Lend Lease Company, Windy Gap and the Role of the State

The State has spent millions of dollars developing the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) as a means to understand and evaluate local, regional, and even statewide water supply options and needs. Although SWSI did a yeoman's job pulling together disparate data and information into a succinct presentation of the status of Colorado's water needs, it seemingly failed to find projects and processes that would address the expected gap between available water supply and the growing water demand of our thirsty residents. SWSI did list "identified projects and processes (called IPPs)" within its covers; however these three years later have yet to produce one IPP successfully.

Is this the fault of the State or the SWSI process? Perhaps,.. perhaps not.

Enter Denver-based Lend Lease Company, a subsidiary of an Australian development company, that has recently indicated that it will pull out of a 3,670 acre Arapahoe County development if a sustainable water source if not identified by the end of this year (see Lend Lease letter to the State Land Board at www.blogs.RockyMountainNews.com/rebchook). What is interesting about this developing water story is the lack of its mention in the SWSI report - that being that there are locations in Colorado that private developers will find "undevelopable" due to the lack of available sustainable water supply. Perhaps the State role is not to identify such situations, and leave these types of discoveries and business decisions to private investors and non-profits. It just seems that a Statewide water planning analysis should in some way indicate the challenge of delivering sustainable potable water as potentially limiting to private investment, at least in the short-term.

Water conservation is also of concern to the State, as evidenced by the news release from DNR Director Harris Sherman and CWCB Director Jennifer Gimbel on October 9th calling for more water providers to prepare water conservation plans and implement more meaningful water conservation. Why then did the SWSI Team not perform a very rigorous analysis of the role of water conservation in managing future water demands (it simply assumed that future demands would be reduced by 12% from current demands), or indicate the status of water conservation planning in the State (which as Director Sherman indicated, less than 25% of those that should have plans do). It should be the State's role to call out those entities that are not in compliance with the State's regulations, even though it is perceived by some as being unreasonably harsh.

Without the State shining a bright light on our lack of meaningful water conservation planning, we run into a situation that water providers are self-policed regarding water conservation. What is the result? As Gretchen Bergen points out in her Colorado Voices op ed piece in this Sunday Denver Post, "most Windy Gap (water) recipients lack progressive (water) conservation goals." In fact, some of those entities looking to increase transmountain diversions from the Colorado River via the Windy Gap Firming Project do not utilize something as simple and effective as inclining block water rates to discourage excessive water use, including Loveland and Broomfield. Appropriately priced water is one of the hallmarks of responsible water conservation programs. Greeley and Longmont have draft water conservation plans under review by the State; that leaves hundreds of thousands of North Front Range citizens without meaningful water conservation programs available to support their needs.

The key project proponent for the Windy Gap Firming Project, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (or Northern Water), does not have the power or authority to require those entities that receive its transmountain diversions to have meaningful water conservation plans. This further begs the question regarding the State role in helping, and in some cases shaming, water providers into water conservation planning and implementation. Given that the IPPs contained in SWSI are not finding their way to ready implementation (in part due to a lack of meaningful local water conservation efforts), and that private developers are questioning the nature of available sustainable water supply in some location in the Front Range, doesn't more meaningful water conservation truly make sense allowing our communities to stretch their current water supplies and improve local water supply sustainability sooner rather than later?

Is it time for the State to bring out a bigger regulatory instrument, or will our water providers begin to read the writing on the wall without a legislative hammer? It doesn't look like we have a lot of time to figure this one out.

Water Conservation Planning

Kudos to Director Sherman of the Colorado DNR for bringing attention to the long standing issue of Colorado's water providers non-compliance with Colorado Revised Statute 37-60-126. According to the statute, Colorado's water providers should have had "new" water conservation plans filed with the State prepared in accordance with the 2004 legislation (HB-04-1365)beginning July 1, 2006. Two key circumstances have kept the vast majority of those that should have plans from developing new plans and submitting them to the State.

First, some entities created plans in response to the State's first water conservation requirements that came to exist in 1991. In response to the 1991 act, about 70 entities and organizations submitted water conservation plans to the State. Truth be told, only a handful of the plans submitted to the State in the 1990's provide for any meaningful water conservation, in part because the state of the science has moved substantially forward since that time. In addition, the new requirements specified in the 2004 act allow for more meaningful water conservation planning to occur. Specifically what is meant by the phrase "meaningful water conservation?" Meaningful water conservation requires that entities implement water conservation programs which are measurable and verifiable, and create water savings that are sustainable. Very few (a dozen or so) Colorado water providers have water conservation plans that include a rigorous characterization of water supply limitations and expected future demands, quantified water conservation goals that are based upon water supply limitations, and measurable water conservation program outcomes.

Second, there is no penalty for not submitting a water conservation plan to the State, unless an entity is looking to obtain funds from the CWCB Construction Fund account or a loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Instead of using a "stick" that would fine or otherwise penalize those entities that are required to have plans but refuse to develop and submit them, the State chose to use a "carrot." The carrot as it exists right now is that only those organizations with approved water conservation plans can receive grant funding from the CWCB water efficiency grant to implement water conservation measures and programs. This grant fund has been used successfully to purchase high efficiency toilets in Northglenn, purchase irrigation control equipment in Castle Pines North, and conduct water conservation workshops all across Colorado training and educating water resource managers, consultants, elected and appointed officials and interested citizens.

To move our water providers, and the customers they support, toward more meaningful water conservation, we need our water resource and district/utility managers to better understand the value of water conservation. For example, in most locations in Colorado, there are dozens of water conservation programs that can produce "saved water" at a cost of less than $5,000 per acre-foot. There are dozens more that can produce saved water at a cost of less than $10,000 per acre-foot. Given that water providers throughout Colorado are looking at replacement water costs (which include the cost of raw water, water transmission and treatment) at values from $15,000 to 45,000 per acre foot, clearly it is in the business interest of all water providing organizations to look seriously into water conservation planning and analyses. Far too often water conservation is neglected (Re: red-headed step child), but those days must be put behind us if our water providing organizations are going to be held to furnishing the best and most cost-effective, sustainable water supply to their customer base. This is the metric that all Colorado citizens are owed and must demand.

Although it is reasonable for the State to wait a bit longer to see if Colorado's water providing entities will rise to the challenge and develop and implement meaningful water conservation plans (which means budgeting and funding meaningful water conservation measures and programs), it may not be far off when the State will be forced to create a legislative "stick" that requires water conservation plans and defines implementation schedules. It will only take one or two failed water development project permits to create the need for legislative pressure, especially if the permitting process is befuddled because of a lack of meaningful water conservation planning. No less than 4 EIS projects are currently progressing in Colorado, and more than half of them have received some negative press due to the lack of demonstrable water conservation efforts by the project proponent(s). This is not the time to disrespect the power and benefit of water conservation as a vital part of any water utilities resource management efforts. It is rather the time for new and progressive measures to be earnestly evaluated and incorporated into the way that Colorado manages its natural resources responsibly and conscientiously.