HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150615
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 15, 2015
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan review
II. Regional Water Efficiency Plan Review
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma and Phil Overeynder
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: June 8, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 15, 2015
RE: Worksession – City of Aspen Municipal Water Efficiency Plan
Review
Attached as Exhibit A is a draft copy of the City of Aspen Municipal Water Efficiency Plan –
2015 prepared by staff in conjunction with the consulting team of ELEMENT Water Consulting
and Water Demand Management. This plan was prepared as part of a regional Roaring Fork
water efficiency planning process that included Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood
Springs and was funded in part by a grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Colorado Law
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.
Efficiency Measures
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
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 resulting in a reduction in water demands as well as
providing a reasonable cost savings for water utility customers.
• Landscaping regulations for new development,
• 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.
P1
I.
Page 2 of 2
History of Demand Management
The City has demonstrated a long-term commitment to wise water stewardship and responsible
and efficient use of its water resources. The City has been implementing a water conservation
plan since 1996. Although the 1996 plan did not contain all of the necessary elements to meet
the current requirements of the statute, it was quite progressive for the period, and is believed to
be one of the first municipal efficiency planning efforts completed in Colorado.
Efficiency Goal
In the 2015 efficiency plan, the City has established an 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
over 550 acre-feet per year – 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.
Next Steps
The Colorado Water Conservation Board has reviewed and given preliminary approval to
Aspen’s water efficiency plan as being in full compliance with state law. Once the plan is
reviewed and approved by City Council and final changes are incorporated, the plan will be
officially submitted to the CWCB. The 60-day public review period ended in February. Only one
set of comments was received, and these were addressed and incorporated into the updated plan
provided to City Council.
Aspen’s water efficiency plan is one component of the regional municipal water efficiency
project that has resulted in a draft Regional Water Efficiency Plan. The Regional Water
Efficiency Plan public review process was initiated in March, and a public meeting was held on
March 31. The 60-day public review process ended in May 2015. The goals of the Regional
Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to implement municipal water
efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and more effective benefits,
compared to implementing the same programs individually.
Staff has spent over a year’s worth of effort in creating this document and we look forward to
recommendations from City Council prior to placing this on council agenda for adoption. Staff
plans on presenting a resolution for adoption and final version of Municipal Efficiency plan to
council this summer.
Attachment: Exhibit A – City of Aspen Municipal Water Efficiency Plan - Draft
P2
I.
CITY OF ASPEN WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 4, 2014
Municipal Water Efficiency Plan
City of Aspen, Colorado
ELEMENT Water Consulting & WaterDM June 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
P3
I.
MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
City of Aspen, Colorado
PREPARED BY
P.O. BOX 140785
DENVER, CO 80214
AND
1339 HAWTHORN AVENUE
BOULDER, CO 80304
June 8, 2015
P4
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE ii
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
P5
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE iii
5. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................... 51
5.1 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 51
5.2 Revenue Stability .......................................................................................................... 52
6. ADOPTION, PUBLIC REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN ....................... 52
6.1 Water Efficiency Plan Adoption ................................................................................... 52
6.2 Public Review ................................................................................................................ 53
6.3 Approval of Water Efficiency Plan ................................................................................ 53
6.3.1 Local Approval ........................................................................................................... 53
6.3.2 CWCB 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
P6
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE iv
Table 12. Water Rates and Rate Structure for 2014 Unmetered Service. ................................... 44
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
P7
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE v
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.
P8
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.)
P9
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P10
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 i mpact 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 irriga tion 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
P11
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 demand 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 water supply to its customers. The timing,
cost and ultimate configuration of the storage reservoirs will continue to be evaluated.
P12
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 an 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
P13
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER COUNCIL REVIEW
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 River 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.
P14
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 bod y.
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/.
P15
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P16
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P17
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 (Aspen 2014). 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" and 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.
P18
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 m ust 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
P19
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 Meadowood 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
P20
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 chem icals 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.
P21
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P22
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 f or 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 grav ity
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
P23
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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, three 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
P24
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P25
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 remodels, 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
P26
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P27
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P
2
8
I
.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P29
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P
3
0
I
.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P31
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P32
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 customers 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.
P33
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P34
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 implementing 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
P35
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 an y 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 p opulation over the time period.
P36
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P37
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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).
P38
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P39
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 methodology 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 customer 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.
P40
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P41
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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).
P42
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 legislation 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
P43
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 temperatures 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.
P44
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P45
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 th e
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 fashion 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.
P46
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 the 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 as 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 re duce
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.
P47
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P48
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 meter 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 resources.
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.
P49
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 addit ional 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
P50
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 b y 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 water 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
P51
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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
P52
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 effici ent 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
P53
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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, irrigation heads, and
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 attempts to
distinguish indoor use (tier 1) and outdoor use (tier 2 to tier 4). As noted above, modifications
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.
P54
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 47
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 rel ated to water
Conservation. Section 25.20.020 prohibits the waste of water including indoor leakage and
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:
P55
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 48
(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 thr ough 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.
Relevant sections of Aspen’s municipal code are provided below.
P56
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 49
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)
P57
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P58
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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 on going, 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 visitors can
develop an estimate of their water use.
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 treated 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
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
P59
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 52
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.
6. ADOPTION, PUBLIC REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF WATER EFFICIENCY
PLAN
6.1 WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN ADOPTION
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER LOCAL APPROVAL
P60
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 53
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 reviewed … add information about staff workshop.
6.2 PUBLIC REVIEW
A Public Notice was published on December 24, 2014, through the City of Aspen website:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Utilities/Water. Public comments on the City of
Aspen Municipal Water Efficiency Plan were requested via email by February 27, 2015. During
this 60-day public review process, one person submitted written comments. To the extent
possible, comments were addressed in the revised plan but did not result in any major changes.
Copies of public notice announcements, all public comments, and the official plan adoption
resolution are provided in Appendix A.
6.3 APPROVAL OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER LOCAL APPROVAL
6.3.1 Local Approval
Public comments and proposed changes were presented to the Aspen City Council on XXXX. The
City Council formally adopted the Water Efficiency Plan on XXXX.
6.3.2 CWCB Approval
The City of Aspen Water Efficiency Plan was submitted to the CWCB Office of Water Conservation
and Drought Planning on January 5, 2015, during the public review period. On February 10, 2015
the City received official notification that the plan was conditionally approved by the CWCB,
pending the completion of the public review process and local adoption. The final plan was
submitted to the CWCB and approved on XXXX.
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:
P61
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 54
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;
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
P62
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 55
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
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.
P63
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 56
(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
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 demand
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
P64
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 2015
DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW
PAGE 57
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.
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.
P65
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P66
I.
CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
JUNE 8, 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.
P67
I.
APPENDICES
P68
I.
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
P69
I.
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
P70
I.
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
P71
I.
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.
P72
I.
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
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED AFTER LOCAL APPROVAL
City Council adoption/resolution planned for spring 2015; update this section at that time.
P73
I.
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma and Phil Overeynder
THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental
Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: June 8, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 15, 2015
RE: Worksession – Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Efficiency Plan Review
Attached as Exhibit A is a draft copy of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency
Plan.
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs individually.
The goals were first agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that joined the
participants together to seek funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (attached).
The MOU outlined fundamental areas of agreement and basic principles that formed the
underlying foundation of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed.
All water districts and water users in the Roaring Fork Valley are invited and encouraged to join
the regional water efficiency effort, to adopt these basic principles of cooperation, and to help
implement the recommended regional water efficiency activities described below.
This planning effort was funded in part by a Water Efficiency Planning Grant from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB), requiring that the grant money be used for municipal water
efficiency planning purposes. ELEMENT Water Consulting and WaterDM were selected
through an RFP process to prepare this Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the individual plans
for City of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs. SGM
prepared the individual plan for Snowmass Water and Sanitation District.
Implementing municipal efficiency on a regional scale is just one of many important steps
toward achieving the region’s broader watershed health goals, which necessitate engaging other
stakeholders and water users. While the scope of this plan was limited to municipal water
efficiency measures, other uses also impact the watershed. For example, domestic and municipal
P74
II.
Page 2 of 2
uses account for approximately 3% of the overall water use in the Roaring Fork Watershed.
More specifically, of the water withdrawals excluding transmountain diversions, domestic and
municipal uses account for approximately 16%. To maintain and improve the Roaring Fork
Watershed in the future, municipal efficiency alone cannot be the only approach.
The activities identified in this plan are not intended to undermine or override Colorado’s water
rights system, and the hope is that this is the start of a broader conversation and a template that
can include other stakeholders and sectors to extend the water savings beyond the five municipal
providers who were directly involved in creating this regional plan.
Four broad regional water efficiency programs were identified as part of this Regional Water
Efficiency Plan. They are:
1. Water Loss Control Technical Assistance
2. Regional Water Efficiency Education and Information Campaign
3. Reduce Outdoor Water Use
4. Improve Water Resource Management
The water efficiency activities identified in this Regional Water Efficiency Plan provide the basis
for implementing water efficiency in a regionally-coordinated manner. Executing the plan will
require ongoing efforts and adaptive strategies to allow the plan to generate visible benefits,
grow, and change. The following actions are recommended as next steps:
1. Establish a Regional Plan Implementation Workgroup with representatives of each major
stakeholder group to meet regularly to report on and assist with regional plan
implementation.
2. Develop a funding plan for the Regional Plan implementation.
3. Assign a Regional Plan Coordinator and divide responsibility for implementing the plan
across multiple individuals and organizations.
4. Create a MOU for implementation that details shared objectives, roles, and
responsibilities.
5. Dedicate resources and pursue implementation of the plan.
Staff looks forward to receiving Council’s input and recommendations prior to placing a
resolution and final version of Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan on the
City Council’s regular meeting agenda for adoption.
Attachments:
Exhibit B -- Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan
Exhibit C -- 2013 MOU for Regional Water Efficiency Plan approved by City Council
P75
II.
MAY 13, 2014
PAGE 0
Regional Water Efficiency Plan
Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado
ELEMENT Water Consulting & WaterDM March 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
P76
II.
REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
Roaring Fork Watershed, Colorado
PREPARED BY
P.O. BOX 140785
DENVER, CO 80214
AND
1339 HAWTHORN AVENUE
BOULDER, CO 80304
March 9, 2015
P77
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Recommended Regional Water Efficiency Activities .................................................................. 4
Implementing the Regional Water Efficiency Plan ..................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan .............................................................. 7
Water Availability Issues ................................................................................................ 9
Previous and Related Water Studies ............................................................................ 11
1.3.1 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan .......................................................................... 12
1.3.2 Opportunities for Water Conservation Report (2012) ............................................. 12
1.3.3 Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the Roaring
Fork Watershed (2014) ......................................................................................................... 13
1.3.4 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan ....................................................................... 15
1.3.5 Climate Change Impact on Water Use ...................................................................... 15
2. INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLANS ............................................................ 16
Water Efficiency Plan Summaries ................................................................................ 17
2.1.1 City of Aspen ............................................................................................................. 17
2.1.2 Snowmass Water and Sanitation District ................................................................. 18
2.1.3 Town of Basalt........................................................................................................... 18
2.1.4 Town of Carbondale .................................................................................................. 19
2.1.5 City of Glenwood Springs .......................................................................................... 19
3. SELECTION OF REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES ................................................... 20
Water Loss Control Technical Assistance ..................................................................... 21
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Education and Information
Campaign .................................................................................................................................. 23
3.2.1 Coordinated Public Outreach/Communication Campaign ....................................... 23
3.2.2 Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge and Awards ..................................... 24
Reduce Outdoor Water Use ......................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on Landscape
Water Budgeting ................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Certification Program Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
Professionals ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.3 Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley Irrigation
Systems ................................................................................................................................. 28
Improve Water Resource Management ....................................................................... 30
3.4.1 Linking Water Savings to Environmental Benefits .................................................... 30
3.4.2 Mechanisms to Protect Water Rights and Enhance Instream Flows ....................... 31
3.4.3 Improved Water Accountability for Raw Water Systems ......................................... 33
3.4.5 Expand Regional Climate Resiliency Measures ......................................................... 34
P78
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE iii
Summary of Water Savings and Cost Estimates........................................................... 34
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN ....................................................................... 35
5. CHALLENGES TO SUCCESS ..................................................................................................... 37
6. PUBLIC REVIEW OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN ...................................................................... 38
7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Water Efficiency Activities Included in the Individual Plans. .......................................... 20
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Water Savings and Costs. .......................................................... 35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Efficiency Plan. ............................................................................................................. 9
COVER PHOTOS
Clockwise from upper right hand corner: City of Glenwood Springs obtained from Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenwood_Springs,_Colorado#mediaviewer/File:Glenwood_springs_co.jpg; Town of
Carbondale by Jonny Kloberdanz; Town of Basalt provided by Town of Basalt staff; City of Aspen
provided by City of Aspen staff; Ziegler Reservoir by Aubree Dallas.
ATTACHMENTS
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Conservation Plan.
P79
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AF acre-feet
AF/yr acre-feet per year
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
C2E Conserve to Enhance
CBRT Colorado Basin Roundtable
CORE Community Office for Resource Efficiency
CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board
CWW Colorado WaterWise
BIP Basin Implementation Plan
F Fahrenheit
HOA Homeowner Association
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
RFC Roaring Fork Conservancy
RWAPA Ruedi Water and Power Authority
P80
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The development of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan was a
collaborative effort funded by a grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The
project has been supported through the financial and in-kind participation of the following
stakeholders:
City of Aspen;
Town of Basalt;
Town of Carbondale;
City of Glenwood Springs;
Snowmass Water and Sanitation District;
Colorado Water Conservation Board;
Ruedi Water & Power Authority;
Roaring Fork Conservancy;
Community Office for Resource Efficiency;
Colorado River District.
This Regional Water Efficiency Plan is the first of its kind in the State of Colorado. Staff from
each of the participating municipalities provided access to detailed datasets and system
information that facilitated the preparation of their individual Water Efficiency Plans. In
addition to the municipal providers, representatives from local stakeholder groups were
instrumental in identifying and selecting potential water efficiency measures to be
implemented on a regional scale. The consultant team would like to thank the following
individuals and organizations for their time and input on this document:
Mark Fuller, Ruedi Water and Power Authority
Rick Lafaro, Roaring Fork Conservancy
Sharon Clarke, formerly with Roaring Fork Conservancy
Jason Haber, Community Office for Resource Efficiency
Kevin Reidy, Colorado Water Conservation Board
Ben Wade, Colorado Water Conservation Board
Lee Ledesma, City of Aspen
Phil Overeynder, City of Aspen
William Dolan, City of Aspen
Jeff Rice, City of Aspen
Kit Hamby, Snowmass Water & Sanitation District
Boyd Bierbaum, Town of Basalt
Robi Darcy, Town of Basalt
Mark O’Meara, Town of Carbondale
Jerry Wade, City of Glenwood Springs
Buddy Burns, City of Glenwood Springs
P81
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 2
Robin Millyard, City of Glenwood Springs
Stephen Bershenyi, City of Glenwood Springs Council & Ruedi Water and Power
Authority
Dan Birch, Colorado River District
Hunter Causey, Colorado River District
Cindy Houben, Pitkin County
Ray Merry, Eagle County
Rose Ann Sullivan
Cynthia Covell, Alperstein & Covell, P.C.
Shannon Ullman, SGM
Charlotte Jameson, University of Michigan
Emma Maack, University of Michigan
Liz Och, University of Michigan
Kara Steeland, University of Michigan
Dr. Julia Wondolleck, University of Michigan
Roaring Fork Conservancy
Ruedi Water and Power Authority
The project team wishes to sincerely thank all of those who were involved in conceptualizing
this Regional Plan, particularly Mark Fuller who has managed the project along with Jason
Haber, who was instrumental in securing the grant funding from the CWCB.
P82
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The Roaring Fork Valley is a scenic and historic part of Colorado that includes 14,000 foot peaks,
snow-fed rivers, cities, towns, farms, ranches, homes, businesses, ski areas, and much more.
Water is the lifeblood of the Roaring Fork Valley. Recognizing the connection between water
conservation, water supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the
water utilities of City of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town
of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs have all
completed or updated their municipal Water
Efficiency Plans in 2014 and 2015. These plans
evaluated the projected water demands for each
individual municipal supply system under passive and
active water efficiency programs, and compared
projected demands to their individual water supplies.
Each water provider has selected appropriate
efficiency measures to reduce water use and meet
their water demand and supply objectives. The intent of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Water Efficiency Plan (“Regional Water Efficiency Plan” or “Regional Plan”) is to build upon the
individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from
consistency and sharing of resources.
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs individually.
The goals were first agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that joined the
participants together to seek funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (attached).
The MOU states that the cosignatories:
“Recognize their individual interests in water con servation planning have regional
significance within the Roaring Fork watershed .”
“May be able to implement elements of their individual water conservation plans more
easily and more successfully if they are common components of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.”
“Understand there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such additional water for drought
protection, recreational uses and environmental uses.”
The MOU outlined fundamental areas of agreement and basic principles that formed the
underlying foundation of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed.
All communities and stakeholders
in the Roaring Fork Valley (not
just those that helped create this
plan) are invited and encouraged
to participate in the regional
water efficiency effort.
P83
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 4
All water districts and water users in the Roaring Fork Valley are invited and encouraged to join
the regional water efficiency effort, to adopt these basic principles of cooperation, and to help
implement the recommended regional water efficiency activities described below.
This planning effort was funded in part by a Water Efficiency Planning Grant from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB), requiring that the grant money be used for municipal water
efficiency planning purposes. ELEMENT Water Consulting and WaterDM were selected through
an RFP process to prepare this Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the individual plans for City
of Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs . SGM prepared
the individual plan for Snowmass Water and Sanitation District.
Implementing municipal efficiency on a regional scale is
just one of many important steps toward the region’s
broader watershed health goals, which necessitates
engaging other stakeholders and water users. While the
scope of this plan was limited to municipal water
efficiency measures, other uses also impact the
watershed; municipal efficiency cannot be the only
approach to maintaining and improving the Roaring Fork
Watershed. The activities identified in this plan are not
intended to undermine or override Colorado’s water
rights system, and the hope is that this is the start of a
broader conversation and a template that can include other stakeholders and sectors to extent
the savings beyond the five municipal providers who were directly involved in creating this
regional plan.
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Roaring Fork communities share common interests, and there is consistency and overlap in
the water efficiency-related efforts of the five municipal water providers participating in this
regional planning effort. Connected through the Roaring Fork, Fryingpan and Crystal Rivers, and
their tributaries, there is opportunity for municipal providers to work collectively with each
other and with other stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of demand management and
water efficiency for the benefit of the entire watershed. Certain programs benefit from being
unified and having consistency (e.g. educational campaigns) and in sharing resources (e.g.
developing model landscape/water budget information). The Regional Water Efficiency Plan
provides this opportunity and unifies these efforts.
Four broad regional water efficiency programs were identified as part of this Regional Water
Efficiency Plan, as summarized below. The regional efficiency programs were selected based on
the individual municipal water efficiency plans as well as other local and national water
efficiency-related efforts. The specific programs are intended to provide a menu of alternatives
and it is understood that every program will not be appropriate for every participant, nor will
This Regional Plan provides a
template that can include
other stakeholders and
sectors to expand and extend
the savings beyond the five
municipal water providers
who were directly involved in
creating this plan.
P84
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 5
every participant be capable of participating in all of the programs. In some cases, it will be
beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot programs prior to full implementation.
1. Water Loss Control Technical Assistance ‒ System auditing, loss tracking, infrastructure
maintenance, leak detection and leak repair for water utilities can be improved by the
consistent application of best practices. A coordinated effort to provide technical
assistance for completing initial water audits and to establish a regular annual audit
program for individual water providers is recommended. Information exchange across
providers should be encouraged.
2. Regional Water Efficiency Education and Information Campaign ‒ Engaging water users
and stakeholders can be particularly effective when implemented on a regional scale.
Potential initiatives include: (a) coordinated public outreach and education campaigns ;
and (b) a water efficiency challenge for businesses and homeowner associations (HOAs).
3. Reduce Outdoor Water Use ‒ Reducing outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region is
a common goal amongst all of the plan participants. Potential initiatives that could
benefit from regional coordination include: (a) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (b) a landscape design and
management certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and
landscaping professionals; and (c) an effort to install rain shut-off devices on irrigation
systems across the region.
4. Improve Water Resource Management ‒ Water utilities, other rights holders, and
water users in the Roaring Fork Watershed can help create long-lasting benefits to
streamflow conditions through efficiency and improved water resource management.
Exploration of four program measures is recommended in this area: (a) linking water
savings to environmental benefits (i.e. improved streamflows during low-flow events);
(b) mechanisms to protect water rights and enhance instream flows; (c) improved water
accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate resiliency measures and additional
research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the region.
IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
The water efficiency activities identified in this Regional Water Efficiency Plan provide the basis
for implementing water efficiency in a regionally-coordinated manner. Executing the plan will
require ongoing efforts and adaptive strategies to allow the plan to generate visible benefits,
grow, and change. The following actions are recommended as next steps:
1. Establish a Regional Plan Implementation Workgroup with representatives of each
major stakeholder group to meet regularly to report on and assist with regional plan
implementation. Provide updates at other forum meetings and/or host regular open
forms. Include annual reporting around the plan for all participants including:
Annual program implementation,
P85
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 6
Program impact estimates including program costs/avoided costs and water
savings,
Lessons learned,
Public feedback on program,
Periodic weather data and local trends,
Water supply concerns,
Recommendations for studies or pilot programs,
Recommended plan modifications, and
Establish ongoing implementation plan.
2. Develop a funding plan for the Regional Plan implementation. Identify potential annual
and one-time funding sources (e.g. contributions from individual providers, CWCB
implementation grants, Colorado Basin Roundtable (CBRT) funding, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and other sources), establish
funding commitments, and submit grant applications.
3. Assign a Regional Plan Coordinator and divide responsibility for implementing the plan
across multiple individuals and organizations. To successfully implement this plan,
committed people must step forward and work together. Identifying a plan coordinator
and “plan champions” across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups is a critical step in the
process. Potential lead organizations include: RWAPA, CORE, or the Roaring Fork
Conservancy.
4. Create a MOU for implementation that details shared objectives, roles, and
responsibilities. An MOU was beneficial in defining goals, expectations, and roles of
individual water providers in forming the partnership to create this Regional Water
Efficiency Plan. A similar type of agreement would be useful for establishing the roles
and responsibilities of participants in the implementation phase.
5. Dedicate resources and pursue implementation of the plan.
P86
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 7
1. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
Water is a precious natural resource in the Roaring Fork Watershed, and is critical to the
maintenance of a healthy environment and the lifestyle enjoyed by its residents and visitors.
The Roaring Fork Watershed is home to a large residential population including the
municipalities of Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. As with many
mountainous areas in Colorado, the history of the Roaring Fork Watershed is rooted in mining
and agricultural industries. Over time, recreation and tourism industries have flourished, which
has led to an increase in population . All of these uses have contributed to changes in the timing
and characteristics of water use. The Roaring Fork Watershed is also subject to transbasin
diversions to the eastern slope of Colorado; the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, the Independence
Pass Transmountain Diversion System, a nd the Busk Ivanhoe Project divert from the
headwaters of the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork Rivers. Not surprisingly, given the competing
uses for the limited resource, the topics of water quantity, water quality, and instream flows
are of tremendous interest from both a human and environmental perspective.
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan was completed in 2012 and it, along with associated planning
efforts, identified municipal water efficiency1 as an important component of the long-term plan
to improve watershed health. Recognizing the connection between water conservation, water
supply planning, and a broad interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, the water utilities of City
of Aspen, Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and
City of Glenwood Springs have all completed or updated their municipal Water Efficiency Plans
in 2014 and 2015 as an element of this project. Prior to this project, the City of Aspen and the
City of Glenwood Springs were the only participants with efficiency plans on file with the CWCB.
These plans evaluated the projected water demands for each individual municipal supply
system under passive and active water efficiency programs, and compared projected demands
to their individual water supplies. Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency
measures to reduce water use and meet their water demand and supply objectives . The intent
of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the individual
municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from consistency and
sharing of resources.
The goals of this Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed are to
implement municipal water efficiency programs on a regional scale and to achieve higher and
more effective benefits, compared to implementing the same programs individually.
1 The terms water efficiency and water conservation are used interchangeably throughout this document.
P87
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 8
The goals were first agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding that joined the
participants together to seek funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (MOU,
2013). The MOU states that the cosignatories:
“Recognize their individual interests in water conservation planning have regional
significance within the Roaring Fork watershed.”
“May be able to implement elements of their individual water conservation plans more
easily and more successfully if they are common components of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.”
“Understand there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such additional water for drought
protection, recreational uses and environmental uses.”
The MOU outlines fundamental areas of agreement that form the underlying foundation of this
Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed.
This planning effort was funded in part by a Water Efficiency Planning Grant from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and in part by the five participating municipal water
providers. In addition, the water providers contributed significant in-kind services in the form of
staff time. The focus of the CWCB grant request and the water providers’ contributions was
municipal planning. The consulting team of ELEMENT Water Consulting and WaterDM were
selected to prepare this Regional Water Efficiency Plan and the individual plans for City of
Aspen, Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs through an RFP and
interview process. SGM prepared the individual plan for Snowmass Water and Sanitation
District. The location of the water providers participating in the regional planning process is
shown in Figure 1, below.
The scope of the CWCB planning grant limited this regional plan to analysis and
recommendations of municipal water efficiency measures by the five utility participants. It is
well understood that other demands for water such as agriculture also impact the valley and
municipal efficiency cannot be the only approach to maintaining and improving the Roaring
Fork Watershed. Implementing municipal efficiency on a regional level is just one of many
important steps toward the broader watershed health goals. Engaging other stakeholders and
water users and addressing other elements of water conservation will be essential steps in
reaching these goals.
P88
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 9
Figure 1. Water Providers Participating in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Efficiency Plan.
WATER AVAILABILITY ISSUES
The Roaring Fork River Watershed is located within the Colorado River Basin in central Colorado
on the west side of the Continental Divide. The watershed has a drainage area of approximately
1,453 square miles and extends from the river’s headwaters near Independence Pass to its
confluence with the Colorado River in the City of Glenwood Springs approximately 70 miles
downstream. Snowmelt from the mountainous headwaters contributes to the streamflow in
three primary rivers (Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, and Crystal) that eventually contribute to the
flow in the Colorado River. The Roaring Fork River main-stem flows through the City of Aspen
and joins the Fryingpan River in the Town of Basalt, and the Crystal River joins just downstream
of the Town of Carbondale.
The natural hydrology of the watershed is driven by snowmelt from the mountainous
headwaters; however, streamflows are affected by water diversions for direct flow and storage
purposes. Water diversions include transbasin appropriations that are 100% depletive to the
Roaring Fork Watershed as well as local diversions with variable degrees of consumptive use.
As with other high mountainous regions in the semi-arid southwestern United States, the
Roaring Fork Watershed experiences a wide range of climatic conditions from year to year as
P89
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 10
well as from season to season. The Roaring Fork Watershed is “over-appropriated”, which
means that at some or all times of the year, there is insufficient water to meet all demands.
Under these circumstances, diversions are curtailed as needed under the prior appropr iation
system. Water is scarce in dry years, and competing water demands have the potential to
adversely impact the natural environment by reducing flows in some natural waterways. Many
providers use surface and groundwater storage to help regulate supplies to meet demands in
dry years and through drought periods. Cities such as Aspen that have limited storage are more
dependent on the seasonal snowmelt and runoff conditions, and are therefore more vulnerable
to drought and water restrictions when snowpack is below normal.
Climatological records provide evidence of recurring major droughts in Colorado of various
length and intensities. Water suppliers in the western United States accommodate this
uncertainty through reservoir storage, consideration of "firm yields" in estimates of water
availability, raw water supply development, and "demand side" strategies such as voluntary or
mandatory restrictions on outdoor water usage. Climate studies indicate a shift toward earlier
runoff and less water available in the late irrigation season, which could create shortages
relative to historical conditions, particularly in situations where storage capacity is limited.
Water supply systems in the Roaring Fork Watershed are also at risk from forest fire, floods,
failure of infrastructure, and contamination of the raw water supply. In order to respond to
emergency or drought situations, contingency plans are typically designed for implementation
of mandatory conservation measures in stages that minimize impacts to the economy, life-
styles, and environment of the community. Plans to reduce usage are necessary to stretch the
available water supply to help meet future demands and sustain periods of drought and
uncertainty.
Since 1973, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has been tasked with the
appropriation, acquisition, protection and monitoring of instream flow (ISF) and natural lake
level water rights to preserve and improve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.
The CWCB holds a collection of ISF water rights in the Roaring Fork Watershed, many of which
date back to the initiation of CWCB’s authority in 1973 . Some of the ISF rights are typically not
met in dry years due to their relatively junior dates of appropriation as compared to other
transbasin and local diversions. Accordingly, future development activities and climate change
have the potential to place additional stress on existing water resources. The Roaring Fork
Watershed Plan (RWAPA, 2012) listed the following issues facing the Roaring Fork Watershed:
The state’s population of 5 million is expected to increase to almost 8 million by 2030.
Eighty percent of the state’s population lives in the half of the state that receives about
20 percent of the precipitation. Recent studies identify a need for another 600,000 to
1,000,000 acre‐feet of raw water by 2030 to serve increased population and related
development. Those figures do not include water needs that might be generated by the
effects of climate change, environmental and recreational uses, and energy
development. By 2050, climate change could cause Colorado River flows to decline by
P90
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 11
18 percent. Average Colorado Basin water storage could decline by 32 percent. Energy
development could consume up to 200,000 acre‐feet of water.
On average, 37 percent of the Upper Roaring Fork Watershed (40,600 acre‐feet) and 41
percent of the Upper Fryingpan Watershed (61,500 acre‐feet) is already diverted
annually to the Front Range. These are the 5th and 3rd largest transbasin diversions in
the state, respectively.
Almost 140 of 185 miles of streams surveyed in the Roaring Fork Watershed have
moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. In Colorado, riparian habitat
represents less than three percent of the landmass but has the highest species richnes s
with 75 to 80 percent of wildlife species using riparian habitat during some part of their
life cycles. Functioning riparian areas reduce the risk of flooding and increase stream
base flows.
PREVIOUS AND RELATED WATER STUDIES
Local stakeholders have long recognized the potential for continued and increased adverse
effects on the health of the Roaring Fork Watershed, and have proactively completed several
studies to identify and address critical issues. The Roaring Fork Watershed Collaborative, which
is an informal gathering of local officials, planners, resource managers, and interested citizens,
began meeting in 2002 to discuss local water issues. This effort led to the formation of a special
Water Committee in 2005, and this group starting formulating the outline for a comprehensive
Watershed Plan to assess conditions and recommend actions to preserve water resources. In
late 2006, the Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), a consortium of local governments,
became involved as the official sponsor of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan. RWAPA engaged
Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) as the lead consultant on the project and secured funding for
the preparation of the State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008 (RWAPA, 2008a). The
2008 report was widely recognized as a comprehensive, accessible, and valuable compendium
of watershed conditions, and it was later supplemented by two guidance documents:
(i) Why the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan Matters (RWAPA & RFC, 2008), and
(ii) Illuminating the Way Ahead (RWAPA & RFC, 2010).
The findings of the State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report 2008 and the guidance
documents became the basis for a series of meetings with the public and technical advisors
aimed at translating the Phase I findings into a series of goals, objectives, and actionable
recommendations which would make up Phase II of the Plan. Phase II, consisting of the Roaring
Fork Watershed Plan was completed in Mach 2012, and in tandem with the State of the Roaring
Fork Watershed Report 2008 and the two guidance documents, represents the final product of
the watershed planning process that began with the Watershed Collaborative discussions in the
early 2000s.
An overview of some of these efforts is provided below, along with reference to important
related studies.
P91
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 12
1.3.1 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan
The 2012 Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (RWAPA, 2012) included a list of “Recommended
Actions” for implementation. Several of these were related to water conservation and
efficiency, as summarized below.
Action SW B1f. Investigate if water
conservation translates to environmental
benefits under Colorado water law.
Pursue opportunities for water
conservation, if appropriate.
o The Opportunities for Water
Conservation ‒ Realizing the
Streamflow Benefits from Local
Conservation Efforts report was
finalized by Elk Mountain
Consulting LLC in April 2012 (RFC,
2012).
Action SW D1c. Support projects such as
the University of Michigan Master’s
Project, Fostering Implementation of the
Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (UM, 2010).
Utilize the University of Michigan Master’s
Project’s recommendations for improving
public education and outreach, as
appropriate.
o The Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed report was finalized by University of Michigan graduate
students in April 2014 (UM, 2014).
Action SW D1g. Increase awareness of water conservation techniques and the
importance of conservation. Identify and implement the most strategic water
conservation measures.
o RWAPA, RFC, and AspenCORE were instrumental in obtaining the grant from
CWCB and in collaborating with local municipal providers to update individual
municipal water efficiency plans and to develop this Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Efficiency Plan.
1.3.2 Opportunities for Water Conservation Report (2012)
The April 2012 Opportunities for Water Conservation report by Elk Mountain Consulting (RFC,
2012) outlined several recommendations for using municipal and agricultural water
conservation efforts to enhance streamflow conditions in the Roaring Fork Watershed, as
P92
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 13
summarized below. One of the purposes of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Efficiency Plan is to advance the recommendations
listed in the April 2012 report that pertained to
municipal water conservation.
Recommendation No. 6. Encourage and
assist local municipal water providers to
develop comprehensive water supply,
drought mitigation, and water conservation
plans.
Recommendation No. 8. Develop a
donation program for municipal providers
in the watershed, and encourage the use of
associated funds for local streamflow
gaging and stream restoration and
enhancement projects.
Recommendation No. 10. Promote
watershed-wide local water conservation
efforts, and connect local programs to
statewide water management planning
efforts.
1.3.3 Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed (2014)
Recently, graduate students in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the
University of Michigan completed a comprehensive review of other regional water conservation
planning processes to facilitate the development of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional
Water Efficiency Plan and associated public outreach and education campaign strategies (UM,
2014). The University of Michigan study identified nine key findings and recommendations for
the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan:
1. Establish a transparent and open plan development structure that allows divergent
stakeholders to actively participate.
2. Establish clear and equitable roles and responsibilities in a formal manner .
3. Build flexibility into the plan to accommodate differences in interests and needs.
4. Sustain regional collaboration by retaining a unifying mechanism or vision.
5. Maintain outreach to critical stakeholder groups and partner with them on
plan development and/or implementation.
6. Dedicate staff time to coordinating and managing plan implementation.
P93
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 14
7. Establish a dedicated funding source
for plan development and long-term
implementation.
8. Cultivate plan champions.
9. Incentivize implementation.
Through interviews with local water utility
staff, the authors of the study identified that
delivering consistent water conservation
messaging and more effective education and
outreach through collaboration with other
utilities is a high priority. Utility personnel
were specifically interested in focusing on
outdoor water use and encouraging water-
friendly landscaping materials and practices.
The local utilities also recognized the
opportunity to increase their leadership role,
such as through improving ditch efficiency
and management of non-potable systems.
This study also identified potential barriers toward getting residents to participate in regional
municipal water conservation, and suggested the following topics need to be better understood
and addressed through outreach and education:
Social norms regarding water use (wanting green lawns regardless of monetary cost).
Lack of homeowner control (property managers and landscaping businesses responsible
for maintenance).
Open ditch systems (unmetered or difficult to meter).
Influencing tourists and second homeowners is difficult.
Perceptions that water rights will be lost.
Potential for downstream water rights to take any water left in the stream, thus
cancelling out any streamflow benefits of conservation .
Geomorphology makes it difficult to quantify the amount of water conserved and
maintained instream.
Conservation could reduce the income to water providers, thereby reducing the
resources available to support recommended programs.
Misconceptions about being a headwaters area and being ‘water-rich’ due to the
Roaring Fork Valley’s location.
P94
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 15
1.3.4 Colorado Basin Implementation Plan
The Colorado Basin Roundtable, which represents a diverse group of Colorado River basin
stakeholders, developed a Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) with the assistance of SGM, Inc.
(CBRT, 2014). The BIP provides input for Colorado’s Water Plan and includes common basin-
wide themes for meeting future basin demands. Specifically relevant to municipal water
conservation, the BIP includes recommendations to “develop local water conscious land use
strategies” and “encourage a high level of basinwide conservation”.
The BIP emphasizes the
importance of repairing and
restoring healthy rivers and
streams and notes the need for
a more systemic approach to
projects and polices to restore
and maintain healthy rivers.
Examples of projects that have
been identified toward that
goal include: restoring sections
of the Roaring Fork as it winds
through the North Star nature
preserve east of Aspen; the
ongoing river restoration work
in Basalt; and a restoration
project on Cattle Creek, which flows into the Roaring Fork River between Carbondale and
Glenwood Springs. Other environmental projects listed include whitewater parks in Basalt and
Carbondale, which can support stream levels in the Roaring Fork River; the city of Aspen’s
project to reuse wastewater for irrigation and snowmaking; Pitkin County’s effort to leave more
water from its open space properties in the Roaring Fork; and efficiency efforts by local water
utilities. Also mentioned are ongoing discussions with irrigators on the Crystal River to improve
minimum flows in the Crystal below the diversion for the Sweet Jessup Ditch.
The Colorado River BIP includes potential projects, policies and processes for reducing
municipal and industrial and nonconsumptive water supply gaps. The plan emphasizes the
importance of water conservation and efficiency programs, opportunities for multipurpose
projects, and the benefits of regional efforts between water providers, irrigators, conservation
organizations and recreational enthusiast.
1.3.5 Climate Change Impact on Water Use
Traditional water planning is based on an assessment of demand and historical streamflow
conditions, which likely will not capture the effects of a changing climate. A great deal of
climate change analysis has been completed in recent years, including the “Climate Change in
Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources Management and Adaption” report that was
originally developed in 2008 and updated in 2014 (CWCB, 2014). These studies focused on
P95
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 16
observed climate trends and the complex topics of climate modeling and projections of
temperature, precipitation, snowmelt, and runoff. The 2014 climate change report concluded
the following:
• Substantial future warming, with average temperatures increasing from 2.5°F to 5.5°F;
summers warming slightly more than winters.
Increased winter precipitation, although there
is less agreement regarding precipitation trends.
Decrease in April 1 snowpack, spring runoff
shifting 1 to 3 weeks earlier by 2050, and decreases in
late-summer flows.
• More frequent and severe heat waves,
droughts, and wildfires.
While climate change may increase the uncertainty in
outdoor water demand projections, the net effect
depends on numerous factors such as the amount and
type of landscaping material, irrigation management
practices, etc. Some of the impacts on water demands
are included in the forecasts provided in the individual
Water Efficiency Plans because recent water demand
data, which reflect response to recent climate changes, are utilized to project future water
demand patterns.
It is important to consider both demand-side, as well as supply-side, impacts of future climate
change on overall water supply conditions. The forecast method provided in the individual
plans, along with regular updates to the demand projection s, will assist in this process.
2. INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLANS
Water efficiency planning is a key component of an integrated water supply and resource
management process. It helps improve the resiliency of the system and prepare for changes in
both demands and supplies. Colorado Revised Statute § 37-60-126 requires a covered entity to
develop, adopt, make publicly available, and implement a water conservation plan that will
encourage its domestic, commercial, industrial, and public facility customers to use water more
efficiently. According to the statute, a “covered entity” means a municipality, agency, utility, or
other publicly owned entity with a legal obligation to supply, distribute, or otherwise provide
water at retail to domestic, commercial, industrial, or public facility customers, and that has a
total annual demand for such customers of two thousand acre -feet or more.
P96
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 17
The City of Aspen and the City of Glenwood Springs are the only participants in this Regional
Water Efficiency Plan that are currently required by statute to maintain CWCB-approved water
efficiency plans; Snowmass is expected to bounce around the 2,000 acre-feet per year
threshold for a number of years to come. In 1996, Aspen was one of the first cities in Colorado
to develop and implement a water conservation
plan. Glenwood Springs developed a CWCB-
approved water conservation plan in 2009. In
2015, Aspen and Glenwood Springs updated their
plans and the water utilities of Snowmass Water
and Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, and Town
of Carbondale also completed their municipal
Water Efficiency Plans as part of the Regional Plan
process in 2014 and 2015.
Under the individual planning process, distinct
water demand forecasts were prepared to present
a range of reasonable estimates of water demand
into the future, given anticipated population growth, and to estimate the impact of the water
conservation measures that occur both “passively” as a result of national and state plumbing
codes and standards and “actively” as a result of specific programs and measures to be
implemented by the water providers. These forecasts were also used for the important
purpose of establishing the adequacy of local water supply systems to meet future demands.
Each water provider has selected appropriate efficiency measures to reduce water use and
meet their water demand and supply objectives. There is broad overlap in the water efficiency
activities that the water providers have included within the individual Water Efficiency Plans.
The intent of this Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan is to build upon the
individual municipal plans by unifying efforts and identifying programs that benefit from
consistency and sharing of resources.
However, no two communities are exactly alike. Certain water efficiency programs such as
tiered rate structures, specific incentive programs, and leak detection may be more effectively
implemented at a local level due to differences in municipal codes, resources, and needs.
Individual Municipal Water Efficiency Plans serve to address these programs and provide the
flexibility needed to make implementation effective.
WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN SUMMARIES
Summary information from the individual water efficiency plans (in sequence from upstream to
downstream) prepared and submitted to the CWCB are presented below.
2.1.1 City of Aspen
2014 Service Area Population – 10,508 (permanent), 36,540 (peak summer month)
2013 Water produced – 3,203 AF
P97
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 18
Key issues impacting water demand – The City of Aspen has been actively promoting
water efficiency for more than 20 years and water demand had declined steadily over
that time, even as the population has increased. The City approved its first water
conservation plan in 1996 and has demonstrated a long-term commitment to wise
water stewardship and responsible and efficient use of its water resources. Aspen has
limited storage and the water supply is most vulnerable in the late summer, after the
snowmelt runoff period when many tourists and second homeowners are in town and
landscape irrigation demands are still high. Furthermore, the available water supply is
limited by Aspen’s commitment to actions to protect decreed instream flows.
Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Tourism and part-time
residents impact Aspen’s water demand during the critical summer months. The City’s
top water efficiency priorities are outdoor water use reductions. Aspen has sufficient
water resources to meet future demand forecasts.
2.1.2 Snowmass Water and Sanitation District
2014 Service Area Population – 2,865 permanent, 13,400 (during peak ski season)
2012 Water produced – 1,918 AF
Key issues impacting water demand – The Snowmass Water and Sanitation District
(SWSD) hopes to encourage and equip customers to incorporate efficient water use into
their daily activities rather than relying entirely on mandates and regulation to enact
change. Water use in the SWSD has declined over the past five years even as the
population has increased.
Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – The SWSD possesses
adequate water rights to meet current demand. Projections by the SWSD of available
raw water supplies and water rights indicate that they will be able to legally and
physically supply sufficient water to meet anticipated future build-out as well. Through
water conservation, SWSD can reduce the amount of water diverted from the
Snowmass Creek basin. High water demands during the late summer irrigation season
and the winter ski season often coincide with low streamflow periods. The CWCB
maintains a junior water right for minimum instream flow in Snowmass Creek. Although
SWSD’s water rights are senior to the CWCB’s water right, the SWSD board adopted
maintenance of the Snowmass Creek instream flow as a stewardship goal for 2014.
SWSD’s water efficiency priorities include improved metering, conservation oriented
rates, and water loss control.
2.1.3 Town of Basalt
2013 Service Area Population – 2,198
2014 Water produced – 586 AF
Key issues impacting water demand – Basalt is expanding and anticipates a future
growth rate of approximately 2 percent per year. Water demand has increased very
little in the past five years even as the Town’s population has steadily increased.
P98
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 19
Reducing outdoor use and increasing irrigation efficiency, particularly for second
homeowners, are goals for Basalt.
Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – The Town of Basalt
owns and operates its own potable water system, which currently includes four water
sources with a combined production capacity of just over 2 million gallons per day. The
Town’s potable water supply sources include diversions of groundwater under the direct
influence of surface water from natural springs as well as groundwater diversions from
alluvial wells. Basalt is the only participant in the regional planning effort that relies
primarily on a groundwater supply. Basalt’s water efficiency priorities include educating
customers and landscape contractors about appropriate water use, installing rain
shutoff devices, and reducing system water loss. Under current conditions, Basalt has
sufficient water resources to meet future demand forecasts.
2.1.4 Town of Carbondale
2010 Service Area Population – 6,427
2014 Water produced – 1,208 AF
Key issues impacting water demand – Carbondale continues to expand and is planning
for the population to grow at a rate of approximately 2.5% per year. Water demand has
increased at a slower rate than the population over the past five years. Reducing
outdoor use and increasing irrigation efficiency are goals for Carbondale.
Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – Carbondale obtains its
potable water supply from surface water sources in the Nettle Creek drainage, a
tributary to the Crystal River, and from groundwater sources along the Crystal and
Roaring Fork Rivers. The Town has a total of four wells, with three located in the Roaring
Fork alluvial aquifer and one located in the Crystal River alluvial aquifer. The City’s top
water efficiency priorities are educating customers about appropriate outdoor water
use and reducing water loss. Carbondale has sufficient water resources to meet future
demand forecasts.
2.1.5 City of Glenwood Springs
2013 Population – 10,581
2013 Water produced – 1,998 AF
Key issues impacting water demand – Glenwood Springs is a growing city with diverse
topography. It is a tourist destination on an interstate highway and major rail line. Due
to effective water efficiency, over the past 10 years metered water demand has
declined even as the population has increased.
Considerations impacting the Regional Water Efficiency Plan – The City of Glenwood
Springs is located at the foot of the Roaring Fork Valley and does not rely much on water
from the Roaring Fork Valley. The City obtains its potable water supply from diversions
on Grizzly and No Name Creeks, tributary streams located to the north of the Colorado
River at the edge of the Flat Tops Wilderness Area. The City also holds the rights to 500
acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of water in Ruedi Reservoir, which the City can divert as a
P99
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 20
backup supply. The City’s top water efficiency priorities are educating customers about
appropriate outdoor water use and reducing water loss. Glenwood Springs has
sufficient water resources to meet future demand forecasts.
A summary of the water efficiency activities included in all of the five individual plans is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Water Efficiency Activities Included in the Individual Plans.
Water Efficiency Activities
FOUNDATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Automatic Meter Reading Installation and Operation
Enhanced Water Loss Control
Conservation-Oriented Rates
TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES, AND NATURAL
REPLACEMENT OF FIXTURES AND APPLIANCES
Fixtures, Appliances, and Incentives
Outdoor Water Efficiency
Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Water Efficiency
ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
Regulatory Measures
Water Reuse, Recycling, and Raw Water Use
Waste of Water Ordinance
Landscape development regulations for new construction
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Public Information, Customer Outreach and Education
3. SELECTION OF REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY ACTIVITIES
The Roaring Fork communities share common
interests. As shown in Table 1, there is consistency and
overlap in the water efficiency-related efforts of the
five individual water providers participating in this
regional planning effort. There is opportunity for the
municipal providers to work collectively with each
other and with other stakeholders to improve the
effectiveness of demand management and water
efficiency for the benefit of the entire watershed.
Certain programs benefit from being unified and
having consistency (e.g. educational campaigns) and in
The specific programs included in
the Regional Plan are intended to
provide a menu of alternatives.
Every program will not be
appropriate for every participant,
nor will every participant be
capable of participating in all of
the programs.
P100
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 21
sharing resources (e.g. developing a local model landscape/water budget information). The
Regional Plan provides this opportunity and unifies the efforts.
In selecting the regional efficiency programs described below, the individual municipal water
efficiency plans were considered along with other sources of information including the
Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado (CWW,
2010), the University of Michigan study referenced above including other regional plans cited in
that report, the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s 2011 report – Water Efficiency for Instream Flow:
Making the Link In Practice (AWE, 2011), and other local and national water efficiency related
efforts. In addition, discussions with local providers and interested parties augmented and
refined the Regional Plan’s recommendations. Regional efforts that compliment and expand
upon components within the new municipal water efficiency plans were a key area of focus.
Only program measures that can be successfully implemented in a cost -effective manner were
selected for inclusion in the final plan. The specific programs included in the plan at this time
are intended to provide a menu of alternatives and it is understood that every program will not
be appropriate for every participant, nor will every participant be capable of p articipating in all
of the programs. In some cases, it will be beneficial to conduct additional feasibility or pilot
programs prior to full implementation.
Four broad regional water efficiency programs identified, as described below. A range of
estimated implementation costs and potential water savings is provided. These regional
programs can increase water efficiency and be successfully implemented at a reasonable cost.
WATER LOSS CONTROL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Water loss control is the practice of system
auditing, loss tracking, infrastructure
maintenance, leak detection and leak repair for
water utilities, and can be applied to both
treated and raw water systems. Leak detection
and repair are familiar water agency practices,
but true water loss control is more pragmatic
and comprehensive than simply finding and
fixing leaks. The American Water Works
Association (AWWA) water loss method detailed
in the M36 Manual of Water Supply Practices
(AWWA, 2009) is considered the industry
standard and an efficiency best practice. Still
relatively new to water utilities, the M36 standardized approach has recently been adopted by
some utilities in Colorado. To date, no utilities in the Roaring Fork region have completed a
M36 water audit.
P101
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 22
Auditing a water distribution system for real
and apparent losses and evaluating the costs of
those losses is the foundation of water loss
control. Real losses are actual physical losses
of water due to leaks or other problems with
the system. Apparent losses are due to meter
inaccuracy, unauthorized consumption, and
data handling errors. Cost and benefit
considerations drive implementation actions in
the recommended method, described in detail
in the AWWA M36 Manual (AWWA, 2009). The
water audit typically traces the flow of water
from the site of withdrawal or treatment,
through the water distribution system, to
customer properties. The water balance
summarizes the components and provides
accountability, as all of the water placed into a
distribution system should, in theory, equal all
of the water taken out of the distribution
system.
The combination of the system water audit and the water balance provide a variety of useful
measures of utility water loss. Of particular interest to water agencies is the ability to quantify
the costs of real and apparent water losses and to use this information to improve the bottom
line. Traditional water loss accounting focused on the percentage of unaccounted for water.
Under the M36 method, the term “unaccounted for water” is eliminated and is replaced by
“non-revenue water” which is partially comprised of “real and apparent losses”. This method
improves understanding and accountability for utility water loss and has the potential to make
a positive impact for Roaring Fork water providers in the coming years.
As an important component of the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan
process, most participating providers hope to implement annual M36 water audits in the
coming year, and to establish an annual audit process. A s part of this Regional Water Efficiency
Plan, technical assistance for completing the water audits using the M36 method and
establishing an annual audit program could be obtained. While the audits will be completed at
the individual water provider level, technical staff from the individual providers can exchange
information to increase the success of tracking and managing water loss. The CWCB is
interested in promoting the use of M36 water audits and has provided grant funding for water
audit implementation technical assistance and training for small utilities in Colorado. This
approach is recommended for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: For technical assistance in conducting water
audits and establishing an ongoing program for up to five water providers: $5,000 - $20,000.
P102
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 23
These are one-time costs. It is assumed that water providers will conduct future water audits
without assistance.
Range of estimated annual regional water savings: 400 – 600 AF/yr by 2050.2
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes – up to 100% of program cost.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
CAMPAIGN
Previous planning efforts have recognized the importance of creating a recognizable water
efficiency campaign/brand across the Valley, targeted toward residents, students, tourists,
landscape professionals, and agriculture. This Regional Water Efficiency Plan provides a
mechanism to formalize these efforts and create an effective and sustaining p rogram around
public outreach and education.
3.2.1 Coordinated Public Outreach/Communication
Campaign
The rationale for increased water conservation in the Roaring
Fork Valley is clear. Water supplies are limited and subject to
drought, and water efficiency by the entire community can
benefit the entire watershed. Potential over-arching themes
for a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency
Campaign include, but are not limited to:
Water is precious, never waste it.
Water-efficient landscapes are natural and beautiful.
Water efficiency is doing your part for a healthy
watershed and long lasting water supply.
Branding with a recognizable image or slogan,
such as the Watershed Plan character “Eddy”
(shown on the left) is useful for consistent
messaging and engaging the public. A regional
municipal water efficiency campaign could be
implemented by Roaring Fork water providers alone, but
would likely be more successful and less costly if
implemented in partnership with local non-profits,
businesses, schools, and other organizations. For example, a
partnership between Roaring Fork water providers and an
2 Based on estimated water savings of all 5 municipal water efficiency plans developed during the regional planning
process.
P103
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 24
established organization such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy could leverage funds to provide
coordinated public outreach on water efficiency. The Roaring Fork Conservancy and
Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) has an ongoing program entitled “Reel in
Water Use, Fish Love Water Too” which could be expanded or combined with this effort. Such a
partnership would likely be eligible for implementation grant funding from the CWCB and
potentially the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (owner/operator of Ruedi Reservoir), the Colorado
River Water Conservation District, and others.
A real-life example of a current collaboration is the Roaring
Fork Conservancy’s “1% for the Fork” campaign which is
partnering with the Roaring Fork Beer Company and other
businesses to raise money for the Conservancy.
Leveraging an existing “off
the shelf” water efficiency
campaign such as the Alliance
for Water Efficiency’s “Never
Waste” could make sense from a cost and effectiveness
standpoint, but a locally developed and customized effort
would likely have greater success. The new Colorado
WaterWise campaign and toolkit “Live Like You Love It” was
just announced in October 2014 and should be further
considered.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: For creating and implementing a regional
water efficiency campaign: $5,000 – $100,000 (or more).
Range of estimated annual water savings: 90 – 120 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes, but probably less than 100% of
program costs.
3.2.2 Business and HOA Water Efficiency Challenge and Awards
A regional water efficiency challenge and awards program for businesses focused on the tourist
sector like hotels and restaurants could invigorate efficient practices and spur adoption of new
technologies. Separate indoor and outdoor challenges could be offered for each category.
An example of this type of program is the
EPA WaterSense H2Otel Challenge.
Launched in February 2014, the H2Otel
Challenge encourages hotels to: assess water
use and savings opportunities; change
products or processes to incorporate best
management practices; and track their
water-saving progress and achievements.
P104
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 25
Recognizing particularly well-
designed, efficiently irrigated
landscapes in the Roaring Fork
region could also be an
effective way to encourage
others to reduce water
demands. In Tampa, Florida
the collaborative effort
between water provider and
the University of Florida
created the “Community Water
Wise Awards” to recognize
individuals and businesses that
are committed to conserving
water resources and protecting
the environment by using the
best in attractive, locally
adapted landscaping as well as
irrigation systems or techniques
that minimize water waste.
In the Roaring Fork region, including businesses, HOAs, and residential landscape categories in a
program that publically rewards those who achieve water savings can help engage water users
to incentivize and broaden the appeal.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $15,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 50 – 75 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes. Potential for applicability beyond the
Roaring Fork region.
REDUCE OUTDOOR WATER USE
How we design, install, and maintain our landscapes and irrigation systems can greatly impact
the amount of water needed to keep the plants alive and healthy. Good landscape
management also reduces runoff and pollutants in stream systems. The effort to reduce
outdoor water use in the Roaring Fork region should encompass a number of initiatives that will
help drive efficiency. Recommendations include: (1) a regional model landscape ordinance for
new landscapes to be built smart from the start; (2) a landscape design and management
certification program targeted at HOA's, property managers and landscaping professionals; and
(3) an effort to install rain shut-off devices on irrigation systems across the region. Existing and
future innovations in technology and management techniques may need to be applied
differently by the different water providers throughout the watershed, given variations in
altitude, growing seasons, weather patterns, water supplies, and water demands.
P105
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 26
3.3.1 Create a Roaring Fork Model Landscape Ordinance with Information on
Landscape Water Budgeting
Substantial amounts of water can be saved using existing technology. Management techniques
and further innovation in irrigation equipment design present an importan t opportunity to
conserve and maintain the region’s water supply. Proper system design, correct installation and
consistent maintenance of efficient irrigation systems combined with the selection of climate-
appropriate, water-efficient plants and user education on the amount of water needed are the
key components of landscape water use efficiency.
A model water efficient landscape
ordinance for the Roaring Fork region
could promote water conservation,
prevent water waste, and protect water
quality. The model ordinance could
provide a template that could then be
formally adopted, used for design
guidelines, or used voluntarily; it should
include information on landscape water
budgeting, soil amendments, plant
selection, efficient irrigation practices,
and more. The ordinance could be
developed in a manner that is adaptable
to the variations in altitude, weather
patterns, and growing seasons throughout the watershed.
There are good examples of model landscape ordinances that could be utilized in the Roarin g
Fork region. In 2004, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs created the Colorado Water
Efficient Landscape Design Model Ordinance (DOLA, 2004). Numerous examples of landscape
ordinances implemented in California can be found here :
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/. Water providers are
already engaged in similar regional cooperation regarding energy through CORE, which could be
a good candidate to facilitate the investigations needed to determine how a model water
efficiency landscape ordinance should be structured in this region.
A landscape water budget provides a reasonable target level of water use that is tailored for
each customer and landscape. Water budgets help water users better understand their
consumption patterns and make sound decisions about how to best manage irrigation. Water
budgets also provide utilities with a powerful tool for identifying which customers are over -
irrigating and could most benefit from efficiency improvements. Water budgets can be
incorporated into a utility rate structure as has been done in Castle Rock, Centennial Water and
Sanitation District, and Boulder, but they are also useful as a tool for assessing water use.
Information on landscape water budgeting should be included in the Roaring Fork model
landscape ordinance. Information on appropriate drought -tolerant plantings for the local
P106
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 27
climate (which varies across the watershed), and associated water demands, should also be
incorporated.
If desired, this approach can also be integrated into land use regulations, through limiting
landscape water budgets for new development. The model ordinance can be designed in a way
that provides information and tools for all communities, and is adaptable for those who wish to
tie it to future ordinances and regulations. This program would require engaging the planning
and building departments from local jurisdictions as well as outreach and education to those
involved in planning and installing landscapes. Local landscape architects, nurseries and
landscape installation and maintenance professionals should be consulted at the beginning so
that any ordinances, regulations or other tools are developed in a way that is practical, cost-
effective, and supported by local providers of landscape services.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: Up to $10,000. These are one-time costs.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 80 – 100 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Maybe. A model landscape ordinance for
Colorado already exists, but needs to be adapted for local conditions.
3.3.2 Certification Program Targeted at Property Managers and Landscaping
Professionals
This program encourages creation and maintenance of water efficient landscapes through
education, information, and an awards program. Participants receive a rating (e.g.
gold/silver/bronze) based on landscape appearance and level of water use. Winners in various
categories such as business, school, condo/apartment, and residential receive substantive
positive publicity.
Programs such as the Tampa, Florida “Community Water Wise Awards” (described above) are
examples of the type of measure than could be implemented in the Roaring Fork reg ion. The
programs in this section are good candidates for pilot projects, and will require more effort to
identify how to best engage contractors and property owners. The landscape industry should
be consulted and involved in identifying effective ways to implement these and other similar
programs.
Performance Contracts. The
certification program could form
the basis for landscape efficiency
performance contracts in which
landscape professionals receive a
monetary incentive for achieving
water efficiency targets.
In the 1980′s, the common way of managing landscapes was what’s called a labor-based
contract using fixed hours and labor amounts.
P107
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 28
Today some landscape companies propose what is called a performance-based contract. This
means the company is paid to perform a service based on tangible results, i.e. landscape
appearance and water management. Providing a specific monetary incentive for water efficient
landscape management helps incentivize landscape workers to adopt a management approach
that pushes water consumption to the forefront.
Target Heavy Irrigators. The certification
program could also form the basis for an
audit program for highest outdoor users,
in which a list of heavy irrigators in the
region is developed each year. These
customers are then approached directly
and offered free or subsidized landscape
and irrigation management services in an
effort to reduce water use. There are
organizations such as the Center for
Resource Conservation that provide free
irrigation system inspections by trained
water auditors for residents, HOAs, and commercial properties located within participating
Colorado water providers’ service areas. The Regional Plan could establish a budget to pay for
audits of the highest water users across the watershed.
Targeting is essential because program budgets are limited and not all customers can achieve
measurable water savings. This approach offers water providers the opportunity to work with
their highest use customers to achieve meaningful demand reductions.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $15,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 80 – 100 AF/yr by 2050.
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Possibly. An awards program concept that
could be utilized elsewhere in the State has p otential.
3.3.3 Encourage Installation of Rain Sensor Devices on all Roaring Fork Valley
Irrigation Systems
Rain sensors and shutoff devices are inexpensive add-ons for an automatic irrigation system.
Products like the Hunter Mini Clik can be purchased for under $50 and installed on just about
any automatic irrigation system. During summer months when rain occurs, these devices have
the potential to substantially reduce irrigation demands by shutting off automatic irrigation
systems based on the availability of natural moisture. Rain sensors (also referred to as a rain
switch) immediately interrupt irrigation. Some irrigation controllers can be connected to a
weather service that causes the controller to enter a rain pause mode to incorporate rainfall
into irrigation scheduling. Recent research in Florida found that the combination of a rain
switch and rain pause devices reduced irrigation 41% compared with the use of no rain sensor
P108
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 29
features, whereas the rain pause feature alone saved 25% (Rutland and Dukes, 2012). Rain
sensors like the Mini Clik (shown here) are not difficult to obtain or install. A technician with
basic training and clear guidance could successfully install these products. A program aimed at
broad application of rain sensor/shutoff
technology could be implemented through a
regional partnerships with college students, trade
organizations, leadership groups, and others.
The program could be implemented with the
coordinated public outreach campaign. The goal
should be to equip every (or most) automatic
irrigation system in the Roaring Fork region with a
rain sensor device. This program will likely take a
number of years to complete, but once rain
sensors become a standard feature or
incorporated into local landscape codes, it is
anticipated that adoption will be more rapid. Purchase and installation of the rain sensor could
be subsidized by the program or paid for entirely by the owner of the irrigation system.
While not a perfect solution, rain sensors and shutoff devices are included in this plan for the
following reasons:
1. They have been shown to be an effective method of reducing excessive outdoor use by
25 – 40% in recent scientific studies (Rutland and Dukes, 2012).
2. They are inexpensive (under $50 per unit is some cases) and can be installed as a retrofit
on just about any automatic irrigation system. Soil moisture sensors and other
technologies are significantly more expensive and complicated to install, particularly as
a retrofit.
3. They are an effective way to assist part-time residents from irrigating unnecessarily
when it is raining.
4. Rain events in the Roaring Fork Valley are frequently isolated to specific areas. Rain
sensors only shut off irrigation if sufficient local precipitation is received.
Soil moisture sensors should also be considered and may be more effective in a dry climate
where rain is useful in replenishing soil moisture and reducing runoff . While soil moisture
sensors may be a preferred option, they are more expensive and require more skill to properly
install. It can be difficult to retrofit existing systems with soil sensors, but they should be
considered with any new irrigation system installation. Other irrigation technology such as
weather-based irrigation system controllers should also be considered and may be feasible and
cost effective for certain types of users such as institutional and commercial customers.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $5,000 - $25,000.
Range of estimated annual water savings: 100 – 150 AF/yr by 2050.
P109
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 30
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes.
IMPROVE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In the Roaring Fork Valley, water utilities and other water rights holders and water users can
help create long-lasting benefits through efficiency and improved water resource management.
Exploration of four program measures is recommended in this area: (a) liking water savings to
environmental benefits to spur savings and fund water efficiency; (b) short-term leases and
instream flow dedication; (c) improved water accounting for raw water systems; and (d) climate
resiliency measures and additional research on climate change impacts on water supplies in the
region.
3.4.1 Linking Water Savings to Environmental Benefits
People in the Roaring Fork Valley are concerned about the
health and sustainability of local riparian ecosystems and the
natural environment. The linkage of personal water use
reductions to direct environmental benefit is a powerful
motivating factor that encourages people to participate in
water efficiency programs. Some ideas for taking the next step
in linking personal water savings of Roaring Fork Valley citizens
to environmental benefit are discussed here.
The Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund
(http://cwcb.state.co.us/LoansGrants/colorado-healthy-rivers-fund-grants/Pages/main.aspx)
helps support local watershed organizations in their efforts to provide clean water, protect
habitat, and improve recreation and accessibility. This is an avenue that could be explored.
Another example of a program (or type of program) that seeks to link water efficiency and
environmental benefits that could be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley is the Conserve to
Enhance (C2E) program (www.conserve2enhance.org). This is one of the first programs in the
United States that seeks to link water savings and environmental benefits and could serve as a
model or could itself be implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley.
The C2E program was developed by the Water Resources Research Center at the University of
Arizona and is available for implementation in the Colorado River basin region. The innovative
approach of C2E provides a direct connection between water users’ voluntary water
conservation actions and local environmental projects. Development of a C2E program can be
driven by a water utility, a local environmental organization, or both. The program shares
important similarities to the water bank described in the University of Michigan case study of
Blackfoot Challenge Montana and the In-stream Leasing Program/Allocation of Conserved
Water Program by Deschutes Oregon.
P110
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 31
Regional implementation of a water savings type of and donation program could be
accomplished by a consortium of water providers, through a collaboration with a local
environmental organization (such as the Roaring Fork Conservancy), or a combination of both.
Range of estimated annual implementation costs: $25,000 - $75,000.3
Range of estimated annual water savings: 50 – 75 AF/yr by 2050.4
Potential for CWCB implementation grant funding? Yes.
3.4.2 Mechanisms to Protect Water Rights and Enhance Instream Flows
Improving the health of riparian ecosystems in the Roaring Fork region is an imp ortant goal of
the regional watershed and efficiency planning effort s that are broader than this plan.
Significant volumes of water are diverted from the top of the Roaring Fork valley via the
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Twin Lakes Canal Company, which provide water to cities
and towns on the eastern slope of Colorado. While altering the operations of the transbasin
diversions to benefit streamflow in the Roaring Fork Valley and other measures to enhance
streamflow by means not associated with water conservation are beyond the scope of this
planning process, there may be potential to enhance instream flows through planned Ruedi
Reservoir releases, interruptible and short-term water supply agreements with the CWCB, and
other water management mechanisms within the control of local water providers and water
rights holders.
The MOU includes several points on this topic:
“Conserved water that is subject to a water conservation program established through
formal written action or ordinance by a municipality is not subject to abandonment
under Colorado law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-103(2)”
“Water conservation established through formal written action or ordinance by a
municipality does not reduce the “historical consumptive use” (quantity) of wat er,
Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-305(3)(c)(I)(B)”
“Conserved water can benefit instream flows, rafting, kayaking, recreational in channel
diversions, gold medal fisheries, and aquatic life.”
“Conserved water can be loaned or leased to the Colorado Wat er Conservation Board
(“CWCB”) for instream flows to preserve or improve the natural environment to a
reasonable degree, Colorado Revised Statutes “C.R.S.” §§37-83-105(2) and 37-92-
102(3).”
3 Scale of program implementation in the driver of cost.
4 Savings could be significantly higher if program proves successful and gains wide adoption.
P111
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 32
While Colorado water rights issues and concerns about protecting water rights introduce
barriers in some situations, the above cited statutes have not been widely relied upon yet,
there are examples of opportunities that have been created while working within the existing
laws, as described below. In other situations, new laws to provide increased flexibility in water
rights administration are needed.
Since the 1990s, the City of Aspen has consistently operated its water rights to protect
instream flows, even though its water rights are senior.
In 2001, Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Trust began discussing how the County
could utilize its water rights to improve flows in the Roaring Fork basin. After the
passage of House Bill 08-1280, Pitkin County and the Colorado Water Trust signed an
innovative Trust Agreement whereby the CWCB may use the County’s Stapleton Ditch
water right to improve streamflows on lower Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River.
(CWT, 2014)
In 2012, the Colorado Water Trust in coordination with the CWCB and Division of Water
Resources issued a Request for Water soliciting short-term leases from water rights
holders in response to drought conditions. A 2003 statute provided the legal
mechanism and the process was an opportunity to gain experience in implementing the
statute. In addition to enhancing instream flows during a critically dry period, the
program increased public awareness about the impacts of drought on instream flows.
(CWT, 2014)
In 2013, the City of Aspen and the Colorado Water Trust conducted a “nondiversion
agreement” pilot program, to increase flows in the Roaring Fork River. The agreement
describes conditions under which the City would forego diversions of one of its senior
water rights, during periods when such diversions would otherwise reduce flows to
below the CWCB minimum instream flow right in a critical reach of the Roaring Fork
River. The City accomplishes this reduction in diversions by leasing less water to third
parties, reducing outdoor water use, and redirecting other water supplies to meet the
City’s needs. The City also operates its Castle Creek rights in a manner that protects the
instream flow on Castle Creek.
These are just some local examples of mechanisms that have been implemented to enhance
instream flows while protecting water rights. In the coming years, municipal water providers
and other water rights holders, such as counties and valley ranchers and farmers, should work
together to investigate opportunities to enhance and protect instream flows while also
protecting water rights. These programs may need to be implemented individually to
accommodate individual water rights and preferences; but having a regional discussion is likely
to create ideas and opportunities that would not be identified otherwise. Such a concerted
effort could result in a series of mechanisms that successfully improve instream flow levels
adequate water to users throughout the valley.
P112
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 33
It is not possible to estimate associated costs and potential water savings associated with this
recommended action until more specific projects are identified.
3.4.3 Improved Water Accountability for Raw Water Systems
Throughout the Roaring Fork watershed, raw water ditches are used to provide non-potable
water to golf courses, parks, subdivisions, agriculture, and a variety of other users. Providing
non-potable water for these types of uses can have many benefits. Reduced impacts to the
stream system can result from better understanding the associated water demands and
identifying ways to increase the operational efficiency of
these systems. Carbondale is seeking to improve
measurement and accountability for its raw water supplies.
Some of the new technologies and ideas being explored
could be of interest to other municipal water providers
(and irrigators) in the Roaring Fork Valley.
For Carbondale, the river headgates are the only locations
on the ditch system where water demand is currently
measured on a routine basis. The Town is aware that a
significant amount of tail water can result from current
operations used to maintain pressure head throughout the
ditch system. Better data and more operational control
could reduce the amount of flow necessary to push water
through the ditch system. Some of the improvements
Carbondale is considering include:
Mapping delineation and analysis of irrigated area and raw water demands.
Metering of tail water in ditches to provide improved measurements of customer usage.
Telemetry and additional metering to monitor and manage the raw water ditch system.
There may be opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between Carbondale and others
on the issue of raw water measurement and accountability, sharing costs and potentially
increasing water savings beyond that estimated in Carbondale’s Water Efficiency Plan. Funding
mechanisms and barriers for sharing costs outside of local jurisdictions would need to be
further explored.
When considering changes to raw water management and efficiency, impacts on return flow
volume and timing need to be understood so that streamflow enhancements at a particular
location or time of year are not made to the detriment of another location or critical period.
Impacts to return flows often need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis, as there are
many variables that can affect the timing and impact to streamflows. Pilot programs are a good
way to learn whether results from a specific location can be extrapolated to other locations.
P113
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 34
3.4.5 Expand Regional Climate Resiliency Measures
Temperature increases and climate change pose real and significant threats to water supplies in
the Roaring Fork region and across Colorado. Current modeling and research indicate that
some level of temperature increase is inevitable. The relationship between energy use and
water efficiency needs to be carefully analyzed and better understood. Many of the water
providers in the Roaring Fork have energy-related initiatives to help address impacts of current
and future uses. CORE works with utilities, businesses, and individuals to create improvements
in energy and water efficiency to benefit the environment and develop a more sustainable local
economy. Water providers, water rights holders, and water users in the region should continue
and expand action to improve resiliency and ability to manage through extended periods of
drought, changes in precipitation and runoff patterns, more frequent forest fires, and other
related changes.
As part of the Regional Water Efficiency Plan, it is recommended that a list of recommended
climate resiliency actions be developed. Distinct actions should be recommended for water
providers, water rights holders, and water users and information on these measures should be
disseminated to the public, potentially through the water efficiency education and messaging
campaign discussed earlier in this plan. Planning and implementing water efficiency programs
such as this Regional Plan and the associated individual water efficiency plans are examples of
distinct climate resiliency actions. Tracking ongoing climate variability and collaborating on
methodologies that can be used to apply findings from climate change research to potential
impacts on local water supplies and demands is another example of a resiliency action. A united
effort will improve the effectiveness of these actions.
Additional research on climate change impacts to water supplies in the region should be
supported and undertaken. Recent studies indicate reduced precipitation is a real possibility.
The Climate Change in Colorado report (CWCB, 2014) recently released by the CWCB is a
synthesis of climate science relevant for
management and planning for Colorado’s
water resources. The report finds
temperatures are likely to go up by several
degrees by 2050 which could mean changes in
timing and less water supply and higher landscaping demands. Tracking climate changes and
impacts, and evaluating potential future changes will help Roaring Fork water providers and
users prepare for what may be in store.
SUMMARY OF WATER SAVINGS AND COST ESTIMATES
A summary of water savings and costs for each of the proposed regional program measures is
shown in Table 2, below. For utility programs like enhanced water loss control, the estimated
savings are based on the five recently completed municipal water efficiency plans in the
Roaring Fork Valley. Fostering the implementation of improved water loss control in the region
P114
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 35
appears to be one of the most cost effective and important objectives of the regional
conservation plan.
The savings projections in Table 2 take into account the level of efficiency already being
achieved in each of the five participating communities. It is estimated that approximately 50%
of the water savings shown in Table 2 overlap with savings estimates from the five individual
water provider efficiency plans. However, all of these regional efforts are expected to enhance
and expand upon water efficiency savings from the local plans. Furthermore, the regional
efforts are likely to impact other communities and water users not covered under the five
individual plan yet those additional savings are not included in the Table 2 estimates. The high
savings estimate in Table 2 includes the potential impacts on users across the region, regardless
of jurisdiction or water provider.
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Water Savings and Costs.
Estimated Water
Savings at 2050
(AF/yr)
Estimated Annual
Cost
($)
Estimated One-Time
Cost
($)
Program Measure Low High Low High Low High
Water loss control technical
assistance
400 600 $ 5,000 $ 20,000
Regional Water Education and
Information Campaign
90 120 $ 5,000 $ 100,000
Business and HOA Challenge
and Awards
50 75 $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Model landscape ordinance 80 100 $ 0 $ 10,000
Certification program 80 100 $ 5,000 $ 15,000
Rain sensor device program 100 150 $ 5,000 $ 25,000
Link Efficiency and
Environmental Benefits
50 75 $ 25,000 $ 75,000
Total 850 1,220 $ 45,000 $ 230,000 $ 5,000 $ 30,000
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN
This Regional Water Efficiency Plan provides a foundation for implementing coordinated cost-
effective regional municipal water efficiency programs in the Roaring Fork Valley. The programs
listed in Table 2 are the top candidates for implementation at this time. Implementation will
require an ongoing effort and adaptive strategies to allow the plan to grow and change.
Additional stakeholders should also be engaged through the implementation process. The
specific programs included in the plan provide a menu of alternatives and it is understood that
every program will not be appropriate for every participant, nor will every participant be
capable of participating in all of the programs. Some programs may benefit from feasibility
P115
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 36
research and pilot implementation prior to broader application. Other programs could be
implemented relatively quickly upon acquiring funding.
The following actions are recommended as next steps for implementing this regional plan:
1. Maintain a Regional Plan Implementation Workgroup with representatives of each
major stakeholder group (e.g. municipalities, counties, schools, landscapers, agriculture,
recreation, etc.) to meet regularly (e.g. monthly/quarterly) to report on and assist with
regional plan implementation. Provide updates at other forum meetings (e.g. RFC, CBRT)
and/or host regular open forms. Include annual reporting around the plan for all
participants including:
Annual program implementation,
Program impact estimates including estimates of program costs/avoided costs
and water savings,
Lessons learned,
Public feedback on program,
Periodic weather data and local trends,
Water supply concerns,
Recommendations for studies or pilot programs,
Recommended plan modifications, and
Ongoing implementation plan.
2. Develop a funding plan for the Regional Plan implementation. Create lists of potential
annual and one-time funding sources (e.g., contributions from individual providers,
CWCB implementation grants, Colorado Basin Roundtable funding, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, other sources). Establish funding commitments and submit grant
applications.
3. Assign a Regional Plan Coordinator and divide responsibility for implementing the plan
across multiple individuals and organizations. To successfully implement this plan,
committed people must step forward and work together. Identifying a plan coordinator
and “plan champions” across jurisdictions and stakeholder groups is a critical step in the
process. Potential lead organizations include: RWAPA, CORE, or the Roaring Fork
Conservancy.
4. Create a MOU for implementation that details shared objectives, roles, and
responsibilities. An MOU was beneficial in defining goals, expectations, and roles of
individual providers in forming the partnership to create this Regional Water Efficiency
Plan. A similar type of agreement would be useful for establishing the roles and
responsibilities of participants in the implementation phase.
5. Dedicate resources and pursue implementation of the plan.
P116
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 37
5. CHALLENGES TO SUCCESS
Effective water demand management depends on water user participation. Water providers
can incentivize efficient use and penalize water waste, but actual reductions in usage depend
upon the actions of individual water users. Identifying potential challenges to success is useful
so that education and outreach programs can be designed to address the issues in advance and
concurrently to program implementation.
Some of the potential and real challenges to implementation of the Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Efficiency Plan identified during this planning process and in previous
watershed planning efforts include:
Social norms regarding water use – “we’ve always done it this way,” wanting green
lawns regardless of monetary cost, and/or not understanding how to implement
alternatives.
Disconnect between those who control the water demands and those who pay the bill –
property managers and landscaping businesses are responsible for maintenance of
many landscapes throughout the Roaring Fork Watershed. Frequently these managers
are not responsible for paying the water bill and may never see the bill or get any
information on actual water usage at the sites they manage.
Influencing tourists and second homeowners – short-term visitors and those that spend
only part of the year in the Roaring Fork Valley must be engaged in the effort for water
efficiency, a challenging task.
Open ditch systems are often unmetered and/or difficult to meter and manage –
improved management and accountability for water in open ditch systems could help
improve minimum streamflows.
Potential for water rights to be lost. “Use it or lose it” is many people’s understanding
of Colorado water law. While some alternatives exist and should be promoted, water
rights laws also need to be reinforced to expand opportunities and reduce legal
challenges that may result when conservation programs are effective at reducing
demands.
Downstream water rights could take any water left in the stream that results from
conservation.
Geomorphology makes it difficult to quantify the amount of water conserved and
maintained instream. Furthermore, the water rights system does not protect “saved”
water (e.g. reductions in water use due to conservation/increased efficiency) from being
diverted by another user.
Potential revenue impacts of decreased demand. This issue is addressed in the
individual municipal water efficiency plans prepared by ELEMENT and WaterDM.
P117
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 38
Misconceptions about being a headwaters area with plentiful water supply.
6. PUBLIC REVIEW OF WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
SECTION TO BE COMPLETED ADDED AFTER PUBLIC REVIEW
7. REFERENCES
AWE (2011). Water Efficiency for Instream Flow: Making the Link in Practice. Alliance for
Water Efficiency. Chicago, IL.
AWWA (2009). Manual 36 (3rd Edition): Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, American
Water Works Association.
CBRT (2014, July). Colorado Basin Implementation Plan, Colorado Basin Roundtable.
CWCB (2014, August). Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Management and
Adaptation, Second Edition, Colorado Water Conservation Board.
CWW (2010). Guidebook of Best Practices Guidebook for Municipal Water Conservation in
Colorado, Colorado WaterWise.
CWT (2014). Colorado Water Trust website. www.coloradowatertrust.org
DOLA (2004). Water-Efficient Landscape Design: A Model Landscape Ordinance for Colorado’s
Communities Utilizing a Water Conservation-Oriented Planning Approach, Colorado Department
of Local Affairs: Office of Smart Growth.
MOU (2013). Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork
Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan.
RFC (2012, April). Opportunities for Water Conservation: Realizing the Streamflow Benefits from
Local Water Conservation Efforts, Roaring Fork Conservancy.
Rutland, D.C. and M.D. Dukes (2012). Performance of Rain Delay Features on Signal-Based
Evapotranspiration Irrigation Controller, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
RWAPA (2008a, November). State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report, Ruedi Water & Power
Authority.
RWAPA (2012, March). Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, Ruedi Water & Power Authority.
P118
II.
ROARING FORK WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
MARCH 9, 2015
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAGE 39
RWAPA & RFC (2008, October). Phase II Guidance Document: Why the Roaring Fork Watershed
Plan Matters, Ruedi Water & Power Authority and Roaring Fork Conservancy.
RWAPA & RFC (2010, February). Phase II Guidance Document: Illuminating the Way Ahead,
Ruedi Water & Power Authority and Roaring Fork Conservancy.
UM (2010, December). Fostering Implementation of the Roaring Fork Watershed Plan, University
of Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment
UM (2014, April). Informing the Development of a Regional Water Conservation Plan for the
Roaring Fork Watershed, University of Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment.
P119
II.
ATTACHMENTS
P120
II.
P121
II.
P122
II.
P123
II.
P124
II.
P125
II.
P126
II.
P127
II.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Concerning the Preparation of a
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is entered into effective the
last date written below, by and among the City of Aspen("Aspen"), Snowmass Water and
Sanitation District("Snowmass"), Town of Basalt("Basalt"), Town of Carbondale
Carbondale"), the City of Glenwood Springs ("Glenwood Springs"), together these entities are
referred to below as"Providers,"and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency ("CORE").
All together these entities are referred to below as "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS,this MOU is based on all of the Parties' common interest in the Roaring
Fork watershed, water conservation, water planning, and the desire to cooperate to further their
individual and common interests; and
WHEREAS, water conservation saves water through practices,techniques, and
technologies that extend water supplies and other resources, such as energy; and
WHEREAS, water conservation can free up supplies for other uses, such as population
growth, drought needs,recreational uses, and environmental uses, such as instream flows; and
WHEREAS, conserved water that is subject to a water conservation program established
through formal written action or ordinance by a municipality is not subject to abandonment
under Colorado law, Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-103(2); and
WHEREAS, water conservation established through formal written action or ordinance
by a municipality does not reduce the"historical consumptive use" (quantity) of water, Colorado
Revised Statutes § 37-92-305(3)(c)(I)(B); and
WHEREAS, conserved water can benefit instream flows, rafting, kayaking, recreational
in channel diversions, gold medal fisheries, and aquatic life; and
WHEREAS, conserved water can be loaned or leased to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board("CWCB") for instream flows to preserve or improve the natural
environment to a reasonable degree, Colorado Revised Statutes "C.R.S.") §§37-83-105(2) and
37-92-102(3); and
WHEREAS, Aspen and Glenwood Springs are "covered entities" required to prepare and
submit water conservation plans to the CWCB for approval pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-60-126; and
WHEREAS,the City of Glenwood Springs has a CWCB-approved water conservation
plan; and
1
P128
II.
WHEREAS, Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt, and Carbondale are interested in water
conservation planning to benefit their communities; and
WHEREAS, economics and tourism significantly impact each of the Providers' water
demands in the Roaring Fork watershed; and
WHEREAS,the Parties recognize their individual interests in water conservation
planning have regional significance within the Roaring Fork watershed; and
WHEREAS,there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring
Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such as additional water for drought
protection,recreational uses and environmental purposes; and
WHEREAS,the Parties aspire to plan for, develop, and implement significant water
conservation within their communities and the Roaring Fork watershed and wish to support the
Providers' individual water conservation efforts and prevent the "Tragedy of the Commons"that
might result if Providers compete for growth by requiring less water conservation than their
neighbors; and
WHEREAS, water conservation may include demand management activities that share
many common elements that are amenable to regional investigation, including:
1. Foundational activities, such as water efficiency pricing and tap fees;
2. Targeted technical assistance and incentives, such as water efficient fixtures and
appliances, low water use landscapes, and water efficient commercial and
industrial water using process through incentives;
3. Ordinances and regulations; such as water wasting policies,watering restrictions,
new construction regulations, and time of sale regulations;
4. Educational activities, such as one-way, one-way with feedback, and two-way;
and
WHEREAS,the selection of water conservation activities is a four-step process
involving:
1. Assessment of community-specific water conservation activities, water supply and
service area;
2. Identification of potential water conservation activities that are compatible with
community systems and needs;
3. Qualitative screening of potential water conservation activities;
4. Evaluation and selection of final activities for implementation; and
WHEREAS, regional cooperative identification, screening and evaluation of water
conservation and demand management activities may facilitate selection and implementation by
individual Providers; and
2
P129
II.
WHEREAS,the Providers may be able to implement elements of their individual water
conservation plans more easily and more successfully if they are common components of a
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan; and
WHEREAS, public and stakeholder involvement can improve the quality, community
support and implementation of water conservation plans, and regional planning can complement
and enhance public and stakeholder involvement; and
WHEREAS, public opinion surveys are expensive and can be extremely valuable for plan
development,While a regional survey with community-specific questions can minimize these
costs and enhance public involvement; and
WHEREAS,the Providers desire to cooperate to prepare a Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Conservation Plan that compliments and supports their individual water
conservation planning; and
WHEREAS, the CWCB provides financial assistance for water conservation planning;
and
WHEREAS, the CWCB's Water Efficiency Grant Program has significant application
submittal requirements, including a detailed scope of work utilizing the CWCB's Municipal
Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document(July 2012); and
WHEREAS, water conservation plans must be prepared in accordance with the statutory
requirements of C.R.S. § 37-60-126 and the technical requirements of the CWCB's Water
Efficiency Grant Program Fund Grant Guidelines for Water Conservation Planning Projects
Nov. 20, 2008) and the CWCB's Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document; and
WHEREAS,the CWCB's Water Efficiency Grant Program requires a 25 percent match.
UNDERSTANDINGS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises
and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as
follows:
1. To cooperate in the preparation and submittal of an application to the CWCB for a Water
Efficiency Planning Grant to prepare a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water
Conservation Plan; and
2. To cooperate in the preparation and submittal of applications for other potential sources
of funding that may be available to support the preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed
Regional Water Conservation Plan"Regional Plan"); and
3. To cooperate in identifying a single fiscal agent to act as the lead applicant and grant
administrator for all; and
3
P130
II.
4. To cooperate in establishing a common planning horizon for the Regional Plan; and
5. To cooperate in the preparation of a request for proposals for a consultant(s)to work with
the Parties to prepare the Regional Plan; and
6. To agree on the selection of a consultant(s)to work with the Parties to prepare the
Regional Plan; and
7. In the event the Parties are awarded a Water Efficiency Planning Grant,to share the 25
percent local funding match required by the CWCB, in an amount not to exceed$7,500
each; and
8. To cooperate in the preparation of the Regional Plan; and
9. To review and comment on the draft version(s) of the Regional Plan; and
10. To cooperate in an attempt to identify mutually acceptable implementation measures for
inclusion in the Regional Plan.
11. In the event the Parties are awarded a Water Efficiency Planning Grant,preparation of a
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan will include the completion,
or review and updating of plans for each of the Providers in accordance with the
requirements of C.R.S. § 37-60-126.
The Parties further agree that this MOU:
1. Shall not be construed as evidence of any intent to abandon, in whole or in part, any of
the Providers' respective water rights,which the undersigned Providers hereby state they
have no intent to abandon; and
2. Is intended to describe the rights and responsibilities of and between the Parties and is not
intended to, and shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon any persons or entities not
named as Parties, nor to limit in any way the powers and responsibilities of the Parties or
any other entity who is not a Party; and
3. Shall be governed under and controlled by the laws of the State of Colorado; and
4. Constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties concerning the subject matter and
supersedes all prior representations, negotiations or other communications related thereto;
and
5. May be amended only in writing, which writing must be signed by all Parties in order to
be effective; and
6. Shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto.
4
P131
II.
Dispute Settlement
In the event of any difference(s) or dispute(s) arising out of the interpretation or application of
the provisions of this MOU, CORE shall immediately facilitate a meeting of the Parties to
consult in good faith to expeditiously resolve such differences or disputes in a spirit of mutual
understanding and cooperation.
Termination
This MOU shall remain in effect until the first to occur of the following events:
a) Twenty four (24) months following the Effective Date, or
b) The execution by the parties of a subsequent agreement, or
c) Agreement of all the Parties to terminate or otherwise withdraw from this MOU; or
d)Upon 60 days written notice to the Parties, any Party may elect to withdraw from this
MOU, which shall have the effect of termination of this MOU relative to the withdrawing
Party's duties and obligations. This MOU shall remain in effect and survive any Party's
individual withdrawal with respect to the duties and obligations of the remaining Parties.
Counterparts
This MOU may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same MOU.
Each Party hereto represents that its representative signing below is authorized to execute this
MOU on its behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this MOU as of the year and latest
date written below.
CITY OF ASPEN,
a Municipal Corporation
By
Its . Ul2CGRAL r-V- 1 l lit s U4/tm''e,4:., j.^f; f2.-e
Date Anb g
ATT ST:
lutmu,-k -",)
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
ty Att rney
5
P132
II.