, and water-use benefits
derived from trees. Published report received
an award from the Colorado Chapter American
Society of Landscape Architects.
16
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ E E
E
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Water Conservation Futures Report (VI(CE) &
Treated Water Master Plan (TWMP) 2000:
Multi-year review and projection of the effect of
Boulder's current water conservation program
and potential future program options,
produced by Aquacraft and Hydrosphere. This
solid background work led to the full adoption 2000 4 High All
of the WCF study into the updated TWMP of
2000. The adopted TWMP included the WCF
preferred conservation alternative: an increase
in programs for both indoor and outdoor water
uses, with specific impacts on system-wide
demand through city build-out (2030}.
Garden in a Box Program:
Initiated a program to offer pre-designed
water-wise gardens, with design and plants
available "in a box" for immediate 2000 3 Medium SF
incorporation into the landscape. Slow but
steady growth and interest, with over 120
boxes sold in 2007.
Xeriscape Poster with Xeriscape Colorado! &
Boulder Energy Conservation Center (BECC):
This joint project produced a poster illustration
of a residential xeriscape, including a plant 2001 2 Law SF, MF
identification guide. Poster was sold through
Boulder art gallery, at the BECC, and through
Xeriscape Colorado!
2002 Drought:
Internal resources were marshaled to provide
unparalleled outreach about outdoor watering
restrictions, conservation opportunities within
each customer class, and patrolling to identify 2002 5 High Irrig-All
non-compliance. Water use decreased about
20 percent, allowing continued, reliable service
for most customer water uses, and many
cooperative efforts with other water providers.
17
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig= Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
o ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I`
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Urban Ecology: Sustainable Landscape
Symposium:
Symposium was a response to the drought
and an opportunity to better address
sustainable urban landscapes in semi-arid Irrig,
regions like Colorado. Due to the drought 2002 2 Low MF
there was an attendance over 120 in 2002,
while in following years it has averaged 75
industry professionals, about half Landscape
Architects and half Landscape Contractors.
Water Efficiency Fund:
This fund was created as a new source of
money within the Utilities Department to
finance water efficiency projects within City-
related aperatians, primarily in the Parks and 2002 5 Hi h Irrig-
Streets/Medians work groups. This new g City
source of funding has allowed for investment
in raw water systems, system audits and
evaluations, employee training, and high-
efficiency equipment.
Slow the Flow- Boulder:
The regular checking of irrigation systems
started in 2003 in Boulder with the hiring of a
summer intern with experience in Utah's Irrig,
successful Slow the Flow Program. Over 40 2003 4 Medium MF
commercial properties were audited, with a
tremendous increase in awareness of system
inefficiencies and costs, and conservation
opportunities.
Farmers Market Outreach Booth:
The WCO supports staff to provide information
and education on water conservation issues
and opportunities. The Farmers' Market is 2003 2 Low All
held on Wednesdays and Saturdays, April
through November in Boulder and is highly
attended.
18
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig= Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I`
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
WCO Budget Increase:
Following the recommendation of the Water
Conservation Futures Study, additional 2003 5 Med-High All
funding was added to the WCO budget to
facilitate implementation of additional
recommended program elements.
CSU Short Course:
The WCO cooperates with the Colorado State
University County Extension Office in
producing atwo-day horticultural short course, Irrig,
for both professionals and homeowners. All 2004 2 Low MF
relevant topics, including water conservation,
are covered. The event usually draws over
75 homeowners and 15 professionals. The
WCO provides planning assistance and
financing for publishing and breaks.
Slow the Flow Colorado:
After the success of Boulder's 2003 program,
the BECC obtained a grant from the CWCB to
offer the program to more cities within Boulder
County. The WCO encouraged storm water
staff in neighboring cities to implement Slow 2004 4 Medium SF, MF
the Flow for water quality benefits; provided
funding and staff for training; and participated
as a member, performing over 200 audit hours
this season. The BECC provided all program
administration and support.
PACE Landscape:
A cooperative effort with the Boulder County-
based Partners for a Clean Environment
(PACE) program. PACE has had great
success in working with area businesses to
increase their environmental awareness, and
their incorporation of more environmentally- 2004 2 Law Irrig,
friendly practices. This year PACE started to SF
work with landscape professionals, offering
both training and testing for PACE-
endorsement. This voluntary certification uses
a third-party evaluation, providing local
government a list of preferred landscape
professionals for distribution to customers.
19
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig= Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I` ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
~ a a U
Water Budget Rate Structure:
Following amulti-year review of available rate
structures and water allocation systems, the
Water Budget Rate Structure was adapted by 2004 2 Low All
the City Council in December 2004. A project
outline was adopted that called for
implementation in 2007.
ICI Site Audits:
The WCO supported several on-site audits of
commercial customers. These site audits 2005 4 Medium Comm
identified conservatian opportunities and
costs, and outlined programmatic changes for
each site manager.
ICIGrant Projects 2005-2007:
Following the success of local site audits, the
WCO supported the Brendle Group in obtaining
from the Colorado Pollution Prevention Adviso
(PPAB) for a collaborative effort to address this
class. This grant project involved over a dozen
northern front range water providers to identify
customer needs, data needs, conservation and
collaboration opportunities. The project then
prioritized work elements to include creating a
joint database of ICI water usage and
evaluation of water usage characteristics. 2005 4 Low Comm
Second year grants from both the
PPAB, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
led to further developments that address the
ICI sector: a broader database including
Denver Water accounts and aweb-based tool
that assists site investigations, product and
process evaluation, and identification of
conservation opportunity costs and benefits.
This tool is scheduled to be housed on the
Colorado WaterWise Council {CWWC}
website in early 2008.
20
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ E
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Pre- Rinse Spray Valve Project:
This cooperative project with the PACE
program provides staff for restaurant site
visits, while the WCO funded the purchase of 2005 5 Medium Comm
50 pre-rinse spray valves. PACE staff
provided educational material on-site, and
installed new devices, which have proven to
provide substantial water and energy savings.
Zero In On Xeriscape Pilot Program 2005-
2oa7:
This program was designed to offer zero-
interest loans to single-family homeowners to
make water efficiency improvements, primarily
in the landscape. The pilot program was
limited to homeowners in four Boulder
neighborhoods (East Boulder, Table Mesa, 2005 3 High SF
Martin Acres, E Central Boulder). Participants
could borrow a minimum of $1,000 and a
maximum of $3,000, at zero interest over three
years. Outreach efforts included direct
mailings, neighborhood postings, and
materials at selected nurseries. All= All
customers
SF=Single Family
MF= Multi-family
Comm= Commercial
Irri =Irri ation
21
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ E E
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
SWEEP 2006 & 2007:
A cooperative effort with the City Office of
Environmental Affairs (OEA}and Longs Peak
Energy Conservation (Boulder County non
profit). Using University of Colorado student
volunteers, over 300 households receive a
packet of energy, water, and resource
conservation information in a `sweep' through 2006 2 Low SF
selected neighborhoods. In addition, several
dozen of these households committed to a
follow-up audit of their household to identify
specific conservation opportunities. As an
incentive to commit to the follow-up, the WCO
provided 1high-efficiency clothes washer to
one participant chosen by OEA and Longs
Peak.
Tree Sale Program:
A complement to the successful Garden In A
Box Program; the City offered trees for sale to
residents, purchased by the WCO through the 2006 3 Medium SF, MF
Trees Across Colorado Program. All unsold
trees were used in City tree planting programs.
Water Budget Rate Structure:
In January 2007, Boulder's new water budget
rate structure was implemented across all
30,000 accounts, in four customer classes.
Each single family, multi-family, irrigation, and 2007 4 High All
ICI customer received an individual water
budget, with a 5-block structure that rewards
efficient use and penalizes waste.
Consumption overall is down 6 percent and
revenues down 12 percent through October.
22
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig=Irrigation
.fir ~ ~ ~
~ O +r
G1 ~ ~ J V
~ ~ O ~
O ~ rq ~ Q
Water Conservation Measures and ~ N ~ ~ v = L
Programs ~ L - ~ ~
m a~ c~ I`
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
Q ~ o ~
E a a U
Home Makeover:
Another cooperative project with the OEA, and
the Colorado Energy Science Center (SciCtr).
This project follows the success of the SciCtr
projects with Xcel Energy over the past few
years. A Boulder residence was chosen,
through criteria and among applicants, to 2007 3 Medium SF
receive a substantial makeover that included
energy and water efficiency improvements.
The residence will be monitored over the next
year, an additional 5 homes will receive lesser
treatments to increase their resource
efficiency, and outreach efforts in 2008 will
identify opportunities for other homeowners.
Info Tour Pilot Program:
This project is designed to deliver on-site
interpretive information with more
convenience, and at a lower cost, than on-site
staff or materials. Site information about 2007 2 Medium All
conservation and green building is delivered
through cell phone technology, and offers site-
specific scripts that direct visitors through the
site to increase awareness of conservation
practices and techniques.
Water Conservation Field Technician:
A 1-year temporary position to focus on
irrigation outreach and education. This
position primarily provides education on-site to 2007 4 Hi h Irrig,
irrigation professionals and property g Comm
managers, identifying conservation opportunity
costs and benefits, available local resources,
and City programs supporting their efforts.
23
Customers Affected Codes:
A11= All Customers; SF= Single Family; MF= Multi-family; Comm=Commercial; Irrig= Irrigation
3.0 Water Use and Forecast Demand
3.1 Current 1Nater Use
The following graphs (Figure 3.1 through 3.6) depict the city of Boulder's total and per capita
treated water use from the period of 1972 to 2006, as well as indoor and outdoor use, seasonal
variations by month, and the city's top users. It should be noted that the city does not operate a
non-potable water delivery system. The non-potable component of water use for a few municipal
park areas, open space lands, the main University of Colorado campus, the NOAA/NIST campus
and many private irrigators is met through several private irrigation ditch companies whose
ditches have meandered through the city since the late 1800x.
As Figure 3.1 shows, the city's total per capita water use has varied from year to year, from a
low of 148 gped to a high of 201 gpcd. Part of this variation is due to the large variation in lawn
irrigation needs that occurs with varying annual weather conditions.
Since the adoption of the city's comprehensive conservation program following completion of
the Water Conservation Futures study in 1999 and the implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation Scenario from the Study, per capita water use has significantly declined,
particularly apparent in data from the drought. year of 2002 to present. The marked reduction
since 2000 could be due to more efficient irrigation practices by city residents and the city Parks
Department. Per capita water use is calculated by averaging total city-~-ide water use among city
residents including water uses such as parks iiY-igation, commercial, and industrial uses. If less
irrigation water is required for parks in a particular year due to ~i~eather conditions, it will be
reflected in a lower per capita use Value for each resident.
Changing per capita use values also reflect variation in the resident jobs to population ratio (J/P
ratio) since no per capita water use is directly attributed to the influx of workers Boulder
experiences each day. A balanced J/P ratio for an average community is generally considered to
be 0.65 jobs per resident because some residents are not part of the workforce. The J/P ratio in
Boulder was 0.94 in 2000 which reflects the city's status as an employment center. The J/P ratio
decreased to 0.90 between 2000 and 2004 as a result of increased population and a higher
conunercial and industrial vacancy rate. Employment in the city was 102,485 in 2000, 96,938 in
2002, 98,394 in 2003 and 101,077 in 2004. Due to the higher J/P ratio in Boulder than in other
communities, water demands expressed as per capita use per resident may appear higher than in
cities that are not employment centers. It is projected that the JIP ratio at build-out in Boulder in
conformance with the 199 Bt%CP Update will be as high as 1.37. This change will complicate
comparison of current and future water use values expressed in terms of per capita water use.
24
Figure 3.1 Total and Per Capita Treated Water Use, 1972-2006
Boulder's Total and Per Capita Treated Water Use. 1972-2006
30.000 260
25.000 240
220
20.000 ' - v
`o
209 ic; ZO1 200 ~
19a zaz 8 ,
0 15,000 - ..1!i7 1 a5 1 ; 194
192
°a 190 ~ ~ 191 ~ .,c n
7 185 18~ 180 a
182 1_~ ~
178 1182 1'. 161 ~
10.000 175 174 1n ~ 17115'c 1?~~ 168 160
162' 169
5.000 158 155
148 140
0 120
The overall trend since the 1970's for total indoor and outdoor water uses in the city has been
upward, but has shotivn siglificant reduction in overall water use in the past few years as shown
in Figure 3.2. Permanent replacements of older, more water-intensive, indoor water fixtures are
likely to have taken place since the 2002 drought, so the upward trend for indoor water use may
be broken or st~~llech, as shown below in Figure 3.3. Outdoor water use decreased in 2002, but
then has uicreased in the past few years as showrn ui Figure 3.4. Some permanent changes in
outdoor use may have occur7-ed through repair of leaky irrigation systems and xeriscaping.
Much of the outdoor use reduction as compared to pre-drought years could be a residual effect of
the water use education efforts during and since the 2002 drought. Overall, the percentage of
water cieli~Tered for indoor use is increasing as shown in Figure 3.5.
Current water use in the city is comparable to 1995 levels, having increased from 1995 until
2001 and then decreased following the 2002 drought year. Overall annual demand in 2006 was
15 % less than the highest water use years of 2000 and 2001 as shown in Figure 3.6. Total
annual treated water deliveries were 20,311 acre-feet in 2006 compared to 19,408 acre-feet in
2005. In both 2006 and 2005, less treated water was delivered than was delivered in 2002
(20,773 acre-feet} when drought restrictions limited use in the city. In 2001, before the drought,
23,466 acre-feet were delivered out of the treatment plants.
25
Figure 3.2 Total Water Use from 2002 to 2006
City of Boulder Water Use
2002 - 200fi
300 20 1
250
0 200 ~ ,
6
150 ~ ~
100 2O05~`e 20 4
20 -a; 2005
200
0 - 2001
Syr Fp'D gyp, ~ 200432
~ fur ~v` ~V9 20065
02006 2005 02004 X2003 ¦2002 ¦2001
Figure 3.3 Total Indoor Water Use, 1972-2006
Bou car's Total Indoor l.ae. ':972-20x6
a,ooo
'9,ooa
•4,aoo
~:,ooo
~a,ooo
4
e B,OOG
9,000
4,OO~i
',000
i
'L . } ,k .-D ~L ~ .b~ lr ~L ~t yt Ur ,~1~ Ur
,a' tiv` ,~a'• Via' ,~a tie ,~~a-' tia ,~x ,~a ~a 1~t ~a ,~v ,`o ,su
26
Figure 3.4 Total Outdoor Water Use, 1972-2006
6oul~7er8 Tt5t81 OUr4oar Ue3, 1972-2046
• ~,aoo
•o,ooo
a,aoo - -
- -
e,ooo
a
4
4 ~ l
"I
i
'4 . } i~ 'S 05 4 Cr ~ bS 4` 4 gT ,Zt ab UJ 'V V~
-
Figure 3.5 Total Indoor Water Use as a Percent of Total Use, 1972-2006
Bou IdBYB lndoar flee 8e a Peresni of Total flee, 1972-.2406
ao~4
ao~
~a~t
ea~4
ea~4
40!4
80~k
20!k
i0~4
Oak
.'4 ,,i -
27
Figure 3.6 Comparison of 2006 Treated Water Use with Highest Year's Use
Comparison of 2046 Treated Water'llse with Highest Years ilse
a=
as
~ ~
P
4 ~
-2006 Treatatl avatar uea -kvsraga at 2000 antl 2007 Treatetl water Uea
Table 3.1 lists the City's top water users. The University of Colorado is the largest single water
user in the City, followed by the City of Boulder (irrigation of parks), Boulder Valley Schools,
and IBII~I.
Table 3.'I: Top Water Users 2006
Consumption Percentage of
User name {kgal} Consumption
University of Colorado Facilities Management 378,532 6,2
City of Boulder Parks (Irrigation} 192,750 3.2
Boulder Valley Schools 132,522 2.2
IBM Corporation 97,814 1.6
University of Colorado Housing Finance Office 90,609 1.5
Boulder Housing Partners 64,122 1.1
Roche Colorado Corporation 56,450 O,g
Countrywide Village of Boulder 55,455 0.9
Amgen 53,241 O,g
N IST 44,366 0.7
Boulder County Facilities Management 43,055 0.7
Hoover Hills 111tater and Sewer District 41,895 0,7
Ball Aerospace 41,084 0,7
City of Boulder Transportation Department 35,925 0.6
Boulder Community Hospital Parking 30,927 0,5
28
Table 3.2 depicts water use by customer class. Single-family residential use constitutes the
largest category of water user, follov~~ed by business and multi-family. Multi-family
consumption has slightly declined from 1995, while business consumption has increased at the
greatest rate of the major categories of users.
Table 3.2: Water Use by Customer Class (per thousand gallons)
January thru December 2007
BILLED WATER USE BY CUSTOMER CLASS
(in thousand gallons)
Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Irrigation % of
Residential Residential Industrial Only TOTAL TOTAL
Block 1 1,689,125 862,182 875,678 285,123 3,712,108 66.5%
Block 2 337,393 243,896 369,312 119,132 1,069,733 19.2%
Block 3 136,499 85,401 151,873 89,721 463,494 8.3%
Block 4 33,453 23,483 41,647 45,699 144,282 2.6%
Block 5 30,616 18,008 55,981 88,174 192,779 3.5%
TOTAL 2,227,086 1,232,970 1,494,491 627,849 5,582,396
of TOTAL 40% 22°,% 27°-0 11% 100%
3.2 VNater Demand Forecasting Method
The city's water demand forecasting method was articulated in the 2000 Treated Water Master
Plan. The planning period for this study was the 20 years from 2000 to 2020. Projections were
made from 1999 conditions to the end of the planning period. The city Planning Department
does not specify a year for build-out of the city's service area contained in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, but it is estimated that build-out will occur between 2035 and 2050.
Distribution of water demand in the city's service area was determined by examining the types of
activities that take place in different. areas of the city that affect water use, as well as the
distribution of the population. General land use categories in the Boulder service area include
residential, business, industrial, and other. The "other" category includes parks and open space,
agricultural, and public uses.
Previous projections of firture land use and population were derived primarily from data
presented in the city's 1999 ~?Vater Conservation Futures Study. That study, in turn, relied on data
from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), City of Boulder Planning Department,
and the City of Boulder Center for Program and Policy Analysis. Additional information was
obtained from the 1999 Summary of Information about Boulder (1999 Information Summary)
published by the city's Center for Program and Policy Analysis. The Water Conservation Futures
Study assumed that population would increase at an annual growth rate of 0.8 percent.
29
Baseline water demands for the city's urban service area were developed in the Water
Conservation Futures Study for the year 199 based on monthly metered end use data. Various
adjustments were made to accommodate factors such as weather and unaccounted for water.
Total demand and demand by various end use categories was projected from the base year 1995
through 2020. The Water Conservation Futures Study also developed demand projections for a
number of water conservation scenarios of varying degrees of intensity. Ultimately, as discussed
above, the Comprehensive Conservation Scenario was selected by City Council for
implementation.
Projected population and employment. estimates have subsequently been revised in the 2005
BVCP. The 2005 BVCP Update projects approximately 71,000 more jobs and 13,000 new
residents at buildout than existed in 2004. Specific water demands for the updated estimates
have not yet been calculated, but, based on comparison ~i~ith previous population and
employment projections, updated water demands will be equal to or less than prior projections.
More information on the city's forecasting methods can be found in Chapter 4 of the Treated
Water Master Plan. The city is currently preparing a new° Source Water Master Plan and is
anticipating an update to the Treated Water Master Plan, including demand forecasts, within the
next few years.
3.3 VNater Demand Forecast
The Water Conservation Futures Study recommended that the city implement the
Comprehensive Conservation Scenario, which is substantially more conservation-intensive than
the City's program in 1999. Figures 3.7 through 3.9 bolo«-, derived from the 2000 Treated Water
IVlaster Plan, projected demand under then-current conditions, as well as under the
Comprehensive Conservation Scenario.
30
Figures 3.7-3.9 Projected Average Day, Peak Day, and Peak Hour Demand with
1999 Water Conservation Program and with adoption of Comprehensive
Conservation Program from the 2000 Treated Water Master Plan
Average Day Demand
22
_
L
20 ~
19
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Peak Day Demand
58
~ 52 - - _ _
-
50
48
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Peak Hour Demand
100
-
o _ _ _
- _ _
85
80
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
t ~
31
Table 3.3 provides estimates of demand by customer class.
Table 3.3: Historic and Projected Demand by Customer Class
from 2000 Treated Vlfater Master Plan
:995 2000 Zoos 2010 2015 b2o
Re :ide¢tial
5male ram::r 5.340 8.418 5.44" 5.4.'•6 S.501 8.533
h:u]trFvmly 6.791 6.754 6.?18 6.681 6.b45 6.605
Total Re~.tdentul : 5. i 81 1 S.1'2 15.165 15.1 S' 15,149 15.131
Bu:uk:: 6.3'. 6.'9s '.117 '.439 ,'62 8,085
Otlur '93 521 8s9 877 903 933
Totaks
lcre Fees "ss5 2'.'88 23.131 23,173 _'3.816 24,139
R:GD 20.0 20.3 20.6 21.0_' . 21.b
Actual total system water demands in 2000 and 2001 were lv.gher than projected in the 2000
Treated Water Master Plan (published in early 2000 prior to availability of full data for the year.)
In 2001, 23,466 acre-feet were delivered out of the treatment plants. Following the severe
drought year of 2002, water use dropped dramatically in the city. Actu~~1 total system water
demands in 2005 were lower than projected in the 2000 Treated ~~'ater Master Plan. In 2006,
20,311 acre-feet were delivered. Data. from 200 ~~ld 2006 indicate that per capita water use in
the city has remained lower than pre-drought levels. Hotivever, per capita water use at build-out
is expected to be simile- to pre-20001evels simply because of the expected significant increase in
the jobs to population ratio ul the cit}-.
The water demand projections for 2015 and 2020 are still believed to be valid. The majority of
the sa~7n~s ti-om the tivater conser~ anon program that were projected to occur during the 2000 to
2020 period may have been pushed to the eaa-lier years of the period due to the drought in 2002.
However, the total projected savings over the period was based on specific types and levels of
fixture and beha~nor changes and is likely to be the same as projected. In other words, the
aclue~-ement of the water consei~-ation targets has progressed non-linearly, but the end target has
not changed. Build-out water demand levels will be larger than the level shown for 2020 in the
above table due to contuiued increases in population and employment after that time.
4.0 Proposed Faci I ides
4.1 Potential Facility Needs
Table 4.1 presents a summary of the capital improvements identified in the 2000 Treated Water
Master Plan, the latest planning effort to identify water system improvements in the city. Each
item has been assigned a priority, a time frame for implementation, and a cost. Items designated
as priority "A" are considered to be essential to the continued delivery of treated water that
complies with all current and known future public health protection criteria and to maintain
conformance with the city's reliability and public safety criteria. Priority "B" items are important
32
but not essential to meeting water quality or reliability standards. Most priority "B" items are
associated with enhanced operability rather than strengthening treatment barriers or improving
distribution system reliability. Priority "C" items are those items that would facilitate the long-
term provision of treated water service but do not warrant implementation in the short term at the
expense or more essential items.
The implementation time frames indicate the relative degree of urgency associated with each
item. Each item was assigned to a five year time period, either 2000 to 2005 or 2005 to 2010.
Most of the items identified for 2000 to 2005 were accomplished. Scheduling a range of years
for implementation allows flexibile capital improvement planning by allowring adjustment based
on availability of funding and human resources. In general, the implementation timing follows
from the priority of the item. More urgent items need to be implemented sooner while lower
priority items can be deferred.
The projected capital cost for each item is presented in third-quarter 2000 dollars. Budgeting
prices were obtained from manufacturers of major pieces of equipment and allowances made for
installation and miscellaneous work. Budget level estimates were also made for major structural
modifications or construction.
33
Table 4.1: Proposed Facility Improvements From 2000 Treated Vlfater Master
Plan
Projected
Implementation Capital Cost
Recourureuded Impro~•emeuts Priorit~• Schedule
Betasso ~~'ater Treat2neut Plaut
Flocculauou Scdmleutat~oll Irllpro~•ements
\e« Baffles m tloeallation zo21e A 2001-3003 5_'00.000
\ea• Baffles su secluuentahon zone ~ X001-'003 5-130.000
Install nzt+t• sltui2e collation zqu2plneut B '000-'003 5-130,004
Install nc~~• ~-FD flo~culator drl~•rs B '000- 2043 5'00.000
Install Piate Settlers C' X000-003 $-1?~0.Ci0U
:~u:oulate Chemical Feed S~•stents C' '003-'010 5100,000
Lune Feed Sv_ stern Capacin_• Controls B ?000-003 $50.000
L-pgrades
Upgrade Pilot Plant C' 2043-2010 5100,000
Instntnletttat~on Isnproreaneelts C IG03-IG1U S_'OG.00G
\f2scellaneous
Filter .did Po1~-2ner S~-stem A 2000-2003 $50.000
Sludge Collection Equipment ut Back-t~-ash
Egtktlization Balm B 2000-200> $7.000
Bacl.~~•ash Treatment Polt-nier System
B 2000-204 $50.000
Relocate C"liloruie Feed Poutts A 2000-2001 $-10.000
Poh•alummtuu C1ilor2de Storage & Feed ?000-?04~
IIIIpro~•eu~ents A $60.000
Rellabllltate South Sludge Storage Lagoon
B ?000-?003 5.130,000
Replace Effltre2u Flo4v tiletrrs B ?000-'003 5130,000
Boulder Resen•oir• «-ater Treatment Plant
Canal Intake L•upro~•e:nent5 C ~ 2003-2010 $50.000
\fultrLc~e1 Resen•olr Intake C ~ '003-2010 5300.000
R•~pid ~iti Lnprot•eraents A 2000-'003 5100.000
I11staI1 Tube Settlers ar Sedlnlentation Basin A '000.204 5300.000
Prop lde Filter-taR'aste CapaUiliri- B '000.204 5230,000
Fiber Backtcash Pretreatment Facllin_• C' 2003-2010 $1.304,000
Atltomtte Chen~ical Feed S~•stems C' 2003- 2010 5100.000
Install Pilot Plant C' '003-2010 5104,000
Instnu2lentaaon Ilnprore2nents C 2003-2010 5104.000
Install ~'FDs on H~glt Sett-2ce Ptunps C 2043-2010 $50.000
Calibrate Replace Ef11t2ent Flo~ti~ Meter B '004-200 $30.000
D1~111IeCtalli C•ottl'erilo2l A 2000- 2043 5730.000
34
Projected
hnple~neutation Capital Cost
Recommeuded Impro~-emeuts Priority- Schedule
Distribution S~-stem Facilities`
Parallel pipes t0 lll3uitalll fire t101ti' pressiues ~ ?000-'00> $~-ri.0U0
Zone ~ taiil: unpro~ements B X000-?00~ $;».000
System-~~•ide zone isolation ~-al~•e reiuo~-al B ?000-?00> $360.000
Parallel pipes & PRO's for ln?h ~-elocit`• problc~ns C' '00~-'010 $?.~00.000
\en• uiterniediate east zone ? C' ?OOi-'010 $?00.000
Fotu-Mile PRA" Station Replacement A ?000-?00> $'''0.000
Iris P S Irupro~-ecnents B ?000-?00> $>0.000
C~hernz-ale P'S Impro~-ements B ?000-?U0~ $0.000
Break Prone Pipe Replacement a '000-?00~ $3.1>0.000
Atuickal pipe replacement B '000-'00~ '00~-'O10 $3.00.000 iY~
20061l1tater Utility Projects
Every year, the city prepares an Annual Report for its utilities, includuig the Water Utility, to
provide an update on the status of capital improvement projects, among other topics. The most
recent report, from 2006, identitifies the following projects:.
• Emphasis on the rehabilitation and improvement of the city's existing water system
infrastructure continues, especially in the area of the cit<r's deteriorated water distribution
system. This piioritt is reflected in the sigiuficant fiuiding for ongoing waterline
replacement anci several other rehabilitation projects to aaious water system facilities.
• A framework for settlement of litigation related to defective pipe supplied for the
Laketivood Pipeline project was developed. Staff has implemented the expert
recommendations for intei~i~~1 inspection of the condition of the pipe with weld defects
and other related pipe qualm issues. These inspections have revealed internal corrosion
and `fitting' of the steel pipe, as tivell as cracks in the cement mortar lining. Staffwill
continue to m oiutor the condtion of the pipe in accordance with expert
recommendations.
• Continued progress was made on the multi-year project to repair the facilities comprising
the Barker Water System were allocated. Repairs to this water system are necessary to
assure safe ~~id reliable water deliveries to the Betasso Water Treatment Plant from
Barker Reservoir. Priority work included repairs to the Barker Gravity Pipeline and the
Barker-Kossler Penstock.
• Funding was allocated for improvements to the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Plant. This work is necessary to expand the treatment capacity in compliance with federal
Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Work at the Boulder Reservoir Plant (and Boulder
Reservoir Intake and Pumping, Iris Pump Station, and Cherryvale Pump Station)
currently scheduled in 2009, was prompted by staffreview of the City's water delivery
system in light of recent drought conditions. Water from the NCWCD Colorado Big-
35
Thompson Project ~~~ill play an increasingly important role in the City's overall water
system deliveries. This water is treated and delivered through these facilities and
expansion of the treatment capacity is necessary due to this situation.
• Funding was allocated for the next phase (mid-term phase) of improvements to the
Betasso Water Treatment Plant and will occur in 2010-2012. A recent analysis indicates
that existing treatment processes will be adequate to meet water demands in compliance
with federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations until that time.
• Additional funding was allocated for the NCWCD Conveyance -Carter Lake Pipeline
project in 2009. Whereas «~ater conveyed by the Boulder Feeder Canal is subject to water
quality concerns, water conveyed by a pipeline would be protected from contaminants.
The NCWCD completed a feasibility study for a new pipeline from Carter Lake. The city
is currently participating in the NCWCD-sponsored preliminary design along with other
water providers, although work was temporarily suspended in early 2006 to allow
additional time for water providers to evaluate participation in the project. Utilities
Division staff is also evaluating various water source protection and treatment
alternatives and a report on this effort was near completion by late 2006. City staff also
pursued Federal funding for this project.
In 2005, operations and maintenance costs totaled $10,962,267, averaging approximately $386
per water account. This compares to 2006, when operations and maintenance costs totaled
$11,317,494, or approximately $395 per water account.
4.2 Incremental Cost Analysis, and Preliminary Capacity and Cost Forecasts
No new system-level supply capacity is anticipated in the foreseeable future. Total system
treated water demand is expected to increase by approximately 20 to 30% between current
conditions and projected build-out sometime in the 2035 to 2050 timeframe. It is expected that
this increase can be accommodated within existing system capacity although improvements may
be required to system facilities for increased function and flexibility or to treatment plants to
meet new drinking ~~~ater standards.
5.0 Conservation Goals
3.1 Water Conservation Goals
Following presentation of the 1999 Consen~ation Futures Study and the 2000 Treated Water
IVlaster Plan to City Council in 2000, the Council adopted the Comprehensive Conservation
Scenario, as identified in the Water Conservation Futures Study, as a goal for the city. This goal
is based on the City's existing supply, forecasted demand, and extensive public input from the
citizens of Boulder who have long supported a comprehensive approach to conservation. The
development of a program to implement the goal will continue to be refined over time. For
example, within the next few years the city will be updating its SourceWater Master Plan and
Treated Water Master Plan, which will include an evaluation of the role of conservation in
meeting the city's water needs and responding to future conditions, such as climate change.
3b
An overall programmatic goal of the city is to continue to evolve its already-extensive
comprehensive water conservation program for indoor and outdoor water use to achieve or
exceed the overall reduction of water use needs at build-out as specified in the Comprehensive
Conservation Scenario identified in the Treated Water Master Plan and Conservation Futures
Study. The city will also continue to seek neu! and improved ways to meet its goal.
Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan elements should result in achieving the
following specific performance targets by build-out, projected for 2435 to 2454. These targets
include:
• A 22 percent reduction in per meter use for the single-family residential sector;
• A 26 percent reduction in per meter use for multifamily residential sector;
• A 14 reduction in per meter use for the commerciallindustrial sector;
• A 1 percent reduction in overall municipal use, and
• A 15 percent reduction in unaccounted-for water.
Achievement of these targets will result in an expected overall reduction in total demand in the
range of 19 percent at build-out as compared to water use at build-out absent the Comprehensive
Conservation Program. Per capita water use at build-out. may be greater than 2446 levels due to
increases in the population to jobs ratio, but will be less than without the water conservation
program. An additional city goal that has emerged from the adoption of water budget-based
rates by City Council in 2447 is for all water customers in the service area to live within their
allocated water budget.
5.2 Goal Development Process
The city recognizes that the development of water conservation goals is an iterative process. It
requires identifying needs for demand m~uiagement based on water supply limitations and other
considerations, followed by a review of the available implementation resources and legal
limitations that may exist. and ultimately impact consei•~~ation implementation. Goals may need to
be revised after completion of revised forecasts, as the City intends to do in tandem with the
update of the Source ~?~'ater Master Plan and Treated Water Master Plan in the next few years.
Qnce this water consen%ation plan is implemented, the targets discussed above will be revised
based on the monitoring, evaluation, and revision of tasks that follow in an adaptive management
approach. Extensive public input a-ill also be an important part of the examination of goals and
ultimate selection of conservation measures.
6.0 Conservation Measures and Programs
6.1 Ongoing Conservation Measures and Programs
The city of Boulder currently has a number of water conservation efforts that are based on the
Council-adopted Comprehensive Water Conservation Program and cover a wide range of topic
areas and customer classes. The city's first water conservation efforts date back to 1988, when
the city increased block rates, developed water bill inserts, and held Spring xeriscape seminars
(see following timeline).
37
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
* Treated Water Master Plan (TWMP) Adoi3ted creating a `~~'C Office & Staff - - -
* WCO opened in May: The Water News bill insert- - - - - - - - - - -
* Xeriscape Seminars - - - - - - - - - - - -
Buffalograss Truckload Sale
Resident Survey
Xeriscape Awards Program (1993-94)
Landscape Consultations - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Resident Survey
Placemats for Kids at local restaurants (94-96)
* Soil Moisture Sensor Study
Rebate Program - - - - - - - - - - -
Xeriscape CD ROM - - - - - - - -
*Resident Survey
Heatherwood End Use Study
* Land & Water Fund (WRA) landscape design project
* AWWARF End Use Study
Urban Tree Budget Support- - - - - -
* Resident Suuvey
* Urban Forest Report - - - - -
AVI~ATARF End Use Report
Water Conszivation Futures Report> TWMP 2000 adopted -
Garden in a Box Program - - - - -
*Xeriscape Poster vv/CWWC and BECC
* DROUGHT-restrictions,`fines/major outreach
Landscape Symposium for Professionals -
~ Water Efficiency Fund- internal city proiects
* Slow the Flow-Boulder only
City of Boulder Farmers Market booth - -
WCO Budget Increase - -
Water Conservation Office 6 * slow the Flow Colorado -
Program History CSU Short Course-
Water Budget system adopted
1988: Increased Block Rates * PACE landscape cert program >
Water bill inserts NOCO ici group -
ICI audits with OEA
2 Spring Xeriscape Seminars PreRinse Spray ~Talves w/PACE >
Zero In Pilot Program
*SWEEP w/0EA->
Tree Sale Program >
* Water Budget Live >
Ongoing~rograms are underlined Home Makeover w/OEA
Info Tour Pilot >
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008>
38
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Many of these programs have been functional for se~~eral years, and the City intends to
continue these programs into the future. See Table 2-10 for additional description of
conservation measures, both past and on-going. Current programs will continue to be
evaluated on effectiveness, and modified as necessary.
The budget for the city Water Conservation C?f~ice for 2008, including personnel and programs,
is approximately $ 43,000.
6.2 Screening Criteria for Conservation Measures
As the «-~ater conservation program has evolved since the acceptance of the Water Conservation
Futures Study and the Treated Water Master Plan by City Council and the adoption of the
Comprehensive Water Conservation Program, the city has developed a number of criteria to
screen both existing programs and potential new programs. These criteria include the following:
• The customers impacted by the measure;
• The potential water savings on a scale of 1 (limited savings) to 5 (significant savings);
• Likelihood of adoption and ease of implementation.
• Technical & community support available: products, training, and service
• Drought response benefit; and
• Program costs.
6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs
Applying the screening criteria above, the city will screen its conservation measures both
quantitatively and qualitatit,-ely using a method like that shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Conservation Measures Screening Tool
Ease of Technical! Drought
Measures Current Customers Water Adoption) Community Response Program
Measure Impacted Savings Implementation Support Benefit Costs
1.Education
and Public
Information
a
b
c
2. Water
Rates and
Usage
Information
a
b
G
39
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
7.D Selection of Conservation Measures and Programs
7.1 Create Combinations of Measures and Programs
As shown in Table 6.1, above, the city has combined and grouped conservation measures and
programs to allow for a more integrated assessment of the potential benefits that may be derived
from their implementation. This is done because measures and programs are often used in
conjunction with one another, and to avoid double-counting of water savings or implementation
costs. Table 2.10 describes each ongoing measure, measure/program, or group of
measures/programs, including the anticipated scale of the program and its effectiveness.
7.2 Estimate Costs and Water Savings of Conservation options
The 1999 Water Conservation Futures Study included extensive information on installation rates,
unit costs, and savings for the various conservation elements included in the Comprehensive
Conservation Scenario.
7.3 Benefits and Costs
The 1999 V4~ater Conservation Futures Study includes an extensive evaluation of many of the
city's ongoing conservation measures and programs, including their costs and net benefits.
7.4 Evaluation Criteria
Table 6.1 identifies the criteria that the city will continue to use to screen and evaluate
conservation measures. In addition, ongoing dialogue among the public, City staff, and elected
officials will play an important role in the ultimate use of future conservation measures.
7.5 Select Conservation Measures and Programs
The 1999 Water Conservation Futures Study includes an extensive evaluation of many of the
city's ongoing conservation measures and programs, including those that were considered but
not implemented during the selection process. That. study also includes estimated water savings
of selected measures and other considerations. It is anticipated that as the City moves foi•~ward
with its v~~ater system and conservation planning process, it will similarly evaluate potential
conservation measures and subject them to a selection process.
8.U Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts
This section of the ~?Vater Conservation Plan addresses five main topics:
• Revise demand forecasts;
• Identify project-specific savings;
• Revise supply capacity forecasts;
• Summarize forecast modifications and benefits of conservation; and
• Consider revenue effects.
The city currently has many ongoing water system projects and water conservation programs, as
well as long-range planning documents, including the Treated Water Master Plan and the Source
Water Master Plan. Some issues have evolved since the preparation of the previous 1988 Raw
40
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
Water Master Plan, the 1999 Water Conservation Futures Study and the 2404 Treated Water
Master Plan. These include the drought of 2442, a 2445 update to the BVCP with changes to
projected population and employment at build-out, and implementation of the city's 2447 water
budget which is expected to further encourage conservation. These considerations will be
integrated into modified demand forecasts in future master plan updates. The development of
the Source Water Master Plan is underway, and it is anticipated a Treated Water Master Plan
update will take place in the next few years. During these planning processes, demand forecasts
will be revised to account for changes in projected population and employment estimates for
build-out conditions, current levels of water use, and expected water savings due to water
conservation measures to be employed in the future.
Also, it is anticipated that the city will identify the anticipated effects of conservation on the
capacity needed for proposed water system improvements that are sized based on demand
requirements. This will include evaluating the extent to which conservation efforts might enable
elimination, downsizing, or postponement of capital projects during the plaiming period.
Potential savings in capital and operating costs will also be identified. This information may be
used to revise project capacities, if appropriate. Graphs shoe ing anticipated demand and
anticipated supply with and without implementation of the selected conservation measures and
programs will be revised, and a revenue analysis similar to the one included in the 2444 Treated
Water Master Plan will be prepared.
41
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
9.0 Implementation Plan
9.1 Develop Implementation Schedule
As existing and potential new conservation programs are evaluated over time, the city will
identify significant implementation actions for each selected conservation measure or
combination of measures and programs, including implementation opportunities and challenges
and an overall schedule. Table 9.1 indicates the city's preliminary schedule for Water
Conservation Plan review prior to submittal to the state for review.
Table 9.1 Major Milestones in Implementation Schedule
Element A roximate Timeline
Cit Water Resources Adviso Board Review Februa 2008
Public Input and Feedback February-April 2008
Completion of Source Water Master Plan 2008
Pre aration of Treated Water Master Plan u date 2010
9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation
As the city moves forward with its water system planning and consert%ation activities, a public
participation plan will be developed for int%olving the public in the planning process. This plan
will include touch points for public participation, including meetings, newsletters, surveys, and
other methods. The city is committed to engaging the public in its conservation planning on an
early and ongoing basis, as well as involving the public in implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation to the extent appropriate. The public is presently involved in the development of the
Source Water Master Plan through a series of Community Study Group meetings that are
expected to be complete by March 2008.
9.3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes
As shown in Table 2.10, the city has already established several conservation programs and
methods to track progress, including level of involvement and actual water savings. The city
generally collects data on the et~ectiveness of conservation measures using rebate counts;
seminar attendance; audits performed; occasional customer surveys. It is anticipated that this
monitoring and evaluation process will continue, and will evolve as new conservation programs
are developed or existing programs revised.
9.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan
In the next few years, the city will embark on an update of its 2000 Treated Water Master Plan.
At that time, this conservation plan will be revisited and updated as necessary to incorporate
updated demand forecasts, system issues, regional conditions, and public input.
9.5 Define Plan Adoption DatelPlan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date
Completion and approval of the Water Conservation Plan is anticipated to occur in April of
2008.
42
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
10.0 Monitoring and Evaluation
The success of this Plan depends on establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation process.
As shown in this document and other documents incorporated by reference (1999 Water
Conservation Futures Study and 2000 Treated Water System Master Plan), the City already has
in place systems to collect and track data, including its conservation programs (Table 2.10) As
the city continues to acquire more data, correlation between water demands and conservation
measures/ programs may be established which will improve the ability to assess the effectiveness
of the Plan.
Monitoring of the city's conservation progress can be carried out in a variety of ways, including,
but not limited to, the tracking of billing system data, daily water and wastewater treatment plant
production, daily operations of the city's raw water supply system, annual program costs,
number of conservation rebates, and feedback from the public. The city will collect data
periodically-much of it on an annual basis-and use the data to evaluate program effectiveness,
and make adjustments if necessary.
43
City of Boulder Water Conservation Plan
11.U References
City of Boulder. 2007. y~'ater Billing. Accessed at:
httpa,~'www.bouldereolorado.~ovlindex.php?option=com content&task=view&id=3488&Itemid
=1240.
City of Boulder. 2006. 2005 Annual Report. City of Boulder Utilities Division, Public Works
Department, Boulder. Colorado.
City of Boulder. 2007. 2006 Annual Report. City of Boulder Utilities Division, Public Works
Department, Boulder. Colorado.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, and AquaCraft, Inc. 2000. City of Boulder ~?Vater
Conservation Futures Study. Prepares for the City of Boulder Public Forks Department,
Boulder, Colorado.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, and AquaCraft, Inc. 2003. City of Boulder, Colorado
Drought Plan, Volumes I and II. Prepared for the City of Boulder Public Works Department,
Boulder, Colorado.
Integra Engineering. 2000. City of Boulder Treated Water I~•Iaster Plan. Prepared for the City
of Boulder Public Works Department, Boulder, Colorado.
~ID~
44
Appendix A: 1999-2006 Revenues and Consumption by Customer
Glass
REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 28-Mar-06
Total Revenue for January '_005 through December 2005
Singe-Famiy Trailer Parks Mu ti-Family Commercial)
Resdential 8 Districts Res<denhal Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITti"
Service Charge 51,962119 540.479 5905.5.30 $6ES.Ot4 522E.394 53.804,585
61ock t 1,844.43E 150.133 1,709,42C t,70t.482 4.758 5.410,289
Block2 2.84.921 61,105 964.737 !,035.546 1.06071°. 5.607.127
Block 3 1.155 317 t E•?.3~~ 4.::7.367 1.7.0 78_ 3.430.186
subtotal insidecit/ S?,c5t853 5257.131 53,747A-1 53.3=3._`•09 S3,2t^65= 518.31"'.187
OUTSIDE CIT`r
Service Charge S114.003 52'_.821 515.977 S'_3,454 $5.789 5182,048
Block t 75.045 27.SEs 11.114 36,642 t`°. 150.'_11
Block 2 117.453 43:345 s.a9e 80,353 2^_36~ 270.508
61ock 3 80.239 27.143 838 ''0.993 4 ~ 411 170 X25
subtotal outsitle ci^y S396.746 S1_'.373 533.62E $tE1.442 570 00° 5?i3.19?
TOTAL WATER $7.838.598 5372.504 53,750.627 $4,010.451 53.28^_659 519.085.380
% of TOTAL 41 07% 1.95% '9.31°6 2t 02% 15.15% 10.00%
WASTEWATER
IIJSID= qTY 52.898.974 5252333 52,669,91'_ $3,545,132 St8.683 55.390,035
OU-SIDE CIT`r _10.341 83.771 28.270 88.559 3.520 414362
TOTAL'vJASTE'R'ATER $3,109.316 534'.104 $2,698.183 $3,633.591 S2^_2D4 $9.804397
°.6 of TOTAL 31 71 % 3.a8°,~ 2?S2°6 37 06°y 0.23 % 100.00°h
CONSUMPTIOIJ BY CUSTOMER CLASS 28-Mar-06
Thousands of Gal ons for Jaguar; 2~~5~ Through Cecember 200°
Single-Famiy Trailer Parks Mu'4i-Family CommerciaP~.
Residential 8 Dstricts Residential Indusiria' `o~inkler TOTAL
WATER
Ih1SIDE CITY
Block 1 1,046.216 86.235 982.204 973.334 672 3.038,E65
Block 2 710.305 17,066 275.637 290.615 302732 1.596,555
Block3 202.659 i137, 29.096 76.024 302368 612,010
subtotal inside crty 1,959.180 103.168 1,286,937 t.3a' 173 E05.772 5297,230
OUTSIDE CITY
Block t 42.74' t5, 51 6.3E ?'.423 1. 96,286
Block 2 33.497 _,5_7 '.635 22.9?8 6.56 77,24?
Block3 14.!33 4,72= 112 _'.700 226`_ 23,577
subtotal outsideciry 90.37% 33.0-~ 8,157 55.'01 !3335 203,5!0
TOTAL'JJATER 2,249.557 !36,22° 1?95.034 ' 320.^_?4 219.607 ?•.500,740
°h of TOTAL 37 26% 238°.ro 23.5<°.~6 25 46°.', t' 2E% '02.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE C1T`r' 999.549 68.81 9°_5.451 .250.514 6.762 3.331,228
OUTSIDE CITY 49.037 19.627 6.52 '_!.403 451 97,`38
TOTALVJASTE'A'A.TER 1,038.58E !08,439 962.111 ?.312.017 261_' 3.423,766
% of TOTAL 30 29 % 3.1E°~ 28.0E°.4 36 26% 0.22 % '02.00%
A-1
2004 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,928,522 $35,616 $878,371 $642,778 $214,875 $3,700,162
Block 1 1,751,042 112,595 1,767,730 1,598,886 9,807 5,240,060
Block2 1,915,718 81,286 757,290 871,619 892,702 4,518,615
Block3 546,346 7,772 108,085 361,448 1,157,602 2,181,253
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $112,565 $19,288 $15,954 $22,894 $5,640 $176,341
Block 1 72,291 21,779 10,068 42,412 0 146,550
Block2 94,635 41,385 6,147 48,854 20,080 211,101
Block 3 45,858 27,352 1,987 10,439 22,565 108,201
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER $6,466,977 $347,073 $3,545,632 $3,599,330 $2,323,271 $16,282,283
of TOTAL 39.72% 2.13% 21.78% 22.11 % 14.27°k 100.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $2,448,421 $172,997 $2,304,362 $2,973,602 $11,227 $7,910,609
OUTSIDE CITY 190,864 58,250 26,070 73,892 2,462 351,538
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,639,285 $231,247 $2,330,432 $3,047,494 $13,689 $8,262,147
of TOTAL o o o o
2004 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Gommerciall
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,048,758 69,689 1,071,635 951,740 33 3,141,855
Black 2 577,934 24,632 229,982 268,230 270,847 1,371,625
Block 3 75,951 1,374 18,648 68,610 207,745 372,328
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Block 1 43,600 13,201 6,099 26,450 0 89,350
Block 2 28,690 12,541 1,863 15,411 6,085 64,590
Block3 8,279 4,973 351 1,912 4,092 19,607
subtotal outside city 80,569 30,715 8,313 43,773 10,177 173,547
TOTAL WATER 1,783,212 126,410 1,328,578 1,332,353 488,802 5,059,355
of TOTAL o o o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,027,051 74,842 998,316 1,304,079 4,858 3,409,146
OUTSIDE CITY 48,955 14,986 6,930 21,584 716 93,171
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,076,006 89,828 1,005,246 1,325,663 5,574 3,502,317
of TOTAL o o o
A-2
2003 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,921,463 $35,830 $853,819 $646,538 $210,621 $3,668,270
Block 1 1,837,699 107,656 1,849,032 1,677,231 20,127 5,491,745
Block2 2,372,779 66,526 919,679 871,206 978,028 5,208,217
Block 3 1,207,449 14,253 163,623 220,088 1,732,909 3,338,321
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $112,826 $19,203 $18,168 $23,624 $5,655 $179,477
Block 1 77,217 23,873 33,264 47,867 14 182,235
Block 2 115,182 40,240 22,918 38,093 21,705 238,138
Block3 93,991 41,109 53 3,540 43,096 181,789
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER $7,738,606 $348,691 $3,860,555 $3,528,187 $3,012,153 $18,488,192
of TOTAL 41.86% 1.89% 20.88% 19.08% 16.29°k 100.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $2,418,453 $148,264 $2,210,602 $2,950,391 $13,247 $7,740,956
OUTSIDE CITY 193,098 58,721 29,166 64,396 2,434 347,815
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,611,550 $206,985 $2,239,768 $3,014,786 $15,681 $8,088,771
of TOTAL o o o
2003 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Gommerciall
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,103,927 65,246 1,123,508 1,001,820 (226) 3,294,275
Black 2 685,488 19,173 273,125 287,490 291,983 1,557,259
Block 3 170,000 2,045 24,147 50,114 247,139 493,445
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Block 1 46,638 14,469 20,107 24,104 0 105,318
Block 2 34,385 11,411 6,891 9,993 6,364 69,044
Block 3 13,910 7,374 12 965 6,245 28,506
subtotal outside city 94,933 33,254 27,010 35,062 12,609 202,868
TOTAL WATER 2,054,348 119,718 1,447,790 1,374,486 551,505 5,547,847
of TOTAL o o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,086,298 69,229 1,023,919 1,379,135 6,146 3,564,727
OUTSIDE CITY 52,585 17,105 8,159 19,756 752 98,357
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,138,883 86,334 1,032,078 1,398,891 6,898 3,663,084
of TOTAL o o o
A-3
2002 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,915,505 $35,592 $842,600 $636,677 $207,253 $3,637,627
Block 1 1,893,857 135,642 1,876,823 1,775,423 4,880 5,686,625
Block 2 2,115,764 74,279 819,471 892,129 756,303 4,657,946
Block 3 505,945 408 92,401 183,843 491,629 1,274,226
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $113,110 $20,791 $15,927 $22,848 $5,394 $178,070
Block 1 81,372 24,852 13,665 35,914 0 155,803
Block 2 107,559 55,418 3,151 22,722 18,681 207,531
Block 3 40,501 9,979 192 6,273 7,094 64,039
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER $6,773,613 $356,961 $3,664,230 $3,575,829 $1,491,234 $15,861,867
of TOTAL 42.70% 2.25% 23.10% 22.54% 9.40°k 100.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $2,243,253 $170,494 $2,053,548 $2,872,778 $12,333 $7,352,406
OUTSIDE CITY 180,991 61,030 27,580 61,065 1,868 332,534
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,424,244 $231,524 $2,081,128 $2,933,843 $14,201 $7,684,940
of TOTAL o o o o
2002 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,166,549 84,776 1,161,346 1,087,197 716 3,500,584
Block 2 742,251 26,063 281,457 309,465 265,893 1,625,129
Black 3 118,128 96 21,494 42,967 115,659 298,344
subtotal inside city 2,026,928 110,935 1,464,297 1,439,629 382,268 5,424,057
OUTSIDE CITY
Black 1 50,810 15,590 8,399 22,959 0 97,758
Block 2 37,757 19,484 1,149 8,032 6,554 72,976
Block3 9,589 2,3d8 45 i,d76 1,669 15,127
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER 2,125,084 148,357 1,473,890 1,472,096 390,491 5,609,918
%ofTOTAL o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,125,260 89,6d1 1,065,794 1,510,056 6,508 3,797,259
OUTSIDE CITY 55,004 20,034 8,634 21,028 642 105,342
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,180,264 109,675 1,074,428 1,531,084 7,150 3,902,601
of TOTAL o o o
A-4
2001 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,764,893 $33,023 $768,184 $586,837 $188,523 $3,341,460
Block 1 1,836,075 136,801 1,871,395 1,674,382 (5,225) 5,513,428
Block 2 2,219,440 110,988 902,246 864,204 847,206 4,944,084
Block3 1,021,533 11,862 154,145 333,526 1,193,788 2,714,854
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $104,576 $19,782 $14,956 $24,636 $4,656 $168,606
Block 1 76,634 17,253 11,773 39,446 1,874 146,980
Block 2 108,483 39,703 4,938 29,756 13,993 196,873
Block 3 80,345 42,803 0 9,110 30,260 162,518
subtotal outside city ,
TOTAL WATER $7,211,979 $412,215 $3,727,637 $3,561,897 $2,275,075 $17,188,803
of TOTAL 41.96% 2.40% 21.69% 20.72% 13.24°k 100.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $2,080,004 $161,622 $1,968,484 $2,623,227 $10,372 $6,843,709
OUTSIDE CITY 191,534 45,310 25,541 61,578 2,823 326,786
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,271,538 $206,932 $1,994,025 $2,684,805 $13,195 $7,170,495
of TOTAL o o o o
2001 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Gommerciall
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,218,108 91,192 1,237,540 1,099,476 593 3,646,909
Black 2 874,284 43,524 353,895 336,681 332,099 1,940,483
Block 3 262,750 3,081 40,068 89,943 310,078 705,920
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Block 1 51,676 11,501 7,874 26,837 0 97,888
Block 2 42,564 15,570 1,936 11,669 5,690 77,429
Block 3 20,923 11,118 0 2,366 8,283 42,690
subtotal outside city 115,163 38,189 9,810 40,872 13,973 218,007
TOTAL WATER 2,470,305 175,986 1,641,313 1,566,972 656,743 6,511,319
of TOTAL o o o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,165,719 96,509 1,159,113 1,521,459 6,072 3,948,872
OUTSIDE CITY 56,750 14,989 7,733 23,006 1,084 103,562
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,222,469 111,498 1,166,846 1,544,465 7,156 4,052,434
of TOTAL o o o
A-5
2000 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,520,123 $28,548 $663,625 $499,d97 $160,900 $2,672,693
Block 1 1,972,036 140,383 1,876,770 1,732,794 7,388 5,729,371
Block 2 2,055,809 136,301 764,232 754,381 788,760 4,499,483
Block 3 864,981 8,629 172,087 333,195 1,041,373 2,420,265
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $91,038 $18,468 $13,056 $21,622 $4,191 $148,375
Block 1 83,457 25,112 12,916 48,242 0 169,727
Block 2 107,390 29,279 4,844 52,657 14,411 208,581
Block 3 72,335 15,758 0 8,304 31,616 128,013
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER $6,767,169 $402,478 $3,507,530 $3,450,692 $2,D48,639 $16,176,508
of TOTAL 41.83% 2.49% 21.68°l0 21.33% 12.66°k 100.00%
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $2,057,661 $160,041 $1,885,869 $2,528,911 $15,003 $6,647,485
OUTSIDE CITY 189,509 53,833 26,327 71,808 2,168 343,645
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,247,170 $213,87d $1,912,196 $2,600,719 $17,171 $6,991,130
of TOTAL o o o o
2000 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Gommerciall
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,309,308 93,588 1,250,144 1,144,447 3,171 3,800,658
Black 2 956,234 63,396 355,516 347,384 366,713 2,089,243
Block3 262,493 2,615 52,228 108,229 315,675 741,240
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Block 1 55,593 16,742 8,610 32,886 0 113,831
Block 2 49,969 13,618 2,253 24,492 6,703 97,035
Block 3 22,123 4,775 0 2,531 9,581 39,010
subtotal outside city 127,685 35,135 10,863 59,909 16,284 249,876
TOTAL WATER 2,655,720 194,734 1,668,751 1,659,969 701,843 6,881,D17
of TOTAL o o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,229,316 101,716 1,179,307 1,592,043 9,835 4,112,217
OUTSIDE CITY 59,424 19,405 8,544 28,958 870 117,201
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,288,740 121,121 1,187,851 1,621,001 10,705 4,229,418
of TOTAL o o o
A-6
1999 REVENUES BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Commercial)
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Service Charge $1,465,30d $28,042 $640,831 $481,815 $152,215 $2,768,207
Block 1 1,872,989 118,460 1,802,616 1,660,449 8,585 5,463,099
Block 2 1,533,873 79,740 633,684 730,290 632,779 3,610,366
Block 3 502,537 8,922 101,363 269,537 786,366 1,668,725
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Service Charge $88,175 $17,928 $12,680 $20,935 $3,370 $143,088
Block 1 78,703 28,905 12,904 52,080 0 172,592
Block 2 81,534 32,516 3,646 57,661 10,690 186,047
Block 3 41,678 12,832 275 17,432 21,174 93,391
subtotal outside city
TOTAL WATER $5,664,793 $327,345 $3,207,999 $3,290,199 $1,615,179 $14,105,515
of TOTAL 40.16% 2.32% 22.74% 23.33% 11.45°k 100.00°l0
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY $1,994,220 $138,767 $1,823,724 $2,363,483 $12,629 $6,332,823
OUTSIDE CITY 183,461 62,777 26,090 65,232 1,747 339,307
TOTAL WASTEWATER $2,177,681 $201,544 $1,849,814 $2,428,715 $14,376 $6,672,130
of TOTAL o o o o
1999 CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMER CLASS 29-Nov-07
perthousand gallons
Single-Family Trailer Parks Multi-Family Gommerciall
Residential & Districts Residential Industrial Sprinkler TOTAL
WATER
INSIDE CITY
Block 1 1,287,616 81,952 1,24d,000 1,136,354 219 3,750,141
Black 2 748,249 38,898 309,183 353,565 308,913 1,758,808
Block 3 157,116 2,788 31,630 84,723 245,956 522,213
subtotal inside city ,
OUTSIDE CITY
Block 1 54,415 19,934 8,900 36,530 0 119,779
Block 2 39,795 15,862 1,779 28,128 5,217 90,781
Block 3 13,040 4,010 79 5,447 6,617 29,193
subtotal outside city 107,250 39,806 10,758 70,105 11,834 239,753
TOTAL WATER 2,300,231 163,444 1,595,571 1,644,747 566,922 6,270,915
of TOTAL o o o
WASTEWATER
INSIDE CITY 1,231,845 90,971 1,179,106 1,470,451 580 3,972,953
OUTSIDE CITY 59,294 24,144 8,801 27,005 710 119,954
TOTAL WASTEWATER 1,291,139 115,115 1,187,907 1,497,456 1,290 4,092,907
of TOTAL o o o
A-7
Appendix B: Additional Information on 2007 Water Budgeting
Procedures
How to Calculate aSingle-Family Residential Customer Water Budget
The single-family residential water budget is the sum of an indoor and outdoor
allocation. The indoor allocation is 7,000 gallons per month. The outdoor allocation is
based on customer-specifc irrigable area as provided by the city's geographical
information system (GIS) and changes monthly based on seasonal watering needs. The
annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
? The first 5,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot
(gpsf,
? The next 9,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 12 gpsf, and
? All excess irrigable area gets 10 gpsf.
For example, a customer with 14,400 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per
s uare feet S uare Foot Gallons
5,000 15 75,000
9,000 12 108,000
400 10 4,000
Annual Outdoor Allocation 187,000
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 0%
February 0%
March 1°.6
April 7%
Ma 14%
June 20°h
July 20%
Au ust 18%
September 12%
October 7%
November 1%
December 0%
Total 100%
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 187,000 gallons, they would
receive 20°~ of that, or 37,400 gallons, in June and 7°k, or 13,090 gallons, in October.
B-1
A customer with 14,400 square feet of irrigable area would have the following water
budget:
Total Estimated
Water Budget
Indoor Outdoor (rounded up to the
Month Allocation Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
January 7,000 0 7,000
February 7,000 0 7,000
March 7,000 1,870 9,000
_April 7,000 13,090 21,000
Ma 7,000 26,180 34,000
June 7,000 37,400 45,000
July 7,000 37,400 45,000
Au ust 7,000 33,660 41,000
Se tember 7,000 22,440 30,000
October 7,000 13,090 21,000
November 7,000 1,870 9,000
December 7,000 0 7,000
TOTAL 84, 000 187, 000 276,000
'Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 4,000 gallons in February and had a monthly budget of 7,000
gallons, their usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Bud et Block allons
Block 1 0-60% of budget 0 - 5,000 4,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 5,001 - 7,000 0
Block 3 101-150% of budget 7,000 - 11,000 0
Block 4 151-200°~ of budget 11,001 - 14,000 0
Block 5 over 201 of budget Over 14,000 0
If this customer used 10,000 gallons in February and had a monthly budget of 7,000
alg Ions, their water usa a would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Bud et Block allons
Block 1 0-60% of budget 0 - 5,000 5,000
Block 2 61-100°~ of bud et 5,001 - 7,000 2,000
Block 3 101-150% of budget 7,000 -11,000 3,000
Block 4 151-200°,6 of budget 11,001 - 14,000 0
Block 5 over 201 % of budget Over 14,000 0
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
B-2
How to Calculate aMulti-Family Residential Customer Water Budget
The multi-family residential water budget is the sum of an indoor and outdoor allocation.
The indoor allocation is 4,000 gallons per month per living unit within the building. The
outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city's
geographical information system (GIS) and changes monthly based on seasonal
watering needs. The annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
i Irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot (gpsf)
For example, a customer with 10,200 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per
s uare feet S uare Foot Gallons
10,200 15 153,000
Annual Outdoor Allocation 153,000
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 0%
February 0°~
March I 1
April 7%
Ma 14°~
June 20%
Jul 20%
Au ust 18%
September 12%
October ~ 7%
November 1%
December 0%
Total 100%
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 153,000 gallons, they would
receive 20°,6 of that, or 30,600 gallons, in June and 7°,6, or 10,710 gallons, in October.
B-3
A multi-family residential account that has 10 living units and an irrigable area of 10,200
square feet would have the following water budget:
Total Estimated'"
Water Budget
Indoor Outdoor (rounded up to the
Month Allocation Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
January 40,000 0 40,000
February 40,000 0 40,000
March 40,000 1,530 42,000
April 40,000 10,710 51,000
Ma 40,000 21,420 62,000
June 40,000 30,600 71,000
July 40,000 30,600 71,000
Au ust 40,000 27,540 68,000
Se tember 40,000 18,360 59,000
October 40,000 10,710 51,000
November 40,000 1,530 42,000
December 40,000 0 40,000
TOTAL 480,000 153,000 637,000
* Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 45,000 gallons in October and had a monthly budget of 51,000
allons, their usa a would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Budget Block (allons)
Block 1 0-60°~ of bud et 0 -31,000 31,000
Block 2 61-100°~ of budget 31,001 - 51,000 14,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 51,001 - 77,000 0
Block 4 151-200% of bud et 77,001 - 102,000 0
Block 5 over 201 % of bud et Over 102,000 0
If this customer used 88,000 gallons in October and had a monthly budget of 51,000
gallons, their water usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Bud et Block allons)
Block 1 0-60°~ of bud et 0 -31,000 31,000
Block 2 61-100°~ of budget 31,001 - 51,000 20,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 51,001 - 77,000 26,000
Block 4 151-200°~ of bud et 77,001 - 102,000 11,000
Block 5 over 201 °,6 of bud et Over 102,000 D
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
B-4
How to Calculate aCommercial/ Industrial Customer Water Budget
A commercial/industrial account's water budget is calculated based on average monthly
usage (AMU) and does not change from month to month. The budget is based on
customer-specific 2005 actual water usage and is calculated by taking 2005 annual
water usage and dividing it by twelve.
For example, a customer with 2005 annual water usage of 795,000 gallons of water
would have a monthly water budget of 67,000 gallons as shown in the table below.
Calculated Total Estimated "
Average Water Budget
Monthly (rounded up to the
Month Usage nearest 1,000 gallons)
January 66,250 67,000
February 66,250 67,000
March 66,250 67,000
April 66,250 67,000
Ma 66,250 67,000
June 66,250 67,000
Jul 66,250 67,000
Au ust 66,250 67,000
September 66,250 67,000
October 66,250 67,000
November 66,250 67,000
December 66,250 67,000
TOTAL 795,000 804,000
Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 58,000 gallons in August and had a monthly budget of 67,000
gallons, their usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block % of Budget Block (gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -41,000 41,000
Block 2 61-100°~ of budget 41,001 - 67,000 17,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 67,001 - 101,000 0
Block 4 151-200°~ of bud et 101,001 - 134,000 0
Block 5 over 201 % of bud et Over 134,000 0
B-5
How to Calculate a Metered Irrigation Customer Water Budget
A metered irrigation account's water budget consists only of an outdoor allocation. The
outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city's
geographical information system (GIS) and changes monthly based on seasonal
watering needs. The annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
? Irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot (gpsf)
For example, a customer with 30,500 square feet of irrigable area would have the
following annual outdoor allocation:
Irrigable Area Gallons per Gallons
s uare feet S ware Foot
30,50D 15 457,500
Annual Outdoor Allocation 457,5Q0
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing
monthly seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by
month that will be applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were
derived from historic data.
Percentage of Monthly
Outdoor Allocation
Distribution
Percent of
Month Annual Outdoor
Allocation
January 1%
February ~ 1 %
March 1
April 7%
Ma 14°~
June 20%
July 20°~6
Au ust 18°k
September 12°k
October 7%
November 1 °lo
December 1 °,6
For example, if a customer's annual outdoor allocation was 457,500 gallons, they would
receive 20°k of that, or 91,500 gallons, in June and 7°~, or 32,025 gallons, in October.
B-6
An irrigation only account that has an irrigable area of 30,500 square feet would have
the following water budget:
- -
Total Estimated "
Water Budget
Outdoor (rounded up to the
Month Allocation nearest 1,000 gallons)
January 4,575 5,000
February 4,575 5,000
March 4,575 5,000
April 32,025 33,OOD
Ma 64,050 65,000
June 91,500 92,000
July 91,500 92,000
Au ust 82,350 83,000
Se tember 54,900 55,000
October 32,025 33,000
November 4,575 5,000
December 4,575 5,000
TOTAL 471,225 478,000
Monthly water budgets are shown as estimates because actual water budget amounts could
change depending on what date the water meter is read each month.
If this customer used 58,000 gallons in May and had a monthly budget of 65,000
allons, their usa e would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block °lo of Budget Block (gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -39,000 39,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 39,001 -65,000 19,000
Block 3 101-150% of budget 65,001 - 98,000 0
Block 4 151-200°~ of bud et 98,001 - 130,000 0
Block 5 over 201 of bud et Over 130,000 0
If this customer used 87,000 gallons in May and had a monthly budget of 65,000
gallons, their water usage would be billed as follows:
Rate Gallons per Rate Water Usage
Block °lo of Bud et Block allons
Block 1 0-60% of bud et 0 -39,000 39,000
Block 2 61-100°~ of budget 39,001 - 65,000 26,000
Block 3 101-150°~ of budget 65,001 - 98,000 22,000
Block 4 151-200°k of bud et 98,001 - 130,000 0
Block 5 over 201 % of bud et Over 130,000 0
Gallons per Rate Block are rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons to benefit the
customer.
B-7
Appendix C: Comments from Boulder Water Resources Advisory Board
(WRAS) and the Public
* This plan was presented at the 25 February 2008 WRAB meeting,
which was convened as a public meeting.
B-8