HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.079-15
PAGE 0
MAY 13, 2014
Regional Water Efficiency Plan
Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado
ELEMENT Water Consulting & WaterDM August 12, 2015
REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado
PREPARED BY
P.O. BOX 140785
DENVER, CO 80214
AND
1339 HAWTHORN AVENUE
BOULDER, CO 80304
August 12, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Memorandum of Understanding
Regional Water Conservation Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................
Purpose ................................................................
Recommended Regional Water
Implementing the Regional Water
1. INTRODUCTION ................................
Purpose of the Regional Water
Water Availability Issues
Previous and Related Water Studies
1.3.1 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed
1.3.2 Opportunities for Water Conservation
1.3.3 Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the Roaring
Fork Watershed (2014) ................................
1.3.4 Colorado Basin Implementation
1.3.5 Climate Change Impact on Water Use
2. INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL WATER
Water Efficiency Plan Summaries
2.1.1 City of Aspen ................................
2.1.2 Snowmass Water and Sanitation
2.1.3 Town of Basalt................................
2.1.4 Town of Carbondale
2.1.5 City of Glenwood Springs
3. SELECTION OF REGIONAL WATER
Water Loss Control Technical Assistance
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Education and
Campaign ................................
3.2.1 Coordinated Public Outreach/Communication
3.2.2 Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge
Reduce Outdoor Water
3.3.1 Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on Landscape
Water Budgeting ................................
3.3.2 Certification Program Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
Professionals ................................
3.3.3 Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley Irrigation
Systems ................................
Improve Water Resource
3.4.1 Linking Water Savings to
3.4.2 Mechanisms to Protect Water Rights and Enhance
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed
Plan ................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Recommended Regional Water Efficiency Activities ................................................................
Implementing the Regional Water Efficiency Plan ................................................................
................................................................................................
Purpose of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan ..............................................................
Issues ................................................................................................
Water Studies ................................................................
Watershed Plan ................................................................
Opportunities for Water Conservation Report (2012) ................................
Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the Roaring
................................................................................................
Implementation Plan ................................................................
Climate Change Impact on Water Use ................................................................
INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLANS ............................................................
Plan Summaries................................................................
................................................................................................
Snowmass Water and Sanitation District ................................................................
................................................................................................
Town of Carbondale ................................................................................................
City of Glenwood Springs ..........................................................................................
SELECTION OF REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES ................................
Water Loss Control Technical Assistance ................................................................
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Education and Information
................................................................................................................................
Outreach/Communication Campaign ................................
Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge and Awards ................................
Water Use ..........................................................................................
Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on Landscape
................................................................................................
rogram Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
........................................................................................................................
Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley Irrigation
................................................................................................................................
Resource Management................................................................
Linking Water Savings to Environmental Benefits ................................
Mechanisms to Protect Water Rights and Enhance Instream Flows ........................
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE i
Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed
................................ ii
................................................... 1
.................................................... 3
....................................... 3
.................................. 4
..................................... 5
....................................................... 7
.............................. 7
................................ 9
............................................. 11
.......................................... 12
............................................. 12
Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the Roaring
........................................ 13
....................................... 15
...................................... 15
............................ 16
................................................. 17
............................................. 18
................................. 18
........................................... 18
.................................. 19
.......................... 19
................................................... 20
..................................... 21
Information
................................. 23
....................................... 23
..................................... 24
.......................... 25
Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on Landscape
.................................................. 26
rogram Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
........................ 27
Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley Irrigation
................................ 28
........................................ 30
.................................................... 30
........................ 31
3.4.3 Improved Water Accountability for Raw
3.4.4 Expand Regional Climate
Summary of Water Savings and
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN
5. CHALLENGES TO SUCCESS ................................
6. PUBLIC REVIEW OF WATER
7. REFERENCES ................................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Water Efficiency Activities Included in the
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Water Savings
Table 3. Summary of Stakeholder
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Efficiency Plan ................................
COVER PHOTOS
Clockwise from upper right hand corner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenwood_Springs,_Colorado#mediaviewer/File:Glenwood_springs_co.jpg
Carbondale by Jonny Kloberdanz; Town of Basalt provided by Town of Basalt staff; City of Aspen
provided by City of Aspen staff; Ziegler Reservoir by Aubree
ATTACHMENTS
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork
Regional Water Conservation Plan.
Public Notice for Regional Water Efficiency Plan Public
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
Improved Water Accountability for Raw Water Systems ................................
Expand Regional Climate Resiliency Measures .........................................................
Summary of Water Savings and Cost Estimates ...........................................................
MONITORING PLAN ................................................................
................................................................................................
EFFICIENCY PLAN ................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
Table 1. Water Efficiency Activities Included in the Individual Plans. ................................
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Water Savings and Costs. ...........................................................
der Meetings. ................................................................
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
................................................................................................
Clockwise from upper right hand corner: City of Glenwood Springs obtained from Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenwood_Springs,_Colorado#mediaviewer/File:Glenwood_springs_co.jpg; Town of
Carbondale by Jonny Kloberdanz; Town of Basalt provided by Town of Basalt staff; City of Aspen
ded by City of Aspen staff; Ziegler Reservoir by Aubree Dallas.
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed
Plan.
Public Notice for Regional Water Efficiency Plan Public Review and Comment.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE i
......................................... 33
......................... 34
........................... 35
....................................... 36
..................................... 37
...................................... 38
.......................... 40
.......................................... 20
........................... 36
................................................ 39
Water
.............................................. 9
City of Glenwood Springs obtained from Wikipedia,
; Town of
Carbondale by Jonny Kloberdanz; Town of Basalt provided by Town of Basalt staff; City of Aspen
Watershed
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AF acre-feet
AF/yr acre-feet per year
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
C2E Conserve to Enhance
CBRT Colorado Basin Roundtable
CORE Community Office for Resource Efficiency
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
CWW Colorado WaterWise
BIP Basin Implementation Plan
F Fahrenheit
HOA Homeowner Association
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
RFC Roaring Fork Conservancy
RWAPA Ruedi Water and Power Authority
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan was a
collaborative effort funded by a grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The
project has been supported through the financial and in-kind participation of the following
stakeholders:
• City of Aspen;
• Town of Basalt;
• Town of Carbondale;
• City of Glenwood Springs;
• Snowmass Water and Sanitation District;
• Colorado Water Conservation Board;
• Ruedi Water & Power Authority;
• Roaring Fork Conservancy;
• Community Office for Resource Efficiency;
• Colorado River District.
This Regional Water Efficiency Plan is the first of its kind in the State of Colorado. Staff from
each of the participating municipalities provided access to detailed datasets and system
information that facilitated the preparation of their individual Water Efficiency Plans. In
addition to the municipal providers, representatives from local stakeholder groups were
instrumental in identifying and selecting potential water efficiency measures to be
implemented on a regional scale. The consultant team would like to thank the following
individuals and organizations for their time and input on this document:
• Mark Fuller, Ruedi Water and Power Authority
• Rick Lafaro, Roaring Fork Conservancy
• Sharon Clarke, formerly with Roaring Fork Conservancy
• Jason Haber, Community Office for Resource Efficiency
• Kevin Reidy, Colorado Water Conservation Board
• Ben Wade, Colorado Water Conservation Board
• Lee Ledesma, City of Aspen
• Phil Overeynder, City of Aspen
• William Dolan, City of Aspen
• Jeff Rice, City of Aspen
• Kit Hamby, Snowmass Water & Sanitation District
• Boyd Bierbaum, Town of Basalt
• Robi Darcy, Town of Basalt
• Mark O’Meara, Town of Carbondale
• Jerry Wade, City of Glenwood Springs
• Buddy Burns, City of Glenwood Springs
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 2
• Robin Millyard, City of Glenwood Springs
• Stephen Bershenyi, City of Glenwood Springs Council & Ruedi Water and Power
Authority
• Dan Birch, Colorado River District
• Hunter Causey, Colorado River District
• Cindy Houben, Pitkin County
• Ray Merry, Eagle County
• Rose Ann Sullivan
• Cynthia Covell, Alperstein & Covell, P.C.
• Shannon Ullman, SGM
• Charlotte Jameson, University of Michigan
• Emma Maack, University of Michigan
• Liz Och, University of Michigan
• Kara Steeland, University of Michigan
• Dr. Julia Wondolleck, University of Michigan
• Roaring Fork Conservancy
• Ruedi Water and Power Authority
The project team wishes to sincerely thank all of those who were involved in conceptualizing
this Regional Plan, particularly Mark Fuller who has managed the project along with Jason
Haber, who was instrumental in securing the grant funding from the CWCB.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The Roaring Fork Valley is a scenic and historic part of Colorado that includes 14,000 foot peaks,
snow-fed rivers, cities, towns, farms, ranches, homes, businesses, ski areas, and much more.
Water is the lifeblood of the Roaring Fork Valley. Recognizing the connection between water
conservation, water supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the
water utilities of City of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town
of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs have all
completed or updated their municipal Water
Efficiency Plans in 2014 and 2015. These plans
evaluated the projected water demands for each
individual municipal supply system under passive
and active water efficiency programs, and compared
projected demands to their individual water
supplies. Each water provider has selected
appropriate efficiency measures to reduce water use
and meet their water demand and supply objectives. The intent of this Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Efficiency Plan (“Regional Water Efficiency Plan” or “Regional Plan”) is to build
upon the individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit
from consistency and sharing of resources.
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs individually.
The goals were first agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that joined the
participants together to seek funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Appendix
A). The MOU states that the cosignatories:
• “Recognize their individual interests in water conservation planning have regional
significance within the Roaring Fork watershed.”
• “May be able to implement elements of their individual water conservation plans more
easily and more successfully if they are common components of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.”
• “Understand there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such additional water for drought
protection, recreational uses and environmental uses.”
The MOU outlined fundamental areas of agreement and basic principles that formed the
underlying foundation of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed.
All communities and stakeholders
in the Roaring Fork Valley (not
just those that helped create this
plan) are invited and encouraged
to participate in the regional
water efficiency effort.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 4
This planning effort was funded in part by a Water Efficiency Planning Grant from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB), requiring that the grant money be used for municipal water
efficiency planning purposes. ELEMENT Water Consulting and WaterDM were selected through
an RFP process to prepare this Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the individual plans for City
of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs. SGM prepared
the individual plan for Snowmass Water and Sanitation District.
Implementing municipal efficiency on a regional scale is
just one of many important steps toward the region’s
broader watershed health goals, which necessitates
engaging other stakeholders and water users. While the
scope of this plan was limited to municipal water
efficiency measures, other uses also impact the
watershed; municipal efficiency cannot be the only
approach to maintaining and improving the Roaring Fork
Watershed. The activities identified in this plan are not
intended to undermine or override Colorado’s water
rights system, and the hope is that this is the start of a
broader conversation and a template that can include other stakeholders and sectors to extend
the savings beyond the five municipal providers who were directly involved in creating this
Regional Plan.
All water districts and water users in the Roaring Fork Valley are invited and encouraged to join
the regional water efficiency effort, to adopt these basic principles of cooperation, and to help
implement the recommended regional water efficiency activities described below.
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Roaring Fork communities share common interests, and there is consistency and overlap in
the water efficiency-related efforts of the five municipal water providers participating in this
regional planning effort. Connected through the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and Crystal Rivers, and
their tributaries, there is opportunity for municipal providers to work collectively with each
other and with other stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of demand management and
water efficiency for the benefit of the entire watershed. Certain programs benefit from being
unified and having consistency (e.g. educational campaigns) and in sharing resources (e.g.
developing model landscape/water budget information). The Regional Water Efficiency Plan
provides this opportunity and unifies these efforts.
Four broad regional water efficiency programs were identified as part of this Regional Water
Efficiency Plan, as summarized below. The regional efficiency programs were selected based on
the individual municipal water efficiency plans as well as other local and national water
efficiency-related efforts. The specific programs are intended to provide a menu of alternatives
and it is understood that every program will not be appropriate for every participant, nor will
This Regional Plan provides a
template that can include
other stakeholders and
sectors to expand and extend
the savings beyond the five
municipal water providers
who were directly involved in
creating this plan.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 5
every participant be capable of participating in all of the programs. In some cases, it will be
beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot programs prior to full implementation.
1. Water Loss Control Technical Assistance ‒ System auditing, loss tracking, infrastructure
maintenance, leak detection and leak repair for water utilities can be improved by the
consistent application of best practices. A coordinated effort to provide technical
assistance for completing initial water audits and to establish a regular annual audit
program for individual water providers is recommended. Information exchange across
providers should be encouraged.
2. Regional Water Efficiency Education and Information Campaign ‒ Engaging water users
and stakeholders can be particularly effective when implemented on a regional scale.
Potential initiatives include: (a) coordinated public outreach and education campaigns;
and (b) a water efficiency challenge for businesses and homeowner associations (HOAs).
3. Reduce Outdoor Water Use ‒ Reducing outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region is
a common goal amongst all of the plan participants. Potential initiatives that could
benefit from regional coordination include: (a) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (b) a landscape design and
management certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and
landscaping professionals; and (c) an effort to install rain shut-off devices on irrigation
systems across the region.
4. Improve Water Resource Management ‒ Water utilities, other rights holders, and
water users in the Roaring Fork Watershed can help create long-lasting benefits to
streamflow conditions through efficiency and improved water resource management.
Exploration of four program measures is recommended in this area: (a) linking water
savings to environmental benefits (i.e. improved streamflows during low-flow events);
(b) mechanisms to protect water rights and enhance instream flows; (c) improved water
accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate resiliency measures and additional
research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the region.
IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
The water efficiency activities identified in this Regional Water Efficiency Plan provide the basis
for implementing water efficiency in a regionally-coordinated manner. Executing the plan will
require ongoing efforts and adaptive strategies to allow the plan to generate visible benefits,
grow, and change. The following actions are recommended as next steps:
1. Establish a Regional Plan Implementation Workgroup with representatives of each
major stakeholder group to meet regularly to report on and assist with regional plan
implementation. Provide updates at other forum meetings and/or host regular open
forms. Include annual reporting around the plan for all participants including:
• Annual program implementation,
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 6
• Program impact estimates including program costs/avoided costs and water
savings,
• Lessons learned,
• Public feedback on program,
• Periodic weather data and local trends,
• Water supply concerns,
• Recommendations for studies or pilot programs,
• Recommended plan modifications, and
• Establish ongoing implementation plan.
2. Develop a funding plan for the Regional Plan implementation. Identify potential annual
and one-time funding sources (e.g. contributions from individual providers, CWCB
implementation grants, Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT) funding, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and other sources), establish
funding commitments, and submit grant applications.
3. Assign a Regional Plan Coordinator and divide responsibility for implementing the plan
across multiple individuals and organizations. To successfully implement this plan,
committed people must step forward and work together. Identifying a plan coordinator
and “plan champions” across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups is a critical step in the
process. Potential lead organizations include: RWAPA, CORE, or the Roaring Fork
Conservancy.
4. Create a MOU for implementation that details shared objectives, roles, and
responsibilities. An MOU was beneficial in defining goals, expectations, and roles of
individual water providers in forming the partnership to create this Regional Water
Efficiency Plan. A similar type of agreement would be useful for establishing the roles
and responsibilities of participants in the implementation phase.
5. Dedicate resources and pursue implementation of the plan.
1. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE REGIONAL
Water is a precious natural resource in the Roaring Fork Watershed, and is critical to the
maintenance of a healthy environment and the lifestyle enjoyed by its residents and visitors.
The Roaring Fork Watershed is home to a large residential population in
municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. As with many
mountainous areas in Colorado, the history of the Roaring Fork Watershed is rooted in mining
and agricultural industries. Over time, recreation and touris
has led to an increase in population. All of these uses have contributed to changes in the timing
and characteristics of water use. The Roaring Fork Watershed is also subject to transbasin
diversions to the eastern slope of Colorado; the Fryingpan
Pass Transmountain Diversion System,
headwaters of the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Not surprisingly, given the competing
uses for the limited resource, the topics of water quantity, water quality, and instream flows
are of tremendous interest from both a human and environmental
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan was completed in 2012 and it, along with associated planning
efforts, identified municipal water efficiency
to improve watershed health. Recognizing the connection between water conservation, water
supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the water
of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and
City of Glenwood Springs have all completed or updated their municipal Water Efficiency Plans
in 2014 and 2015 as an element of this project. Prior
City of Glenwood Springs were the only participants with efficiency plans on file with the CWCB.
These plans evaluated the projected water demands for each individual municipal supply
system under passive and active water efficiency programs, and compared projected demands
to their individual water supplies. Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency
measures to reduce water use and meet their water demand and supply objectives. The intent
of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the individual
municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from consistency and
sharing of resources.
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs
1 The terms water efficiency and water conservation are used interchangeably throughout this
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
EGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
Water is a precious natural resource in the Roaring Fork Watershed, and is critical to the
maintenance of a healthy environment and the lifestyle enjoyed by its residents and visitors.
The Roaring Fork Watershed is home to a large residential population including the
municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. As with many
mountainous areas in Colorado, the history of the Roaring Fork Watershed is rooted in mining
and agricultural industries. Over time, recreation and tourism industries have flourished, which
has led to an increase in population. All of these uses have contributed to changes in the timing
and characteristics of water use. The Roaring Fork Watershed is also subject to transbasin
of Colorado; the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, the Independence
Diversion System, and the Busk Ivanhoe Project divert from the
headwaters of the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Not surprisingly, given the competing
resource, the topics of water quantity, water quality, and instream flows
are of tremendous interest from both a human and environmental perspective.
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan was completed in 2012 and it, along with associated planning
identified municipal water efficiency1 as an important component of the long
to improve watershed health. Recognizing the connection between water conservation, water
supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the water
of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and
City of Glenwood Springs have all completed or updated their municipal Water Efficiency Plans
in 2014 and 2015 as an element of this project. Prior to this project, the City of Aspen and the
City of Glenwood Springs were the only participants with efficiency plans on file with the CWCB.
These plans evaluated the projected water demands for each individual municipal supply
ve water efficiency programs, and compared projected demands
to their individual water supplies. Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency
measures to reduce water use and meet their water demand and supply objectives. The intent
ng Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the individual
municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from consistency and
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs individually.
The terms water efficiency and water conservation are used interchangeably throughout this document.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 7
Water is a precious natural resource in the Roaring Fork Watershed, and is critical to the
maintenance of a healthy environment and the lifestyle enjoyed by its residents and visitors.
cluding the
municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. As with many
mountainous areas in Colorado, the history of the Roaring Fork Watershed is rooted in mining
m industries have flourished, which
has led to an increase in population. All of these uses have contributed to changes in the timing
and characteristics of water use. The Roaring Fork Watershed is also subject to transbasin
Arkansas Project, the Independence
the Busk Ivanhoe Project divert from the
headwaters of the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Not surprisingly, given the competing
resource, the topics of water quantity, water quality, and instream flows
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan was completed in 2012 and it, along with associated planning
as an important component of the long-term plan
to improve watershed health. Recognizing the connection between water conservation, water
supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the water utilities of City
of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and
City of Glenwood Springs have all completed or updated their municipal Water Efficiency Plans
to this project, the City of Aspen and the
City of Glenwood Springs were the only participants with efficiency plans on file with the CWCB.
These plans evaluated the projected water demands for each individual municipal supply
ve water efficiency programs, and compared projected demands
to their individual water supplies. Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency
measures to reduce water use and meet their water demand and supply objectives. The intent
ng Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the individual
municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from consistency and
Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
individually.
document.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 8
The goals were first agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding that joined the
participants together to seek funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (MOU,
2013). A copy of the MOU (attached) states that the cosignatories:
• “Recognize their individual interests in water conservation planning have regional
significance within the Roaring Fork watershed.”
• “May be able to implement elements of their individual water conservation plans more
easily and more successfully if they are common components of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.”
• “Understand there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such additional water for drought
protection, recreational uses and environmental uses.”
The MOU outlines fundamental areas of agreement that form the underlying foundation of this
Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed.
This planning effort was funded in part by a Water Efficiency Planning Grant from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and in part by the five participating municipal water
providers. In addition, the water providers contributed significant in-kind services in the form of
staff time. The focus of the CWCB grant request and the water providers’ contributions was
municipal planning. The consulting team of ELEMENT Water Consulting and WaterDM were
selected to prepare this Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the individual plans for City of
Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs through an RFP and
interview process. SGM prepared the individual plan for Snowmass Water and Sanitation
District. The location of the water providers participating in the regional planning process is
shown in Figure 1, below.
The scope of the CWCB planning grant limited this Regional Plan to analysis and
recommendations of municipal water efficiency measures by the five utility participants. It is
well understood that other demands for water such as agriculture also impact the valley and
municipal efficiency cannot be the only approach to maintaining and improving the Roaring
Fork Watershed. It is also understood that non-municipal water providers, including water and
sanitation districts and ditch companies, have a significant role in local water management and
that bringing those providers into water efficiency planning will be critical to the success of this
plan. Implementing municipal efficiency on a regional level is just one of many important steps
toward the broader watershed health goals. Engaging other stakeholders and water users and
addressing other elements of water conservation will be essential steps in reaching these goals.
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Efficiency Plan.
WATER AVAILABILITY ISSUES
The Roaring Fork River Watershed
on the west side of the Continental
1,453 square miles and extends from the river’s headwaters ne
confluence with the Colorado River in the City of Glenwood Springs approximately 70
downstream. Snowmelt from the mountainous headwaters contributes to the streamflow in
three primary rivers (Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, and Crystal) that eventually
flow in the Colorado River. The Roaring Fork River main
and joins the Fryingpan River in the Town of Basalt, and the Crystal River joins just downstream
of the Town of Carbondale.
The natural hydrology of the watershed is driven by snowmelt from the mountainous
headwaters; however, streamflows
purposes. Water diversions include transbasin appropriations that are 100% depletive to the
Roaring Fork Watershed as well as local diversions with variable degrees of consumptive
As with other high mountainous regions in the semi
Roaring Fork Watershed experiences a wide range of climatic conditions from year to year
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
SSUES
Watershed is located within the Colorado River Basin in central
Continental Divide. The watershed has a drainage area of
extends from the river’s headwaters near Independence Pass to its
confluence with the Colorado River in the City of Glenwood Springs approximately 70
downstream. Snowmelt from the mountainous headwaters contributes to the streamflow in
three primary rivers (Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, and Crystal) that eventually contribute
The Roaring Fork River main-stem flows through the City of Aspen
and joins the Fryingpan River in the Town of Basalt, and the Crystal River joins just downstream
The natural hydrology of the watershed is driven by snowmelt from the mountainous
amflows are affected by water diversions for direct flow
purposes. Water diversions include transbasin appropriations that are 100% depletive to the
Roaring Fork Watershed as well as local diversions with variable degrees of consumptive
with other high mountainous regions in the semi-arid southwestern United States, the
Roaring Fork Watershed experiences a wide range of climatic conditions from year to year
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 9
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
central Colorado
of approximately
ar Independence Pass to its
confluence with the Colorado River in the City of Glenwood Springs approximately 70 miles
downstream. Snowmelt from the mountainous headwaters contributes to the streamflow in
contribute to the
rough the City of Aspen
and joins the Fryingpan River in the Town of Basalt, and the Crystal River joins just downstream
The natural hydrology of the watershed is driven by snowmelt from the mountainous
flow and storage
purposes. Water diversions include transbasin appropriations that are 100% depletive to the
Roaring Fork Watershed as well as local diversions with variable degrees of consumptive use.
arid southwestern United States, the
Roaring Fork Watershed experiences a wide range of climatic conditions from year to year as
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 10
well as from season to season. The Roaring Fork Watershed is “over-appropriated”, which
means that at some or all times of the year, there is insufficient water to meet all demands.
Under these circumstances, diversions are curtailed as needed under the prior appropriation
system. Water is scarce in dry years, and competing water demands have the potential to
adversely impact the natural environment by reducing flows in some natural waterways. Many
providers use surface and groundwater storage to help regulate supplies to meet demands in
dry years and through drought periods. The municipal water providers in the Roaring Fork
Valley, with the exception of Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, have limited storage,
making them more dependent on the seasonal snowmelt and runoff conditions and vulnerable
to drought and water restrictions when snowpack is below normal.
Climatological records provide evidence of recurring major droughts in Colorado of various
length and intensities. Water suppliers in the western United States accommodate this
uncertainty through reservoir storage, consideration of "firm yields" in estimates of water
availability, raw water supply development, and "demand side" strategies such as voluntary or
mandatory restrictions on outdoor water usage. Climate studies indicate a shift toward earlier
runoff and less water available in the late irrigation season, which could create shortages
relative to historical conditions, particularly in situations where storage capacity is limited.
Water supply systems in the Roaring Fork Watershed are also at risk from forest fire, floods,
failure of infrastructure, and contamination of the raw water supply. In order to respond to
emergency or drought situations, contingency plans are typically designed for implementation
of mandatory conservation measures in stages that minimize impacts to the economy, life-
styles, and environment of the community. Plans to reduce usage are necessary so that supply
will be sufficient to meet demands during periods of drought.
Since 1973, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has been responsible for the
appropriation, acquisition, protection and monitoring of instream flow (ISF) and natural lake
level water rights to preserve and improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.
The CWCB holds a collection of ISF water rights in the Roaring Fork Watershed, many of which
date back to the initiation of CWCB’s authority in 1973. Some of the ISF rights are typically
unmet in dry years due to their relatively junior dates of appropriation as compared to other
transbasin and local diversions. Future development activities and the effects of climate change
have the potential to increase the frequency with which local waterways will fail to meet
recommended ISF levels. The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (RWAPA, 2012) listed the following
issues facing the Roaring Fork Watershed:
• The state’s population of 5 million is expected to increase to almost 8 million by 2030.
Eighty percent of the state’s population lives in the half of the state that receives about
20 percent of the precipitation. Recent studies identify a need for another 600,000 to
1,000,000 acre-feet of raw water by 2030 to serve increased population and related
development. Those figures do not include water needs that might be generated by the
effects of climate change, environmental and recreational uses, and energy
development. By 2050, climate change could cause Colorado River flows to decline by
18 percent. Average Colorado Basin water storage could decline by 32 percent. Energy
development could consume up to 200,000 acre
• On average, 37 percent of the Upper Roaring Fork Watershed (40,600 acre
percent of the Upper Fryingpan Watershed (61,500 acre
annually to the Front Range. These are the 5
the state, respectively.
• Almost 140 of 185 miles of streams surveyed in the Roaring Fork Watershed have
moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. In Colorado, riparian habitat
represents less than three percent of the landmass but has the
with 75 to 80 percent of wildlife species using riparian habitat during some part of their
life cycles. Functioning riparian areas reduce the risk of flooding and increase stream
base flows.
PREVIOUS AND RELATED W
Local stakeholders have long recognized the potential for continued and increased adverse
effects on the health of the Roaring Fork Watershed, and have proactively completed several
studies to identify and address critical issues. The Roaring Fork Watershe
is an informal gathering of local officials, planners, resource managers, and interested citizens,
began meeting in 2002 to discuss local water issues. This effort led to the formation of a special
Water Committee in 2005, and this g
Watershed Plan to assess conditions and recommend actions to preserve water resources. In
late 2006, the Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), a consortium of local governments,
became involved as the official sponsor of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. RWAPA engaged
Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) as the lead consultant on the project and secured funding for
the preparation of the State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008
2008 report was widely recognized as a comprehensive, accessible, and valuable compendium
of watershed conditions, and it was later supplemented by two guidance
(i) Why the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Matters
(ii) Illuminating the Way Ahead
The findings of the State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008
documents became the basis for a series of meetings with the public and technical advisors
aimed at translating the Phase I findings into a series of goals, objectives, and actionable
recommendations which would make up Phase II of the Plan. Phase II, consisting of the Roaring
Fork Watershed Plan was completed in Mach 2012, and in tandem with the
Fork Watershed Report 2008 and the two guidance documents, represents the final product of
the watershed planning process that began with the Watershed Collaborative discussions in the
early 2000s.
An overview of some of these efforts
related studies.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
18 percent. Average Colorado Basin water storage could decline by 32 percent. Energy
development could consume up to 200,000 acre-feet of water.
average, 37 percent of the Upper Roaring Fork Watershed (40,600 acre
percent of the Upper Fryingpan Watershed (61,500 acre-feet) is already diverted
annually to the Front Range. These are the 5th and 3rd largest transbasin diversions in
Almost 140 of 185 miles of streams surveyed in the Roaring Fork Watershed have
moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. In Colorado, riparian habitat
represents less than three percent of the landmass but has the highest species richness
with 75 to 80 percent of wildlife species using riparian habitat during some part of their
life cycles. Functioning riparian areas reduce the risk of flooding and increase stream
WATER STUDIES
Local stakeholders have long recognized the potential for continued and increased adverse
effects on the health of the Roaring Fork Watershed, and have proactively completed several
studies to identify and address critical issues. The Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative, which
is an informal gathering of local officials, planners, resource managers, and interested citizens,
began meeting in 2002 to discuss local water issues. This effort led to the formation of a special
Water Committee in 2005, and this group starting formulating the outline for a comprehensive
Watershed Plan to assess conditions and recommend actions to preserve water resources. In
late 2006, the Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), a consortium of local governments,
s the official sponsor of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. RWAPA engaged
Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) as the lead consultant on the project and secured funding for
State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008 (RWAPA, 2008). The
2008 report was widely recognized as a comprehensive, accessible, and valuable compendium
of watershed conditions, and it was later supplemented by two guidance documents:
Why the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Matters (RWAPA & RFC, 2008),
Illuminating the Way Ahead (RWAPA & RFC, 2010).
State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008 and the guidance
documents became the basis for a series of meetings with the public and technical advisors
I findings into a series of goals, objectives, and actionable
recommendations which would make up Phase II of the Plan. Phase II, consisting of the Roaring
Fork Watershed Plan was completed in Mach 2012, and in tandem with the State of the
and the two guidance documents, represents the final product of
the watershed planning process that began with the Watershed Collaborative discussions in the
efforts is provided below, along with reference to
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 11
18 percent. Average Colorado Basin water storage could decline by 32 percent. Energy
average, 37 percent of the Upper Roaring Fork Watershed (40,600 acre-feet) and 41
-feet) is already diverted
largest transbasin diversions in
Almost 140 of 185 miles of streams surveyed in the Roaring Fork Watershed have
moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. In Colorado, riparian habitat
highest species richness
with 75 to 80 percent of wildlife species using riparian habitat during some part of their
life cycles. Functioning riparian areas reduce the risk of flooding and increase stream
Local stakeholders have long recognized the potential for continued and increased adverse
effects on the health of the Roaring Fork Watershed, and have proactively completed several
d Collaborative, which
is an informal gathering of local officials, planners, resource managers, and interested citizens,
began meeting in 2002 to discuss local water issues. This effort led to the formation of a special
roup starting formulating the outline for a comprehensive
Watershed Plan to assess conditions and recommend actions to preserve water resources. In
late 2006, the Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), a consortium of local governments,
s the official sponsor of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. RWAPA engaged
Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) as the lead consultant on the project and secured funding for
(RWAPA, 2008). The
2008 report was widely recognized as a comprehensive, accessible, and valuable compendium
documents:
(RWAPA & RFC, 2008), and
and the guidance
documents became the basis for a series of meetings with the public and technical advisors
I findings into a series of goals, objectives, and actionable
recommendations which would make up Phase II of the Plan. Phase II, consisting of the Roaring
State of the Roaring
and the two guidance documents, represents the final product of
the watershed planning process that began with the Watershed Collaborative discussions in the
to important
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 12
1.3.1 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan
The 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (RWAPA, 2012) included a list of “Recommended
Actions” for implementation. Several of these were related to water conservation and
efficiency, as summarized below.
• Action SW B1f. Investigate if water
conservation translates to environmental
benefits under Colorado water law.
Pursue opportunities for water
conservation, if appropriate.
o The Opportunities for Water
Conservation ‒ Realizing the
Streamflow Benefits from Local
Conservation Efforts report was
finalized by Elk Mountain
Consulting LLC in April 2012 (RFC,
2012).
• Action SW D1c. Support projects such as
the University of Michigan Master’s
Project, Fostering Implementation of the
Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (UM, 2010).
Utilize the University of Michigan Master’s
Project’s recommendations for improving
public education and outreach, as
appropriate.
o The Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed report was finalized by University of Michigan graduate
students in April 2014 (UM, 2014).
• Action SW D1g. Increase awareness of water conservation techniques and the
importance of conservation. Identify and implement the most strategic water
conservation measures.
o RWAPA, RFC, and AspenCORE were instrumental in obtaining the grant from
CWCB and in collaborating with local municipal providers to update individual
municipal water efficiency plans and to develop this Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Efficiency Plan.
1.3.2 Opportunities for Water Conservation Report (2012)
The April 2012 Opportunities for Water Conservation report by Elk Mountain Consulting (RFC,
2012) outlined several recommendations for using municipal and agricultural water
conservation efforts to enhance streamflow conditions in the Roaring Fork Watershed, as
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 13
summarized below. One of the purposes of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Efficiency Plan is to advance the recommendations
listed in the April 2012 report that pertained to
municipal water conservation.
• Recommendation No. 6. Encourage and
assist local municipal water providers to
develop comprehensive water supply,
drought mitigation, and water conservation
plans.
• Recommendation No. 8. Develop a
donation program for municipal providers
in the watershed, and encourage the use of
associated funds for local streamflow
gaging and stream restoration and
enhancement projects.
• Recommendation No. 10. Promote
watershed-wide local water conservation
efforts, and connect local programs to
statewide water management planning
efforts.
1.3.3 Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed (2014)
Recently, graduate students in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the
University of Michigan completed a comprehensive review of other regional water conservation
planning processes to facilitate the development of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Water Efficiency Plan and associated public outreach and education campaign strategies (UM,
2014). The University of Michigan study identified nine key findings and recommendations for
the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan:
1. Establish a transparent and open plan development structure that allows divergent
stakeholders to actively participate.
2. Establish clear and equitable roles and responsibilities in a formal manner.
3. Build flexibility into the plan to accommodate differences in interests and needs.
4. Sustain regional collaboration by retaining a unifying mechanism or vision.
5. Maintain outreach to critical stakeholder groups and partner with them on
plan development and/or implementation.
6. Dedicate staff time to coordinating and managing plan implementation.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 14
7. Establish a dedicated funding source
for plan development and long-term
implementation.
8. Cultivate plan champions.
9. Incentivize implementation.
Through interviews with local water utility
staff, the authors of the study identified that
delivering consistent water conservation
messaging and more effective education and
outreach through collaboration with other
utilities is a high priority. Utility personnel
were specifically interested in focusing on
outdoor water use and encouraging water-
friendly landscaping materials and practices.
The local utilities also recognized the
opportunity to increase their leadership role,
such as through improving ditch efficiency
and management of non-potable systems.
This study also identified potential barriers toward getting residents to participate in regional
municipal water conservation, and suggested the following topics need to be better understood
and addressed through outreach and education:
•••• Social norms regarding water use (wanting green lawns regardless of monetary cost).
•••• Lack of homeowner control (property managers and landscaping businesses responsible
for maintenance).
•••• Open ditch systems (unmetered or difficult to meter).
•••• Influencing tourists and second homeowners is difficult.
•••• Perceptions that water rights will be lost.
•••• Potential for downstream water rights to take any water left in the stream, thus
cancelling out any streamflow benefits of conservation.
•••• Geomorphology makes it difficult to quantify the amount of water conserved and
maintained instream.
•••• Conservation could reduce the income to water providers, thereby reducing the
resources available to support recommended programs.
•••• Misconceptions about being a headwaters area and being ‘water-rich’ due to the
Roaring Fork Valley’s location.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 15
1.3.4 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan
The Colorado Basin Roundtable, which represents a diverse group of Colorado River basin
stakeholders, developed a Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) with the assistance of SGM, Inc.
(CBRT, 2014). The BIP provides input for Colorado’s Water Plan and includes common basin-
wide themes for meeting future basin demands. Specifically relevant to municipal water
conservation, the BIP includes recommendations to “develop local water conscious land use
strategies” and “encourage a high level of basinwide conservation”.
The BIP emphasizes the
importance of repairing and
restoring healthy rivers and
streams and notes the need for
a more systemic approach to
projects and polices to restore
and maintain healthy rivers.
Examples of projects that have
been identified toward that
goal include: restoring sections
of the Roaring Fork as it winds
through the North Star nature
preserve east of Aspen; the
ongoing river restoration work
in Basalt; and a restoration
project on Cattle Creek, which flows into the Roaring Fork River between Carbondale and
Glenwood Springs. Other environmental projects listed include whitewater parks in Basalt and
Carbondale, which can support stream levels in the Roaring Fork River; the city of Aspen’s
project to reuse wastewater for irrigation and snowmaking; Pitkin County’s effort to leave more
water from its open space properties in the Roaring Fork; and efficiency efforts by local water
utilities. Also mentioned are ongoing discussions with irrigators on the Crystal River to improve
minimum flows in the Crystal below the diversion for the Sweet Jessup Ditch.
The Colorado River BIP includes potential projects, policies and processes for reducing
municipal and industrial and nonconsumptive water supply gaps. The plan emphasizes the
importance of water conservation and efficiency programs, opportunities for multipurpose
projects, and the benefits of regional efforts between water providers, irrigators, conservation
organizations and recreational enthusiast.
1.3.5 Climate Change Impact on Water Use
Traditional water planning is based on an assessment of demand and historical streamflow
conditions, which likely will not capture the effects of a changing climate. A great deal of
climate change analysis has been completed in recent years, including the “Climate Change in
Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption” report that was
originally developed in 2008 and updated in 2014 (CWCB, 2014). These studies focused on
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 16
observed climate trends and the complex topics of climate modeling and projections of
temperature, precipitation, snowmelt, and runoff. The 2014 climate change report concluded
the following:
• Substantial future warming, with average
temperatures increasing from 2.5°F to 5.5°F; summers
warming slightly more than winters.
• Increased winter precipitation, although there is
less agreement regarding precipitation trends.
• Decrease in April 1 snowpack, spring runoff shifting
1 to 3 weeks earlier by 2050, and decreases in late-
summer flows.
• More frequent and severe heat waves, droughts,
and wildfires.
While climate change may increase the uncertainty in
outdoor water demand projections, the net effect
depends on numerous factors such as the amount and
type of landscaping material, irrigation management
practices, etc. Some of the impacts on water demands
are included in the forecasts provided in the individual Water Efficiency Plans because recent
water demand data, which reflect response to recent climate changes, are utilized to project
future water demand patterns.
It is important to consider both demand-side, as well as supply-side, impacts of future climate
change on overall water supply conditions. The forecast method provided in the individual
plans, along with regular updates to the demand projections, will assist in this process.
2. INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLANS
Water efficiency planning is a key component of an integrated water supply and resource
management process. It helps improve the resiliency of the system and prepare for changes in
both demands and supplies. Colorado Revised Statute § 37-60-126 requires a covered entity to
develop, adopt, make publicly available, and implement a water conservation plan that will
encourage its domestic, commercial, industrial, and public facility customers to use water more
efficiently. According to the statute, a “covered entity” means a municipality, agency, utility, or
other publicly owned entity with a legal obligation to supply, distribute, or otherwise provide
water at retail to domestic, commercial, industrial, or public facility customers, and that has a
total annual demand for such customers of two thousand acre-feet or more.
The City of Aspen and the City of Glenwood Springs are the only participants in this Regional
Water Efficiency Plan that are currently required by statute to maintain CWCB
efficiency plans; Snowmass is expected to bounce around the 2,000 acre
threshold for a number of years to come. In 1996, Aspen was one of the first cities in Colorado
to develop and implement a water
plan. Glenwood Springs developed a CWCB
approved water conservation plan in 2009. In
2015, Aspen and Glenwood Springs updated their
plans and the water utilities of Snowmass Water
and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, and Town
of Carbondale also completed their municipal
Water Efficiency Plans as part of the Regional
process in 2014 and 2015.
Under the individual planning process, distinct
water demand forecasts were prepared to
a range of reasonable estimates of water
into the future, given anticipated population growth, and to estimate the impact of the water
conservation measures that occur both “passively” as a result of national and state plumbing
codes and standards and “actively” as a result of specific programs a
implemented by the water providers. These forecasts were also used for the important
purpose of establishing the adequacy of local water supply systems to meet future demands.
Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency measur
meet their water demand and supply objectives. There is broad overlap in the water efficiency
activities that the water providers have included within the individual Water Efficiency Plans.
The intent of this Roaring Fork Watersh
individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from
consistency and sharing of resources.
However, no two communities are exactly alike. Certain water efficiency
tiered rate structures, specific incentive programs, and leak detection may be more
implemented at a local level due
Individual Municipal Water Efficiency Plans serve to
flexibility needed to make implementation
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN S
Summary information from the individual water efficiency plans (in sequence from upstream to
downstream) prepared and submitted to
together, the individual water efficiency plans have set goals to reduce water demands by over
2,000 acre-feet per year by 2030 to
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
The City of Aspen and the City of Glenwood Springs are the only participants in this Regional
Water Efficiency Plan that are currently required by statute to maintain CWCB-approve
efficiency plans; Snowmass is expected to bounce around the 2,000 acre-feet per year
threshold for a number of years to come. In 1996, Aspen was one of the first cities in Colorado
to develop and implement a water conservation
s developed a CWCB-
approved water conservation plan in 2009. In
2015, Aspen and Glenwood Springs updated their
plans and the water utilities of Snowmass Water
and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, and Town
of Carbondale also completed their municipal
ater Efficiency Plans as part of the Regional Plan
Under the individual planning process, distinct
water demand forecasts were prepared to present
a range of reasonable estimates of water demand
into the future, given anticipated population growth, and to estimate the impact of the water
conservation measures that occur both “passively” as a result of national and state plumbing
codes and standards and “actively” as a result of specific programs and measures to be
implemented by the water providers. These forecasts were also used for the important
purpose of establishing the adequacy of local water supply systems to meet future demands.
Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency measures to reduce water use and
meet their water demand and supply objectives. There is broad overlap in the water efficiency
activities that the water providers have included within the individual Water Efficiency Plans.
The intent of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the
individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from
resources.
However, no two communities are exactly alike. Certain water efficiency programs such as
tiered rate structures, specific incentive programs, and leak detection may be more
due to differences in municipal codes, resources, and
Individual Municipal Water Efficiency Plans serve to address these programs and provide
flexibility needed to make implementation effective.
SUMMARIES
Summary information from the individual water efficiency plans (in sequence from upstream to
downstream) prepared and submitted to the CWCB are presented below. When summed
together, the individual water efficiency plans have set goals to reduce water demands by over
feet per year by 2030 to 2050.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 17
The City of Aspen and the City of Glenwood Springs are the only participants in this Regional
approved water
feet per year
threshold for a number of years to come. In 1996, Aspen was one of the first cities in Colorado
into the future, given anticipated population growth, and to estimate the impact of the water
conservation measures that occur both “passively” as a result of national and state plumbing
nd measures to be
implemented by the water providers. These forecasts were also used for the important
purpose of establishing the adequacy of local water supply systems to meet future demands.
es to reduce water use and
meet their water demand and supply objectives. There is broad overlap in the water efficiency
activities that the water providers have included within the individual Water Efficiency Plans.
ed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the
individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from
programs such as
tiered rate structures, specific incentive programs, and leak detection may be more effectively
and needs.
address these programs and provide the
Summary information from the individual water efficiency plans (in sequence from upstream to
the CWCB are presented below. When summed
together, the individual water efficiency plans have set goals to reduce water demands by over
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 18
2.1.1 City of Aspen
• 2014 Service area population – 10,508 (permanent), 36,540 (peak summer month)
• 2013 Water produced – 3,203 AF
• Key issues impacting water demand – The City of Aspen has been actively promoting
water efficiency for more than 20 years and water demand has declined steadily over
that time, even as the population has increased. The City approved its first water
conservation plan in 1996 and has demonstrated a long-term commitment to wise
water stewardship and responsible and efficient use of its water resources. Aspen has
limited storage and the water supply is most vulnerable in the late summer, after the
snowmelt runoff period when many tourists and second homeowners are in town and
landscape irrigation demands are still high. Furthermore, the available water supply is
limited by Aspen’s commitment to actions to protect decreed instream flows.
• Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Aspen has sufficient
water resources to meet future demand forecasts. Tourism and part-time residents
impact Aspen’s water demand during the critical summer months. The City’s top water
efficiency priorities are outdoor water use reductions.
2.1.2 Snowmass Water and Sanitation District
• 2014 Service area population – 2,865 permanent, 13,400 (during peak ski season)
• 2012 Water produced – 1,918 AF
• Key issues impacting water demand – The Snowmass Water and Sanitation District
(SWSD) hopes to encourage and equip customers to incorporate efficient water use into
their daily activities rather than relying entirely on mandates and regulation to enact
change. Water use in the SWSD has declined over the past five years even as the
population has increased.
• Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – The SWSD possesses
adequate water rights to meet current demands. Projections by the SWSD of available
raw water supplies and water rights indicate that they will be able to legally and physically
supply sufficient water to meet anticipated future build-out as well. Through water
conservation, SWSD can reduce the amount of water diverted from the Snowmass Creek
basin. High water demands during the late summer irrigation season and the winter ski
season often coincide with low streamflow periods. The CWCB maintains a junior water
right for minimum instream flow in Snowmass Creek. Although SWSD’s water rights are
senior to the CWCB’s water right, the SWSD Board adopted maintenance of the
Snowmass Creek instream flow as a stewardship goal for 2014. SWSD’s water efficiency
priorities include improved metering, conservation oriented rates, and water loss control.
2.1.3 Town of Basalt
• 2013 Service area population – 2,198
• 2014 Water produced – 586 AF
• Key issues impacting water demand – Basalt is expanding and anticipates a future
growth rate of approximately 2 percent per year. Water demand has increased very
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 19
little in the past five years even as the Town’s population has steadily increased.
Reducing outdoor use and increasing irrigation efficiency, particularly for second
homeowners, are goals for Basalt.
• Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Under current
conditions, Basalt has sufficient water resources to meet future demand forecasts. The
Town of Basalt owns and operates its own potable water system, which currently
includes four water sources with a combined production capacity of just over 2 million
gallons per day. The Town’s potable water supply sources include diversions of
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water from natural springs as well as
groundwater diversions from alluvial wells. Basalt is the only participant in the regional
planning effort that relies primarily on a groundwater supply. Basalt’s water efficiency
priorities include educating customers and landscape contractors about appropriate
water use, installing rain shutoff devices, and reducing system water loss.
2.1.4 Town of Carbondale
• 2010 Service area population – 6,427
• 2014 Water produced – 1,208 AF
• Key issues impacting water demand – Carbondale continues to expand and is planning
for the population to grow at a rate of approximately 2.5% per year. Water demand has
increased at a slower rate than the population over the past five years. Reducing
outdoor use and increasing irrigation efficiency are goals for Carbondale.
• Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Carbondale has
sufficient water resources to meet future demand forecasts. It obtains its potable water
supply from surface water sources in the Nettle Creek drainage, a tributary to the
Crystal River, and from groundwater sources along the Crystal and Roaring Fork Rivers.
The Town has a total of four wells, with three located in the Roaring Fork alluvial aquifer
and one located in the Crystal River alluvial aquifer. The Town’s top water efficiency
priorities are educating customers about appropriate outdoor water use and reducing
water loss.
2.1.5 City of Glenwood Springs
• 2013 Service area population – 10,581
• 2013 Water produced – 1,998 AF
• Key issues impacting water demand – Glenwood Springs is a growing city with diverse
topography. It is a tourist destination on an interstate highway and major rail line. Due
to effective water efficiency, over the past 10 years metered water demand has
declined even as the population has increased.
• Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Glenwood Springs has
sufficient water resources to meet future demand forecasts. The City is located at the
foot of the Roaring Fork Valley and does not rely much on water from the Roaring Fork
Valley. The City obtains its potable water supply from diversions on Grizzly and No
Name Creeks, tributary streams located to the north of the Colorado River at the edge
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 20
of the Flat Tops Wilderness Area. The City also holds the rights to 500 acre-feet per year
(AF/yr) of water in Ruedi Reservoir, which the City can divert as a backup supply. The
City’s top water efficiency priorities are educating customers about appropriate outdoor
water use and reducing water loss.
A summary of the water efficiency activities included in all of the five individual plans is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Water Efficiency Activities Included in the Individual Plans.
Water Efficiency Activities
FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Automatic Meter Reading Installation and Operation
Enhanced Water Loss Control
Conservation-Oriented Rates
TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES, AND NATURAL
REPLACEMENT OF FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES
Fixtures, Appliances, and Incentives
Outdoor Water Efficiency
Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Water Efficiency
ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
Regulatory Measures
Water Reuse, Recycling, and Raw Water Use
Waste of Water Ordinance
Landscape development regulations for new construction
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Public Information, Customer Outreach and Education
3. SELECTION OF REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Roaring Fork communities share common
interests. As shown in Table 1, there is consistency
and overlap in the water efficiency-related efforts of
the five individual water providers participating in this
regional planning effort. There is opportunity for the
municipal providers to work collectively with each
other and with other stakeholders to improve the
effectiveness of demand management and water
efficiency for the benefit of the entire watershed.
Certain programs benefit from being unified and
having consistency (e.g. educational campaigns) and
The specific programs included in
the Regional Plan are intended to
provide a menu of alternatives.
Every program will not be
appropriate for every participant,
nor will every participant be
capable of participating in all of
the programs.
in sharing resources (e.g. developing a local model landscape/water budget information). The
Regional Plan provides this opportunity and unifies the
In selecting the regional efficiency programs described below, the individual municipal water
efficiency plans were considered along with other sources of information including the
Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado
2010), the University of Michigan study referenced above including other regional plans cited in
that report, the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s 2011 report
Making the Link In Practice (AWE, 2011), and other local and national water efficiency related
efforts. In addition, discussions with local providers and interested
refined the Regional Plan’s recommendations. Regional efforts that compliment and expand
upon components within the new municipal water efficiency plans were a key area
Only program measures that can be successfully impleme
selected for inclusion in the final plan. The specific programs included in the plan at this time
are intended to provide a menu of alternatives and it is understood that
be appropriate for every participant, nor will every participant be capable of participating in all
of the programs. In some cases, it will be beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot
programs prior to full implementation.
Four broad regional water efficiency program
estimated implementation costs and potential water savings is provided
programs can increase water efficiency and be successfully implemented at a reasonable
WATER LOSS CONTROL TECHNICAL
Water loss control is the practice of system
auditing, loss tracking, infrastructure
maintenance, leak detection and leak repair for
water utilities, and can be applied to both
treated and raw water systems. Leak detection
and repair are familiar water agency practices,
but true water loss control is more pragmatic
and comprehensive than simply finding and
fixing leaks. The American Water Works
Association (AWWA) water loss method detailed
in the M36 Manual of Water Supply Practices
(AWWA, 2009) is considered the industry
standard and an efficiency best practice.
relatively new to water utilities, the M36 standardized approach has recently been adopted
2 Water savings in this plan generally refer to reductions in treated water demands, which typically translate to
reductions in diversions but not necessarily
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
(e.g. developing a local model landscape/water budget information). The
Regional Plan provides this opportunity and unifies the efforts.
In selecting the regional efficiency programs described below, the individual municipal water
nsidered along with other sources of information including the
Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado
2010), the University of Michigan study referenced above including other regional plans cited in
the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s 2011 report – Water Efficiency for Instream
(AWE, 2011), and other local and national water efficiency related
efforts. In addition, discussions with local providers and interested parties augmented and
refined the Regional Plan’s recommendations. Regional efforts that compliment and expand
upon components within the new municipal water efficiency plans were a key area
Only program measures that can be successfully implemented in a cost-effective manner were
selected for inclusion in the final plan. The specific programs included in the plan at this time
are intended to provide a menu of alternatives and it is understood that every program will not
participant, nor will every participant be capable of participating in all
of the programs. In some cases, it will be beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot
implementation.
Four broad regional water efficiency programs identified, as described below. A range of
estimated implementation costs and potential water savings is provided2. These regional
programs can increase water efficiency and be successfully implemented at a reasonable
ECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Water loss control is the practice of system
auditing, loss tracking, infrastructure
maintenance, leak detection and leak repair for
water utilities, and can be applied to both
treated and raw water systems. Leak detection
re familiar water agency practices,
but true water loss control is more pragmatic
and comprehensive than simply finding and
fixing leaks. The American Water Works
Association (AWWA) water loss method detailed
in the M36 Manual of Water Supply Practices
WA, 2009) is considered the industry
standard and an efficiency best practice. Still
relatively new to water utilities, the M36 standardized approach has recently been adopted
Water savings in this plan generally refer to reductions in treated water demands, which typically translate to
necessarily a 1:1 reduction in consumptive use.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 21
(e.g. developing a local model landscape/water budget information). The
In selecting the regional efficiency programs described below, the individual municipal water
nsidered along with other sources of information including the
Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado (CWW,
2010), the University of Michigan study referenced above including other regional plans cited in
Water Efficiency for Instream Flow:
(AWE, 2011), and other local and national water efficiency related
parties augmented and
refined the Regional Plan’s recommendations. Regional efforts that compliment and expand
upon components within the new municipal water efficiency plans were a key area of focus.
effective manner were
selected for inclusion in the final plan. The specific programs included in the plan at this time
program will not
participant, nor will every participant be capable of participating in all
of the programs. In some cases, it will be beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot
s identified, as described below. A range of
. These regional
programs can increase water efficiency and be successfully implemented at a reasonable cost.
relatively new to water utilities, the M36 standardized approach has recently been adopted by
Water savings in this plan generally refer to reductions in treated water demands, which typically translate to
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 22
some utilities in Colorado. To date, no utilities in the Roaring Fork region have completed a
M36 water audit.
Auditing a water distribution system for real
and apparent losses and evaluating the costs of
those losses is the foundation of water loss
control. Real losses are actual physical losses
of water due to leaks or other problems with
the system. Apparent losses are due to meter
inaccuracy, unauthorized consumption, and
data handling errors. Cost and benefit
considerations drive implementation actions in
the recommended method, described in detail
in the AWWA M36 Manual (AWWA, 2009). The
water audit typically traces the flow of water
from the site of withdrawal or treatment,
through the water distribution system, to
customer properties. The water balance
summarizes the components and provides
accountability, as all of the water placed into a
distribution system should, in theory, equal all
of the water taken out of the distribution
system.
The combination of the system water audit and the water balance provide a variety of useful
measures of utility water loss. Of particular interest to water agencies is the ability to quantify
the costs of real and apparent water losses and to use this information to improve the bottom
line. Traditional water loss accounting focused on the percentage of unaccounted for water.
Under the M36 method, the term “unaccounted for water” is eliminated and is replaced by
“non-revenue water” which is partially comprised of “real and apparent losses”. This method
improves understanding and accountability for utility water loss and has the potential to make
a positive impact for Roaring Fork water providers in the coming years.
As an important component of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan
process, most participating providers hope to implement annual M36 water audits in the
coming year, and to establish an annual audit process. As part of this Regional Water Efficiency
Plan, technical assistance for completing the water audits using the M36 method and
establishing an annual audit program could be obtained. While the audits will be completed at
the individual water provider level, technical staff from the individual providers can exchange
information to increase the success of tracking and managing water loss. The CWCB is
interested in promoting the use of M36 water audits and has provided grant funding for water
audit implementation technical assistance and training for small utilities in Colorado. This
approach is recommended for the Roaring Fork
Range of estimated annual implementation costs:
audits and establishing an ongoing program for up to five water providers: $5,000
These are one-time costs. It is assumed that water providers will conduct future water audits
without assistance.
Range of estimated annual regional water savings:
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding?
ROARING FORK WATERSHED
CAMPAIGN
Previous planning efforts have recognized the importance of
creating a recognizable water efficiency campaign/brand
across the Valley, targeted toward residents, students,
tourists, landscape professionals, and agriculture. This
Regional Water Efficiency Plan provides a mechanism to
formalize these efforts and create an effective and
program around public outreach and
3.2.1 Coordinated Public Outreach/Communication
Campaign
The rationale for increased water conservation in the
Fork Valley is clear. Water supplies are limited and subject to
drought, and water efficiency by the entire community can
benefit the entire watershed. Potential
for a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency
Campaign include, but are not limited
• Water is precious, never waste
• Water-efficient landscapes are natural and
• Water efficiency is doing your part for a healthy
watershed and long lasting water
3 Based on estimated water savings of all 5 municipal water efficiency plans developed during the regional planning
process.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
audit implementation technical assistance and training for small utilities in Colorado. This
is recommended for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: For technical assistance in conducting water
audits and establishing an ongoing program for up to five water providers: $5,000
costs. It is assumed that water providers will conduct future water audits
Range of estimated annual regional water savings: 400 – 600 AF/yr by 2050.3
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes – up to 100% of program
ATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY EDUCATION AND
Previous planning efforts have recognized the importance of
creating a recognizable water efficiency campaign/brand
across the Valley, targeted toward residents, students,
tourists, landscape professionals, and agriculture. This
Regional Water Efficiency Plan provides a mechanism to
formalize these efforts and create an effective and sustaining
program around public outreach and education.
Outreach/Communication
The rationale for increased water conservation in the Roaring
Fork Valley is clear. Water supplies are limited and subject to
drought, and water efficiency by the entire community can
benefit the entire watershed. Potential over-arching themes
for a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency
Campaign include, but are not limited to:
Water is precious, never waste it.
efficient landscapes are natural and beautiful.
Water efficiency is doing your part for a healthy
watershed and long lasting water supply.
Based on estimated water savings of all 5 municipal water efficiency plans developed during the regional planning
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 23
audit implementation technical assistance and training for small utilities in Colorado. This
For technical assistance in conducting water
audits and establishing an ongoing program for up to five water providers: $5,000 - $20,000.
costs. It is assumed that water providers will conduct future water audits
up to 100% of program cost.
DUCATION AND INFORMATION
Based on estimated water savings of all 5 municipal water efficiency plans developed during the regional planning
Branding with a recognizable image or slogan, such as the Watershed Plan
character “Eddy” (shown on the left) is useful for consistent messaging and
engaging the public. A regional municipal water efficiency campaign could be
implemented by Roaring Fork water providers alone, but would likely be more
successful and less costly if im
businesses, schools, and other organizations. For example, a partnership between Roaring Fork
water providers and an established organization such as
Roaring Fork Conservancy could leverage funds to pro
coordinated public outreach on water efficiency. The Roaring
Fork Conservancy and Community Office for Resource
Efficiency (CORE) has an ongoing program entitled
Water Use, Fish Love Water Too”
combined with this effort. Such a partnership would likely be
eligible for implementation grant funding from the CWCB and
potentially the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (owner/operator
Ruedi Reservoir), the Colorado River Water Conservation
District, and others.
A real-life example of a current collaboration is the Roaring Fork Conservancy
Fork” campaign which is partnering with the Roaring Fork Beer Company and other businesses
to raise money for the Conservancy.
campaign: $5,000 – $100,000 (or
Range of estimated annual water savings:
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding?
program costs.
3.2.2 Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge and
A regional water efficiency challenge and awards program for businesses focused on the
sector like hotels and restaurants could invigorate efficient practices and spur adoption of new
technologies. Separate indoor and outdoor challenges could be offered for each
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
Branding with a recognizable image or slogan, such as the Watershed Plan
(shown on the left) is useful for consistent messaging and
engaging the public. A regional municipal water efficiency campaign could be
implemented by Roaring Fork water providers alone, but would likely be more
successful and less costly if implemented in partnership with local
businesses, schools, and other organizations. For example, a partnership between Roaring Fork
water providers and an established organization such as the
Roaring Fork Conservancy could leverage funds to provide
coordinated public outreach on water efficiency. The Roaring
Fork Conservancy and Community Office for Resource
Efficiency (CORE) has an ongoing program entitled “Reel in
Water Use, Fish Love Water Too” which could be expanded or
fort. Such a partnership would likely be
eligible for implementation grant funding from the CWCB and
potentially the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (owner/operator of
Ruedi Reservoir), the Colorado River Water Conservation
example of a current collaboration is the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s “1% for the
which is partnering with the Roaring Fork Beer Company and other businesses
Conservancy.
Leveraging an existing “off the shelf” water efficiency
campaign such as the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s “Never
Waste” could make sense from a cost and effectiveness
standpoint, but a locally developed and customized effort
would likely have greater success. The new Colorado
WaterWise campaign and toolkit “Live Like You Love It
just announced in October 2014 and should be further
considered.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs:
creating and implementing a regional water efficiency
000 (or more).
Range of estimated annual water savings: 90 – 120 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes, but probably less than 100%
Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge and Awards
efficiency challenge and awards program for businesses focused on the
sector like hotels and restaurants could invigorate efficient practices and spur adoption of new
technologies. Separate indoor and outdoor challenges could be offered for each
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 24
Branding with a recognizable image or slogan, such as the Watershed Plan
(shown on the left) is useful for consistent messaging and
engaging the public. A regional municipal water efficiency campaign could be
implemented by Roaring Fork water providers alone, but would likely be more
plemented in partnership with local non-profits,
businesses, schools, and other organizations. For example, a partnership between Roaring Fork
’s “1% for the
which is partnering with the Roaring Fork Beer Company and other businesses
“off the shelf” water efficiency
Alliance for Water Efficiency’s “Never
sense from a cost and effectiveness
standpoint, but a locally developed and customized effort
would likely have greater success. The new Colorado
Live Like You Love It” was
just announced in October 2014 and should be further
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: For
efficiency
Yes, but probably less than 100% of
efficiency challenge and awards program for businesses focused on the tourist
sector like hotels and restaurants could invigorate efficient practices and spur adoption of new
technologies. Separate indoor and outdoor challenges could be offered for each category.
An example of this type of
program is the EPA WaterSense
H2Otel Challenge. Launched in
February 2014, the H2Otel
Challenge encourages hotels to:
assess water use and savings
opportunities; change products
or processes to incorporate
best management practices;
and track their water-saving
progress and achievements.
Recognizing particularly well-
designed, efficiently irrigated
landscapes in the Roaring Fork
region could also be an
effective way to encourage
others to reduce water
demands. In Tampa, Florida
the collaborative effort
between water provider and the University of Florida created the “Community Water
Awards” to recognize individuals and businesses that are committed to conserving water
resources and protecting the environment by using the best in attractive, locally adapted
landscaping as well as irrigation systems or techniques
In the Roaring Fork region, including businesses, HOAs, and residential landscape categories in a
program that publically rewards those who achieve water savings can help engage water users
to incentivize and broaden the appeal.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs:
Range of estimated annual water savings:
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding?
Roaring Fork region.
REDUCE OUTDOOR WATER
How we design, install, and maintain our landscapes and irrigation systems can greatly impact
the amount of water needed to keep the plants alive and healthy. Good landscape
management also reduces runoff and pollutants in stream systems. The effort to reduce
outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region should encompass a number of initiatives that will
help drive efficiency. Recommendations include: (1) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (2) a landscape design and management
certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and landscaping professi
(3) an effort to install rain shut-off
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
program is the EPA WaterSense
Challenge encourages hotels to:
between water provider and the University of Florida created the “Community Water
individuals and businesses that are committed to conserving water
nvironment by using the best in attractive, locally adapted
landscaping as well as irrigation systems or techniques that minimize water waste.
In the Roaring Fork region, including businesses, HOAs, and residential landscape categories in a
publically rewards those who achieve water savings can help engage water users
appeal.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $15,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 50 – 75 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes. Potential for applicability beyond the
USE
How we design, install, and maintain our landscapes and irrigation systems can greatly impact
water needed to keep the plants alive and healthy. Good landscape
management also reduces runoff and pollutants in stream systems. The effort to reduce
outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region should encompass a number of initiatives that will
ive efficiency. Recommendations include: (1) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (2) a landscape design and management
certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and landscaping professi
off devices on irrigation systems across the region. Existing
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 25
between water provider and the University of Florida created the “Community Water Wise
individuals and businesses that are committed to conserving water
nvironment by using the best in attractive, locally adapted
that minimize water waste.
In the Roaring Fork region, including businesses, HOAs, and residential landscape categories in a
publically rewards those who achieve water savings can help engage water users
Yes. Potential for applicability beyond the
How we design, install, and maintain our landscapes and irrigation systems can greatly impact
water needed to keep the plants alive and healthy. Good landscape
management also reduces runoff and pollutants in stream systems. The effort to reduce
outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region should encompass a number of initiatives that will
ive efficiency. Recommendations include: (1) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (2) a landscape design and management
certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and landscaping professionals; and
region. Existing and
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 26
future innovations in technology and management techniques may need to be applied
differently by the different water providers throughout the watershed, given variations in
altitude, growing seasons, weather patterns, water supplies, and water demands.
3.3.1 Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on
Landscape Water Budgeting
Substantial amounts of water can be saved using existing technology. Management techniques
and further innovation in irrigation equipment design present an important opportunity to
conserve and maintain the region’s water supply. Proper system design, correct installation and
consistent maintenance of efficient irrigation systems combined with the selection of climate-
appropriate, water-efficient plants and user education on the amount of water needed are the
key components of landscape water use efficiency.
A model water efficient landscape
ordinance for the Roaring Fork region
could promote water conservation,
prevent water waste, and protect water
quality. The model ordinance could
provide a template that could then be
formally adopted, used for design
guidelines, or used voluntarily; it should
include information on landscape water
budgeting, soil amendments, plant
selection, efficient irrigation practices,
and more. The ordinance could be
developed in a manner that is adaptable
to the variations in altitude, weather
patterns, and growing seasons throughout the watershed.
There are good examples of model landscape ordinances that could be utilized in the Roaring
Fork region. In 2004, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs created the Colorado Water
Efficient Landscape Design Model Ordinance (DOLA, 2004). Numerous examples of landscape
ordinances implemented in California can be found here:
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/. Water providers are
already engaged in similar regional cooperation regarding energy through CORE, which could be
a good candidate to facilitate the investigations needed to determine how a model water
efficiency landscape ordinance should be structured in this region.
A landscape water budget provides a reasonable target level of water use that is tailored for
each customer and landscape. Water budgets help water users better understand their
consumption patterns and make sound decisions about how to best manage irrigation. Water
budgets also provide utilities with a powerful tool for identifying which customers are over-
irrigating and could most benefit from efficiency improvements. Water budgets can be
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 27
incorporated into a utility rate structure as has been done in Castle Rock, Centennial Water and
Sanitation District, and Boulder, but they are also useful as a tool for assessing water use.
Information on landscape water budgeting should be included in the Roaring Fork model
landscape ordinance. Information on appropriate drought-tolerant plantings for the local
climate (which varies across the watershed), and associated water demands, should also be
incorporated.
If desired, this approach can also be integrated into land use regulations, through limiting
landscape water budgets for new development. The model ordinance can be designed in a way
that provides information and tools for all communities, and is adaptable for those who wish to
tie it to future ordinances and regulations. This program would require engaging the planning
and building departments from local jurisdictions as well as outreach and education to those
involved in planning and installing landscapes. Local landscape architects, nurseries and
landscape installation and maintenance professionals should be consulted at the beginning so
that any ordinances, regulations or other tools are developed in a way that is practical, cost-
effective, and supported by local providers of landscape services.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: Up to $10,000. These are one-time costs.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 80 – 100 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Maybe. A model landscape ordinance for
Colorado already exists, but needs to be adapted for local conditions.
3.3.2 Certification Program Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
Professionals
This program encourages creation and maintenance of water efficient landscapes through
education, information, and an awards program. Participants receive a rating (e.g.
gold/silver/bronze) based on landscape appearance and level of water use. Winners in various
categories such as business, school, condo/apartment, and residential receive substantive
positive publicity.
Programs such as the Tampa, Florida “Community Water Wise Awards” (described above) are
examples of the type of measure than could be implemented in the Roaring Fork region. The
programs in this section are good candidates for pilot projects, and will require more effort to
identify how to best engage contractors and property owners. The landscape industry should
be consulted and involved in
identifying effective ways to
implement these and other similar
programs.
Performance Contracts. The
certification program could form
the basis for landscape efficiency
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 28
performance contracts in which landscape professionals receive a monetary incentive for
achieving water efficiency targets.
In the 1980’s, landscape management was typically organized using labor-based contracts with
fixed hours and material costs unrelated to results. Today, landscape companies are moving
towards performance-based contracts which provide monetary incentives for tangible results
such as improved landscape appearance and water management. Providing these incentives
encourages landscapers to adopt practices which emphasize water efficiency in conjunction
with plant selection and physical design.
Target Heavy Irrigators. The certification
program could also form the basis for an
audit program for highest outdoor users,
in which a list of heavy irrigators in the
region is developed each year. These
customers are then approached directly
and offered free or subsidized landscape
and irrigation management services in an
effort to reduce water use. There are
organizations such as the Center for
Resource Conservation that provide free
irrigation system inspections by trained
water auditors for residents, HOAs, and commercial properties located within participating
Colorado water providers’ service areas. The Regional Plan could establish a budget to pay for
audits of the highest water users across the watershed.
Targeting is essential because program budgets are limited and not all customers can achieve
measurable water savings. This approach offers water providers the opportunity to work with
their highest use customers to achieve meaningful demand reductions.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $15,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 80 – 100 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Possibly. An awards program concept that
could be utilized elsewhere in the State has potential.
3.3.3 Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley
Irrigation Systems
Rain sensors and shutoff devices are inexpensive add-ons for an automatic irrigation system.
Products like the Hunter Mini Clik can be purchased for under $50 and installed on just about
any automatic irrigation system. During summer months when rain occurs, these devices have
the potential to substantially reduce irrigation demands by shutting off automatic irrigation
systems based on the availability of natural moisture. Rain sensors (also referred to as a rain
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 29
switch) immediately interrupt irrigation. Some irrigation controllers can be connected to a
weather service that causes the controller to enter a rain pause mode to incorporate rainfall
into irrigation scheduling. Recent research in Florida found that the combination of a rain
switch and rain pause devices reduced irrigation
41% compared with the use of no rain sensor
features, whereas the rain pause feature alone
saved 25% (Rutland and Dukes, 2012). Rain
sensors like the Mini Clik (shown here) are not
difficult to obtain or install. A technician with
basic training and clear guidance could
successfully install these products. A program
aimed at broad application of rain sensor/shutoff
technology could be implemented through a
regional partnerships with college students, trade
organizations, leadership groups, and others.
The program could be implemented with the coordinated public outreach campaign. The goal
should be to equip every (or most) automatic irrigation system in the Roaring Fork region with a
rain sensor device. This program will likely take a number of years to complete, but once rain
sensors become a standard feature or incorporated into local landscape codes, it is anticipated
that adoption will be more rapid. Purchase and installation of the rain sensor could be
subsidized by the program or paid for entirely by the owner of the irrigation system.
While not a perfect solution, rain sensors and shutoff devices are included in this plan for the
following reasons:
1. They have been shown to be an effective method of reducing excessive outdoor use by
25 – 40% in recent scientific studies (Rutland and Dukes, 2012).
2. They are inexpensive (under $50 per unit is some cases) and can be installed as a retrofit
on just about any automatic irrigation system. Soil moisture sensors and other
technologies are significantly more expensive and complicated to install, particularly as
a retrofit.
3. They are an effective way to assist part-time residents from irrigating unnecessarily
when it is raining.
4. Rain events in the Roaring Fork Valley are frequently isolated to specific areas. Rain
sensors only shut off irrigation if sufficient local precipitation is received.
Soil moisture sensors should also be considered and may be more effective in a dry climate
where rain is useful in replenishing soil moisture and reducing runoff. While soil moisture
sensors may be a preferred option, they are more expensive and require more skill to properly
install. It can be difficult to retrofit existing systems with soil sensors, but they should be
considered with any new irrigation system installation. Other irrigation technology such as
weather-based irrigation system controllers should also be considered and may be feasible and
cost effective for certain types of
Range of estimated annual implementation costs:
Range of estimated annual water savings:
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding?
IMPROVE WATER RESOURCE
In the Roaring Fork Valley, water utilities and other water rights holders and water users can
help create long-lasting benefits through efficiency and improved water resource management.
Exploration of four program measures is recommend
environmental benefits to spur savings and fund water efficiency; (b) short
instream flow dedication; (c) improved water accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate
resiliency measures and additional research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the
region.
3.4.1 Linking Water Savings to Environmental
People in the Roaring Fork Valley are concerned about the
health and sustainability of local riparian ecosystems and
natural environment. The linkage of personal water
reductions to direct environmental benefit is a powerful
motivating factor that encourages people to participate in
water efficiency programs. Some ideas for taking the next step
in linking personal water savings of Roaring Fork Valley citizens
to environmental benefit are discussed
The Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund
(http://cwcb.state.co.us/LoansGrants/colorado
helps support local watershed organizations in their efforts to provide clean water, protect
habitat, and improve recreation and accessibility. This is an avenue that
Another example of a program (or type of program) that seeks to link water efficiency and
environmental benefits that could be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley is the Conserve to
Enhance (C2E) program (www.conserve2enhance.org
United States that seeks to link water savings and environmental benefits and could serve as a
model or could itself be implemented in the Roaring Fork
The C2E program was developed by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of
Arizona and is available for implementation in the Colorado River basin region. The innovative
approach of C2E provides a direct connection between water users’ voluntary w
conservation actions and local environmental projects. Development of a C2E program can be
driven by a water utility, a local environmental organization, or both. The program shares
important similarities to the water bank described in the University
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
based irrigation system controllers should also be considered and may be feasible and
of users such as institutional and commercial customers.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $25,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 100 – 150 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes.
ESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In the Roaring Fork Valley, water utilities and other water rights holders and water users can
lasting benefits through efficiency and improved water resource management.
Exploration of four program measures is recommended in this area: (a) linking water savings to
environmental benefits to spur savings and fund water efficiency; (b) short-term leases and
instream flow dedication; (c) improved water accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate
additional research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the
Linking Water Savings to Environmental Benefits
People in the Roaring Fork Valley are concerned about the
health and sustainability of local riparian ecosystems and the
al environment. The linkage of personal water use
reductions to direct environmental benefit is a powerful
motivating factor that encourages people to participate in
water efficiency programs. Some ideas for taking the next step
savings of Roaring Fork Valley citizens
to environmental benefit are discussed here.
Fund
http://cwcb.state.co.us/LoansGrants/colorado-healthy-rivers-fund-grants/Pages/main.aspx
helps support local watershed organizations in their efforts to provide clean water, protect
habitat, and improve recreation and accessibility. This is an avenue that could be explored.
Another example of a program (or type of program) that seeks to link water efficiency and
environmental benefits that could be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley is the Conserve to
www.conserve2enhance.org). This is one of the first programs in the
United States that seeks to link water savings and environmental benefits and could serve as a
model or could itself be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley.
E program was developed by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of
Arizona and is available for implementation in the Colorado River basin region. The innovative
provides a direct connection between water users’ voluntary w
conservation actions and local environmental projects. Development of a C2E program can be
driven by a water utility, a local environmental organization, or both. The program shares
important similarities to the water bank described in the University of Michigan case study
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 30
based irrigation system controllers should also be considered and may be feasible and
customers.
In the Roaring Fork Valley, water utilities and other water rights holders and water users can
lasting benefits through efficiency and improved water resource management.
ed in this area: (a) linking water savings to
term leases and
instream flow dedication; (c) improved water accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate
additional research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the
grants/Pages/main.aspx)
helps support local watershed organizations in their efforts to provide clean water, protect
could be explored.
Another example of a program (or type of program) that seeks to link water efficiency and
environmental benefits that could be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley is the Conserve to
). This is one of the first programs in the
United States that seeks to link water savings and environmental benefits and could serve as a
E program was developed by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of
Arizona and is available for implementation in the Colorado River basin region. The innovative
provides a direct connection between water users’ voluntary water
conservation actions and local environmental projects. Development of a C2E program can be
driven by a water utility, a local environmental organization, or both. The program shares
of Michigan case study of
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 31
Blackfoot Challenge Montana and the In-stream Leasing Program/Allocation of Conserved
Water Program by Deschutes Oregon.
Regional implementation of a water savings type of and donation program could be
accomplished by a consortium of water providers, through a collaboration with a local
environmental organization (such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy), or a combination of both.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $25,000 - $75,000.4
Range of estimated annual water savings: 50 – 75 AF/yr by 2050.5
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes.
3.4.2 Mechanisms to Protect Water Rights and Enhance Instream Flows
Improving the health of riparian ecosystems in the Roaring Fork region is an important goal of
the regional watershed and efficiency planning efforts that are broader than this plan.
Significant volumes of water are diverted from the top of the Roaring Fork valley via the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Twin Lakes Canal Company, which provide water to cities
and towns on the eastern slope of Colorado. While altering the operations of the transbasin
diversions to benefit streamflow in the Roaring Fork Valley and other measures to enhance
streamflow by means not associated with water conservation are beyond the scope of this
planning process, there may be potential to enhance instream flows through planned Ruedi
Reservoir releases, interruptible and short-term water supply agreements with the CWCB, and
other water management mechanisms within the control of local water providers and water
rights holders.
The MOU includes several points on this topic:
• “Conserved water that is subject to a water conservation program established through
formal written action or ordinance by a municipality is not subject to abandonment
under Colorado law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-103(2)”
• “Water conservation established through formal written action or ordinance by a
municipality does not reduce the “historical consumptive use” (quantity) of water,
Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-305(3)(c)(I)(B)”
• “Conserved water can benefit instream flows, rafting, kayaking, recreational in channel
diversions, gold medal fisheries, and aquatic life.”
• “Conserved water can be loaned or leased to the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(“CWCB”) for instream flows to preserve or improve the natural environment to a
reasonable degree, Colorado Revised Statutes “C.R.S.” §§37-83-105(2) and 37-92-
102(3).”
4 Scale of program implementation in the driver of cost.
5 Savings could be significantly higher if program proves successful and gains wide adoption.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 32
The above-cited statutes have not yet been widely tested and proven as safeguards against the
loss of water rights due to conservation actions. As a result, there may be reluctance on the
part of some providers to implement programs which may be seen as opening their water
rights to legal challenge. The following examples are intended to illustrate actions that have
been taken locally to improve instream flows within the context of existing Colorado water law.
New or different programs may require legislation to improve flexibility in water rights
administration aimed at facilitating water efficiency actions while maintaining existing water
rights.
• Since the 1990s, the City of Aspen has consistently operated its water rights to protect
instream flows, even though its water rights are senior.
• In 2001, Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Trust began discussing how the County
could utilize its water rights to improve flows in the Roaring Fork basin. After the
passage of House Bill 08-1280, Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Trust signed an
innovative Trust Agreement whereby the CWCB may use the County’s Stapleton Ditch
water right to improve streamflows on lower Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River.
(CWT, 2014)
• In 2012, the Colorado Water Trust in coordination with the CWCB and Division of Water
Resources issued a Request for Water soliciting short-term leases from water rights
holders in response to drought conditions. A 2003 statute provided the legal
mechanism and the process was an opportunity to gain experience in implementing the
statute. In addition to enhancing instream flows during a critically dry period, the
program increased public awareness about the impacts of drought on instream flows.
(CWT, 2014)
• In 2013, the City of Aspen and the Colorado Water Trust conducted a “nondiversion
agreement” pilot program, to increase flows in the Roaring Fork River. The agreement
describes conditions under which the City would forego diversions of one of its senior
water rights, during periods when such diversions would otherwise reduce flows to
below the CWCB minimum instream flow right in a critical reach of the Roaring Fork
River. The City accomplishes this reduction in diversions by leasing less water to third
parties, reducing outdoor water use, and redirecting other water supplies to meet the
City’s needs. The City also operates its Castle Creek rights in a manner that protects the
instream flow on Castle Creek.
These are just some local examples of mechanisms that have been implemented to enhance
instream flows while protecting water rights. In the coming years, municipal water providers
and other water rights holders, such as counties and valley ranchers and farmers, should work
together to investigate opportunities to enhance and protect instream flows while also
protecting water rights. These programs may need to be implemented individually to
accommodate individual water rights and preferences; but having a regional discussion is likely
to create ideas and opportunities that would not be identified otherwise. Such a concerted
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 33
effort could result in a series of mechanisms that successfully improve instream flow levels
adequate water to users throughout the valley.
It is not possible to estimate associated costs and potential water savings associated with this
recommended action until more specific projects are identified.
3.4.3 Improved Water Accountability for Raw Water Systems
Throughout the Roaring Fork watershed, raw water ditches are used to provide non-potable
water to golf courses, parks, subdivisions, agriculture, and a
variety of other users. Providing non-potable water for
these types of uses can have many benefits. Reduced
impacts to the stream system can result from better
understanding the associated water demands and
identifying ways to increase the operational efficiency of
these systems. Carbondale is seeking to improve
measurement and accountability for its raw water supplies.
Some of the new technologies and ideas being explored
could be of interest to other municipal water providers
(and irrigators) in the Roaring Fork Valley.
For Carbondale, the river headgates are the only locations
on the ditch system where water demand is currently
measured on a routine basis. The Town is aware that a
significant amount of tail water can result from current operations used to maintain pressure
head throughout the ditch system. Better data and more operational control could reduce the
amount of flow necessary to push water through the ditch system. Some of the improvements
Carbondale is considering include:
• Mapping delineation and analysis of irrigated area and raw water demands.
• Metering of tail water in ditches to provide improved measurements of customer usage.
• Telemetry and additional metering to monitor and manage the raw water ditch system.
There may be opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between Carbondale and others
on the issue of raw water measurement and accountability, sharing costs and potentially
increasing water savings beyond that estimated in Carbondale’s Water Efficiency Plan. Funding
mechanisms and barriers for sharing costs outside of local jurisdictions would need to be
further explored.
When considering changes to raw water management and efficiency, impacts on return flow
volume and timing need to be understood so that streamflow enhancements at a particular
location or time of year are not made to the detriment of another location or critical period.
Impacts to return flows often need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis, as there are
many variables that can affect the
way to learn whether results from
3.4.4 Expand Regional Climate Resiliency
Temperature increases and climate
the Roaring Fork region and across Colorado. Current modeling and research indicate that
some level of temperature increase is inevitable. The relationship between energy use and
water efficiency needs to be carefu
providers in the Roaring Fork have energy
and future uses. CORE works with utilities, businesses, and individuals to create improvements
in energy and water efficiency to benefit the environment and develop a more sustainable local
economy. Water providers, water rights holders, and water users in the region should continue
and expand action to improve resiliency and ability to manage through
drought, changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, more frequent forest fires, and other
related changes.
As part of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan,
it is recommended that a list of
recommended climate resiliency actions be
developed. Distinct actions should
recommended for water providers, water rights holders, and water users and information on
these measures should be disseminated to the public, potentially through
education and messaging campaign dis
water efficiency programs such as this Regional Plan and the associated individual water
efficiency plans are examples of distinct climate resiliency actions. Tracking ongoing climate
variability and collaborating on methodologies that can be used to apply findings from climate
change research to potential impacts on local water supplies and demands is another example
of a resiliency action. A united effort will improve the effectiveness of these
Additional research on climate change impacts to water supplies in the region should be
supported and undertaken. Recent studies indicate reduced precipitation is a real possibility.
The Climate Change in Colorado
synthesis of climate science relevant for management and planning for Colorado’s water
resources. The report finds temperatures are likely to go up by several degrees by 2050 which
could mean changes in timing and less water supply and hig
climate report for the Aspen region indicates that temperatures in Aspen have increased
all seasons since 1940, summers have lengthened, temperatures are projected to continue
rising into the future, and changes in
precipitation in the form of rain rather than snow (AGCI,
Tracking climate changes and impacts, and evaluating potential future changes will help Roaring
Fork water providers and users prepare
Aspen Global Climate Institute report, increasing climate resiliency requires an
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
many variables that can affect the timing and impact to streamflows. Pilot programs are a good
from a specific location can be extrapolated to other
Expand Regional Climate Resiliency Measures
climate change pose real and significant threats to water
the Roaring Fork region and across Colorado. Current modeling and research indicate that
some level of temperature increase is inevitable. The relationship between energy use and
water efficiency needs to be carefully analyzed and better understood. Many of the water
providers in the Roaring Fork have energy-related initiatives to help address impacts of current
and future uses. CORE works with utilities, businesses, and individuals to create improvements
and water efficiency to benefit the environment and develop a more sustainable local
Water providers, water rights holders, and water users in the region should continue
and expand action to improve resiliency and ability to manage through extended periods of
drought, changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, more frequent forest fires, and other
As part of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan,
recommended climate resiliency actions be
eloped. Distinct actions should be
recommended for water providers, water rights holders, and water users and information on
these measures should be disseminated to the public, potentially through the water efficiency
education and messaging campaign discussed earlier in this plan. Planning and implementing
water efficiency programs such as this Regional Plan and the associated individual water
efficiency plans are examples of distinct climate resiliency actions. Tracking ongoing climate
ollaborating on methodologies that can be used to apply findings from climate
change research to potential impacts on local water supplies and demands is another example
of a resiliency action. A united effort will improve the effectiveness of these action
Additional research on climate change impacts to water supplies in the region should be
supported and undertaken. Recent studies indicate reduced precipitation is a real possibility.
The Climate Change in Colorado report (CWCB, 2014) recently released by the CWCB is a
synthesis of climate science relevant for management and planning for Colorado’s water
resources. The report finds temperatures are likely to go up by several degrees by 2050 which
could mean changes in timing and less water supply and higher landscaping demands. A recent
climate report for the Aspen region indicates that temperatures in Aspen have increased
all seasons since 1940, summers have lengthened, temperatures are projected to continue
rising into the future, and changes in precipitation patterns are projected to result in more
precipitation in the form of rain rather than snow (AGCI, 2014).
Tracking climate changes and impacts, and evaluating potential future changes will help Roaring
Fork water providers and users prepare for what may be in store. As recommended in the 2014
Aspen Global Climate Institute report, increasing climate resiliency requires an iterative
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 34
timing and impact to streamflows. Pilot programs are a good
other locations.
water supplies in
the Roaring Fork region and across Colorado. Current modeling and research indicate that
some level of temperature increase is inevitable. The relationship between energy use and
lly analyzed and better understood. Many of the water
related initiatives to help address impacts of current
and future uses. CORE works with utilities, businesses, and individuals to create improvements
and water efficiency to benefit the environment and develop a more sustainable local
Water providers, water rights holders, and water users in the region should continue
extended periods of
drought, changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, more frequent forest fires, and other
recommended for water providers, water rights holders, and water users and information on
water efficiency
cussed earlier in this plan. Planning and implementing
water efficiency programs such as this Regional Plan and the associated individual water
efficiency plans are examples of distinct climate resiliency actions. Tracking ongoing climate
ollaborating on methodologies that can be used to apply findings from climate
change research to potential impacts on local water supplies and demands is another example
actions.
Additional research on climate change impacts to water supplies in the region should be
supported and undertaken. Recent studies indicate reduced precipitation is a real possibility.
by the CWCB is a
synthesis of climate science relevant for management and planning for Colorado’s water
resources. The report finds temperatures are likely to go up by several degrees by 2050 which
her landscaping demands. A recent
climate report for the Aspen region indicates that temperatures in Aspen have increased during
all seasons since 1940, summers have lengthened, temperatures are projected to continue
precipitation patterns are projected to result in more
Tracking climate changes and impacts, and evaluating potential future changes will help Roaring
for what may be in store. As recommended in the 2014
iterative
approach of assessing, planning, engaging stakeholders, implementing, monitoring and
evaluating, and can be more effective through regional
SUMMARY OF WATER SAVINGS AND
A summary of water savings (reductions in water demand) and costs for each of the proposed
regional program measures is shown in Table 2, below. For
water loss control, the estimated savings are based on the five recently completed municipal
water efficiency plans in the Roaring Fork Valley. Fostering the implementation of improved
water loss control in the region appear
objectives of the regional conservation
The savings projections in Table 2 take into account the level of efficiency already being
achieved in each of the five participating communities. It is est
of the water savings shown in Table 2 overlap with savings estimates from the five individual
water provider efficiency plans. However, all of these regional efforts are expected to enhance
and expand upon water efficiency sav
efforts are likely to impact other communities and water users not covered under the five
individual plan yet those additional savings are not included in the Table 2 estimates. The high
savings estimate in Table 2 includes
of jurisdiction or water provider.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY
approach of assessing, planning, engaging stakeholders, implementing, monitoring and
and can be more effective through regional collaboration.
AVINGS AND COST ESTIMATES
A summary of water savings (reductions in water demand) and costs for each of the proposed
regional program measures is shown in Table 2, below. For utility programs like enhanced
water loss control, the estimated savings are based on the five recently completed municipal
water efficiency plans in the Roaring Fork Valley. Fostering the implementation of improved
water loss control in the region appears to be one of the most cost effective and important
objectives of the regional conservation plan.
The savings projections in Table 2 take into account the level of efficiency already being
achieved in each of the five participating communities. It is estimated that approximately 50%
of the water savings shown in Table 2 overlap with savings estimates from the five individual
water provider efficiency plans. However, all of these regional efforts are expected to enhance
and expand upon water efficiency savings from the local plans. Furthermore, the regional
efforts are likely to impact other communities and water users not covered under the five
individual plan yet those additional savings are not included in the Table 2 estimates. The high
2 includes the potential impacts on users across the region,
provider.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 35
approach of assessing, planning, engaging stakeholders, implementing, monitoring and
A summary of water savings (reductions in water demand) and costs for each of the proposed
utility programs like enhanced
water loss control, the estimated savings are based on the five recently completed municipal
water efficiency plans in the Roaring Fork Valley. Fostering the implementation of improved
s to be one of the most cost effective and important
The savings projections in Table 2 take into account the level of efficiency already being
imated that approximately 50%
of the water savings shown in Table 2 overlap with savings estimates from the five individual
water provider efficiency plans. However, all of these regional efforts are expected to enhance
ings from the local plans. Furthermore, the regional
efforts are likely to impact other communities and water users not covered under the five
individual plan yet those additional savings are not included in the Table 2 estimates. The high
region, regardless
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 36
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Water Savings and Costs.
Estimated Water
Savings at 2050
(AF/yr)
Estimated Annual
Cost
($)
Estimated One-Time
Cost
($)
Program Measure Low High Low High Low High
Water loss control technical
assistance
400 600 $ 5,000 $ 20,000
Regional Water Education and
Information Campaign
90 120 $ 5,000 $ 100,000
Business and HOA Challenge
and Awards
50 75 $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Model landscape ordinance 80 100 $ 0 $ 10,000
Certification program 80 100 $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Rain sensor device program 100 150 $ 5,000 $ 25,000
Link Efficiency and
Environmental Benefits
50 75 $ 25,000 $ 75,000
Total 850 1,220 $ 45,000 $ 230,000 $ 5,000 $ 30,000
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN
This Regional Water Efficiency Plan provides a foundation for implementing coordinated cost-
effective regional municipal water efficiency programs in the Roaring Fork Valley. The programs
listed in Table 2 are the top candidates for implementation at this time. Implementation will
require an ongoing effort and adaptive strategies to allow the plan to grow and change.
Additional stakeholders should also be engaged through the implementation process. The
specific programs included in the plan provide a menu of alternatives and it is understood that
every program will not be appropriate for every participant, nor will every participant be
capable of participating in all of the programs. Some programs may benefit from feasibility
research and pilot implementation prior to broader application. Other programs could be
implemented relatively quickly upon acquiring funding.
The following actions are recommended as next steps for implementing this Regional Plan:
1. Maintain a Regional Plan Implementation Workgroup with representatives of each
major stakeholder group (e.g. municipalities, counties, schools, landscapers, agriculture,
recreation, etc.) to meet regularly (e.g. monthly/quarterly) to report on and assist with
regional plan implementation. Provide updates at other forum meetings (e.g. RFC, CBRT)
and/or host regular open forms. Include annual reporting around the plan for all
participants including:
• Annual program implementation,
• Program impact estimates including estimates of program costs/avoided costs
and water savings,
• Lessons learned,
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 37
• Public feedback on program,
• Periodic weather data and local trends,
• Water supply concerns,
• Recommendations for studies or pilot programs,
• Recommended plan modifications, and
• Ongoing implementation plan.
2. Develop a funding plan for the Regional Plan implementation. Create lists of potential
annual and one-time funding sources (e.g., contributions from individual providers,
CWCB implementation grants, Colorado Basin Roundtable funding, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, other sources). Establish funding commitments and submit grant
applications.
3. Assign a Regional Plan Coordinator and divide responsibility for implementing the plan
across multiple individuals and organizations. To successfully implement this plan,
committed people must step forward and work together. Identifying a plan coordinator
and “plan champions” across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups is a critical step in the
process. Potential lead organizations include: RWAPA, CORE, or the Roaring Fork
Conservancy.
4. Create a MOU for implementation that details shared objectives, roles, and
responsibilities. An MOU was beneficial in defining goals, expectations, and roles of
individual providers in forming the partnership to create this Regional Water Efficiency
Plan. A similar type of agreement would be useful for establishing the roles and
responsibilities of participants in the implementation phase.
5. Dedicate resources and pursue implementation of the plan.
5. CHALLENGES TO SUCCESS
Effective water demand management depends on water user participation. Water providers
can incentivize efficient use and penalize water waste, but actual reductions in usage depend
upon the actions of individual water users. Identifying potential challenges to success is useful
so that education and outreach programs can be designed to address the issues in advance and
concurrently to program implementation.
Some of the potential and real challenges to implementation of the Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Efficiency Plan identified during this planning process and in previous
watershed planning efforts include:
• Social norms regarding water use – “we’ve always done it this way,” wanting green
lawns regardless of monetary cost, and/or not understanding how to implement
alternatives.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 38
• Disconnect between those who control the water demands and those who pay the bill –
property managers and landscaping businesses are responsible for maintenance of
many landscapes throughout the Roaring Fork Watershed. Frequently these managers
are not responsible for paying the water bill and may never see the bill or get any
information on actual water usage at the sites they manage.
• Influencing tourists and second homeowners – short-term visitors and those that spend
only part of the year in the Roaring Fork Valley must be engaged in the effort for water
efficiency, a challenging task.
• Open ditch systems are often unmetered and/or difficult to meter and manage –
improved management and accountability for water in open ditch systems could help
improve minimum streamflows.
• Potential for water rights to be lost. “Use it or lose it” is many people’s understanding
of Colorado water law. While some alternatives exist and should be promoted, water
rights laws also need to be reinforced to expand opportunities and reduce legal
challenges that may result when conservation programs are effective at reducing
demands.
• Downstream water rights could take any water left in the stream that results from
conservation.
• Geomorphology makes it difficult to quantify the amount of water conserved and
maintained instream. Furthermore, the water rights system does not protect “saved”
water (e.g. reductions in water use due to conservation/increased efficiency) from being
diverted by another user.
• Potential revenue impacts of decreased demand. This issue is addressed in the
individual municipal water efficiency plans prepared by ELEMENT and WaterDM.
• Misconceptions about being a headwaters area with plentiful water supply.
6. PUBLIC REVIEW OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
This Regional Plan was prepared through a collaborative stakeholder process, supported
through numerous workshops and draft plan reviews by the groups listed below prior to a
public comment and review process:
• City of Aspen;
• City of Glenwood Springs;
• Colorado River District;
• Colorado Water Conservation Board;
• Community Office for Resource Efficiency;
• Roaring Fork Conservancy;
• Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 39
• Ruedi Water & Power Authority;
• Snowmass Water and Sanitation District;
• Town of Basalt; and
• Town of Carbondale.
Feedback received during over a dozen meetings, summarized in Table 3 below, was
incorporated and utilized to reflect local stakeholder interests. Project updates, meetings, and
notice of the public review period (attached) were publicized through local media including the
Aspen Daily News, Aspen Times, and Post Independent. Links to the draft plan and information
on how to submit public comments were also publicized on the RFC, RWAPA, and water
provider participant websites.
Table 3. Summary of Stakeholder Meetings.
Date Stakeholder Group
1/28/2014 Participant Kickoff Meeting
3/21/2014 Roaring Fork Conservancy Community Forum
8/26/2014 Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative Workshop
10/8/2014 Sustaining Colorado Watersheds Conference
12/3/2014 Participant Workshop
1/6/2015 Participant Workshop
3/31/2015 Public Meeting
5/14/2015 Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative Workshop
5/14/2015 RWAPA Board Meeting
5/19/2015 Carbondale Town Council
5/20/2015 Snowmass Water and Sanitation District Board
6/1/2015 Snowmass Town Council
6/9/2015 Basalt Town Council
6/15/2015 Aspen City Council
7/1/2015 Glenwood Springs City Council
A copy of the draft plan was submitted to the CWCB Office of Water Conservation and Drought
Planning prior to the public comment period, and feedback was incorporated. A 60-day public
comment period was held between March 10 and May 9, 2015. No comments were submitted
in writing. The draft plan was presented to each of the Boards and Councils of the water
provider participants, resulting in positive discussions and interest. Currently the Plan has been
accepted by the CWCB and has received positive responses from the providers and other
interested local parties.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 40
7. REFERENCES
AGCI (2014). Climate Change & Aspen, An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning &
Stakeholder Engagement, prepared by the Aspen Global Change Institute for the City of Aspen.
AWE (2011). Water Efficiency for Instream Flow: Making the Link in Practice. Alliance for
Water Efficiency. Chicago, IL.
AWWA (2009). Manual 36 (3rd Edition): Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, American
Water Works Association.
CBRT (2014, July). Colorado Basin Implementation Plan, Colorado Basin Roundtable.
CWCB (2014, August). Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Management and
Adaptation, Second Edition, Colorado Water Conservation Board.
CWW (2010). Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in
Colorado, Colorado WaterWise.
CWT (2014). Colorado Water Trust website. www.coloradowatertrust.org
DOLA (2004). Water-Efficient Landscape Design: A Model Landscape Ordinance for Colorado’s
Communities Utilizing a Water Conservation-Oriented Planning Approach, Colorado Department
of Local Affairs: Office of Smart Growth.
MOU (2013). Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.
RFC (2012, April). Opportunities for Water Conservation: Realizing the Streamflow Benefits from
Local Water Conservation Efforts, Roaring Fork Conservancy.
Rutland, D.C. and M.D. Dukes (2012). Performance of Rain Delay Features on Signal-Based
Evapotranspiration Irrigation Controller, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
RWAPA (2008, November). State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report, Ruedi Water & Power
Authority.
RWAPA (2012, March). Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, Ruedi Water & Power Authority.
RWAPA & RFC (2008, October). Phase II Guidance Document: Why the Roaring Fork Watershed
Plan Matters, Ruedi Water & Power Authority and Roaring Fork Conservancy.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 12, 2015
PAGE 41
RWAPA & RFC (2010, February). Phase II Guidance Document: Illuminating the Way Ahead,
Ruedi Water & Power Authority and Roaring Fork Conservancy.
UM (2010, December). Fostering Implementation of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, University
of Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment
UM (2014, April). Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed, University of Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment.