HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.081-15CITY OF ASPEN WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 4, 2014
Municipal Water Efficiency Plan
City of Aspen, Colorado
ELEMENT Water Consulting & WaterDM August 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
City of Aspen, Colorado
PREPARED BY
P.O. BOX 140785
DENVER, CO 80214
AND
1339 HAWTHORN AVENUE
BOULDER, CO 80304
August 20, 2015
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2
Profile ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Population ................................................................................................................................... 2
Water Demand Forecasts ........................................................................................................... 2
Water Efficiency Planning Process and Goal Setting .................................................................. 4
Water Efficiency Program ........................................................................................................... 5
Water Efficiency Plan Approval .................................................................................................. 6
Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency Plan .............................................................................. 6
1. PROFILE OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ...................................................................... 7
1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Water Supply and Reliability .......................................................................................... 9
1.3.1 Treated Water Supply ............................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Raw Water Supply ..................................................................................................... 11
1.3.3 Water and Wastewater Treatment .......................................................................... 12
1.3.4 Capacity and Reliability ............................................................................................. 13
1.3.5 Current and Proposed Water Supply Projects .......................................................... 15
2. WATER DEMANDS AND HISTORICAL DEMAND MANAGEMENT .......................................... 16
2.1 Demographics and Service Area Characteristics .......................................................... 17
2.1.1 Additional Customers and Raw Water Sales ............................................................ 17
2.1.2 ECUs .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.3 Metered Customers .................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Historical Water Demands ........................................................................................... 18
2.3 Seasonal and Peak Day Demands ................................................................................. 26
2.4 System Water Losses .................................................................................................... 27
2.5 Past and Current Demand Management Activities ...................................................... 27
2.5.1 Analysis of Water Savings from Past Demand Management Efforts ....................... 28
2.6 Demand Forecast ......................................................................................................... 29
2.6.1 Population Planning Projections ............................................................................... 30
2.6.2 Demand Forecasts .................................................................................................... 32
3. INTEGRATED PLANNING AND WATER EFFICIENCY BENEFITS AND GOALS ........................... 38
4. SELECTION OF WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 38
4.1 Summary of the Selection Process ............................................................................... 39
4.2 Water Efficiency Activities ............................................................................................ 39
4.2.2 Foundational Activities ............................................................................................. 41
4.2.3 Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives ......................................................... 45
4.2.4 Ordinances and Regulations ..................................................................................... 47
4.2.5 Public Education and Information ............................................................................ 51
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE ii
5. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................... 51
5.1 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 51
5.2 Revenue Stability .......................................................................................................... 52
6. PUBLIC REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND APPROVAL OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN ....................... 53
6.1 Public Review ................................................................................................................ 53
6.2 Water Efficiency Plan Adoption ................................................................................... 53
6.3 Water Efficiency Plan Approval .................................................................................... 53
7. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 53
7.1 Aspen Water Efficiency Plan Compliance..................................................................... 54
8. ROARING FORK REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN .......................................................... 57
9. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Annual Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013 and Baseline for
Forecasting. ................................................................................................................ 20
Table 2. City Customers, Total Treated Indoor and Outdoor Water Deliveries from 2009
through 2013. ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 3. Sectoral and Seasonal Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013
(AF/yr). ....................................................................................................................... 22
Table 4. Annual and Daily Flow and Treated Water Production Characteristics from 2008
through 2013. ............................................................................................................ 27
Table 5. Population Growth Projections from 2015 through 2035. ............................................ 30
Table 6. New and Updated Water Efficiency Activities and Water Savings Estimates. ............... 40
Table 7. AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Categories. ........................................................ 42
Table 8. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014. (Rates are $/1,000 gallons. Tier
gallons are per ECU)................................................................................................... 43
Table 9. Bulk Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014. .............................................................. 43
Table 10. Raw Water Rates for 2014. ........................................................................................... 44
Table 11. Thomas Raw Water Rates and Other Pressurized Non-Potable Water for 2014. ........ 44
Table 12. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014 Unmetered Service. ................................... 44
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Photograph of Castle Creek. ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. Photograph of City of Aspen Water Department. ........................................................... 9
Figure 3. Photograph of Leonard Thomas Reservoir. ................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Potential Municipal Demand Scenario in the Year 2065. .............................................. 14
Figure 5. City of Aspen, Average Monthly Metered Treated Demands by Sector from
2009 through 2013. ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6. Distribution of Treated Metered Demands by Sector from 2009 through 2013. ......... 24
Figure 7. Distribution of Annual Water Use by Sector in 2013. ................................................... 25
Figure 8. Distribution of Aspen City Customer Connections in 2013. .......................................... 26
Figure 9. Actual and hypothetical consumption in Aspen from 1990 through 2013. .................. 29
Figure 10. Actual and Forecast Permanent and Seasonal Population from 2000 through
2035. .......................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11. Baseline, Passive, and Active Treated Water Demand Forecasts through 2035. ........ 33
Figure 12. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency
Plan. ........................................................................................................................... 58
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Public Notice Announcement, Public Comments, and Official Plan Adoption Resolution
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AF acre-feet
AF/yr acre-feet per year
AMI automated metering infrastructure
AWC average winter consumption
cfs cubic feet per second
CII commercial, institutional, and industrial
City City of Aspen
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
ECU equivalent capacity units
deg F degrees Fahrenheit
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
Report cover photograph taken from Red Mountain, provided by City of Aspen staff.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of the City of Aspen Water Efficiency Plan was a collaborative effort funded
by a CWCB grant as part of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan. 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.
City of Aspen staff provided access to detailed datasets and system information that facilitated
the preparation of this Water Efficiency Plan. The consultant team would like to thank the
following staff members and affiliated consultants for their time and input on this document:
Lee Ledesma (City of Aspen)
Phil Overeynder (City of Aspen)
William Dolan (City of Aspen)
David Hornbacher (City of Aspen)
Jeff Rice (City of Aspen)
Ashley Perl (City of Aspen)
Valerie Forbes (City of Aspen)
Tyler Benton (Wilson Water Group)
Cynthia Covell (Alperstein & Covell, P.C.)
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROFILE
The City of Aspen (“City” or “Aspen”), Colorado, located in Pitkin County, is a municipality
established in 1881. Aspen is a Home Rule Municipality that operates under a council-manager
governmental structure. Aspen is located in the upper reaches of the Roaring Fork Valley near
the confluences of the main-stem of the Roaring Fork River with Hunter Creek, Castle Creek,
and Maroon Creek at an elevation of approximately 7,900 feet. Aspen is located along Colorado
State Highway 82 approximately 20 miles west of Independence Pass. The incorporated area
(within the municipal boundary) consists of approximately 3.83 square miles. However, at this
time, the total service territory is approximately 8.5 square miles, and includes unincorporated
areas served by Aspen. The City’s year-round, full-time service area population was
approximately 10,506 residents as of 2014.
Aspen owns and operates its own water utilities. It provides treated (i.e. potable) water to all
customers in the service area and raw water for irrigation and snowmaking purposes to a small
subset of customers. Aspen obtains it treated water supply primarily from the surface water
sources of Maroon Creek and Castle Creek, and the City also uses three groundwater wells as a
supplemental supply. Aspen has adopted a policy to maintain streamflows in the creeks
downstream of its diversion structures at flow rates at or above the Colorado Water
Conservation Board’s decreed instream flow rights for the protection of the fishery and the
associated aquatic habitats in those streams.
POPULATION
According to the 2010 Census, the full-time population within the municipal boundary of Aspen
was 6,658 people, up from 5,914 full-time residents as reported in the 2000 Census. The City
also has contracts to provide water service to areas outside of the municipal boundary, and
after adding these full-time residents, the total number of year-round, full-time residents
served was approximately 8,895 in 2000 and 10,016 in 2010. The City uses a preferred planning
growth rate projection of approximately 1.2% per year, under which the year-round, full-time
service area population is projected to increase to approximately 11,285 people in 2020 and
13,496 people in 2035.
Due to tourism and seasonal population fluctuations, the 2013 peak month population was
estimated to be approximately 36,540 people. When compared to historical data, the peak
month population is approximately 3.5 times the full-time service area resident population.
WATER DEMAND FORECASTS
As part of the water efficiency planning process, three distinct treated water demand forecasts
were prepared. The forecasting addresses treated water use only, and does not attempt to
forecast future water use associated with raw water delivery or reclaimed water use. Each
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 3
forecast considers impacts from future increase in population, but assumes the same
proportion of permanent to seasonal residents/visitors that exists today. Furthermore, the
forecasts do not factor in impacts from additional future climate change beyond the impacts
included in recent water use data.
First, a baseline demand forecast starting from 2015 and going out to 2035 was prepared. This
baseline forecast did not include the impact of water conservation of any kind, even passive
water savings, and was developed only to assess the adequacy of future supplies with the
current unit rate of water use but under a higher population, and to demonstrate the impact
of anticipated efficiency improvements. The baseline treated water demand used in
forecasting was 3,377 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) and under the baseline forecast, is expected to
increase by 803 AF/yr to 4,180 AF/yr in 2035.
A second treated water demand forecast through 2035 includes the impact of passive
efficiencies from Colorado legislation, and federal plumbing codes and standards. This forecast
found that City water demands will increase to 4,137 AF in 2035, or 43 AF less than under the
baseline forecast.
A third forecast was prepared that includes the anticipated impact of the City’s planned water
efficiency program measures described in this plan. Under this forecast, treated demand
increases to just 3,597 AF in 2035. Compared with the original baseline forecast, if the
elements of this plan are fully realized, then it is estimated that treated water demand at 2035
will be reduced by 583 AF as a result of passive and active water conservation measures in
Aspen.
These forecasts form the core of the Water Efficiency Plan and are the forecasts upon which
estimated conservation savings are based. The analysis completed for this water efficiency plan
indicates that the likely yield of the City’s direct flow water rights is around 26,850 AF in a dry
year; however, some of the City’s water rights are decreed for irrigation use only, and cannot
be used as part of the City’s treated water supply. The maximum annual treated water use in
Aspen over the past 5 years was 3,220 AF in 2012 and the range of forecast future demands in
the year 2035 are from 3,597 AF to a maximum of 4,180 AF. While the historical dry year yield
of the City’s water rights appear sufficient to meet current and forecast future demands, the
dry year supply figure is misleading. The City, unlike many Colorado municipalities, does not
have a significant water storage component to its water system that would allow it to store
water supplies when they are available, and release stored water when it is needed. Storage
allows a water provider to retime deliveries of water supplies to match water deliveries with
demands.1 Without storage, the City is dependent upon streamflow availability at its river
1 Aspen holds decreed conditional storage rights on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, but environmentally-
sensitive construction of these reservoirs will be extremely costly, so Aspen is first implementing other options
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 4
diversion points. Streamflow is susceptible to annual variation and changing conditions,
including diurnal streamflow fluctuations, as well as catastrophic events such as landslides, fires
or other events that can prevent diversion from Castle Creek or Maroon Creek for some period
of time. For Aspen, the water supply is most vulnerable in the late summer, after the snowmelt
runoff period when landscape irrigation demands are still high. Furthermore, the available
water supply is limited by Aspen’s commitment to actions to protect decreed instream flows,
continue the effectiveness of conservation programs, as well as to implement water supply
improvements already underway. These limitations are addressed in more detail in Section
5.1.1.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON WATER USE AND HYDROLOGY
Recent climate change forecasts for the Aspen region indicate a warming trend throughout the
year, including irrigation season temperature increases, with potential for more precipitation to
occur as rain rather than snow (Lukas et al. 2014). While it is becoming more common to
consider potential climate change impacts on water supply planning, the likely impacts on
water demands are less well understood. Some climate change impacts on water demands may
already be included in the forecasts provided in this plan, because recent water demands are
utilized to project future water demand patterns and the recent demands reflect actual
consumption patterns based on current climate conditions. Regular updates to these
projections and this plan can assist in better understanding both demand-side and supply-side
impacts from future climate change. Without conducting a more detailed investigation of
potential climate change impacts on both supplies and demands , a sensible approach to water
demand forecasting in a changing climate is to regularly update and refine deman d projections
based on actual current conditions. In addition to tracking changes in water use, tracking
changes in hydrology (such as base flow conditions that are reached earlier in the year) would
benefit water conservation efforts by focusing attention on the need to reduce water usage
during peak water use periods, recognizing that peak water use periods may shift as a result of
climate change.
WATER EFFICIENCY PLANNING PROCESS AND GOAL SETTING
The City carefully developed this Water Efficiency Plan in accordance with the Colorado Water
Conservation Act of 2004 so that it meets or exceeds all statutory requirements according to
Colorado Revised Statute § 37-60-126. The City utilized the Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB) Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document dated July 2012 to inform and guide
the development of this plan.
To fulfill Colorado’s statutory water conservation planning requirements , a series of water
conservation program scenarios were developed that incorporated a wide variety of indoor and
discussed in this plan in its effort to efficiently provide a legal, reliable wat er supply to its customers. The timing,
cost and ultimate configuration of the storage reservoirs will continue to be evaluated.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 5
outdoor efficiency measures that have been cost-effective when implemented in other
Colorado utility service areas. A number of indoor water conservation measures have already
been implemented in Aspen. Therefore, for Aspen, a focus on outdoor water efficiency is the
most appropriate and cost-effective approach to implement in the future. The following water
efficiency measures have been identified as providing a reasonable cost savings for the utility or
customers by reducing water demands:
Landscaping regulations for new development,
Water Shortage ordinance,
Slow the Flow landscape water audits,
Garden-in-a-Box price buy-down,
Xeriscape educational seminars,
Conservation pricing, and
On-going customer education and information.
The City has demonstrated a long-term commitment to wise water stewardship and responsible
and efficient use of its water resources. The City has established a n average water efficiency
goal of approximately 28 AF (0.7%) reduction in treated demand per year compared with a
continuation of current demand. By 2035, it is estimated that this program will reduce treated
demand by about 583 AF – an overall 14% reduction in demand.
Based on careful analysis of current treated demands and expected growth, the City believes
this level of savings to be realistically achievable. This goal will be re-evaluated on a regular
basis, as Aspen intends to update the Water Efficiency Plan every seven years. This means that
at least two plan updates, and possibly more, are expected to be completed before 2035,
affording ample opportunity to update and refine the City’s efficiency program and goals as
needed.
WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
In 2006, the City added a Utilities Efficiency Division including a dedicated staff manager. The
Utilities Administrative division oversees the water efficiency program with support from other
staff members. In addition, the City hires outside contractors to assist in implementing certain
water efficiency program activities such as leak detection. The City has demonstrated a
commitment to water use efficiency, and has implemented many fundamental and proven
water conservation measures including metering, a conservation-oriented water rate structure,
utility water loss reduction (including water-saving equipment indoors), and public education
and information about water efficiency.
The City approved its first water conservation plan in 1996, as an element of the larger Water
Management Plan. While the 1996 plan did not contain all of the necessary elements to meet
approval by the CWCB, it was quite progressive for the period. Aspen’s water conservation and
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 6
efficiency plan is being updated as part of the City’s participation in the Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Plan.
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN APPROVAL
A 60-day public review period was conducted and to the extent possible, comments were
incorporated in this plan. On [DATE], the Aspen City Council adopted the plan with the updates
included in this final version of the plan. On [DATE], the City received official notification that
the plan was approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
ROARING FORK REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
The City of Aspen is the most upstream utility participating in the regional water efficiency
planning effort. Aspen’s Water Efficiency Plan has potential to directly impact flows in the
upper Roaring Fork River basin, although Aspen cannot guarantee that water it saves through
conservation efforts will benefit the entire reach of the Roaring Fork to the extent that other
downstream water users may divert that water out of the river. One of the benefits of Aspen’s
water savings under this Water Efficiency Plan will be to strengthen its ongoing commitment to
benefit and enhance streamflow in the upper Roaring Fork Rive r basin as demonstrated by its
1980 lease of its senior Hunter Creek Flume & Pipeline water right to the CWCB for in stream
flow, its intergovernmental agreement with the CWCB to operate the City’s Castle Creek water
rights in a manner that allows the decreed minimum streamflow to be maintained under most
conditions, participation in the “Forbearance Agreements” with the Colorado Water Trust in
which Aspen bypasses a portion of its Wheeler Ditch water right during the irrigation season
when the instream flow is not satisfied, and other activities. The City is interested in regional
partnership to improve water efficiency and is committed to assisting with the implementation
of the Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency Plan.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 7
1. PROFILE OF EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
1.1 OVERVIEW2
The Aspen area was originally discovered by the Ute Indians and called "Shining Mountains".
The first silver miners arrived in the Roaring Fork Valley in the summer of 1879 and set up camp
at the foot of Aspen Mountain. Before a permanent settlement could be established, news of a
nearby Indian uprising prompted Colorado's Governor Frederick Pitkin to urge the settlers to
flee back across the Continental Divide for their safety. Most of them did, and only a handful of
settlers remained in the Roaring Fork Valley during the winter of 1879. Those that remained
attempted to organize the camp and passed a resolution to respect the claims of those who
had fled, as well as the claims of those settlers who stayed. This action transformed the small
group of settlers into a "sovereign" body in the eyes of the State of Colorado and recognized
that the rules of local mining districts under the federal mining law of 1866 were to be
followed. The citizens had begun the process of organizing themselves into a political body.
The City of Aspen, Colorado is a municipality that was incorporated in 1881. Aspen is a Home
Rule Municipality that operates under a council-manager governmental structure. First
christened Ute City, the town of 300 residents was renamed Aspen in 1880. By 1891, Aspen had
surpassed Leadville as the nation's largest single silver producing mining district. The
demonetization of silver in 1893 led to Aspen's decline as a mining town. During the silver
boom days of the 1890s, Aspen’s population grew to 12,000 citizens. After the silver bust in the
early 1900s, as few as 700 people remained in Aspen. Reborn as a ski town in the 1940s, Aspen
was also molded into a cultural center.
Aspen is located in the upper reaches of the Roaring Fork Valley near the confluences of the
main-stem of the Roaring Fork River with Hunter Creek, Castle Creek (Figure 1), and Maroon
Creek at an elevation of approximately 7,900 feet. Aspen is located along Colorado State
Highway 82, approximately 20 miles west of Independence Pass. The mean annual precipitation
in Aspen is 24.6 inches, and the mean temperature from May to September is 63.2 °F (WRCC
2014).
2 Historical information was obtained from http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Exploring-the-Valley/History/.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 8
Figure 1. Photograph of Castle Creek.
The City is expanding slowly and has a preferred long-term planning growth rate projection of
1.2 percent per year. It is estimated that the year-round, full-time population of Aspen’s service
area will increase to approximately 11,285 people in 2020 and 13,496 people in 2035.
1.2 REGIONAL SETTING
The Roaring Fork Watershed is located within the Colorado River Basin in central Colorado on
the west side of the Continental Divide. The watershed includes the Sawatch, Collegiate and Elk
Mountain Ranges and 8 peaks exceeding 14,000 feet in elevation. Snowmelt from the
mountainous headwaters contributes to the streamflow in three primary rivers (Roaring Fork,
Fryingpan, and Crystal) that eventually contribute to the flow in the Colorado River in the City
of Glenwood Springs. The drainage area of the Roaring Fork watershed is approximately
1,450 square miles.
According to the State Water Supply Initiative (SWSI, 2010), the Colorado River Basin has a
projected 2035 M&I water supply gap of 40% with respect to projected water demands. The
Colorado River Basin supplies water to over 30 million people in the arid southwest, with the
Roaring Fork Watershed contributing about 991,100 AF to the Colorado River per year (USGS,
2013).
The Roaring Fork Watershed experiences a wide range of climatic conditions from year-to-year
as well as from season to season. Climatological rec ords provide evidence of recurring major
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 9
droughts in Colorado of various length and intensities. Water suppliers in the West
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. Plans to reduce usage are
necessary to stretch the available water supply to help meet future demands and sustain supplies
during periods of drought.
Water supply systems in the Roaring Fork Watershed are at risk from possible forest fire,
floods, failure of dams/mains/wells, and contamination of all or part of the raw water supply.
In order to respond to emergency or drought situations, contingency plans are typically
designed for implementation of mandatory water use restrictions in stages that minimize
impacts to the economy, life-styles, and environment of the community.
1.3 WATER SUPPLY AND RELIABILITY
Aspen owns and operates its own water utilities with the exception of the wastewater
treatment plant, which is maintained by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The City of
Aspen Water Department (Figure 2) provides a legal, reliable supply of safe, high quality
drinking water. City staff maintain raw water deliveries to the water treatment plants (WTPs) in
sufficient quantities to meet system demands. Staff also perform operations and maintenance
functions for the treatment facility, booster stations, pump stations, vaults and storage tanks,
and the Thomas Reservoir located adjacent to the treatment plants. Crews perform routine
laboratory testing and reporting per the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) guidelines and requirements.
Figure 2. Photograph of City of Aspen Water Department.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 10
The City utilizes water from five primary sources: Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, Little Nell Well,
Mill Street Well, and Rio Grande Well. Aspen has a long history of commitment to protecting
instream flows. In 1980, Aspen entered into an agreement with the CWCB to allow the City’s
very senior 15 cfs Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water right to be used for instream flows on
Hunter Creek, and the water court approved that use . In 1993, the City Council adopted water
management policies intended to provide for current and future municipal water needs while
at the same time maintaining decreed minimum streamflows and aquatic habitat. Aspen has an
intergovernmental agreement with the CWCB to protect the natural environment of Castle
Creek by operating the City’s water rights on Castle Creek in a manner that will allow the
decreed minimum streamflow of 12 cubic feet per second to be maintained under all but the
most severe drought conditions, or emergencies. Although Aspen does not have a similar
agreement regarding Maroon Creek, Aspen also operates its senior Maroon Creek water rights
in a way that protects the decreed instream flows. More recently, Aspen negotiated temporary
“Forbearance Agreements” with the Colorado Water Trust in 2013 and 2014, under which
Aspen agrees to not divert a portion of its senior Wheeler Ditch water right during the irrigation
season when the CWCB’s decreed instream flow in the Aspen reach of the Roaring Fork River is
not being satisfied.
1.3.1 Treated Water Supply
Aspen has two river sources of raw water supply for its treated water system. The primary
supply intake is on Castle Creek and another intake on Maroon Creek is generally used as a
supplemental supply. These diversions are conveyed to the City's WTPs located on the city-
owned Thomas property. Both intakes utilize "run of the river" an d are not currently backed up
by a significant raw water storage reservoir. All water delivered to the WTPs is first delivered to
the Leonard Thomas Reservoir (Figure 3) before undergoing treatment. The capacity of Leonard
Thomas Reservoir is 13 acre-feet (AF) or 4.2 million gallons (MG). Aspen also has water rights
and a water treatment facility on Hunter Creek, which is presently not operational because
there is adequate treatment capacity for the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek diversions. Since
the supplies from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, backed up with the wells, meet Aspen’s
current needs, and the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water right is being used for instream
flow protection, Aspen does not have current plans to operate the Hunter Creek plant in the
immediate future.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 11
Figure 3. Photograph of Leonard Thomas Reservoir.
The treated water system is also supplemented by three municipal groundwater wells located
in the downtown area that are treated at the source: Little Nell Well, Mill Street Well, and Rio
Grande Well. The groundwater wells have a combined capacity of approximately 3.0 million
gallons per day (MGD). The wells can be used during drought periods when the City wants to
reduce diversions from its surface water sources for quality reasons or to protect decreed
instream flows when streamflows are approaching the instream flow thresholds. Well water
can also be used for other municipal purposes. Water produced from the groundwater wells
does not meet the water quality standard for fluoride level, so the water must be blended with
other supplies or used for non-potable purposes.
The City of Aspen's water distribution system consists of 16 separate pressure zones. The
pressure zones are supplied by 14 water storage tanks that are fed by 14 pumping stations and
the three wells. The water distribution system is comprised of approximately 73.2 miles of
water mainlines that range in size from 24" to 4" in diameter.
1.3.2 Raw Water Supply
Aspen’s raw water (i.e. non-potable) system, managed by the City of Aspen Raw Water Division,
provides an irrigation supply to the City of Aspen golf course, selected parks, and limited private
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 12
properties. The City uses raw water supplies for maintenance of "aesthetic features" such as
fountains, the City malls, and many of the City's street trees located along the ditch system.
On the east end of downtown, the City operates the Wheeler, East Aspen, and Durant ditch
system, which provides water for the downtown mall, fountains and aesthetic features, and
stormwater cleaning at Rio Grande Park. At the west end of downtown, the City operates the Si
Johnson Ditch which provides water for street trees as well as providing raw water service for
irrigation of private properties, including Aspen Institute. Outside of the City’s boundaries,
water which originates from Aspen’s Castle Creek and Maroon Creek rights and is delivered to
the Leonard Thomas Reservoir is used as a supply for irrigation for the Meado wood common
area, as well as the hospital and medium-density housing developments in the area. Raw water
from Leonard Thomas Reservoir is also used as the source of supply for snowmaking operations
at the Aspen Ski Resort.
The Holden and Marolt ditch systems are also operated by the City from diversion points on
Castle Creek. These ditch systems provide water for irrigation of the Municipal Golf Course, the
Marolt Open Space, the Red Butte Cemetery, and numerous private properties comprising the
Castle Creek Homeowner Association.
The City operates the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant which utilizes water diverted at the
Maroon Creek headgate near the T-Lazy-7 Ranch and returns it to Maroon Creek approximately
½-mile south of the entrance to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area. Maroon Creek diversions are
primarily made for hydroelectric generating purposes; however, diversions are also conveyed to
the WTPs when necessary to supplement or, at times, to replace diversions from Castle Creek.
1.3.3 Water and Wastewater Treatment
The City currently has two filtration plants in operation, which are referred to as the West and
East Treatment Plants, or collectively as the “WTPs” in this document. The West Treatment
Plant was constructed in 1965 and has a design capacity of 8 MGD; the East Treatment Plant
was constructed in 1985 with a design capacity of 12 MGD. The water treatment facilities are
located adjacent to one another and receive raw surface water diversions from both Castle and
Maroon Creeks. Each stream has a dam and inlet structures with underground pipelines that
convey water to the 13 AF receiving reservoir, Leonard Thomas Reservoir, located at the site of
the WTPs. The Castle Creek Pipeline is approximately two miles in length and the Maroon Creek
Pipeline is about five miles in length. The WTPs collectively produce approximately 1.0 billion
gallons of treated water per year, or approximately 3,070 AF/yr.
City staff indicate that both plants are in excellent condition and have the capacity to supply the
City with 100% of its treated water demands at this time. The City has an additional treatment
plant, with a design capacity of 0.5 MGD, located off Hunter Creek Road on Red Mountain. That
plant is not currently in use. The Hunter Creek facility was constructed to treat water from
Hunter Creek during times when that source of supply was necessary. As noted above, the
Hunter Creek supply is not currently needed for treated water uses, and is being used for
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 13
instream flow protection. The City does not plan to use this water plant in the foreseeable
future.
Each treatment plant is designed to operate with pretreatment, filtration, and disinfection
before distribution. Pretreatment is accomplished through chemical addition to the raw water
before it enters the sedimentation basin or the clarification basins. The chemicals react with the
water to cause the sediment particles to attach to each other thus becoming larger and heavier
causing the sediment to fall out of suspension prior to filtration. In the filter plant, polymers
are added to aid the filters in separating out the remaining small particles in the water. The
water is then filtered. Fluoride and chlorine are added before the water goes to the 2 MG
contact tank. The 2 MG contact tank allows time for the chlorine to react (disinfect) with the
remaining bacteria and microscopic organisms before going out into the distribution system. In
order to keep up with requirements of the CDPHE, a serpentine curtain has been installed in
order to increase the contact time of the water with chlorine. This baffle has been in use since
1994.
1.3.4 Capacity and Reliability
For water supply planning purposes, the City of Aspen uses the critically dry year of 1977 which
is on par with the more recent critically dry years of 2002 and 2012 and is a good
representation of the firm yield of the City’s water rights from both Maroon and Castle Creeks
under current climate conditions. The City’s water consultant has estimated the dry year firm
yield of the City’s water rights based on the following assumptions (Wilson Water Group 2014):
Water diverted from Maroon and Castle Creeks is used in addition to the yield from one
of the three wells3 currently in place.
Year-round instream flows of 14.0 cfs on Maroon Creek and 13.3 cfs4 on Castle Creek
are met, which include the CWCB instream flow water rights and additional instream
flow on Castle Creek that the City of Aspen plans to maintain .
Maximum capacity of the water treatment plant is approximately 30.9 cfs (20 MGD).
Irrigation requirements are based on historical diversions from 2011-2013 and totaled
32 cfs. This represents diversions through the Holden, Marolt, and Si Johnson
Ditches. Irrigation diversions were assumed to take place May through October.
Based on these assumptions, the annual firm (1977) water supply available for treated and raw
water irrigation diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek is estimated to be around
26,850 AF/yr at current infrastructure capacities. However, the City does not have a storage
component that would allow it to retime water supplies to match water deliveries with
demands. Rather the City is dependent upon streamflow availability, which is susceptible to
annual variability and changing conditions, as well as daily variability. For Aspen, the water
supply is most vulnerable in the late summer, after the snowmelt runoff period has ended, and
3 The analysis limits the yield to one of the three wells due to current water quality -related pumping limits.
4 The Castle Creek instream flow decree is for 12 cfs but the City intends to maintain a flow of 13.3 cfs.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 14
when landscape irrigation demands are still high. Under historical hydrology patterns, and
considering Aspen’s goal of protecting decreed instream flows as described above in addition to
continued raw water diversion for irrigation, the daily firm yield of the treated water system is
estimated to be around 7.8 MGD.
While the City’s supplies appear to be sufficient for current and future demands under
historical hydrology conditions, without storage, a change in the volume or timing of
streamflow and/or demand growth beyond the levels currently projected (this plan considers
growth in demand through 2035 while the City’s water planning extends to 2065) would result
in the City having a water supply issue in dry years. For example, Figure 4 below shows a
potential municipal demand scenario in the year 20655, based on the City’s water planning and
forecasting that is conducted independent of this water efficiency plan. As depicted, this
scenario would result in a significant water supply shortage during the late summer if the water
supply was similar to a historical critically dry year such as 1977.6 This emphasizes the
importance of demand management, particularly for landscaping purposes.
Figure 4. Potential Municipal Demand Scenario in the Year 2065.
5 The 2065 projected municipal water demand shown in Figure 4 does not include use of reclaimed water.
6 This projection does not include storage in the Castle Creek Reservoir or Maroon Creek Reservoir, for which
Aspen holds conditional storage rights. Because of the very high cost and complexity of constructing these
reservoirs to be both environmentally-sensitive and to provide water when Aspen needs it, the current planning
scenario does not include these reservoirs. However, Aspen continues to study the cost and timing of these
reservoirs, and the conditional decrees remain an important component of Aspen’s portfolio of water rights.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 15
1.3.5 Current and Proposed Water Supply Projects
Earlier studies indicated that Aspen’s available water supply would be fully utilized to meet
anticipated treated and untreated water needs by the mid-1990’s and that it would be
necessary to develop surface water storage expeditiously in order to meet the continuing
growth within the service area. Actual growth has closely matched earlier growth projections;
however, an aggressive water conservation program has reduced the amount of water used to
a point where surface water storage can be deferred. The following is a current list of projects
being implemented, or considered for implementation.
1.3.5.1 Reclaimed Water System
Aspen’s Reclaimed Water System is being constructed to increase the availability of water in
Castle Creek by shifting a portion of the diversions for the Aspen Golf Course and other
irrigation demands to utilize treated wastewater effluent as a source of supply rather than to
rely exclusively on delivery of water from Castle Creek. This shift will free up an additional 1.0
MGD of supply from Castle Creek, which can be used to supply the treated water system that
relies on this same source of supply. At the same time, it also contributes to the City’s
commitment to maintain instream flows of 13.3 cfs on Castle Creek for aquatic habitat, even
during critically dry periods. The Reclaimed Water System will be completed in 2015. It is
anticipated that this system will increase the available raw water supply by approximately 12%
over the current rated capacity. On an equivalent capacity unit (ECU) basis, the available supply
will be increased from 18,250 to approximately 20,400 ECU when the Reclaimed Water System
is online. At historical growth rates of approximately 200 ECUs per year (net), this implies that
the next source of supply beyond the reclaimed water project would need to be brought on line
in approximately a 10-year period, or by approximately 2025. Note that neither the demand
forecasts nor the supply estimates for this water efficiency plan include the use of reclaimed
water.
1.3.5.2 Roaring Fork Supply
The City of Aspen may eventually need to develop and utilize its water rights that allow for the
diversion of water directly from the Roaring Fork River for municipal treated water uses.
Constraints associated with the use of this water supply for treated water uses include the need
to meet water quality standards and the need to pump developed supplies up to the gravity
zone that supplies Aspen’s core area. It is likely that more extensive water treatment, including
micro-filtration, would be necessary for this source since multiple prior uses may have
degraded source water quality. Land availability for facilities necessary for this alternative is
also constrained due to the developed nature of sites near the river.
1.3.5.3 Salvation Ditch Pumpback
This alternative source of supply would require developing an agreement with the owners and
users of the Salvation Ditch to exchange water from its current point of diversion on the
Roaring Fork River for a new supply diverted from the Roaring Fork River below its confluence
with Maroon Creek. A new water right for this location would be used to pump water into the
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 16
Salvation Ditch and replace existing Salvation Ditch diversions with a substitute supply. The
water exchanged from the Salvation Ditch would be used to supply a new (or replacement)
water treatment facility. Candidate treatment plant sites include the City’s existing Hunter
Creek Treatment Plant site.
1.3.5.4 Wellfield Development
Development of the City’s alluvial groundwater supplies has been impeded by several water
quality issues, including the adoption of a fluoride standard and the presence of higher levels of
radionuclides. The water quality restrictions currently limit the extent that these wells can be
utilized as a treated water supply. While it may be possible to blend water from the alluvial
wells with other sources of supply or otherwise treat this water supply to a level that fully
complies with drinking water standards, currently the amount of water that can be produced
from the three wells during a critical dry period is less than previously assessed. Modifications
to the wells and distribution system, or further treatment, could be employed to reduce the
limitations on well use. Also the City has converted irrigation systems on selected parks and
open spaces to accept water from the existing wells, thereby freeing up treated water currently
used for this purpose.
Development of bedrock wells with completion depths greater than 1,000 feet may provide an
additional source for Aspen’s supply of treated water. Feasibility analyses are needed to assess
the viability of developing this groundwater resource.
1.3.5.5 Reservoir Storage
The potential need for surface storage of snowmelt runoff from Castle and Maroon Creeks has
been included in the City’s Water Management Program since the 1960’s. After the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project’s western slope compensatory storage facility was moved from the originally -
proposed Aspen Reservoir site to the Ruedi Reservoir site, Aspen appropriated the Castle Creek
and Maroon Creek Reservoir water rights. Aspen has always known that these are expensive,
difficult reservoirs to construct, and in the mid-1990s, staff, with the approval of City Council,
determined to focus on leak detection and repair, conservation, and development of a well
system to reduce water demand from the creeks, thereby deferring further into the future the
need for this reservoir storage. The development of surface water storage at specific sites
identified in conditional water rights held by the City for this purpose is expected to eliminate
water shortage conditions, even if there is a significant shift in the amount or timing of snowfall
accumulation and runoff due to factors such as climate change.
2. WATER DEMANDS AND HISTORICAL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
As part of the water efficiency planning process, thre e distinct treated water demand forecasts
were prepared. The purpose of these forecasts was to present a range of reasonable estimates
of treated water demand for Aspen through the year 2035, given anticipated population
growth, and to estimate the impact of the water conservation measures that occur both
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 17
“passively” as a result of compliance with national and state plumbing codes and standards and
“actively” as a result of specific programs and measures to be implemented by the City. These
forecasts were also used for the important purpose of evaluating the adequacy of Aspen’s
water supply system to meet future demands.
The first step in the forecasting process was to gather data and information on the history of
treated water demands and conservation in Aspen. Through a careful review of these data and
information, a baseline demand for Aspen was established. Next, historical population data
were used to establish the baseline population, and Aspen planning data were used to forecast
population growth out to 2035. This section of the Aspen Water Efficiency Plan describes
historical water demands and demand management efforts in the City.
2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The City of Aspen provides both treated and raw water service to a total of approximately 3,870
customer connections within the City and in adjoining areas through service contracts. Aspen
typically experiences seasonal population changes, associated with non-permanent residents
and visitors. The weeks before/of Fourth of July and Christmas typically result in the highest
water demands. With events like X Games, the City’s population can increase up to a total of
100,000 consumers.
Aspen’s metered customer connections are the primary focus of this water efficiency plan, but
a number of additional customers are served by the City’s water system. The water
requirements of these customers (described in section 2.1.1) are also considered and
accounted for in the demand forecasts presented later in this plan.
2.1.1 Additional Customers and Raw Water Sales
Approximately 8% of the treated water Aspen produces each year is provided for snowmaking
and other purposes briefly described below.
The City provides treated water for snowmaking at Aspen Mountain. Aspen Highlands
receives raw water for snowmaking from the City via the Thomas Raw Water System.
The City provides treated water to approximately 80 homes in West Buttermilk. This
demand is metered in bulk by the City.
The City has a small amount of bulk water sales each year for filler hydrant draw
permits, typically related to construction.
The City also has approximately 72 flat rate unmetered customers, typically for
construction projects before a permanent meter is installed.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 18
In addition to municipal treated water, the City provides untreated water from its irrigation
ditch rights to the municipal golf course, selected municipal parks and for use by private
landowners under raw water agreements. The City is currently evaluating use of its
groundwater wells for the irrigation of some municipal parks to reduce the demand on raw
surface water supplies.
2.1.2 ECUs
Aspen has a comprehensive system of record-keeping for water demand factors based on a
fixture count (toilets, lavatories, outside irrigation, etc.) of each residence and business
connected to the treated water distribution system. These fixtures are then converted to ECUs
as a measure of the water demand expected from existing and new development. Aspen's
Water Department has determined that an ECU can be approximated by a one bedroom, one
bathroom home with a fully equipped kitchen, an exterior hose bib, and a ¾-inch domestic
service line. The current inventory of ECUs connected to the system as of February 2014 is
approximately 17,300, including wholesale supply contract deliveries. As a result of tracking
water demand factors for building permits for all new construction and remodel s, as well as
limiting the total water demand in all new extraterritorial water service contracts, the City has a
relatively accurate estimate of existing and anticipated future water demand factors on the
treated water distribution system.
2.1.3 Metered Customers
Metered water customers are the primary focus of this water efficiency plan. To better
understand water use among different categories of customers, Aspen uses the following
customer category assignments for its water service accounts.
Single family residential (detached single family homes)
Multi-family with 2-4 units
Multi-family with greater than 5 units
Commercial
City facilities
Other – Irrigation Only
Customer information is stored in the utility’s customer billing system.
2.2 HISTORICAL WATER DEMANDS
Total treated water demand for Aspen’s system (including snowmaking, West Buttermilk bulk
deliveries, etc.) was 3,220 AF in 2012 and 2,955 AF in 2013 as shown in Table 1 below. Annual
metered treated water use in the City of Aspen, the focus of the demand analysis for this
efficiency plan, has ranged from 2,568 AF to 2,752 AF over the last 5 years (Table 1). Metered
treated use was within 4% of the average in each of the 5 years, which suggests that the system
demands fluctuate very little on an annual basis. Increases in population over the last five years
have not caused a resultant increase in water demands (Table 1). These changes are typical of
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 19
municipal demand trends across the United States, which have generally declined or held
steady in recent years even as population has increased. The City’s current water rate structure,
water efficiency program, national plumbing codes and standards, and programs like EPA
WaterSense contribute to this decrease in per capita water use.
Baseline treated water demands of 3,186 AF/yr, (2,661 AF/yr for City customers and 525 AF/yr
for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, etc.) were selected for use in forecasting future demand in
Aspen as shown in Table 1.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 20
Table 1. Annual Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013 and Baseline for Forecasting.
Year
City of Aspen Water Customers Additional Water Sales
Total
Full-Time
Population
Single-
Family
Res.
Multi-
Family
Res. Comm.
City
Facilities
Other
- Irrig.
Only Total
Unmetered
Sales (Est.)
Snow
Making
(Aspen
Ski Co.)
West
Buttermilk
Bulk
Water
Sales
2009 9,897 1,210 446 760 132 68 2,616 295 126 - 6 -
2010 10,016 1,289 497 785 115 66 2,752 273 142 - 6 -
2011 10,136 1,245 458 668 125 72 2,568 218 146 45 6 2,983
2012 10,258 1,390 485 647 129 85 2,736 246 151 81 6 3,220
2013 10,381 1,265 483 626 124 75 2,573 110 192 73 6 2,955
BASELINE 10,318 1,280 484 697 125 75 2,661 246 192 81 6 3,186
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 21
An estimated breakdown of indoor and outdoor historical metered treated water demands of
all City customers in Aspen based on periodic consumption data provided by City staff are
shown in Table 2. Typically, about 57% of the annual water demand in Aspen is for indoor
purposes and 43% is for outdoor irrigation.
Table 2. City Customers, Total Treated Indoor and Outdoor Water Deliveries from 2009
through 2013.
Year
Indoor
(AF/yr)
Outdoor
(AF/yr)
%
Indoor
%
Outdoor
Temp
(deg F)
2009 1,626 990 62% 38% 41.5
2010 1,535 1,217 56% 44% 41.8
2011 1,485 1,083 58% 42% 40.1
2012 1,515 1,221 55% 45% 41.4
2013 1,415 1,157 55% 45% 39.7
5-YR AVG 1,515 1,133 57% 43% 40.9
Aspen’s metered treated consumption data were further disaggregated by water use sector as
shown in Table 3. Indoor and outdoor demands for each category were estimated using a
standard average winter consumption (AWC) approach where indoor use from the winter
months (January, February, and December), when there is typically no outdoor irrigation
occurring, is used to estimate indoor use for the entire year. Indoor use is then deducted from
the total to estimate outdoor use.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 22
Table 3. Sectoral and Seasonal Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013 (AF/yr).
Year
Residential
Multi-Family
(2-4 units)
Multi-Family
(5+ units) Commercial City Facilities
Other-
Irrig.
Only Total
Unmetered
Sales (Est.)
Snow
Making
(Aspen
Ski Co.)
West
Butte
rmilk
Bulk
Water
Sales Total1 Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor - -
2009 538 672 63 28 305 52 643 117 78 54 68 2,617 295 126 - 6 -
2010 469 821 61 65 303 69 641 144 62 53 66 2,754 273 142 - 6 -
2011 455 791 65 30 303 60 596 72 66 58 73 2,570 218 146 45 6 2,985
2012 518 873 62 38 307 78 559 89 69 59 85 2,736 246 151 81 6 3,220
2013 449 817 61 40 292 90 548 79 65 59 75 2,574 110 192 73 6 2,955
Avg. 486 795 62 40 302 70 598 100 68 57 73 2,651 228 151 66 6 3,053
1Totals are not available for 2009 and 2010, therefore the average total water deliveries are based on the average for 2011 th rough
2013.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 23
As with most municipalities in Colorado, the City of Aspen’s demands are higher during summer
months due to outdoor water use. Figure 5 shows the average monthly metered treated water
demands over the past 5 years from 2009 to 2013 by water use sector versus the mean
monthly temperature (WRCC 2014). As a result of outdoor water use, all water use sector
demands increase during summer months from June through October . The residential pattern
correlates particularly well with temperature during summer months, and the peak usage in
July is 6.4 times the AWC. Multi-family residential and commercial water usage increases during
summer months to a lesser degree, as evidenced by the peak monthly usage being 2.1 and 1.8
times the AWC, respectively. The peak city facilities usage exceeds the AWC by a factor of 4.0 in
July, which suggests there is a fair amount of outdoor irrigation or other seasonal water uses.
The distribution of treated sector demands in Aspen are also very consistent between years, as
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5. City of Aspen, Average Monthly Metered Treated Demands by Sector from 2009
through 2013.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 24
Figure 6. Distribution of Treated Metered Demands by Sector from 2009 through 2013.
In 2013, residential demand (single-family and multi-family) accounted for approximately 68%
of the annual treated water demand for the City of Aspen water customers shown in Table 1.
Commercial customers accounted for 24% of the treated demand, and the other categories
(city facilities and irrigation) accounted for the remaining 8%. A pie chart showing the
distribution of 2013 water usage including the additional water sales (unmetered, snowmaking,
West Buttermilk, and bulk sales) is presented in Figure 7.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 25
Figure 7. Distribution of Annual Water Use by Sector in 2013.
A pie chart showing the percentage of connections in 2013 by water use sector in Aspen is
provided in Figure 8. Residential customers (single-family and multi-family) are most prevalent
in Aspen, accounting for 84.5% of all service connections. Commercial custome rs account for
11.0% of connections, dedicated irrigation accounts account for 2.0% of connections, and the
remaining accounts are attributed to city facilities connections.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 26
Figure 8. Distribution of Aspen City Customer Connections in 2013.
It is important to note that the values presented in this section reflect only treated water
deliveries. The treated water deliveries for snowmaking operations, wholesale deliveries to
West Buttermilk, bulk and flat rate water sales were included in the forecasting completed as
part of this Water Efficiency Plan, but are not part of the efficiency measures or water savings
estimates. Raw water deliveries for irrigation and snowmaking purposes were not included in
the forecasting or as part of the efficiency measures and water savings estimates.
2.3 SEASONAL AND PEAK DAY DEMANDS
A summary of the City of Aspen’s annual and peak water production values from 2008 to 2013
is presented in Table 4. The data indicate the average daily production from 2009 to 2013 is
2.68 MGD, with an average maximum daily flow of 6.19 MGD. This indicates that a peaking
factor of approximately 2.3 is reasonable for Aspen. The City has determined that firm yield
production capacity, which is driven by water supply limitations in the late summer, is
approximately 7.8 MGD after considering instream flow restrictions and continuation of
historical raw water deliveries. The system capacity is constrained by the availability of
streamflow and water quality issues associated with well production, not the capacity of the
WTPs or the supply pipelines that convey water from Castle and Maroon Creeks to the WTPs.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 27
The peak daily flows in 2012 and 2013 were 7.6 MGD and 6.97 MGD respectively. Although this
indicates that demands were approaching the City’s reported firm yield capacity, the peak
demands occurred earlier in the season, so the City likely has sufficient supply to meet these
demands even under drier streamflow conditions during the study period of current year
through 2035, assuming the supply and demand curve do not shift significantly as a result of
climate change. However, without storage to regulate supplies to match timing of demands, it
is important for the City to monitor changes in precipitation from snow to rain and trends in the
streamflow hydrology and demands. Managing landscape irrigation demands can help mitigate
the City’s vulnerability to streamflow conditions.
Table 4. Annual and Daily Flow and Treated Water Production Characteristics from 2008
through 2013.
Year
Annual
Production
(AF/yr)
Annual
Production
(MG)
Average
Daily Flow
(MGD)
Maximum
Daily Flow
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor Peak Day
2009 2,618 853 2.34 4.61 1.97 July 24, 2009
2010 2,817 918 2.51 6.13 2.44 June 25, 2010
2011 2,832 923 2.53 5.81 2.30 July 30, 2011
2012 3,484 1,135 3.11 7.60 2.44 June 21, 2012
2013 3,203 1,044 2.86 6.97 2.44 July 3, 2013
Averages 3,007 980 2.68 6.19 2.30 -
2.4 SYSTEM WATER LOSSES
The City’s water mains are in good shape and system leakage is well below the 10% threshold
that is often estimated as the national average. Aspen tracks water losses by regularly
comparing production and metered usage values. Water loss audits over the last 8 years have
shown loss values ranging from 0.6% to 8.4%, with an average of 3.9%. The City also annually
conducts a leak detection program that utilizes sophisticated listening equipment to locate
leaks, and repairs are then made based on this analysis.
On the customer side, approximately 800 of the customer connections have automated
metering infrastructure (AMI) using the Aclara system, and the City uses this technology to
identify potential leaks on a weekly basis.
The City could improve overall water loss control and accountability by impl ementing an annual
water audit using the AWWA M36 methodology as discussed later in this document.
2.5 PAST AND CURRENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
The City of Aspen’s conservation program dates back to the early 1970s when water service
began to be based on metered usage and the City completed an inventory of ECUs connected
to the system. Aspen’s water efficiency program has evolved over time, including the initiation
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 28
of the water audit and leak detection programs in 1995 and the implementation of a tiered
water rate structure in 2006. The City of Aspen created its Efficiency Division in 2006. Dedicated
Water Department staff are responsible for overseeing the water conservation program with
assistance from other staff members. The City has demonstrated an exceptional commitment
to water use efficiency, and has already implemented many of the most essential water
conservation program measures.
In 1996, Aspen approved its first water conservation plan, which was included as an element of
the larger Water Management Plan. While the 1996 plan did not contain all of the necessary
elements to meet approval by the CWCB under the current statute, it was quite progressive for
the period. Aspen’s water conservation and efficiency plan is being updated as part of the City’s
participation in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Plan.
2.5.1 Analysis of Water Savings from Past Demand Management Efforts
In 1990, the City of Aspen’s annual water demand was 4,368 AF and the population of
combined permanent and seasonal residents was 23,435 people. This equates to an average
gallons per capita per day in 1990 of 156.4 gpcd. In 2013, the gallons per capita per day as
calculated using identical methods was just 62.8 gpcd.
To estimate the water savings achieved by the City of Aspen during the time period between
1990 and 2013 (23 years), a hypothetical demand forecast was developed using the gpcd from
1990 and the population from 2013 (36,540 permanent and seasonal residents). This analysis
revealed that if 1990 demand patterns had continued in Aspen without any reduction from
various demand management efforts, the 2013 hypothetical annual water demand in Aspen
would have been 6,810 AF.
In reality, the 2013 annual water demand in the City of Aspen was 2,661 AF. This is 1,707 AF
(39%) lower than Aspen’s water demand in 1990, even though the population has increased by
13,105 people (56%). This analysis suggests that since 1990, demand management efforts
have successfully conserved 4,238 AF/yr of water, a savings of 63.5% compared to the
hypothetical forecast using 1990’s gpcd. This is a significant achievement in water savings that
has certainly reduced the amount of money that might have been spent obtaining new water
supplies and expanding infrastructure. Figure 9 shows the actual demand in Aspen from 1990-
2013 compared with a hypothetical forecast based on the average gpcd in 1990 . The erratic
changes in demand are due to actual fluctuations in Aspen’s population over the time period.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 29
Figure 9. Actual and hypothetical consumption in Aspen from 1990 through 2013.
2.6 DEMAND FORECAST
As part of the preparation of the water efficiency plan, three separate treated demand
forecasts were prepared:
1. Baseline Forecast (without conservation)
2. Passive Savings Forecast
3. Passive and Active Savings Forecast
The baseline forecasting method used historical treated demand patterns to establish baseline
per capita demand and then to increase these demands with population out to 2035 as if the
2014 per capita water use patterns continue without change to 2035. This is a standard
approach to demand forecasting, but it does not take into account conservation and the
expected impacts of water efficiency.
The second two forecasts were developed using a more robust approach, where treated
demands were separated out by sector (e.g. residential, commercial, irrigation, schools, etc.),
with seasonal and non-seasonal demands (outdoor and indoor) disaggregated for each
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Wa
t
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
(
A
F
)
Actual Hypothetical
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 30
category. Then a separate treated demand forecast out to 2035 was prepared for indoor and
outdoor demand in each of Aspen’s customer sectors. This allowed the impacts of specific
water efficiency measures like high-efficiency toilets and clothes washers to be considered.
2.6.1 Population Planning Projections
Aspen is one of the most popular destination ski areas in the United States and also attracts
many visitors in the summer months as well. Because of this, two separate service area
population forecasts were developed for Aspen – one for the permanent, full-time population
and one for the seasonal, part-time population. These forecasts are both presented in Table 5
and Figure 10.
Table 5. Population Growth Projections from 2015 through 2035.
Year Permanent
Population
Seasonal
Population
2015 10,632 26,791
2016 10,759 27,112
2017 10,888 27,437
2018 11,019 27,767
2019 11,151 28,100
2020 11,285 28,437
2025 11,979 30,185
2030 12,715 32,040
2035 13,496 34,009
2.6.1.1 Permanent Population
According to the 2010 Census, the full-time population within the municipal boundary of Aspen
was 6,658 people, up from 5,914 full-time residents as reported in the 2000 Census. The City
also has contracts to provide water service to areas outside of the municipal boundary, and
after adding these additional full-time residents, the total number of residents served increases
to approximately 8,895 in 2000 and 10,016 in 2010. The City uses a preferred long-term growth
rate for planning purposes of 1.2% per year, which means that the year-round, full-time service
area population is projected to increase to approximately 11,285 people in 2020 and 13,496
people in 2035 (Table 5 and Figure 10).
2.6.1.2 Seasonal Population
According to data provided by the City, the seasonal/part-time population of Aspen was 18,015
people in 2000. Using the City’s preferred long-term growth rate for planning purposes of 1.2%
the seasonal/part-time is projected to increase to approximately 28,437 people in 2020 and
34,009 people in 2035 (Figure 10).
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 31
The population projections for this water efficiency plan assume the seasonal population grows
at the same rate as the permanent population. However, climate change and other factors
could lead to a higher seasonal population growth rate and/or a larger portion of the seasonal
population extending their duration in Aspen. As other cities plan for more extreme heat events
and more frequent drought, Aspen is faced with the potential for ‘climate refugees’ to seek
more time in Aspen. Aspen will continue to monitor its permanent and seasonal population and
related impacts on water demands.
Figure 10. Actual and Forecast Permanent and Seasonal Population from 2000 through 2035.
The City of Aspen has adopted a Growth Management Quota System to limit future growth, as
outlined in Chapter 26.470 of the City Code. The code limits the annual allotment of potential
growth within the City, by land use type, as follows: 18 residential units (free market), 33,300
square feet of leasable commercial space, and 112 lodging pillows. No limits are in place for
affordable housing or essential public facilities.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Permanent Seasonal Forecast Permanent Forecast Seasonal
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 32
2.6.2 Demand Forecasts
As part of the water efficiency planning process, three distinct treated water demand forecasts
were prepared. A description of each scenario and the forecasting methodol ogy is presented
below. The costs and benefits associated with these scenarios are considered in the next
section of this plan document.
2.6.2.1 Forecast Methodology
First, a baseline treated demand forecast starting from 2015 and going out to 2035 was
prepared. This baseline forecast did not include the impact of water conservation of any kind,
even future passive water savings; it was developed only to assess the adequacy of future
supplies if population increases and the unit rate of water use remains the same as current
conditions (without considering climate change), and to demonstrate the impact of anticipated
efficiency improvements. The baseline forecast is based on a combination of anticipated
demographic and land use changes in Aspen. In the baseline forecast, all treated water
demands (indoor and outdoor) increase proportionally with the population at the current rate
of usage. Treated water demands for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, unmetered customers,
and bulk sales were held constant in all forecasts at 525 AF/yr.
A second treated water demand forecast to 2035 was developed that includes the impact of
passive efficiencies from Colorado legislation, and federal plumbing codes and standards. A
third forecast was prepared that includes the anticipated impact the City’s planned water
efficiency program measures described in this plan.
The second and third forecasts include the impacts of water efficiency and were developed
using a more robust approach that considers anticipated changes in each cust omer sector in
Aspen. To develop these forecasts, treated demands were separated out by water use sector
(e.g. residential, commercial, irrigation, and city facilities), with seasonal and non-seasonal
demands (outdoor and indoor) disaggregated for each category as shown in Table 3. Then a
separate demand forecast out to 2035 was prepared for indoor and outdoor demand in each
customer sector. This allowed the impacts of specific water efficiency measures like high-
efficiency toilets and clothes washers to be considered.
These three forecasts form the core of the water efficiency plan and are the forecasts upon
which estimated conservation savings are based. Each forecast shows demand starting in 2015
and going through the planning horizon of 2035 (20 years). The results are provided in Figure
11 and further described in the sections below.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 33
Figure 11. Baseline, Passive, and Active Treated Water Demand Forecasts through 2035.
Baseline Forecast
The concept of the baseline forecast is to exclude conservation of any kind and to simply
assume that typical baseline treated water demand patterns (i.e. the water use patterns of
2009 through 2013) are continued into the future without change. It is also assumed that
typical water demands for the City will change proportionally with increases in population. This
assumes new customers joining the system use water identically to the current customer base.
The fundamental purposes of the baseline forecast are to assess the adequacy of future
supplies under reasonable “worst-case” conditions (i.e. no water efficiency gains) without
considering impacts for additional future climate change, and to demonstrate the anticipated
impact of water efficiency in Aspen from both passive and active conservation programs. The
baseline forecast is presented in Figure 11. The impact of growth in both the permanent/full-
time and seasonal/part-time population is included in all treated demand forecasts. The
forecasting methodology uses the changes in both population forecasts as a key driver for
future demands.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
(
A
F
)
Historic Baseline Passive Active
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 34
Key assumptions in the baseline forecast include:
Baseline treated water use patterns for Aspen (Table 1).
Population forecast for Aspen (Figure 10).
Treated water use in all sectors both seasonal and non-seasonal changes proportionally
with the population.
Outdoor water use impacts from temperature and precipitation in 2035 are similar to
2015.
Fixed annual demands of 525 AF/yr for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, unmetered
customers, and bulk sales.
Baseline treated water demands in 2014, including water loss, totaled 3,377 AF (2,661 AF for
City customers and 525 AF for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, etc., and 191 AF water loss). With
this baseline forecast, demand is expected to increase by 803 AF to 4,180 AF in 2035.
Passive Conservation Forecast
A second treated water demand forecast was prepared to 2035 that includes the impact of
anticipated passive efficiencies from Colorado legislation, and federal plumbing codes and
standards on a sector-by-sector basis for both indoor and outdoor use. Colorado Senate Bill
2014-103, which was passed in 2014 and phases out the sale of low-efficiency lavatory faucets,
showerheads, flushing urinals, and tank-type toilets, is an example of local legislation that is
accounted for in the forecast of passive conservation between 2015 and 2035. However, a
large component of these water savings have already been achieved in Aspen. Because Aspen
has had water efficient building codes in place and many older properties have been renovated
over the past 20 years, the impact of passive conservation is not anticipated to be great. This
forecast found that treated water demands will increase to 4,137 AF in 2035. The passive
forecast is presented in Figure 11.
Key assumptions in the passive conservation forecast include:
Baseline treated water use patterns for Aspen (Table 1).
Population forecast for Aspen (Figure 10).
Outdoor water use in all sectors increases proportionally with the population.
Outdoor water use impacts from temperature and precipitation in 2035 are similar to
2015.
0.6% per year decrease in combined SF and MF residential indoor per capita water use
(from 56.7 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2014 to 50.5 gpcd in 2035) continuing
trends of the past 15 years7 and recent Colorado legislation under Senate Bill 14-103
7 Based on results from the Water Research Foundation Residential End Uses of Water Update (to be published in
2014).
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 35
that phases in the sale of only high-efficiency WaterSense labeled fixtures starting in
2016.
0.75% per year decrease in per capita commercial indoor use from ongoing replacement
of fixtures, appliances and equipment and new Colorado legislat ion assuring high-
efficiency plumbing in new construction.
0.75% per year decrease in per capita city facility indoor use from ongoing replacement
of fixtures, appliances, and equipment and new Colorado legislation assuring high-
efficiency plumbing in new construction.
0.75% per year decrease in per capita school indoor use from ongoing replacement of
fixtures and appliances and new Colorado legislation assuring high-efficiency plumbing
in new construction.
Fixed annual demands of 525 AF/yr for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, unmetered
customers, and bulk sales.
The passive conservation forecast hypothesizes a 22.5% increase in treated water demand over
the next 20 years and suggests that more efficient fixtures and appliances could help reduce
future demands in 2035 by 43 AF compared with the baseline.
Active Conservation Forecast
A third forecast was prepared that includes the anticipated impact the City’s planned water
efficiency program measures described in this plan. Under this forecast, treated water demand
increases to just 3,597 AF in 2035. Compared with the original baseline forecast, if the
elements of this plan are fully realized, then it is estimated that water demand at 2035 will be
reduced by 583 AF as a result of passive and active water conservation measures in Aspen. The
active conservation forecast is presented in Figure 11.
Key assumptions in the active conservation forecast include:
Baseline treated water use patterns for Aspen (Table 1).
Population forecast for Aspen (Figure 10).
Outdoor water use in all sectors increases proportionally with the population, but is
reduced by 0.25% per year due to a combination of factors including: Aspen’s
conservation-oriented rate structure which charges higher rates for outdoor use,
densification as the City grows, anticipated smaller lot sizes in future developments,
proposed landscape code for new development, irrigation efficiency improvements and
irrigation audits, ongoing landscape transformation from traditional turf to water-wise
plants, and the City’s ongoing education and information efforts including Xeriscape
seminars.
Outdoor water use impacts from temperature and precipitation in 2035 are similar to
2015.
1.0% per year decrease in combined SF and MF residential indoor per capita water use
(from 56.7 gpcd in 2014 to 47.0 gpcd in 2035), considering Aspen’s active conservation
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 36
program and recent Colorado legislation under Senate Bill 14-103 that phases in the sale
of only high-efficiency WaterSense labeled fixtures starting in 2016.
0.75% per year decrease in per capita commercial indoor use from ongoing replacement
of fixtures, appliances and equipment and new Colorado legislation assuring high-
efficiency plumbing in new construction.
Fixed annual demands of 525 AF/yr for snowmaking, West Buttermilk, unmetered
customers, and bulk sales.
The active conservation forecast hypothesizes a 6.5% increase in water demand over the next
20 years and suggest that more efficient fixtures and appliances could help reduce future
demands in 2035 by 583 AF compared with the baseline.
The analysis completed for this water efficiency plan indicates that the likely yield of the City’s
direct flow water rights is around 26,850 AF in a dry year. The maximum annual treated water
produced by Aspen over the past 5 years was 3,220 AF in 2012 and the range of forecast future
demands in the year 2035 are from 3,597 AF to a maximum of 4,180 AF. On an annual basis,
the dry year yield of the City’s water rights appears to be more than sufficient to meet current
and forecast future demands.8 However, the City does not have storage to regulate the timing
of supply to match demands, and therefore is vulnerable to peak demand shortfalls in dry years
when physical streamflow conditions are limited, or in emergencies such as a fire or landslides
when one or more particular water supply sources may become unavailable. Accordingly, the
City has elected to focus on water efficiency measures that could reduce peak demands,
primarily related to outdoor water use, which are financially viable and could potentially
eliminate or delay infrastructure projects.
2.6.2.2 Climate Change Impact on Water Use
Recent climate change forecasts indicate a warming trend in irrigation season temperature s in
the Roaring Fork region. A 2014 report from CIRES, warns that temperatures for the 2035 to
2064 time period are likely to increase by an average of approximately 4 degrees F as compared
to the period from 1971 to 2000 (CIRES 2014). More frequent and severe heat waves, droughts,
and wildfires are projected. Such changes will impact both water supply and demand and the
City is conducting additional research regarding these potential impacts . A hotter irrigation
season means higher water requirements for landscapes. While this 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.
Climate change also has the potential to impact the ski industry and increase demands for
snowmaking. Water demands in Aspen could also increase if ‘climate refugees’, seeking to
escape the heat from other cities, start spending more time in Aspen in houses that are
currently vacant part of the year.
8 The City uses the historical dry year of 1977 for planning purposes, and in its planning, accounts for changing its
diversion patterns as needed to protect decreed instream flows.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 37
Aspen’s long-term commitment to water conservation is helping prepare the City for these
changes. Increased indoor and outdoor efficiencies achieved over many years enable flexibility
in meeting season needs.
Changing temperature and precipitation patterns are ongoing and are impacting Aspen’s
customers already. Climate change impacts are included to some degree in the water demand
forecasts provided in this plan to the extent that current demands and climate patterns (which
have already been affected by climate change) are utilized as the starting point 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
methodology provided in this plan, along with regular updates to the demand projection s, can
assist in this process.
2.6.2.3 Estimated Cost of New Supply Options
The City’s water demands have continuously decreased over the past several decades (as
shown above in Figure 9 and Figure 11), to the credit of its water users, staff, and progressive
water conservation program. In 2014, Aspen has an ample water supply to meet present needs
and most projected future needs, with the caveat that emergencies such as fires or landslides
can prevent use of one or more supply sources, thereby creating a shortfall in supply, which
may be temporary or long-term, depending on the impact of the emergency.
Based on the historical use patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that the City’s water
conservation efforts have at least delayed the need for storage. Today the City’s water rights
yield more than ample supply on an annual basis, but the City experiences late summer usage
that approaches its available firm yield water supply during the period of mid-July through the
end of the irrigation season. Absent additional storage or some treatment method to address
water quality issues associated with well pumping, the City is obligated to manage the late
summer demands based on local streamflow hydrology. Additional water treatment and/or
additional water storage along with customer-side demand management of irrigation could
provide Aspen increased system stability under a variety of hydrologic conditions, and in
emergencies. Any option must be carefully evaluated in terms of financial, environmental, and
other potential impacts.
The City has a $100,000 annual unallocated budget to fund water conservation programs and
incentives, in addition to staff salaries and efforts related to metering. Under the City’s planned
conservation program, it is estimated that approximately 28 AF of water per year will be saved.
Given the City’s conservation program budget, it is estimated the City is spending just $3,500 -
$5,200 per AF conserved.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 38
The City plans to continue focusing on demand management as an alternative to near-term
construction of expensive storage, and will monitor and evaluate the situation through its
integrated planning process.
3. INTEGRATED PLANNING AND WATER EFFICIENCY BENEFITS AND
GOALS
The City of Aspen utilizes a Comprehensive Water Management Plan to direct the use of its
water rights and other resources to meet changing water demands while meeting the
environmental goals of maintaining decreed instream flow levels to promote a healthy aquatic
environment. Aspen has periodically updated studies on Raw Water Availability in order to
track commitments for water service and to establish the adequacy of raw water to meet the
changing levels of water demand over time. A complementary program is the Asset
Management Plan which directs financial resources to specific construction projects and
facilities required to develop added water supplies in a timely fas hion considering the changing
needs. Projects that will address any identified gaps between expected water demands and
available supplies are scheduled and implemented through this program. These related
documents have provided the basis to complete many projects and activities that have
maintained a balance between water supply and demand while respecting the environmental
goals of protection of decreed instream flows. For instance, the upgrade and expansion of the
City’s water treatment plant, improvements to raw water conveyance systems, the
development of the City’s well program (which is essentially development of groundwater
storage) and the water conservation program (particularly leak detection and correction) have
all resulted from direction provided by the Comprehensive Water Management Program. More
recently the activities undertaken to obtain water rights and construct a reclaimed water
project have followed from the Comprehensive Water Management Plan and will further
increase the availability of raw water supplies to the City’s water customers during critically dry
periods.
4. SELECTION OF WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The City of Aspen considered a wide variety of water efficiency programs and measures before
selecting the final components for inclusion in this plan. Efficiency measures were screened
using a variety of criteria including:
Feasibility and practicality.
Water savings and estimated cost per AF.
Potential to reduce peak water demands in the late summer irrigation season.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 39
The City utilized the CWCB’s Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document (CWCB 2012)
to inform and guide the development of this conservation plan, including the activity selection
worksheets to assist in the screening process.
4.1 SUMMARY OF THE SELECTION PROCESS
The City implemented a tiered screening and selection process for evaluating potential water
efficiency activities. Existing activities were included in the list of measures and unless
duplicative, existing activities are expected to continue as part of t he ongoing water efficiency
program.
Initial Screening. An initial screening was conducted by the consultant team, using the CWCB
screening and evaluation worksheets (CWCB, 2012) and the Guidebook of Best Practices
Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado (CWW, 2010) as the key technical
resources, along with professional experience. Activities that made it through the initial
screening were assembled and passed along to the staff for screening.
Final Screening. The final level of screening and selection of water efficiency activities was
made by the Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager. During the final screening,
care was taken to select a suite of activities capable of achieving the level of water savings
needed by Aspen to achieve the stated water efficiency goals.
This plan was carefully prepared to comply with State of Colorado planning requirements and
legislation, which does not currently include water quality a s part of the legal planning
requirement. Thus, water quality was not included in the water efficiency activities selection
criteria. However, the City understands that improving outdoor use efficiency to reduce
irrigation runoff has the potential to reduce nutrient flows into local streams and rivers,
providing an additional benefit from this water efficiency plan.
4.2 WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
Table 6 presents the new and updated water efficiency activities selected for inclusion in this
plan, many of which have been ongoing since at least 1992. Each measure is described in more
detail in the sections below.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 40
Table 6. New and Updated Water Efficiency Activities and Water Savings Estimates.
Water Efficiency Activities
Sectors
Impacted
Ongoing
Activity?
Implementation
Period of New
Activities
Projected Water
Savings 2015 -
2035 (AF/yr)
FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Automatic Meter Reading Installation
and Operation
All YES 2014-2018 for
existing & ongoing
for new customers
50
Enhanced Water Loss Control All annual 38
Conservation-Oriented Rates All YES 2015 – rate
structure update
145
TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES, AND NATURAL REPLACEMENT OF FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES
Fixtures, Appliances, and Incentives All, indoor YES Ongoing 100
Outdoor Water Efficiency All, outdoor YES Ongoing 20
Slow the Flow All YES Ongoing 30
Info and education, Farmer’s Market,
xeriscape seminars, Efficient Parks, etc.
All YES Ongoing 40
Commercial, Institutional, and
Industrial Water Efficiency
CII YES 2015 70
ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
Regulatory Measures All YES Ongoing
Water Reclaim and Recycling, Raw
Water Irrigation
Irrigation YES Ongoing
Waste of Water Ordinance Update All YES 2015
Update landscape development
regulations for new construction to
place emphasis on water efficiency in
residential development
SF & MF
residential
2018 50
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Public information, customer outreach
and education
All YES 1992 - present 40
Community outreach event
participation
All YES Before 2006 -
present
Utility billing inserts All YES 2008 - present
TOTAL SAVINGS THROUGH 2035 (AF/YEAR) 583
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 41
4.2.2 Foundational Activities
4.2.2.1 Metering
A robust metering program is fundamental to the success of water conservation efforts.
Colorado statute requires all water providers to met er the water use of their customers and to
bill based on metered consumption. In Aspen, approximately 98 % of the customers (including
most municipal facilities) are metered and billed based on metered consumption.9
Aspen uses the Aclara STAR Network Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system for
metering and billing purposes for approximately 800 of the 4,000 customer connections and is
in the process of implementing the system for all customers. Data are remotely transmitted,
and Aspen uses the AMI technology to complete weekly assessments of user accounts to
identify outlier data points that are then flagged for further investigation. City staff report that
the technology has been instrumental in identifying customer-side leaks and for general water
management and system improvements.
4.2.2.2 Enhanced Water Loss Control
Leak detection and water loss control are also fundamental water efficiency practices for all
water utilities. As discussed above in Section 2.4, system leakage in Aspen is currently
estimated to average approximately 4%, which is well below the 10% threshold that is often
estimated as the national average. This low rate of system leakage is not an accident, but
rather the product of a progressive water main replacement and repair program in Aspen.
Conducting an annual system water audit, using the AWWA M36 Water Audits and Loss Control
Programs methodology and the free AWWA water loss control Excel spreadsheet software, will
further assist the City in managing its water by categorizing all water uses and identifying real
losses that directly impact revenue, as shown in Table 7 below.
The process of implementing the AWWA water audit takes just a few hours each year, but the
results clearly show if water loss is a problem and evaluate the cost of real and apparent losses
to the utility. This information is essential for informing water loss control programs and
understanding where best to apply water loss control resource s.
9 It is common in Colorado for utilities to provide unlimited, free water to selected municipal connections based on
historical practice, and all usage is metered.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 42
Table 7. AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Categories.
4.2.2.3 Conservation-Oriented Water Rate Structure
Aspen currently bills its customers on a monthly basis using a four-tier inclining block rate
structure. This conservation-oriented rate structure has been in place since January 2006. The
City’s rate structure provides for 5,000 gallons per ECU per month in tier 1, an additional 10,000
gallons of water per ECU per month in tier 2, and additional 5,000 gallons per ECU per month in
tier 3, and all monthly usage greater than 20,000 gallons per ECU per month is billed at the tier
4 rate. The 5,000 gallon/ECU for block 1 is intended to represent a reasonable estimate of
indoor water use for the residential unit that can be approximated by a one bedroom, one
bathroom home with a fully equipped kitchen, and exterior hose bib; a typical residential unit is
equivalent to approximately 2.6 ECU. Given that the number of ECUs and the resultant billing is
based on the number of fixtures, it is possible that the current structure may be providing a tier
1 budget that is too large for larger homes. The City is considering changes that would take a
step toward addressing this issue. Separate rate structures apply to bulk water purchases and
raw water customers.
4.2.2.4 Billing System and Water Rates
Aspen utilizes a computerized billing system that includes approximately 800 AMI meters. The
AMI system enables frequent remote interrogation of water meters. The City is makes use of
the advanced technology to help identify leaks and abnormal usage.
The standard 2014 schedule of rates and charges for water customers in Aspen is shown in
Table 8. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014. (Rates are $/1,000 gallons. Tier gallons are
per ECU) In this rate structure, tier 2 represents a 29% increase over tier 1, tier 3 represents a
42% increase over tier 2, and tier 4 represents a 41% increase over tier 3. The rates themselves
are set based on Aspen’s cost of service requirements. The rates vary by billing area to more
Billed Water Exported
Billed Metered Consumption (including water exported)
Billed Unmetered Consumption
Unbilled Metered Consumption
Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
Unauthorized Consumption
Systematic Data Handling Errors
Leakage and Overflows at Utility's Storage Tanks
Leakage on Service Connections
Non-Revenue
Water
Revenue Water
Unbilled Authorized
Consumption
Real Losses
Billed Authorized
Consumption
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 43
accurately reflect the changes in the cost of service. Aspen provides a 10% discount on demand
and fire protection charges for qualified senior citizens. As of the date of this report, the City is
in the process of tightening the tiers by reducing the volume (in gallons) for each tier by 20%. If
approved by City Council, this rate change is targeted to become effective in January 2015. In
future updates, the City may consider creating separate tiers for indoor versus outdoor water,
and developing water budgets for irrigation that are based on irrigated area, planting materials,
and local evapotranspiration rates (which define plant demands).
Table 8. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014. (Rates are $/1,000 gallons. Tier gallons are
per ECU).
Rate Tier Water Rate
Tier 1 - Up to 5,000 gallons $1.90
Tier 2 - 5,001 to 15,000 gallons $2.46
Tier 3 - 15,001 to 20,000 gallons $3.51
Tier 4 - Greater than 20,000 gallons $4.96
Demand Charge ($/ECU/month)1 $4.57 to $9.15
Pumping Charge ($/1,000 gallons/month)2 $1.37 to $4.11
Fire Protection Charge ($/ECU/month)3 $1.54 to $3.08
1Demand charge varies with billing area.
2Pumping charge varies with the number of pump stations used.
3Fire protection charge varies with billing area.
The schedule of rates and charges for bulk water customers is shown in Table 9. Aspen
currently provides treated water at a wholesale rate under three scenarios: 1) treated w ater to
Aspen Ski Company for Aspen Mountain snowmaking; 2) treated water to 80 customers located
in West Buttermilk; and 3) treated water for filler hydrant draw permits. Most bulk water
charges are equal to the tier 4 rate. Bulk deliveries to West Buttermilk are subject to
contractual rates and charges.
Table 9. Bulk Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014.
Rate Tier Water Rate
Rate per 1,000 gallons1 $4.96
Demand Charge ($/use)2 $15.00
1Equivalent to Tier 4 for metered treated water use.
2Flat fee per use (e.g. each time a truck is filled).
The schedule of rates and charges for general raw water customers is shown in Table 10. There
are approximately 68 raw water accounts that are used for irrigation and snowmaking
purposes. Charges for pressurized raw water are the same as for bulk water, which are based
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 44
on tier 4 rates. Non-pressurized raw water deliveries for irrigation purposes are charged
according to the number of square feet of irrigated area.
Table 10. Raw Water Rates for 2014.
Rate Tier Water Rate
Rate per 1,000 gallons - hydrant1 $4.96
Rate - non-pressurized irrigation ($/1,000 sq. ft. of irrigation/year) $10.45
Demand Charge ($/use) $15.00
1Equivalent to Tier 4 for treated water use.
Aspen provides raw water from its municipal and irrigation water rights. This water can be
delivered from the Leonard Thomas Reservoir as well as other non-potable raw water supplies
according to the rates shown in Table 11. Raw water delivered from Thomas Reservoir is used
as a supply for irrigation in the Meadowood common area, the hospital, and medium-density
housing developments in the area, and can be used at other locations as well. Raw water
delivered from Thomas Reservoir is also used as the source of supply for snowmaking
operations at the Highlands Ski Resort. All customers are required to have a metered
connection; however, the rate structure provides for a backup billing mechanism based on
irrigated area under special circumstances.
Table 11. Thomas Raw Water Rates and Other Pressurized Non-Potable Water for 2014.
Rate Tier Water Rate
Rate per 1,000 gallons ($/year) $1.20
Rate per 1,000 square feet of irrigation ($/year)1 $47.91
Demand Charge ($/use) $15.00
1Bulk rate only allowable in exigent circumstances.
Aspen also has a schedule of punitive rates for unmetered water service as shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014 Unmetered Service.
Rate Tier Water Rate
Demand Charge ($/ECU/month)1 $79.96 to $159.92
Fire Protection Charge ($/ECU/month)2 $1.54 to $3.08
1Demand charge varies with billing area.
2Fire protection charge varies with billing area.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
In recent years the City has equipped approximately 800 of the customer connections have AMI
using the Aclara system, and the City uses this technology to identify potential leaks on a
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 45
weekly basis. In fact, staff check for abnormal usage three times a week, and contact
customers regarding potential leaks. This is a significant customer service benefit that has the
potential to reduce customer-side leakage.
This Aclara system has the capability of interrogating water meters hourly (or even more
frequently) and this allows for sophisticated analysis of flow patterns that can quickly identify
abnormal usage and leakage. As the City expands the use of this system, it may be possible to
dramatically reduce customer-side leakage through data analysis and rapid-alerts that identify
potentially wasteful water loss.
AMI metering is not without problems and the City’s pilot testing approach makes sense before
selecting a vendor and metering all customers. Regardless of the technology or system chosen,
the potential benefits of AMI for increased customer service and improved demand
management are significant and will be pursued.
4.2.3 Targeted Technical Assistance and Incentives
4.2.3.1 Fixtures, Appliances, and Incentives
As demands increase, Aspen will continue to face the combination of water supply limitations
that occur during periods of peak demand. This means that for Aspen there is value in reducing
its non-seasonal, or indoor, water uses. The gradual replacement of inefficient fixtures and
appliances and other water using devices is an excellent way to accomplish this objective.
Even though Aspen has an unusually low percentage of homes with older fixtures due to the
high penetration of remodels, Aspen still promotes the replacement of old and inefficient
toilets, showerheads, faucets, clothes washers, and dishwashers through its regular education
efforts. Aspen also has a series of monetary water efficiency incentives. In response to the 2002
drought, Aspen developed an innovative rebate program to incentivize customers to reduce
water use. Over the last decade, the City has offered rebates for water efficient clothes
washers, dishwashers, and toilets, and has provided free low-flow showerheads, hose spray
nozzles, hose irrigation timers, and soil moisture meters. The City currently provides a rebate
of $75 per low-flow toilet, and a maximum of 5 fixtures per residence are currently eligible for
the rebate. Senate Bill 14-103, that phases in the sale of only high-efficiency WaterSense
labeled fixtures in Colorado starting in 2016, may result in further indoor demand reductions
for Aspen in the future.
In the future, Aspen may consider targeted programs to non-residential customers, such as the
EPA H2Otel program.
4.2.3.2 Outdoor Water Efficiency
Aspen experiences high summer and late summer peak water demands due in part to the
tourism industry, but more significantly due to irrigation demands from customers. The City
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 46
implements a variety of programs and pricing mechanisms (described above) to improve
irrigation efficiency and reduce outdoor demands, and is considering additional programs to
help reduce late summer peaking effects. These measures are intended to complement the
City’s energy audit and rebate program.
Irrigation Information and Education. The City has taken a number of steps to help reduce
irrigation demands starting with customer education and extending through the conservation-
oriented water rate structure. The City actively promotes efficient irrigation practices and seeks
to reduce excessive use and waste. The City uses the water bill as an avenue for customer
communication. In the spring, the City sends a utility bill insert that focuses on water efficiency
programs, tips, and special offerings all designed around saving water. The City also has a very
robust landing page for utilities on its website that has various water conservation related links
and informational topics as well as a water use calculator.
Farmers Market. For many years the City has hosted an educational booth at the popular
Saturday Farmers Market. This has proven to be an effective and popular outreach program
that provides the opportunity to speak one on one with residents. These programs are
expected to continue into the future.
Xeriscape Gardening. The City offers annual xeriscape seminars for Aspen residents.
Slow the Flow. Aspen is an ongoing participant of the week-long “Slow the Flow Colorado”
program coordinated by the Center for Resource Conservation that provides free third-party
sprinkler irrigation audits. A total of 50 free audits were completed in 2013, and an additional
48 were completed in 2014. The City expanded the 2014 program to include the “garden in a
box” program, which is intended to simplify water-wise gardening by providing professional
“plant-by-number” designs, a selection of xeriscape plants, and planting and care instructions
all below retail costs.
Efficient Parks. Aspen leads by example through the efficient irrigation of parks and other
municipal facilities. All City parks, medians, and other irrigated areas that use pressurized water
are metered and billed based on their actual consumption. In 2008, the irrigation system at the
Municipal Golf Course was completely upgraded with new piping, irriga tion heads, and
controllers.
Future Efficiency Upgrades to City Facilities. The City will research and evaluate opportunities
to continue leading by example by incorporating the use of advanced irrigation system
technologies at municipal properties, such as rain shutoff devices, efficient sprinkler heads, and
weather-based controllers.
Conservation Oriented Water Rates. The City’s rate structure encourages outdoor water
efficiency by setting the tier 2 break point at 5,000 gallons/ECU/month, which att empts to
distinguish indoor use (tier 1) and outdoor use (tier 2 to tier 4). As noted above, modifications
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 47
to the tier thresholds may be needed to limit the tier 1 budget being provided to larger homes
with more fixtures.
Land Use Regulations for New Development. Described further below, the City may consider
land use restrictions for irrigated landscaping associated with new developments.
Drought Response. While not a long-term outdoor water conservation measure, in the event
of a climatological drought that affects the City’s supply, Aspen’s drought response regulations
outline the process for implementing outdoor watering restrictions to reduce demands as
required.
4.2.3.3 Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Water Efficiency
Aspen’s water conservation program for commercial, institutional, and industrial (CII) users
focuses on education and pricing mechanisms. Pricing water and wastewater services
appropriately has been shown to be an effective method for reducing water demands (Mayer
et. al. 2008), (Mayer et. al. 2004), (Howe, 1982). In Aspen, CII customers are billed for water
using the same rate structure as residential customers, which means that large users pay for
most of their water at the higher tier rates.
The hospitality industry in Aspen, the largest block of non-residential water customers, has
adopted a number of the best management practices. Guests at many Aspen lodging
establishments are encouraged not to change their sheets and towels every day unless
necessary. This has become an effective and successful industry-wide best-practice for hotels
and motels across the U.S. The City also encourages the replacement of old and inefficient
toilet fixtures in CII properties through the use of a rebate program. In 2011, the toilet rebate
program was modified to double the compensation for commercial and lodging facilities as
compared to residential ($150 vs $75), and allowed for an unlimited number of fixtures when
previously capped at 3.
Aspen started conducting internal water use assessments in 2007 to evaluate the consumption
in the City’s buildings and the water treatment plant. The findings of this investigation
prompted the replacement or upgrading of pumps and piping. In 2009, the City began working
with a private consultant to implement $1.2 million worth of energy and water efficiency
upgrades in 13 government-owned buildings. This provides Aspen an excellent opportunity to
expand into CII water efficiency upgrades through similar programs or through the Center for
Resource Conservation which is already implementing several programs for the City.
4.2.4 Ordinances and Regulations
4.2.4.1 Aspen Municipal Code
Aspen Municipal Code includes a number of important provisions related to water
Conservation. Section 25.20.020 prohibits the waste of water including indoor leakage and
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 48
leaking irrigation system. Sec. 25.20.080 requires consumer education about water
conservation. Text from these codes are provided below:
Sec. 25.20.020. Wasting of water prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person using
water from the City water system or any system connected thereto, to waste water. For
purposes of this Section, to waste water shall mean any of the following:
(a) The unnecessary running of water, which is not applied to any beneficial use, through
or out of any water closet, lavatory, urinal, bathtub, hose, hydrant, faucet or other
fixture, appliance or apparatus whatsoever, through the neglect or by reason of faulty or
imperfect plumbing or fixture; or
(b) The continuous application of water to lawns, sod, landscaping or amenity resulting
in ponding or the flowing of water into drainage or storm drainage facilities; or
(c) Failure to repair an irrigation system unit which is known to be leaking.
(Code 1971, §23-151; Ord. No. 27-1985, §1; Ord. No. 37-1991, §5)
Sec. 25.20.080. Consumer education. The Director of water shall develop a consumer
education program to provide water consumers with information relating to water
conservation. The consumer education program shall include, at a minimum, periodic
distribution to water consumers of brochures on various water conservation topics. In
addition, the Director of water may conduct seminars on water management techniques
for both residential and commercial irrigation systems.
(Code 1971, § 23-157; Ord. No. 37-1991, § 6)
4.2.4.2 Regulatory Measures
On June 10, 2014 Governor Hickenlooper signed Senate Bill 14-103 into law, which will phase
out the sale of old, inefficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets, and substitute high -efficiency,
third party tested products in their place by 2016. This is a significant indoor water
conservation provision that has the potential to reduce indoor demands over time in Aspen and
across Colorado.
Given the challenge of addressing the late summer peaking issue, the City may consider
including limitations on landscaping materials and the amount of irrigated area allowed under
future water service agreements. Managing outdoor landscaping demands through land use
regulations for new development is being considered throughout Colorado and provides an
opportunity to reduce the impact from future demands.
The City has a water conservation and plumbing advisory code component of its Building and
Building Regulations, Title 8, of Aspen Municipal Code. Included in this chapter are codes
mandating the installation of high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, specific landscape and irrigation
system requirements, and soil amendment requirements. This code contains strong water
conservation provisions. The soil amendment provision is particularly good. Some of the
plumbing fixture components of this code will likely be exceeded by the State-level WaterSense
legislation passed in 2014.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 49
Relevant sections of Aspen’s municipal code are provided below.
Chapter 8.40
WATER CONSERVATION AND PLUMBING ADVISORY CODE
Sec. 8.40.010. Applicability.
The provisions of this Chapter shall govern the construction and the landscaping of new
residential, commercial and industrial structures and the remodeling of existing
residential, commercial and industrial structures within the City. (Code 1971, § 7-231;
Ord. No. 43-1981, § 1)
Sec. 8.40.020. Installation of high-efficiency fixtures.
No building permit shall be issued for the construction of a new residential, commercial
or industrial structure or for the indoor or outdoor remodeling of an existing commercial,
residential or industrial structure unless the design, construction or remodeling
incorporates high-efficiency plumbing fixtures. In the instance of indoor or outdoor
remodeling, compliance with this Section shall be limited to that portion of the structure
for which a building permit is issued.
High-efficiency plumbing fixtures shall be defined as those fixtures which comply with
the following standards for water use:
(a) All water closets designed not to exceed a flow rate of one point 6 (1.6)
gallons per flush.
(b) Urinals designed not to exceed one point zero (1.0) gallons per flush. The use
of automatic time flush devices for urinals shall not be permitted.
(c) Shower heads designed not to exceed a flow rate of (two point five (2.5)
gallons per minute.
(d) Lavatory, kitchen and service faucets designed not to exceed a flow rate of
two point 2 (2.2) gallons per minute.
(e) All commercial lavatories equipped with spring-loaded faucets that close
when not in use or faucets that are equipped with metering valves that close
automatically after delivering a maximum of twenty-five (25) gallons, except for
required handicapped facilities which may be equipped with faucets designed for
the handicapped.
(f) Exceptions. Restaurant kitchen faucets and safety showers shall be exempted
from the above flow restrictions.
Other types of high-efficiency fixtures may be permitted provided that those fixtures are
proven to use no more water than those fixtures defined as high-efficiency fixtures. Such
proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the Building Department Official reviewing the
application for a building permit. (Code 1971, § 7-232; Ord. No. 43-1981, § 1; Ord. No.
37-1991, § 1)
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 50
Sec. 8.40.030. Landscaping criteria; grass species, irrigation.
(a) To the extent practicable and consistent with the proposed design and use of the
property, landscaping shall utilize, for grassy areas, grasses which have the effect of
minimizing the consumptive use of water applied to such grass for irrigation. The
Director of Parks shall promulgate an advisory list of drought tolerant grass species and
acceptable mixtures of such species. This list shall be updated as research and experience
dictate.
(b) For all outside irrigation, the development proposal shall include, to the extent
practicable, an irrigation system which would incorporate only equipment of the most
water-conserving type commercially available at the time the proposal is submitted for
approval. Additionally, all irrigation shall be undertaken with raw water if possible. At a
minimum, irrigation systems shall:
(1) Be equipped with time-activated automatic control clocks and shutoff valves.
(2) Be equipped with sprinkler heads of a type which provide the most uniform
coverage feasible and maximum feasible droplets sized to reduce evaporation
and wind disturbance of the coverage (pulsating type).
(3) Where the slope gradient of the proposed development so requires, be
designed to control flow for the purpose of reducing runoff. (Code 1971, § 7-233;
Ord. No. 43-1981, § 1; Ord. No. 37-1991, § 2)
Sec. 8.40.050. Soil preparation.
No building permit shall be granted for the construction of a new residential, commercial
or industrial structure unless the design of all landscaping areas primarily devoted to the
cultivation of any species of grass for aesthetic purposes and not for agricultural food
production, includes proper soil preparation as hereinafter defined.
Soil preparation shall be defined as the addition to existing soils of a minimum of three
(3) cubic yards per one thousand (1,000) square feet of organic matter introduced by
tilling, discing or other suitable method to a minimum depth of four (4) inches.
Acceptable organic matter shall include compost, peat moss, aged manures, aged
sawdust or any combination of the above. (Code 1971, § 7-235; Ord. No. 37-1991, § 3)
4.2.4.3 Reclaimed Water and Recycling
Aspen is in the process of implementing a reclaimed water system that will increase the
availability of water in Castle Creek by shifting a portion of the diversions for the Aspen Golf
Course and other irrigation demands to utilize treated wastewater effluent as a source of
supply rather than to rely on delivery of water from Castle Creek. Since the treated water
system relies on this same source of supply and because the City wishes to maintain a 13.3 cfs
instream flow for aquatic habitat even during critically dry periods, this shift will free up an
additional 1.0 million gallons per day of new supply. The Reclaimed Water System will be
completed in 2015.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 51
4.2.5 Public Education and Information
A key component of Aspen’s water efficiency plan focuses on end-user education and
information. Aspen has provided ongoing water use awareness education and conducted
customer outreach since as early as 1992 and it is a requirement of Aspen Municipal Code as
described above.
Public education and information efforts are ongoing, and Water Department staff regularly
attend community events for outreach purposes. The City regularly provides information to
customers about ways to conserve water and avoid water waste through flyers and bill inserts
and the utility maintains conservation materials and information that are available upon
request. Aspen's website includes a webpage with water conservation tips and drought
management resources. Aspen’s website also features a water calculator where customers can
develop an estimate of their water use.
Aspen intends to explore opportunities to expand its education and outreach to target specific
customer classes such as peak users and visitors. For example, there may be opportunities to
educate visitors by expanding energy efficiency programs that have been implemented in the
past with the hotel and hospitality industries, or by exploring other programs such as the EPA
WaterSense H2Otel Challenge, which 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.
5. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN
The City’s Water Department staff are primarily responsible for implementation of this plan,
and has been successfully implementing the City’s water and energy efficiency programs since
2006. The City will continue to budget money and may pursue CWCB water efficiency grants to
further achieve its water efficiency goals.
5.1 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Aspen will review and update this Water Efficiency Plan at least every seven years, or as
needed. The City monitors water use on a regular basis and will maintain consumption records.
Progress towards meeting the conservation goal can be evaluated when the conservation plan
is next updated and into the future using empirical data. This tracking analysis will help
determine what (if any) additional conservation program measures are necessary to help Aspen
meet its stated goal by 2035.
Beyond tracking water efficiency progress every seven years, water efficiency program impacts
are evaluated annually. The annual accounting summarizes total treate d water production, the
number of accounts in the system, metered deliveries, and estimates of both production and
customer meter adjustments. This allows an estimate of annual losses to be made. For its AMI
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 52
customers, the City also monitors water use on a weekly basis. Staff prepare reports and
personally contact customers with unexpected or abnormal water use, sometimes identifying
leaks before the customers are aware of them.
When the conservation plan is updated, new forecasts will be developed and the adequacy of
the City’s water supplies will be compared to future demand forecasts. If necessary, the City
will adopt additional demand management measures. The evaluation completed for this plan
indicates that provided the elements of this plan are successfully implemented, Aspen will have
sufficient raw water supply to meet forecast future treated water demands within the 20 year
planning period (without factoring in additional climate change impact). However, the supply is
vulnerable to streamflow hydrology, particularly in late summer months, and emergencies that
prevent access to or use of one or more supply sources. A further provision regarding the
adequacy of supply is that existing water supply projects including the reclaimed water project
and efforts to increase available supplies from the City’s wellfield must be successfully
implemented. The City is monitoring hydrology trends and emphasizing demand managemen t
to mitigate this vulnerability.
5.2 REVENUE STABILITY
Revenue stability is a critical concern for the City of Aspen as it moves forward with the water
efficiency program. The City’s focus on water efficiency since the 1990’s has resulted in
decreased water use; and lower water sales mean reduced revenue. Water rates inevitably
must rise to collect sufficient funds to cover fixed costs, which continue rising as aging
infrastructure is repaired and replaced, and with inflation, the need to protect water rights and
supplies, etc. Nationally, water costs are rising faster than costs for other utilities like energy,
telephone, and cable; so water rates are rising (AWE 2013). While conservation is often
perceived as the cause of increased water rates, it can actually help reduce the need for
expansion of infrastructure and treatment costs.
The City of Aspen’s water rate structure is designed to promote revenue stability and efficiency
of water use. It includes a variable demand charge component based on the number of ECUs to
provide for revenue stability and increasing rate tiers designed to promote efficiency. The City
does anticipate a growth in water demand over time as the population grows. Water efficiency
as practiced by the City of Aspen and its water customers helps ensure water rates remain as
low as reasonably possible for customers, because efficiency is being achieved at a lower cost
than procuring new supplies or constructing new infrastructure.
Long-term planning is critically important for revenue stability and anticipating changes in
water use. Demand forecasting and quantifying responses to water efficiency programs
(including rate changes) provide valuable information for forecasting future revenue and
making necessary adjustments in advance of realizing a shortfall. Although such efforts are time
intensive and require customer education, experts recommend adjusting revenue collection
annually to allow for more immediate response to changes in costs and demand.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 53
6. PUBLIC REVIEW, ADOPTION, AND APPROVAL OF WATER EFFICIENCY
PLAN
6.1 PUBLIC REVIEW
The public review process is described in Appendix A. A total of one set of comments were
received during the 60 day comment period. To the extent possible, comments were addressed
in this updated plan.
6.2 WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN ADOPTION
City of Aspen Utilities staff reviewed this Water Efficiency Plan and made comments, after
which the public review period began. The plan was updated to address public comments, and
then presented to the City Council during a work session on June 15, 2015. The Water Efficiency
Plan was subsequently updated to address comments from the City Council. On [DATE], the City
Council adopted the plan with the updates included in this final version. A copy of the City
Council Resolution [TO BE ADDED] adopting the Water Efficiency Plan is included in Appendix A.
6.3 WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN APPROVAL
The draft Water Efficiency Plan was submitted to the CWCB Office of Water Conservation and
Drought Planning on January 5, 2015, during the public review period. CWCB comments were
addressed in this updated final version. On [DATE], the City received official notification that
the plan was approved by the CWCB.
7. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Colorado Revised Statute § 37-60-126 requires a covered entity to develop, adopt, make
publicly available, and implement a water conservation (efficiency) 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.
Key elements that must be fully evaluated in development of the plan are listed as follows:
A. Water-saving measures and programs including:
I. water-efficient fixtures and appliances;
II. low water use landscapes, drought-resistant vegetation, removal of
phreatophytes, and efficient irrigation;
III. water-efficient industrial and commercial water-using processes;
IV. water reuse systems;
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 54
V. distribution system leak identification and repair;
VI. information and education;
VII. conservation-oriented rate structures and billing systems;
VIII. regulatory measures designed to encourage water conservation;
IX. incentives to implement water conservation techniques including rebates.
B. Role of conservation in the entity’s supply planning.
C. Plan implementation, monitoring, review, and revision.
D. Future review of plan within seven years.
E. Estimated savings from previous conservation efforts as well as estimates from
implementation of current plan and new plan.
F. A 60-day minimum public comment period (or other time period based on local
ordinance).
The following section of the plan details Aspen’s compliance with this statute.
7.1 ASPEN WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN COMPLIANCE
The City of Aspen developed this conservation plan in order to comply with C.R.S. § 37-60-126.
Each element of compliance is documented below.
A. Consideration of specific conservation measures.
(I) Fixture and appliances – The City actively promotes the installation of water efficient
fixtures and appliances through its Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory code
which places specific requirements on new construction. The City has carefully
considered and evaluated the costs and benefits associated with give -aways, rebates,
and incentives to encourage more rapid adoption of efficient technology, and has
offered incentives in the past. Additional expenditures for incentives are economically
justified in order to help reduce demand, and because of State regulations mandating
WaterSense labeled fixtures in the future, and the resulting benefit-cost analysis.
(II) Water wise landscape –The City implements a variety of programs and pricing
mechanisms to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce outdoor demands, and is
considering additional programs to help reduce late summer peaking effects. These
measures are intended to complement the City’s energy audit and rebate program.
Specifically, the City implements an irrigation information and education program,
periodically provides in-person efficiency information all summer long at the Aspen
Farmer’s Market, offers xeriscape seminars, provides free irrigation audits via Slow the
Flow, requires efficient irrigation at City parks, and has specific irrigation and soil
preparation requirements for new development.
(III) Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) measures – Aspen’s water conservation
program for commercial, institutional, and industrial (CII) users focuses on education
and pricing mechanisms. Guests at many Aspen lodging establishments are encouraged
not to change their sheets and towels every day unless necessary. In 2011, the toilet
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 55
rebate program was modified to double the compensation for commercial and lodging
facilities as compared to residential ($150 vs $75), and allowed for an unlimited number
of fixtures when previously capped at 3.
Aspen started conducting internal water use assessments in 2007 to evaluate the
consumption in the City’s buildings and the water treatment plant. The findings of this
investigation prompted the replacement or upgrading of pumps and piping. In 2009, the
City began working with a private consultant to implement $1.2 million worth of energy
and water efficiency upgrades in 13 government-owned buildings. This provides Aspen
an excellent opportunity to expand into CII water efficiency upgrades through similar
programs or through the Center for Resource Conservation which is already
implementing several programs for the City.
(IV) Water reuse systems – Treated wastewater effluent from the wastewater plant will
be reused for irrigation and possibly snowmaking. The City also provides raw water for
irrigation.
(V) Water loss and system leakage reduction – System leakage in Aspen is currently
estimated to average approximately 4%, which is well below the 10% threshold that is
often estimated as the national average. This low rate of system leakage is not an
accident, but rather the product of a progressive and ongoing water main replacement
and repair program in Aspen. In the future, Aspen plans to implement the AWWA M36
Water Audit annually.
(VI) Information and public education – A key component of Aspen’s water efficiency
efforts is public education and information. The City regularly provides information to
customers about ways to conserve water and avoid water waste through participation
at community forums, flyers and bill stuffers, and the utility maintains conservation
materials and information that are available upon request. The City hosts a booth at the
Aspen Farmers Market where citizens can get in-person advice on energy and water
efficiency.
(VII) Water rate structure – Aspen currently bills most of its customers on a monthly
basis using a four-tier inclining block rate structure. Updates strengthening the price
signal for high water users in this conservation-oriented rate structure take effect in
January 2015.
(VIII) Technical assistance – none was requested for development of this plan.
(IX) Regulatory measures – Aspen has a number of significant water efficiency regulatory
measures include:
Water waste ordinance
Consumer conservation education requirement
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 56
Water conservation building code
o High-efficiency fixtures
o Landscaping and irrigation criteria
o Soil preparation
(X) Incentives – Due to considerable remodeling and upgrading in Aspen, incentives are
not a particularly cost‐effective inducement to conservation, given the requirements
currently in place for efficient fixtures. Regardless, Aspen has provided a wide variety of
incentives for water conservation over the past 15 years and will continue to do so on
an “as needed” basis.
B. Role of conservation in Aspen supply planning. This Water Efficiency Plan represents
Aspen’s most comprehensive effort to integrate water conservation into water supply
planning. Through this plan, the City has established that its raw water supply is
adequate to meet anticipated future growth, although lack of existing storage means
that Aspen remains at risk of shortages when streamflows are low, or when emergency
conditions prevent or limit use of one or more sources of supply. Moreover, the demand
projections in this plan do not factor in impacts of additional future climate changes.
C. Plan implementation, monitoring, review, and revision. The City monitors water use
on a regular basis and will continue to do so. The City produces monthly and annual
demand reports for each customer sector and the system as a whole and keeps close
track of demand. Aspen will review and update this water conservation plan every
seven years or as needed. During this review, progress towards achieving the stated
conservation goal will be evaluated.
D. Future review of plan within seven years. Aspen will review and update this water
conservation plan every seven years or as needed.
E. Estimated savings from previous conservation efforts and current plan. Over the
twenty-year forecasting period under the City’s conservation program, annual de mand
rises from 3,377 acre-feet to 3,597 acre-feet and results in a savings of 583 AF/yr. The
impact of past water conservation efforts since 1990 is estimated at 4,238 AF of water
savings annually.
F. Public comment period. A 60-day public review process was held from December 24,
2014 through February 27, 2015. During this period, one person submitted written
comments. The comments and responses from the City of Aspen are provided in
Appendix A. To the extent possible, comments were addressed in this updated plan but
did not result in any major changes.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 57
8. ROARING FORK REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
The development of the City of Aspen Water Efficiency Plan was a collaborative effort funded
by a Colorado Water Conservation Board grant as part of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Water Efficiency Plan. The Regional Water Efficiency Plan is published under separate cover and
focuses on regional opportunities to increase municipal water efficiency. The City’s Water
Efficiency Plan has potential to directly impact flows in the Roaring Fork River, although Aspen
cannot guarantee that water it saves through conservation efforts will benefit the entire reach
of the Roaring Fork to the extent that other downstream water users may divert that water out
of the river.
The City is interested in regional partnership to improve water efficiency and is committed to
assisting with the implementation of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan. Examples of Aspen’s
previous participation in regional activities include:
Helped fund the Ruedi Water and Power Authority for its first 20 years;
Partnered with Roaring Fork Conservancy on educational programs and tours;
Has a board member on the Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative;
Partnership with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District on reuse/reclamation project;
Agreement with Colorado Water Conservation Board for use of Aspen’s senior water
right to protect decreed flow on Hunter Creek and agreement with Colorado Water
Conservation Board for protection of decreed instream flow on Castle Creek;
Colorado Water Trust pilot program involving a forbearance agreement that enhances
streamflows in the Aspen reach of Roaring Fork River; and
Cooperative agreements and projects with Colorado River Water Conservation District,
Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Company and others to provide streamflow protection for
the Roaring Fork River in connection with operation of transmountain diversion
projects.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 58
Figure 12. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency Plan.
9. REFERENCES
Alliance for Water Efficiency (2013, June). Our Current Revenue Loss Dilemma: Is Customer
Conservation Really the Culprit? Introductory Webinar.
Aspen (2014). Information downloaded from Frequently Asked Questions page of the City of
Aspen website.
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/CommRelations/FAQHYDRO.pdf
CIRES Western Water Assessment (2014, March). Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to
Support Management and Adaptation, Draft (Version 3).
Colorado Water Conservation Board (2012, July). Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance
Document.
Colorado WaterWise (2010). Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water
Conservation in Colorado.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
AUGUST 20, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 59
Howe, C. W. (1982). The Impact of Price on Residential Water Demand: Some New
Insights. Water Resources Research 18(4):713-16.
Lukas et al. (2014). Climate Change in Colorado. Western Water Assessment.
Mayer, P.W. et. al. (2008, May). Water Budgets and Rate Structures: Innovative Management
Tools. Journal of the American Water Works Association. Vol. 100, No. 5.
Mayer, P.W, et. al. (2004). National Submetering and Allocation Billing Program Study – Project
Overview and Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the Water Sources Conference 2004, Austin,
TX. Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.
SWSI (2010). Statewide Water Supply Initiative 2010 Final Report, Colorado Water Conservation
Board.
USGS (2013). Water-Data Report 2013, 09085000 Roaring Fork at Glenwood Springs, CO.
http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2013/pdfs/09085000.2013.pdf
Western Regional Climate Center (2014, WRCC). Aspen 1 SW, Colorado Period of Record
Climate Summary from `980 to 2012, Station No. 050372.
Wilson Water Group, previously Grand River Consulting (2014, September). Personal
communication with Tyler Benton.
APPENDICES
PAGE A-1
APPENDIX A
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS,
AND OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
A1. PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT
A Public Notice (reprinted below) was published on December 24, 2014, through the City of
Aspen website: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Utilities/Water. Public comments
on the Municipal Water Efficiency Plan for City of Aspen were requested via email by February
27, 2015 to: WaterAdmin@cityofaspen.com.
Press Release
Public Input Requested for Aspen’s Draft Water Efficiency Plan
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Public Input Requested for Aspen’s Draft Water Efficiency Plan
Contact: Lee Ledesma, Finance and Administrative Services Manager, Utilities Department, City
of Aspen, 429-1975 or lee.ledesma@cityofaspen.com.
Aspen, Colorado – December 24, 2014 – The City of Aspen has completed a draft of an
updated water efficiency plan and is requesting public input. The plan is being updated as
part of the City’s participation in a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Plan, which is a
partnership between Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The
report is designed to look at future demand and efficiency measures with the goal of benefiting
and enhancing the stream flow in the upper Roaring Fork River basin. To read the report and
get information on how to comment go to www.aspenpitkin.com and click on Water
Department. The deadline for comments is February 27, 2015.
###
Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2014
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS,
AND OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
PAGE A-2
A2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The 60-day public review process was held from December 24, 2014 through February 27,
2015. During this period, one person submitted written comments. The comments and
responses from the City of Aspen are presented below.
A2.1 COMMENTS RECEIVED
The comments received are reprinted below, as received.
Thank you for accepting my feedback in response to the City of Aspen’s Municipal
Water Efficiency (WE) Plan. I welcome the opportunity to discuss my notes with your
team in-person should that help inform Plan refinements. While it appears the report is
focused primarily on Water Quantity; there is excellent opportunity to illustrate the
parallel benefits of improved Water Quality. Too, the topics listed below are primarily
focused on outdoor water conservation as informed by my professional practice—
registered Landscape Architect.
Opportunities for additional WE activities/education (page 40):
Climate—reduce contributors to increasing temperatures
Reduce risk of catastrophic events—slides, fires, etc
Temperatures (reduce heat island effect)
Restore/protect aquatic systems
Require or incentivize for preservation/protection of native, undisturbed areas of
soil/plants
Soil/vegetation work together, protect together—reduce disturbance + protect
Existing Veg/Soil/Water—protect
Proposed Veg/Soil/Water—xeric, organic
Consider solar exposure and effect on irrigation/water needs
Manage precipitation on site—reduce hardscape, mimic nature/treatment train, direct
roof and other runoff into planting beds, future possibility to manage/collect/store
runoff
Functional stormwater features as amenities—integrate functional stormwater features
(review as Plan may complement and/or conflict with City Engineering regulations)
Reduce water use in landscape/reduce irrigation/xeric/drip—mandate limitations
Require irrigation be non-potable if available to property
Reduce outdoor water use—pools, spas, water features, snowmelt (evapo loss), etc
Provide detailed xeric plant list as informed by appropriate
elevation/aspect/precipitation/etc
Consider wind exposure (impact to water needs, irrigation inefficiencies)
Landscape maintenance standards
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS,
AND OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
PAGE A-3
Detailed inventory of City of Aspen parks, open space and similar public lands,
inventory to consider:
Use of treated water for irrigation
Use Kentucky Bluegrass (define acreage)
Maintenance plan
Planting plan (xeric versus non)
Irrigation plan (drip versus spray)
Detailed inventory of Districts/School, as relevant
Same as above
Consider acknowledgment:
City Engineering standards—high quality guidelines and regulations
City code—aquatic systems currently protected (riparian buffers, wetlands, streams)
Despite Colorado Water Law, integrate a wish-list for future implementation
opportunities such as
Rainwater harvesting, graywater reuse, etc.
Education/awareness—opportunities for field-demonstrations of vision implemented
by City at City owned parks and open/space, such as:
Zoned irrigation, drip, temporary for establishment versus permanent
Turfgrass species location appropriate
Consider ‘natural’ swimming pools
Low-impact, aesthetically awesome stormwater design
Green roofs
Detention/retention
Consider pilot projects:
http://water.state.co.us/SurfaceWater/SWRights/Pages/RainwaterGraywater.aspx
A2.2 RESPONSES FROM CITY OF ASPEN
Thank for you for taking the time and effort to prepare these useful comments. Below is a
summary of how these comments were addressed in the Water Efficiency Plan. Please
understand that it is not possible to incorporate all of the recommendations submitted.
A2.2.1 Treated Water Supply
The City understands that reducing irrigation runoff has the potential to reduce nutrient flows into local
streams and rivers and is an additional benefit of this water efficiency plan, with its focus on outdoor
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS,
AND OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
PAGE A-4
watering and irrigation efficiency. As noted in the comments, the City of Aspen Water
Efficiency Plan is focused entirely on water quantity and does not touch on water quality.
Aspen’s plan was carefully prepared to comply with State of Colorado planning requirements
and legislation, which does not currently include water quality as part of the legal planning
requirement.
The City hopes to incorporate ideas for reducing runoff and improving water quality in the
coming years through the consideration of a model landscape ordinance , which is further
described in the Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed .
A2.2.2 Water Efficiency Activities and Education
The City of Aspen actively promotes water efficiency through a variety of informational and
educational efforts described in this plan. In addition, the City plans to research and develop a
local landscape ordinance that will help ensure new and remodeled landscapes and irrigat ion
systems incorporate best practices for water efficiency. This will provide an opportunity to
incorporate some of the recommendations from the comments on solar exposure and
landscape maintenance standards.
Some of the items listed in the comments such as “reduce risk of catastrophic events – slides,
fires, etc.” are not directly linked to existing or proposed water efficiency activities and may be
considered for inclusion in a future plan update, or in a different context such as a regional plan
or climate resiliency plan.
Aspen has provided ongoing water use awareness education and has conducted customer
outreach since as early as 1992, and it is a requirement of Aspen Municipal Code as described
above. Public education and information efforts are ongoing, and Water Department staff
regularly attend community events for outreach purposes. The City regularly provides
information to customers about ways to conserve water and avoid water waste through flyers
and bill stuffers and the utility maintains conservation materials and information that are
available upon request. Aspen's website includes a webpage with water conservation tips and
drought management resources. Aspen’s website also features a water calculator where
visitors can develop an estimate of their water use.
A2.2.3 Inventory of City of Aspen Parks and School Properties
All City parks, medians, and other irrigated areas that use pressurized water are metered and
billed based on their actual consumption. In 2008, the irrigation system at the Municipal Golf
Course was completely upgraded with new piping, irrigation heads, and controllers. Irrigation
systems on selected parks and open spaces have been converted to the alluvial groundwater
supply system, which frees up treated water for other municipal purposes.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC NOTICE ANNOUNCEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENTS,
AND OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
PAGE A-5
The City of Aspen Parks Department manages the City’s parks. This management includes
landscaping, irrigation and water management. School landscapes are designed and
maintained by the local school district. Maintaining landscape inventories and irrigation system
information are tasks that are accomplished by other departments and staff. Working with the
Parks Department and school district to identify potential for additional water demand
management may be considered in future plan updates.
A2.2.4 Acknowledgement of City Codes and Standards
The City does have regulations on riparian buffers and wetlands related to stormwater runoff.
As stormwater runoff is outside the purview of this plan, these regulations are not explicitly
discussed. Aspen does, however, provide stormwater quality treatment.
A2.2.5 Wish List “Despite Colorado Water Law”
While the City did not incorporate a “wish list” related to Colorado water law as part of its plan,
this topic is addressed and included in the Roaring Fork Regional Water Efficiency Plan. The
Regional Plan was made available for public review on March 10, 2015.
A3. OFFICIAL PLAN ADOPTION RESOLUTION
City of Aspen Utilities staff reviewed this Water Efficiency Plan and made comments, after
which the public review period began. The plan was updated to address public comments, and
then presented to the City Council during a work session on June 15, 2015. The Water Efficiency
Plan was subsequently updated to address comments from the City Council. On [DATE], the City
Council adopted the plan with the updates included in this fi nal version. A copy of the City
Council Resolution [TO BE ADDED] adopting the Water Efficiency Plan is attached.