Pagosa Spings Water Audits Move Forward

Great Western Institute (GWI) has successfully initiated a demonstration SMART WATER audit program for hotels and restaurants in Pagosa Springs, working with the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) and Environmental Dimensions, a local consulting firm. The demostration program is part of the newly developed PAWSD Water Conservation Plan developed by GWI, Harris Water Consultants and Environmental Dimensions through a grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

GWI lead the audit team in characterizing water use in various local hotels and restaurants, looking at customer uses, facility heating and cooling, outdoor irrigation, and kitchen and food preparation operations. Opportunities for water and related energy savings were identified and discussed with the facility owners and/or managers, focusing on capital investment, rate of return and payback periods. In nearly every facility, owners and managers were extremely eager to learn about water and energy savings options - some with capital paybacks with timeframes as little as weeks to months.

Most water and energy savings identified by GWI involved retrofitting and/or replacing fixtures and/or appliances that would reduce cold and hot water use without changing customer or employee behavior. In some cases, GWI was able to install new fixtures utilizing materials donated by its various corporate sponsors during the audit, instantly saving the businesses money and the District water.

GWI and the rest of the audit team will be returning to Pagosa Springs in the first quarter of next year to provide the business owners with full reports regarding the costs and benefits of various business specific water conservation programs. GWI will also be working with PAWSD and Environmental Dimensions during that same period to plan for a larger role-out of the SMART WATER audits for commercial and residential customers in the area. Thank you to PAWSD, Environmental Dimensions, Home Depot and SSI, as well as the local businesses in Pagosa Springs for helping to make the SMART WATER audit program a success.

Governor's Freeze on Spending and Water Conservation

Here we sit about just over 4 months into the State's 2009 fiscal year, and given existing economic issues and impacts, which are very real, the Governor has put a freeze on various State outlays related to professional services and new hires. We are clearly in difficult, and in many ways, unprecedented times, and this is exactly the kind of executive decision that is needed to keep the State solvent and functioning.

Unfortunately, due to either a legislative or administrative misstep, one important grant fund, the Water Efficiency Grant Program, has been frozen as well. This grant program provides much needed financial support to water providers for purposes of developing and implementing meaningful water conservation plans. The grant program can also be accessed, in some cases, by non-profits for educational purposes. As a non-profit, I am more concerned with water providers not having funding than non-profits, for the following reasons.

To begin with, many water providers, especially those that are special districts (e.g., water and sanitation districts, water districts, municipal districts) operate with a very small staff providing vital water and wastewater services to ther customers. These organizations need financial help to get water conservation programs to be more than some bill stuffers and other general educational activities. They generally need cash to hire a consultant to prepare meaningful water conservation plans and they need cash to implement those plans. The first stages of meaningful water conservation planning and implementation requires that water providers take a hard look at themselves and their customer's water use and management, and to look explicitly at the cost of doing (and not doing) meaningful water conservation. This is labor intensive work that requires a commitment of resources and expertise. Most water providers can get an outstanding plan in place, including cost benefit analyses, for $15 to 20K,... but having this cash can be very challenging to find in already strapped budget thus the importance of the grant program.

Once a plan is in place, water providers need help with implementation. Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD), for example, is installing an automated meter reading (AMR) program in concert with a meter replacement effort starting this year to help collect better customer water use data. The meter and AMR equipment will support more accurate billing, improved leak detection, and better characterization of non-revenue water. It will also help to better characterize customer water use, especially for seasonal residences and large commercial users. This effort is costing PAWSD hundreds of thousands of dollars with the majority of the costs falling in the next year. They have benefited from a loan to support this capital outlay.

Castle Rock on the other hand utilized Water Efficiency Grant funds to conduct audits of their largest commercial customers, including HOAs that only have irrigation use. These audits identified nearly 80 acre-feet of potential water savings based only on more appropriate outdoor watering practices for 8 irrigation accounts. (At $500 per audit, the savings at these 8 locations may provide Castle Rock with saved water at a cost of about $50 per acre foot.)

Both of these projects illustrate a fact that appears to exist with respect to Colorado's current status of water conservation - we are in a data collection mode in many geographies. We need better data regarding customer water use, non-revenue water, and system leaks before we can launch our most cost effective programs. The Water Efficiency Grant Program is exactly the kind of State support that is needed in many locations to help collect the vital data and allow water providers to identify what water conservation programs will create the most cost effective water savings.

The sooner the Water Efficiency Grant Program becomes available to the water providers, the better our state will be with regard to long term water resource management.

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.

A Need for More Regional Water Management Organizations

Here is a reprint of a memorandum to the then IBCC members of the Metro Basin Roundtable Chips Barry and Doug Scott (with copies to Harris Sherman and Eric Hecox) from one of the Metro Roundtable members, Tracy Bouvette, dated March 5, 2008

I applaud Executive Director Sherman’s request that those in the Colorado Water Community step back from the current focus on water projects, and articulate their vision of Colorado in the future. It is entirely appropriate to have our State’s leaders frame any discussions regarding the cooperative expenditures of billions of taxpayer dollars in terms of where Colorado is and where it is going. This is not to say that without a collective vision we cannot pursue new water development projects, but it is vital that we collectively identify what is important to us as a State as we continue to share the most precious resources that drive our future economic and social well-being.

One key driver in Colorado’s future economy is obviously home sales: not just homes for our working families, but second homes for those that enjoy our State’s natural beauty and want to live part-time in Colorado. We put a great deal of value in having more homes built in Colorado, based on the ongoing and explosive growth supported in many geographies of the State, including the Front Range and headwater areas alike. We also should expect to see substantial growth in areas that will likely foster increasingly larger retirement communities like the Durango and Grand Junction areas. Growth is a mantra for many of our local economies, and that is generally associated with the growth of housing units and related services.

Does housing alone provide for the State’s economic needs of the future? Of course not. Jobs that survive in the long-term will need to be tied to other industries to keep Colorado vibrant and healthy – jobs that bring money into the State from those individuals that benefit from our natural resources and food stock; as well as jobs that compliment and support the needs of the local community.

Current jobs in tourism, manufacturing, professional services, agriculture and exploration of our natural resources (e.g., fossil fuels and minerals) will clearly be the linch-pin of our State’s future – particularly in those regions where natural and existing resources are available to support these jobs. Which of these areas of employment will grow in the future is not clear; however, each category has its own opportunity for growth. For example, we have become increasingly dependant on tourism to provide for seasonal and year-round jobs, create sale tax revenue to support local economies, and bring full-time residents and businesses to our State. We are blessed with breathtaking scenery in nearly every corner of the State, with increasing demands on us to deliver natural wonders to the world’s ever increasing population. To this point, we saw tourist trips (as domestic overnight trips) increase by 8% from 2005 to 2006 as the world came to enjoy our State’s natural wonders, parks, and other attractions. This is a trend that will continue as the State and our local governments continue to spend money advertising nationwide and abroad, luring tourists to our mountains and cities.

However, tourism is only a $14 billion industry in Colorado, making up about 6% of the State’s gross domestic product (GDP). On the other hand, seven of the top ten private employers in the State provide either goods (i.e., Walmart, Target, Safeway and Kroger) or health services (i.e., Exempla, Centura Health, and HCA – Health Services) (based on 2006 data). We are, in fact, very dependant on small businesses that support the local, regional and national service industry. To this point, information services (including telecom, internet services, software development and advertising) and professional services (including legal and engineering) represent nearly 32% of the State’s GDP. People move to Colorado to live and work in our magnificent State because of our natural resources and vast public lands, and presumably our moderate climate . Our ability to maintain, and where possible enhance, our public lands and provide enjoyable outdoor recreation opportunities will go hand in glove with our ability to continue to attract service industry jobs to our State. It would, therefore appear that the protection of the State’s environment including the appropriate maintenance, and where possible enhancement, of instream environmental and recreational flows will become increasingly important to draw these jobs to Colorado.

There is a great deal of optimisms regarding the potential for expanded oil and gas exploration in Colorado as a means to drive growth. Exploration of fossil fuels on the Roan Plateau and in the Piceance Basin, exploration and production in the southwestern portions of the State, as well in various other locations is expected to drive substantial growth of communities especially along the middle and lower Colorado River. Although mining and oil and gas exploration produced about $13 million toward the State’s GDP (about 5.6%), this economic sector is expected to grow to such proportions as to rival the information and professional services industries. However, development of the oil and gas resources will require a substantial amount of water to support drilling and exploration activities, for example. Produced water disposal, impacting stream flow quantities and qualities, will also create challenges for future water resources management. Therefore, the expected growth of this economic sector will need to be balanced with the values and needs of the information and professional services community, the agricultural community, as well as with second home owners - to name a few - such that the economic well-being of those impacted regions are not compromised.

Manufacturing is also important to our State’s economy providing about $15 million to our GDP. We provide manufacturing to a broad range of buyers creating products that include industrial and electrical machinery, medical and surgical instruments, aircraft and spacecraft and related parts, organic chemicals and plastics, etc. We should expect that these jobs, while they may change with respect to specific products, will always be needed to support our local and regional economy. Additional manufacturing jobs may also be created as renewable energy opportunities are explored.

More people coming to Colorado, of course, means that we need more fuel and food to support the population. This shines a bright light on the importance of agriculture, mining, and renewable energy to our State’s regional and local economies. All of these three industries are vital to the future sustainable health of Colorado. We are blessed with fertile lands, rich oil and gas deposits, and renewable energy sources. Reaping the benefits of these riches will be a required component of any durable vision of Colorado.

Therefore, future water development will need to provide the reliable, safe, high quality water needed to support all of our needs, including:

Tourism and the natural environment to continue to bring money into the State from beyond our borders and to draw more permanent residents to our growing residential areas;
Municipal and industrial water supply for our working and service industry communities, our headwaters communities, and our retirement communities;
Agriculture such that food for our citizens can be grown and consumed without substantial implications on our carbon production, while at the same time creating jobs and supporting local economies (noting that agriculture also has an important role in State tourism as agritourism grows); and
Mining and oil and gas exploration to support ongoing and future mineral exploration in various locations across the State.

Clearly, future water development will require that a complex balance be struck between these vital, yet competing demands.

What is unclear is whether or not the parochial nature of Colorado’s water provider community can effectively meet the challenge of balancing these various and oft times competing water demands. Perhaps the greater question that needs to be clarified is not how can we work more collaboratively to balance the future water needs of these competing demands, but rather, do we have a system of governments and special districts that can effectively share and manage our resources to the benefit of all our diverse needs? It may be that the best solution for appropriately managing and allocating Colorado’s water given the competing demands and the need to preserve and protect all the key elements of the State’s economic resources will require some structural changes to how we build and operate large water projects.

With respect to those key issues raised in Executive Director Sherman’s January 15th Memo regarding the “economic base in each region” and how the “business as usual” scenario will impact our future water supply needs, it is likely that unless the status quo changes, water supply development (and even substantial amounts of saved water from water conservation efforts) will be used to support new homes in Colorado’s various geographies without appropriately balancing other vital consumptive and non-consumptive water needs – needs that support robust, resilient communities with diversified local and regional economies buoyed by long-term jobs that match the locally available resources and the related demand for goods and services. We see the majority of water development occurring at this time is to support growth, and there is no reason to expect that fact to substantially change without some degree of intervention or structural revision.

Municipal water providers, after all, are simply doing their job. It is no fault of these organizations that certain water uses are not necessarily equally represented in future water supply development and related financing discussions. Water projects require water sales to support debt service payments. These organizations are limited by their charters, by-laws and other organizational constraints, such that water resources management on a regional and/or statewide scale can become a patch work of intergovernmental agreements and memorandums of understanding, or worse, be regulatory driven.

What appears to be needed, therefore, are organizations with the authority and fiduciary responsibility to manage and allocate water resources to support a broader and more diversified set of uses such that some balance can be ascertained to support long-term economic needs beyond simply providing water for growth and/or municipal and industrial supplies - without creating “winners” and “losers.” Regional water management organizations, such as exist in Nevada, Arizona and California, may therefore be a vital component of our future water supply vision allowing for more representative and holistic management of our State’s water resources.

[1] America’s Best States, 2nd (National Policy Research Council); Most Preferred State to Live in, 4th (Harris Poll); Best Places to Live, various rankings for different cities (Money Magazine); Parks and Recreation, 6th (National Association of Parks Directors)

Another IBCC Discussion and the Federal Government

The role and effectiveness of the Interbasin Ccmpact Commission (IBCC) continues to receive substantial discussion at high levels across Colorado. For good reason. Legislators are becoming entrenched in the process; regualtors are receiving funding to keep the process going; and dozens and dozens of individuals and organizations are committing thousands of volunteer hours to keep the dialogue moving.

To the credit of the current administration, the discussion and related work products have been moved forward to a point never before conceived - in that most major basins have established true "needs assessments" that are framed in a consistent manner - utilizing available data to identify water supply needs based on expected water demands, past river administration, and currently identified projects and processes that local and regional planning entities have developed. Bravo. The discussion has also been recently framed by a collective visioning effort that has received substantial buy-in from a wide geography of users with seemingly diverse water interests including environmental groups. Double bravo.

However, one key stakeholder appears not to be at the table in a manner that is meaningful and required. That is the largest single landowner in the state that controls, to some extent, the majority of the land from which our water supply is derived - that being the Federal government. Certainly the local National Forest Service and Parks Service, as well as BLM and BRec, staff have been included in the discussion, but no key Federal decision-maker is a member of the IBCC.

This may be by design. But is it a key failing in the effort of identifying the future vision for the state, and the related water needs, if the key land owner is not present?

Their is a reasonable argument both ways regarding inclusion of the Federal government. There are good reasons for Colorado's citizens to try and work through the various thorny issues without the 800 pound gorilla in the room, since we have a number of local and regional issues that only we can identify and characterize. The needs assessment, for example, which looks at needs, does not as of yet deal with estimating watershed yields - that is another study (at least for the Colorado River). So having no federal representation helps to ease the discussions and allow (perhaps) for a more open sharing of ideas and concerns.

But not having the Federal government hinders development of any true resolution to key issues like managing beetle kill areas, or impacts of large fires, or evaluating forest management techniques to improve forest health while increasing watershed yield.

"Despite being portrayed as a villain, timber harvesting in the form of thinning can substantially counteract the impact of fire regrowth on water yield. The benefits of regrowth thinning have been widely studied throughout Australia. In Melbourne's catchments, strip-thinning trials have shown that up to 2.5 million litres a year of additional run-off can be generated from each hectare of thinned regrowth. A program of thinning the 1939 regrowth could add billions of litres of water to our storages.

Western Australia has been quicker to take advantage of thinning as a water management tool. Earlier this year, a $20 million, 12-year thinning program was initiated in a substantial segment of Perth's catchment following four years of exhaustive public and stakeholder consultation. Every 1,000 hectares thinned is expected to deliver an additional one billion litres of run-off into the Wungong Dam a year."

This is an extract from an opinion piece by Mark Poynter first published in The Age and just republished by On Line Opinion, entitled 'Fired-up Forests, Have More Impact Than the Loggers'. Read the full article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5213

Interesting, quite a bit of the research prepared to discuss the relationship between forest management and watershed yield is somewhat aged (see New Mexico SEO Literature Listing), but it does exist. No doubt Colorado State University is looking at this as this is written (as well as other State schools).

Another key issue that Colorado's water providers and interests on the IBCC are going to have to face is who is going to pay for the expected future water supply projects, which include everything from structural storage to instream restorations to species management and protection. I have heard figures as high as $6 billion just for infrastructure will be needed by 2030, but their are others that likely have a more accurate number than that. If $6 billion is close, then what is the infrastructure cost from 2030 to 2050? Another $6 billion? $10 billion. We just aren't used to talking about these kinds of costs.

To wit, funding for the kinds of projects currently being discussed by the IBCC is not going to be easily raised without some kind of Federal support. Any project that includes federal lands, wetlands or waterways with Federal jurisdiction, and/or federal facilities will also carry a need for Federal dollars to support planning and evaluation efforts. This further indicates that relative importance and value of having Federal organizations involved upfront in the planning and analyses that are ongoing within the State. We simply are going to need their help.

The bottom line is that meaningful progress on this as well as numerous other issues with a Federal nexus will need to be addressed head on for the IBCC to get to closure - closure meaning a resolution to more sustainable water supply for the current and future citizens of Colorado. The Federal government, especially the Department of the Interior, but perhaps the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the US EPA may also need to be "on the team" earlier, rather than later, to help us get solutions that are both feasible and timely.

Just my two cents.

What is it about water conservation?

What is it about water conservation that makes folks (chiefly old school water providers) so nervous in Colorado? There are a number of possible touch points, but frankly none of them hold up to intelligent scrutiny. When dealing with a valuable resource, it always makes sense to manage its use, and continually evaluate and re-evaluate the potential for wasteful and unwise practices. But a more thorough discussion of what this means is certainly warranted.

To begin with, water conservation needs to be looked at from both the perspective of the water provider and the water customer. Let's begin with water customers - those folks that use water in their homes (or businesses). I will not go into agricultural water use here, that will be saved for another day.

Water customers historically have not had a lot to worry about regarding their water use efficiency since water has been extremely inexpensive, and wasteful water practices came will little, if any, negative repercussions. Only situations that caused water damage - either from small leaks or from large leaks - were of substantial concern. Of course a leaking toilet can be annoying, as can a leaking faucet (think of those old Bugs Bunny cartoons with Elmer Fudd trying to sleep with the incessant drip, drip, drip), but the cost of the water was rarely, if ever a consideration in a water customer's decision to fix the problem.

Today, water waste has substantially more impact on the water customer's pocketbook. More efficient hot water delivery systems, lower water use washing machines and dishwashers, low flow shower heads and faucets all save not only water but fuels for heating water. With skyrocketing fuel prices, water use efficiency increasingly supports better home and business financial management. Given that home indoor water use, and many, many commercial and industrial indoor water uses are linked to heating water, any water conserving technology or best management practice has value that reduces energy, as well as, water consumption.

Outdoor water use is a whole other beast. In Colorado, roughly 50% of municipal water supply is used for outdoor uses - chiefly landcape irrigation. While no one suggests that aesthetically pleasing grasses, flowers, trees and shrubs, and recreationally available grass-scapes are undesirable, it is how these landscapes are planned, constructed and most importantly maintained that is a topic of substantial discussion and consternation. Grass for the sake of green, watered indiscriminately and wastefully is simply unacceptable in today's day and age. Although some communities and individual water customers feel a certain entitlement for cheap, free flowing lawn irrigation water, in numerous locations around the State, over watering of lawns has detrimental water quality impacts on those rivers and streams that receive irrigation return flows. In addition, there are a number of communities that utilize non-renewable groundwater and/or tributary groundwater (which requires treatment and augmentation) that can ill afford wasteful irrigation practices. Any community that pays to pump water to irrigate thin strips of grass along roadways and sidewalks, which invariably causes substantial amounts of water to flow into streets and gutters is clearly wasting community resources in a manner that is increasingly unacceptable to our citizens.

However, customers often do not understand the ramifications of their habits (such as their overwatering, watering on pavement and/or watering during rainstorms), and it is the duty of the water providers, non-profits, school districts, and the State to provide the education needed to enlighten and teach our citizenry about their responsibility to act in accordance with the realities of our water supply limitations. Even though most locations in Colorado utilize inclining water rate structures that "penalize" wasteful outdoor water use, a substantial number of home and business owners are oblivious to the workings of their automated sprinkler systems, and therefore their outdoor watering habits are controlled by a microchip that was programmed either by someone else or long enough ago that the owner no longer remembers what the watering intervals are or how to change them. Although many water providers benefit from increased water sales revenue due to these poor water irrigation practices, these clearly irresponsible practices must be controlled and eliminated. They are just not acceptable in communities that consider themselves aware and sustainable.

From a water provider point of view, indoor water savings can be a double edged sword. Many Colorado communities have direct flow water rights from rivers and streams, without dams and reservoirs. For many of these communities, reduced indoor water use may negatively impact the quantity and quality of wastewater returning to the community's wastewater treatment plant, and may have negative implications with regard to treated wastewater return flow credits that water providers rely upon to give them operational flexibility during periods of reduced streamflow. In simple terms, some communities with direct flow rights see water conservation as unnecessary since they perceive themselves to be in a "use it or loose it" kind of situation. (Noting that communities with dams and reservoirs can store "saved water", but communities without storage expect saved water to simply flow downstream to the next diverter.)

Increasingly, water conservation for the direct diverter communities makes sense, because there are increasing energy and treatment costs associated with delivering high quality drinking water to water customers and maintaining compliance with wastewater treatment plant discharge permits. As energy and chemical costs continue to increase, water conservation to reduce these costs will make sense.

Outdoor water conservation also makes sense for all of Colorado's communities, since for most locations, irrigation water is potable, and therefore comes with the tranpsportation and treatment costs. Even for those communities fortunate enough to have raw water supplies available for irrigation, pumping costs are substantial and are only going to be increasing.

But water conservation is more than the management of energy and treatment costs, or the wise preservation of non-renewable and/or limited resources. It is an increasingly important political position that all of Colorado's communities must embrace. Although most of Colorado's Rivers leave the State at one location, the most contentious river, the Colorado River, leaves the State in many locations given the number of transmountain diversions that carry water from the Colorado River Basin to the Rio Grande, South Platte and Arkansas Rivers. This reality ties and links Colorado's communities and water providers together like so many Lincoln Logs in a cabin. And much to the chagrin of Colorado's parochial water providers, they are inextricably linked via the Colorado River to communities like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los Angeles - communities that have aggressive water conservation programs and initiatives.

Given all these reasons, and more that I have not fully explored in this post, it makes no sense for Colorado's communities to buck water conservation. Improved water use efficiency saves water customers money. It also saves on overall energy and treatment costs. Perhaps, most importantly, it provides the State and all its water providers the necessary political positioning that we need to deflect arguments from potential detractors that we do not know how to best manage one of our beautiful State's most precious natural resources. The importance of this positioning cannot be over emphasized.

Fun Water Cycle Video for Kids of All Ages

There are a vast number of water cycle videos out there,.. some by NASA,.. some by professional groups. This is one of the best. Hope that you enjoy.

Interbasin Basin Compact Commission and Water Conservation

The Interbasin Compact Commission (IBCC) of Colorado has made some significant strides related to creating a dialogue and planning for the State's water future. This is of course no small task given the State's history of parochial water development and east slope/west slope animosity. There are dozens of examples of cooperative water projects, but there are numerous other examples of unjust water grabs and unintended consequences related to dam and diversion construction detrimentally impacting environmental settings and local economies to give forward thinking people pause. To this point, the IBCC has taken on, as at least one of its goals, to open the water dialogue to broader interests and more inclusive water uses. Bravo.

Unfortunately, water conservation has taken a back seat in this effort. This is not to say that many water providers and water users in the State do not take water conservation seriously,... many do. But surprisingly, a vast number of the State's water providers - municipalities and special districts - do not appear to take water conservation seriously evidenced by the lack of these entities developing meaningful water conservation plans using the guidelines and requirements set forth in Colorado Statute. Meaningful water conservation plans allow for the setting of water conservation goals and the tracking of successful water savings in a manner that is clearly needed for Colorado to best manage its current and future allocations of water resources in the best and most earnest manner. Without meaningful water conservation plans and the water savings that occur as a result of careful and thoughtful planning, it is difficult for the State to represent its actions in a consistent and consciencious manner to our citizens and to those states that we share in the use of the water transported by our rivers and streams.

Should the State develop more stringent standards and requirements for local water conservation planning and implementation? That is a tricky question, since it is clearly undesirable to create statute that requires local utilities and special districts to commit resources to water conservation that they lack. Due to the TABOR amendments, some utilites and special districts are hard pressed to find general fund monies that could be used for such activities. Although the State has created a nearly $3 million grant program to support local water conservation planning and implementation, pursuing and implementing planning still requires local resources. On the other hand, programs that are based on State regulatory requirements cannot be dismissed by City Councils and Special District Boards as being voluntary and/or unnecessary. Having State requirements can therefore take away the guess work that staff can face at a local level when approaching appointed and/or elected officials.

There is no easy answer. However, it would appear that the IBCC needs to take a more explicit stance reqarding the value and importance of water conservation planning when looking at water development projects that have regional and/or statewide signficance. For example, the Northern Integrated Supply Plan (NISP) has run into opposition due to the potential impact on the Cache la Poudre, and the perception that local municipalities are not planning for and implementing aggressive enough water conservation programs. Interesting that most of the municipalities that would benefit from NISP have yet to complete their water conservation plans. This is not a good thing.

Similarly, the reallocation of Chatfield Reservoir storage from flood pool to water supply storage requires federal permitting and approval. Numerous front range communities stand to gain important storage from this project within an existing storage facility, yet many of the project stakeholders and benefactors have not completed water conservation plans consistent with the State statutes. Given that the Chatfield project has been on the books for over 15 years, and that substantial work has been conducted on the EIS since 2004, it is difficult to understand the mindset of those water providers that have not developed water conservation plans in advance of the EIS preparation and approval process. Some have, but not all.

Isn't getting the entire team to work together in a consistent and beneficial manner one of the goals of the IBCC? It seems like a natural fit. However it has been an unpopular role given that it would require all water users to work as a team and truly share resources, and at times commit resources to the benefit of the larger outcome, not just the needs of the few. It remains to be seen how the overall water needs of the Front Range will be served through the IBCC process. From this writer's perspective, the IBCC is a great idea that will continue to ferment and solidify into the future. However, it may be that unless the IBCC develops strong, and at times unpopular, stands regarding some of the thornier water issues, such as the need for widespread, meaningful (and therefore measurable) water conservation, the overall process will fail. A house divided against itself cannot stand,... and a group of water providers operating in manners inconsistent with the needs of the larger community will similarly fail.

Brighton Water Conservation Plan Receives State Approval

The City of Brighton received written approval from the Colorado Water Conservation Board's (CWCB) Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning for its Water Conservation Plan. The Plan, which was prepared by Great Western Institute, received high marks from the CWCB and its reviewer/contractor Aqua Craft. Specifically, CWCB indicated that, "The City of Brighton Water Conservation Plan prepared by Great Western Institute is an excellent example of what a conservation plan should be."

The Plan was prepared over about a 6 month period led by City of Brighton Public Works Department staffer, Dawn Hessheimer, who manages multiple water resources projects for the City including augmentation and substitute water supply plans and water conservation. City Planning, Parks and Recreation, Finance, and Public Works Departments all had a hand in supporting Plan development and completion.

CWCB had particular praise for the cost/benefit analyses, and related water savings analyses included in Brighton's Plan. The CWCB has embarked on developing an "Identified Projects and Processes (IPP)" database to track water needs and development into the future, including those related to water conservation. CWCB indicated that the format that Great Western Institute utilized for the City of Brighton, including detailed cost/benefit analyses and assumptions for each selected water conservation measure and program is going to help facilitate the development of the IPP database. Although CWCB will not develop guidelines that are so specific as to require this cost/benefit format, CWCB will promote the use of similar content and information in future Water Conservation Plans since it allows for easy input into the IPP database. This is just the kind of water conservation planning metric that will help the state to quantify "more meaningful water conservation".

Great Western Institute's Contribution to Local Conservation Education

Coyote Gulch reported about Castle Pines North Metro District's water conservation education efforts by repeating a story from YourHub.com. YourHub wrote:

"In a bold move the Castle Pines North Metro District (CPNMD) has challenged each of their 3500 customers and 30 HOAs to "Get WARPed." WARP stands for the Water Awareness and Responsibility Program, a public education program designed to increase water conservation awareness. According to CPNMD district manager, Jim McGrady, "By getting WARPed, the citizens of Castle Pines North (CPN) can help achieve a more secure future for the community."

"CPN is one of many Douglas County communities whose water is derived solely from non-renewable wells which experts predict by 2022 will no longer meet demand. Through water conservation and conscientious use of current supplies, the citizens of CPN can help keep water costs to a minimum and assure an adequate water supply for the future. While the CPNMD works to identify alternative sources of water, the citizens of the community can to do their part to conserve the resources we already have. As CPN resident April Parcells put it, "Conservation is our cheapest source of new water." Since the initial WARP rollout in April, the WARP team has shared water conservation messages with over 3,000 children in the CPN area through school assemblies, classroom presentations, email blasts, and school web sites. Students completed hundreds of conservation activity sheets, coloring contest entries, and tested their toilets for leaks with kits provided by the CPNMD."

What was not included in the story was that Great Western Institute's Executive Director, Tracy Bouvette, provided educational resources and class time in support of CPN's efforts. Since promoting water resources conservation is integral to the mission of his organization, the support was given to CPN free of charge. Over the course of two days in April, Mr. Bouvette appeared in front of over 400 school aged children, teaching a hands-on understanding of where our water comes from, how much water each of us use, and how we can effectively conserve. In addition, Mr. Bouvette provided CPN with trivia questions for their middle and high school student competitions.

Mr. Bouvette also appeared at the Water Festival held by Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster in May. Once again, he provided engaging hands-on educational exchanges with over 200 5th grade students, discussing everything from the source of our water, to what happens after we flush our toilets, to the benefits of knowing how to turn off our sprinkler controlers.

Great Western Institute applauds the efforts of CPN, Northglenn, Thornton and Westminster, and hopes to help support other local and regional K-12 educational efforts in the future. These are just the types of activities that informed citizens need to have available to them, such that future sustainable communities can be formed and maintained.

Metro Round Table Grant to SMWSA

It is interesting that the Metro Round Table saw fit to provide the South Metro Water Supply Authority $100,500 through the Water Supply Reserve Account (one of the grant programs administered through the Colorado Water Conservation Board), even though the Authority's membership does not comply with the requirements set forth in Colorado statute regarding water conservation planning, and that the State is supposed to consider such compliance when awarding grants. In a State where the Governor has publicly stated that water conservation is his number one priority regarding the creation of future sustainable water supplies, it is alarming that the Authority would be granted funding until such time as its membership met with the basic state requirements.

It can be considered an oversight, if the Authority's membership was small and lacked resources,.. or if the member organizations were in the process of developing meaningful water conservation plans. But, unfortunately this does not appear to be the case. For example, Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which supplies water to nearly 100,000 people in the South Metro area, has developed a draft water conservation plan that was open for public comment early this year. The draft plan that Centennial developed did not meet with the basic requirements of the state statutes, and met with some fairly harsh publicly documented criticism. It is unclear what the status of this draft plan is, but based on this reviewer's read of the draft document, it is not something that Centennial or its customers should be proud of since it does not allow for meaningful water conservation to occur based on the state's definitions.

Meaningful water conservation is obtained through measurable and verifiable reductions in water demand. Centennial claims to have reduced water demand by increasing water rates and implementing a water budget. Although these are good water conservation programs, most of Centennial's reduced water demand occurred prior to its implementation of these two programs,.. and since they implemented increased water rates and the water budget, average per capita water use has increased. Perhaps Centennial Water & Sanitation District, which is led by a Board of Directors that does not represent the customer base that it serves, but is rather staffed entirely by home builders, needs to take a long hard look at its policies and act in a manner that is more in keeping with the needs of the community and the state of water resources management in Douglas County and the Front Range (as evidenced by the handful of communities that do have strong water conservation plans such as Denver Water, Castle Rock, and Colorado Springs).

Given Centennial's actions, and lack of meaningful water conservation, it is surprising and disappointing that the Metro Round Table saw fit to provide funding to SMWSA. If the Authority really wants to be taken seriously, it would seem that it needs to pull together its membership and lead the way with meaningful water conservation. Until such time as this occurs, it would appear that the Authority is going down a path that is not sustainable and will not ultimately provide renewable water supplies to the South Metro area,.. and the State is happy to help them achieve this inauspicious goal.