iiZ?Qfa?QSZe? 

?t 
j'

 

COMPREHENSIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
9E
THE CITY OF ASPEN

1990 UPDATE

 
  

_Prepared 1990, by'the Staff of the City of
Aspen:

_??enager
01 O'Dowd

City Attorney
Edward Caewall, Esq.

Public Works Director
Bob Gish

Director of Water Treatment and Supply
Larry Ballenger

city-County-flanning Department Director
Amy Margarum

Finance Director
Cindy Sheaffer

City of Aspen Environmental Health Officer
Tom Dunlop

and in conjunction with.the following Special Consultante
to the City of Aspen:

Rea, Cassens and Associates, Inc.

MUsiok and Cope

 

 
  
  

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I.

II.



IV.

INTRODUCTION
A. General
B. DeVelopment of the 1980 Comorehensive Water Manaoement

 

Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Modification of the 1980 Plan
D. 1984 Raw Water Studv
1. Conclusions
2. Recommendations
E. 1985 Rate Ordinance
1. Water Management Plan Rate Structure
2. 1980-1984 Rate Measures
3. Ordinance Series of 1985
POLICIES .
A. Policv Statement on Comprehensive Water Management
B. Policy Statement on Service Areas -
C. Poliov Statement on Intergovernmental Cooperation
D. Policv Statement on Service Expansion 
E. Policy Statement on Water Riqhts Acquisition
1. City Service Area
2. Private Wells
3. Water Rights Dedication
F. Poliov Statement on Water Conservation
G. Policy Statement on Hydroelectric Power Generation
H. Policy Statement on Water Utilitv Svstem Rates and

 

Charges

TREATED WATER SYSTEM

 

 

 

 

A. Water Manaeement Plan Phase 1 Proieots
3* 
C. Future Phase 1. 2. and 3 Construction
D. ls-Year Water Improvements Proqram
E. Water Distribution Svstem Desiqn Code
RAW WATER
AW
1. Population Projections
2. Raw Water Requirements
a. Potable Water System
b. Snowmaking System
0. Minimum Streamflows
d. Irrigation
B. Raw Water Availability

 

1. Maroon Creek
2. Castle Creek
3. Hunter Creek

V.

VI.

VII.



4. Roaring Fork River
5. Summary of Shortages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Programs to Reduce Raw Water Shortages
1. Infrastructure Improvements
2. Purchase Water Rights
3. Raw Water Storage
D. Water Rights Adjudications
E. Conditional Water Rights
F. Transfer and Augmentation Proceedings
G. Contractual Arrangements
H. Change of Eater Rights Apglications
I. Raw Water Storage
J. Transmission and Distribution
K. Raw Water and Irrigation Ditches
1. City Irrigation Ditch Network
2. Raw Water Ditches and other Diversion Structures
a. Roaring Fork RiVer
b. Hunter Creek
c. Castle Creek
d. Maroon Creek
e. other Diversion Structures
L. Land Treatment
HYDROELECTRIC
LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
A. Agreements
B. Water Court Decrees
c. Federal Statutes
D. Federal Regulations
E. State Statutes
F. State Regulations
G. Eitkin County Ordinances

WATER CONSERVATION

Initial Questions/Policv Decisions
Rationales

Water Efficiencv Strategies
Tailoring a Program to the City
Current Practices in the Citv

Measuring Effectiveness

FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

AI
B.

C.
D.

Existing Obligations
Financial Requirements of Construction and Acquisition

Programs
Current Conditions
Financial Plan

IX. RATES

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Utility Service Connection Chardes
Treaged Water

Raw Water

Carriage Rate

Water Riqhta Dedication

Easements and Land Dedication

X. ORDINANCES

A.

APPENDICES

Existing Ordinanoea

l. Drought Conservation Ordinance
2. Plumbing Advisory Code
3' i I 

Future Ordinances

1. Water Conservation Ordinance
2. Waste of Water Ordinance

3 I.


HI
P.

 
 
 
 
 

I.

INTRODUCTION.

General.

The first Comprehensive?Water Management.Plan of the City
of Aspen was prepared in 1980 by the City staff and
consultants, to draw together in one resource the many
diverse policies, considerations and factors affecting
the structure and role of the City water system in the
community; The plan collected is} one place, for the
first time, the numerous plans, decrees, agreements and
studies touching upon and influencing the direction of
the system, set forth policy statements expressing the
City's intentions for improvement, extension: and?
expansion of the system, and coordinating the.system?with
the goals and aspirations of the community, and
recommended a program of construction, Water rights
acquisition, legislation, financing and agreements to

implement those policies.

Parts_of the Comprehensive Water Management Plan were
updated in succeeding years. In 1983, the construction
recommendations were revised to reflect new or changed
Water service demands, changes in the economy, and
updated engineering assessments of the system. In 1984,

a comprehensive analysis of the area raw water resources

was undertaken, resulting in recommended.revisions to=the
original Plan?s ran?water strategies. In 1985, Ordinance
27 was enacted, completely overhauling the water system's

rates and fees structure.

More recently, factors such as renewed development in the
community, new opportunities for water and electrical
energy conservation, and experience gained during ten
years of operating under the Plan, have led to the
creation of new demands on, and opportunities for, the

system.

After ten years, sufficient changes have taken place, in
a sufficient number of areas, to merit the preparation of
a 1990 update of the Comprehensive Water Management Plan,
to once again draw together in one resource the policies,
considerations and factors now affecting the structure
and role of the City water system in the community, and
to present a program to guide the development of the

system during the next ten years.

Development of the 1980 Comprehensive Water Management

Plan.

The Plan was a comprehensive framework for coordinating

and integrating all water resources issues faced by the

City. It consisted primarily of an overview narrative,
a capital improvement program, and a series of ordinances
which.were endorsed in principle by Council in 1980. The
Plan was the culmination of nearly 5 years of staff work,
relying upon studies prepared by various consultants and
reviewed by other consultants over the period 1956 to

1974 .

The City inherited a substandard ?water system, and
struggled to bring the ?system up to standard,
commissioning a number of studies on capital improvements
and undertaking improvement projects on a largely ad hoc
basis. Capital improvements were often deferred because
there was no clear sense of which projects were most

important.

The City acquired the water system from the Aspen City
Water Company on July 1, 1959. The acquisition was based
upon a report prepared in 1956 by Dale H. Rea. This
report recommended that the City deyelop treatment
facilities on each of the major area streams; Castle
Creek, Maroon Creek, Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork
River. The City initially opted not to follow the water
supply and treatment recommendations of the 1956 report
and instead drilled several Wells for the City water

supply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to the lack of an adequate sewage collection system,
the wells diverted water in contact with septic tanks and
a significant number of residents contracted dysentery.
Subsequently, in 1964, Mr. Rea was retained to design a
water treatment facility utilizing Castle Creek waterg
Castle Creek, although more turbid than Maroon Creek in
the spring runoff, provided a gravity water supply to the
City. Also, the Castle Creek drainage basin is twice the
size of the Maroon creek drainage basin. The
construction of the original Castle' Creek treatment
facility (8.0 MGD), Castle Creek Diversion Dam, Castle
Creek pipeline (25 cfs) and 2.0 Million Gallon (M.G.)

clearwell was completed in 1965.

From 1965 to 1974 few improvements were made to the water
system other than some minor pipeline extensions. Also
during this time frame the City allowed a number of
developer?installed water distribution systems to be
connected to the City treated water supply, including

Aspen Grove, Knollwood, Red.Mountain, Mountain Valley and
the Airport Business Center. Most of these systems were
constructed.of inadequatelywsized.ingerior materials, and
had little no storage and single, unlooped water
supply lines. ?Ultimately the City? Was required. to
upgrade these inadequate water systems during the Phase

1 Water Management Plan construction during 1981?1985.

The City made several improvements to the water system in
the 19?4-1980 time frame. The most important of these
were the Maroon Creek Raw Water Pipeline (25 ofs)(1974),
the Red Mountain 2.0 MG Reservoir (1978), the Hunter
Creek Water Treatment Facility (0.5 MGD) (1978), and the

Aspen Mountain 1.0 M.G. Reservoir (1980).

The development of the Water Management Plan during the
period 1976~1980 was based upon a number of goals adopted

by the City Council. These goals were:

1. Development of maximum utilization of City

owned water rights;

2. Enactment of ordinances to protect water

quality;

3. Resistance to development of competing sub?
standard private water systems within the

proposed service areas;

4. Prohibition of use of wells for domestic uses

if found injurious to the public health;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10?

Requirement 'that subdividers and {?avelopere
provide water rights necessary to 'serve

development areas;

Acquisition of critical water rights through

purchase or negotiation;

Resistance to events which could result in
designation of the water system as a public

utility;

Cooperation with Pitkin County to achieve the
goals of their Growth Management Plan and the

Comprehensive Water Management Plan.

Determine the water systeh 'improvements
necessary to meet the minimum standards of the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) in a
manner consistent with growth management

plans.

Develop, establish and implement. a capital
improvements program designed to provide the

City with adequate water treatment,

 

 

 

distribution and storage facilities to meet

minimum AWWA standards.

11. Eliminate the use of treated water for

irrigation wherever raw water can be supplied.

The.Water Management Plan capital improvement program was
deVeloped based upon three phases of construction. Phase
1 was designed to bring the water system to the minimum
standards of water treatment capacity, distribution and
treated water storage to serve the existing customers of
the system and the growth projected by the City and the

Pitkin County Growth Management Plan.

Phase 2 of the Water Management Plan was designed to
expand the system to service additional areas of growth
outside the original six servioe_areas identified in the
Water'Management Plan, northwest of the.Aspen airport and
the Red mountain area, to construct additional water
treatment facilities on the Roaring Fork?River and Hunter
Creek to preserve critical water rights, to develop
pumping facilities to expand the use of raw water, in
lieu of treated water, for irrigation and snowmaking, and

to purchase critical senior water rights.

 

Phase 3 was to construct raw water storage reservoirs on
Castle Creek and.Maroon Creek for which the City has held
conditional water rights for the past 25 years, and to

construct hydroelectric power generation facilities.

Modification of the 1980 Plan.

The Phase 1 Water Management Plan was to be funded from
a single bond issue. When the bond market soared in
1981, the Council elected to issue interim bonds for the
1981?1982 construction and subsequently, in 1982, issued
additional bonds for ?the 1983-85 construction. The
issaance of bonds in two increments significantly'reduced
arbitrage revenues; this, coupled with added projects
such as the Music School pipeline, resulted.in some Phase

1 projects being delayed or not constructed.

The Phase 1 program largely consisted of improvements
that had been long recommended and involved the upgrading
and rehabilitation of the water supply system to meet
minimum AWWA standards. These standards generally
require that two sources of treated water supply be
available for every service area. Rehabilitation of the
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam and the Hunter Creek
improvements were necessary to meet these standards. The

AWWA standards also suggest that 60 gallons of treated

Water per capita is necessary for fire protection, and
that at least one day of peak treated water demand for
all other purposes should be maintained in storage. The
Tie-Hack and Aspen Grove tanks were essential to bring

the system up to these standards.

The Phase 1 program was a "bare bones" program. It did
not include a number of projects for servicing the Brush
creek area or improvements which have more recently
identified as pressing needs in the Red Mountain and

Airport Business Center areas.

The construction, land, and water right costs of the
Phase 1 program were pared from $8.9 million to $8.3
million in early 1981 and the Aspen electorate
overwhelmingly apprOVad a bond issue to finance this
program shortly?thereaftere The_specifio projects in the
program, the need for? each, and the 1981 estimated
oonstruotit?: costs, land, and 'water' right. costs are

detailed wEart IV of this Second Edition of the Plan.
My

We]. ?an?

 
 
 
 

1984 Raw Water Stuin

  

1. This reconnaissance level report

reached several conclusions concerning the raw

water supplies for the City.

 

I with the exception of a few moderate capacity

wells, the city is totally dependent 'upon
surface streamflows for its raw 'water
supplies. Since these flows are highly
variable and since there is no significant raw
water storage in the system, the City will be
subject to signifioant raw water shortages in
future years under extreme dry year
conditions.


There are two critical periods of water
shortage. The during the winter
months of through Mg?gh, when surface
streamflows have dropped significantly prior
to spring runoff and the number of visitors to
the area is quite high. The second is in May
and early prior to the spring runoff,

and in August, and September, after the

 

spring runoff has passed and the irrigation

requirements are high.

The Water Management Plan?s water conservation
measures, designed to reduce system water
usage during critical water periods, will tend

to lessen future shortages. These include a

3.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rate ordinance which requires universal water
metering and penalizes exceseive use with
higher water rates, an ordinance which
establishes a connection charge to reduce
water demands, a staged water curtailment
ordinance, and the policy to continue the raw
water irrigation system from existing surface

ditches.

Another significant water resource management
tool included in the Water Management Plan,
but not yet implemented, is the construction
of additional water treatment plant capacity
on Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River.
This will reduce the heavy reliance upon
Maroon and Castle Creeks for potable water
supplies. Thie_ diversification; of sources
will tend to reduce shortages on Maroon and

Castle Creeks during critical periods.

The future raw water requirements for potable
uses are expected to grow by about 100% by the
year 2005, over those levele experienced
during the previous critical dry period of

1977?78. The diversions for raw water

11

irrigation are expected to increase by about

20%.

Future expected shortages will be limited to
minimum streamflows and raw water irrigation.
If conditions more extreme than 1977-78 are
realized, shortages 'may also occur in the

potable water system.

The shortages in Maroon creek will be limited
to minimum streamflows and raw water
irrigation. Shortages to the 14 minimum
streamflow will occur on a Virtually
continuous basis beginning soon after the peak
spring runoff has passed. In July, the
minimum streamflows will be 14 ofs past the
Maroon Creek diversion dam. Diversions by
water rights held by others,
however, are capable of drying up the stream.
In .August and September, these flows will
increase to about 5 cfs. In October, the full
minimum streamflow should be available
throughout Maroon Creek. From early November
through the end of February, the stream will

gradually deteriorate to a zerOHflow condition

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if all of the expected snowmaking demands
materialize. During March, April, and early
May, the minimum streamflowa will range from

10-14 ofe.

There will be shortages in the Maroon Creek
raw water irrigation demand of 2.0 ofe in
early Hey if the peak irrigation demands
materialize early in the These
shortages will taper off to zero with the
spring runoff and will resume in the later

part of September.

Although there are no significant shortages in
the potable water system, the supply is quite
marginal during the late summer months and
this fact needs to be considered in any future

planning efforts.

The shortages on Castle Creek will occur in
minimum streamflows and raw water irrigation.
The minimum streamflow requirement of 12 ofs
will be met during the peak spring runoff from
late May through early July and during October
after the irrigation season has passed. From

mid~July through the end of September, the

13

stream will be virtually dry except during
short periods following rainfalls. During the
winter season, the minimum streamflow will be

reduced to the range of 4e10 ofs.

The raw water irrigation requirement of 26.0
can be met from mid?May to the end of
August. During September, the flows ?will
diminish to about 20 cfs, except during

periods of rainfall.

The Hunter Creek shortages will occur in
minimum streamflows and raw water irrigation.
The 30 minimum streamflow standard at the
mouth of Hunter Creek will be met only during
spring runoff. During the remainder of the
irrigation season, senior irrigation decrees
owned by others have the capability to fully
dry up the Hunter Creek flows. In the winter
months, only about 5 ofs will flow past the

Aspen diversions for potable use.

There will be no water available for the raw
Water irrigation demand of 1 ofs a virtually
continuous basis once the spring runoff has

passed.

14

 

 

The shortages on the Roaring Fork River will
occur in rdnimom streamflows and raw water
irrigation. The only time that a minimum
streamflow of 32 ofs through the City can be
met is during April after the snowmelt-begins
and before the irrigation season starts.
During the summer months, the River will be
virtually dry due to transmountain diversions
and large diversions by the Salvation Ditch.
During the winter months, approximately half

of the minimum streamflow will be met.

The raw water irrigation requirement of 9.5
ofs will be met during the peak spring runoff.
As soon as the peak has passed, only about 7
ofs will be available for raw water

irrigation.

Additional measures can be implemented to
reduce the expected future shortages. These
measures are improvements to the existing
infrastructure, purchase of additional water
rights, and construction of raw water storage

on Maroon and Castle Creeks.

15

The total capital cost, expected yield, and
capital cost per acre foot of firm dry year
yield for each of the major raw water supply
options recommended in this study are set out

in Part below.

The projects recommended by this study for
increasing the available raw water supply are
set out.:h1 Part below, 531 a preferred
order of implementation. The factors
considered in preparing the preferenoe list
include cost, environmental aooeptability,
effectiveness in. meeting the needs of the

system and ease of implementation.

Hydropower units with an installed capacity of
3.3.2 megawatts can he built into the major
Water facilities serving Aspen as they are
needed. These units have the capacity to
serve all of the summer energy requirements of
Aspen in the year 2000 even if the energy use
of Aspen continues to grow at the rate of 5%
per year as it had grown in the previous ten
years. These same facilities will meet about

30% of the winter needs. This pattern of

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

production and usage fits well with' the
planning requirements of the City?s wholesale
power supplier, the Nebraska Municipal Power
Pool (NMPP), since the City's highest purchase
requirements occur when the purchases of the
remaining NMPP customers are at their lowest

levels.

0. Each. of the alternatives outlined. in this
study would require significant capital
expenditures. .Additional detailed studies
will be required to set final capital
improvement budgets, operation and maintenance
budgets, and revenue budgets for revenue?
generating facilities, such as hydropower,
under each option.

2. Recommendations. The 1984 Raw Water Study made the

following recommendations:

The City, County, other water supply agencies,
and citizen groups should review policies for
the protection of minimum streamflows,
snowmaking, raw water irrigation, and potable
water use to confirm the relative priorities

of use during times of shortage. This report

17

can provide a basis for beginning these
discussions and can provide supporting
documentation for setting environmental and
economic priorities for the use of local water
supplies.

Reduce the expected shortages in the raw water
supply by implementing the raw water supply
programs shown in order of preference in the
study. See Part below. If the programs
are implemented, approximately 65% of summer
shortages and 18% of the winter shortages will
be met for a total capital cost of $52,022,000

or $3,400 per acre foot.

Authorize the completion of a detailed
examination of the most favorable options for
water supply and hydropower. 'The purpose of
this examination will be to take the results
of the policy review, refine cost estimates on
the options, and confirm the priorities for
inclusion of these options in the Water

Management Plan.

lie?examine the elements of Phase 1 of the
Water management Plan, which include the

construction of new plants on the Roaring Fork

18

River and Hunter Creek, in light of the
shortages on these streams and the costs to
correct them. It may be more economical to
provide this additional capacity as a part of
the upgrading of the Castle Creek Plant in

Phase 2.

Explore the consolidation of the City?s
electric and 'water departments. The two
services are closely tied.to one another sinCe
hydropower is an important element of any
water supply development program. By joining
the two departments, it will be possible to
take more affirmative action in the management
of hydropower resources as an integral part of
the water: system. The examination of this
consolidation should. also I consider the
feasibility of providing electric distribution
services throughout the City and joint billing

for the two utility services.

The existing water rate structure needs to be
eXamined to determine if the costs for service
are being fairly distributed among the users
and if the total revenue collections are

adequate to continue providing a municipal

19

 

 

level of service. The success and failure of
the water conservation elements of the

existing ordinance should also be eXamined.

Authorize the preparation of an application to
the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the
Bureau of Reclamation for the funding of
feasibility studies for the Maroon and Castle
Creek Reservoirs. These studies should take a
basin?wide approach to integrate the
reservoirs into a comprehensive water
management program to reduce sgstem demands
and to construct revenuemproduoing facilities.
other sites, including those on the mainstem
of the Roaring Fork River, should be included
in this study. A oomprehensi?e environmental
assessment, including the "no action"
alternative, will be an important part of
these studies. The cost of these studies is
estimated to be about $110,000 and could be
completed within about nine months of
authorization to proceed. The potential
Colorado Water Conservation Board share of
these costs would be about $40,000. The

Bureau of Reclamation could also share in

20

 

E.

these costs. The Authorizing Act and
Operating Principles of the Fryingpan-Arkansas
Project require the Bureau of Reclamation to
prepare a feasibility study on a reservoir of
up to 5,000 acre feet, in order to offset
adverse streamflow conditions in the Roaring

Fork River abOVe Aspen.

1985 Rate Ordinance.

Water Management Plan Rate Structure. The 1980
Comprehensive Water Management Plan outlined a new
direction in water rates and fees of the City of

Aspen.

The Plan's rate ordinances were proposed to fairly
apportion the costs of operating and improving the
water system and to ensure that all costs of City
water service were fully recovered. Before the
91am new connections did not make an adequate
capital contribution and existing water customers
subsidized new growth. It was also apparent that
certain improvements ibenefitted. some areas. more
than others. A key rate concept in the Plan was

that both utility connection charges and 

21

rates Should account for these differences between

service areas.

The heart of the rate structure was to allocate the
costs of the proposed capital improvement program
first between existing and future water customers,
and then between service areas, according the
benefits conferred. The capital costs allocated to
future customers were to be recovered through
utility connection charges, while the capital costs
allocated to existing customers were to be
recovered by incorporating a capital or fixed

charge into the rates.

Another fundamental rate concept proposed by the
Plan was to assess capital costs against both
existing and future customers in any particular
service area according to a more rational
measurement of their potential demand on the
system. Before the Plan, new and unmetered
connections were rated based on service line size
and a count of water fixtures. This rating system
failed to account for the total volume of water
which might be used under one service line and

group of fixtures over time, and charged the same

22

for a fixture that was in constant use as for one

that was only used infrequently.

The Plan proposed a system of equivalent units
under which a fixture that Was likely to be in
constant use would be rated higher and charged a
greater share of capital costs. Such a rating
system was integral to a fair apportionment of
capital costs, since capital costs were directly
related to the sizing or capacity of system, and
the sizing of the system was driven by the total
and peak volumes of water that had to be supplied;
The rating units were termed equivaleat residential
units later changed to Equivalent Capacity
Units and incorporated a variety of water
demand or use factors such as number of bedrooms,
cooking facilities, seating capacity, and

commercial or industrial square footage.

It ?was also recognized that 'utility connection
charges (also termed tap fees or utility investment
charges) had not been increased since 1975 and that
a substantial increase would be necessary just to
catch-up with inflation. For the purposes of
illustration, it was then shown that the Phase 1

program could be funded by an increase in tap fee

23

 

 

 

 

 

revenues of 117% in 1981, with a 13% increase in
each of the next four years, and by financing the
capital costs not covered by the increaSed tap fee
revenues in each year with a separate bond issue in
each year. This approach would have required a
series of bond issues, would not have permitted the
arbitrage of bond proceeds, and would have required
monumental increases in rates to service
the bonds in the first 3 years. It was apparent
that one set of bonds should be issued in the first
year, that the bond proceeds in excess of
construction and other costs in the first and
subsequent years should be reinvested so as to
generate substantial arbitrage revenues, and that
tap fee revenues not only' had. to Ibe increased
substantially in the first year to catch up with
inflation, but also had to be increased by 20%,

instead of 13%, in the next four years.

With arbitrage revenue, higher tap fees, and some
short term deficits in the water fund, it was
determined that increases in rates of 10%
each year for the next five years would be
suffiCient. This determination was made, however,
knowing that all of the assumptions in the funding

plan had to be closely monitored, and that larger

24

increases in rates Would be required if any
of the assumptions concerning tap fee revenues,
arbitrage revenue, or construction costs did not

hold true.

1980?1984 Rate Measures.

The 10% increases in the rates were made.
An explicit EQR-based capital recovery charge was
not immediately incorporated into the rate
structure, however, because it was first necessary
to assign an EQR rating to all existing accounts
and to computerize these accounts. The regular 10%
across the board increases in rates were
thought to be sufficient to recover the capital
costs of the Phase 1 program assignable to existing
customers while the EQR billing system was being

put in place.

But while the 10% increases in rates were
made, the tap fee increases were not. The first
slippage occurred in the switch?over to service
area/EQwaased utility connection charges in 1981.
The first set of service area/EQR tap fees was
based on the allocation of 60% of the construction
and other capital costs of the Phase 1 program to

the expected EQR growth in the next 5 years in each

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

service area. The net interest costs on the 60%
share were not included in this initial allocation
because the bonds had not yet to be issued and the
interest costs were not fully known, and because it
was expected that 20% across~the?board increases in
each of the next four years would be approximately
sufficient to defray the net interest cost
assignable to new growth. The switch-over to the
service area/EQR?baaed tap fee resulted in a
substantial increase in revenues in the first year,
but this increase was not as great as it would have
been had tap fees been increased, and had growth

occurred, as originally planned.

The most serious slippage in tap fee revenues
occurred in the first year after the switch~over
when the first across-thej-board 20% increase in
individual tap fees was not enacted on schedule.
It also appears that growth in this second year was
slower than expected, with a resulting decrease in
total tap fee revenue. Two 20% increases in the
next two years were enacted on schedule, but growth
was again slower than expected and these increases
in the tap fee per connection consequently did not

generate a 20% increase in tap fee revenues.

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dr0p in tap fee revenues caused by the failure
to raise tap fees on schedule and by slow growth
set back the entire funding of the Phase 1 program
and set the stage for significant water fund

deficits. The drop in tap fee revenues was offset

?initially by arbitrage revenues, but theSe revenues

also were not as great as originally projected.
Despite strong recommendations in 1982 and 1983 to
accelerate the increases in rates, Council
elected to increase rates by only 10% each

year.
Ordinance 27, Series of 1985.

The most important reform enacted by Ordinance 2?
was to set rates and tap fees based on
annual City Council review of the water budget.
With this reform, the Council first makes the
policy decisions about the Water budget, and then
the rate structure mechanically provides for full
and equitable recovery of whatever budget is set.
Once the budget is set, Ordinance 2? eliminates the
guesswork and potential imbalances in setting the
necessary rates. This reform addresses the problem
of falling behind on rate adjustments and provides,

among other things, for the prompt adjustment of



 rates in response to fluctuations in tap
fee revenue. It also makes the procedure for
setting water rates consistent with that for

setting electric rates.

The next important reform made by Ordinance 27 was
finally to incorporate an ECwaased demand charge
into the rates. This reform introduced a
substantial fixed or flat rate component into all
existing accounts, including metered accounts, and
stabilized the recovery of capital costs. It also

made the basis for the recovery of capital costs
from existing accounts consistent with the basis
for the recovery of such costs Iin tap fees.
Before, capital costs allocated to existing
accounts were recovered through across~the~board
rate adjustments, without regard to any measurement
of how much of the capacity of the system was
required to serVe an existing account, while tap
fees were based on EQR rating and were more
directly related to the sizing of the system and
hence the capital costs incurred to service the new
connection. Under Ordinance both utility
investment charges and the demand charges in the
rates are based (n1 the same ECU rating

system.

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Along with putting both the demand and utility
investment charges on an ECU basis, the allocation
of capital costs between existing accounts and new
connections and between service areas was
simplified. Under the Plan, all capital costs of
the Phase 1 program had been allocated between
existing and neW' customers and between service
areas on a project~by~project basis down to each
dollar. This allocation appeared much more precise
than it was, and was extremely complicated to apply
to existing accounts on a yearly basis. Ordinance
2? recognized this artificial precision and reduced
the allocation between existing and new customers
to a 40/60% split, and between service areas to a
single set of factors which apply to both existing
and new onstomers within each service area. This
simplification kept the demand charge from becoming
too complex, and kept the general nature of the
cost allocations from becoming lost in a maze of
project-by-project considerations and annual

adjustments.

Another significant reform was the integration of
ECU ratings and fixture counts. In the past all
existing accounts, both metered.and unmetered, were

rated on the basis of fixture counts, while all new

29

connections were EQR related. Later, all existing
accounts were EQR rated to permit the incorporation
of a capital recovery or demand charge into the
rates, as called for by the Plan in 1980

and as provided by Ordinance 27.

There was a reluctance, however, to abandon the
fixture counts. The Water Department maintained
that the number and type of fixtures was itself an
important water demand factor, and that the
relationship between a_customer?e fixture count and
ECU rating should be clearly spelled out by
defining just how many and what kind of fixtures
were permitted under any ECU rating. The lack of
such definitions constantly forced the Water
Department to interpolate the old EQR rating table
to for certain fixture configurations, and
was especially troublesome with commercial
renovations where a fixture configuration might be
changed substantially without a significant change
in the square footage EQR factor. ?Without a
complete definition of what fixtures were
associated with what EQR rating, commercial
renovations were able to load up on additional or
more demanding water fixtures without additional

charge.

30

The ECU table in Ordinance 27 codifies the fixture
definitions or interpolations that haVe been
applied by the water Department, and provides a
complete set of fixture definitions for the entire
table. It gives the Water Department a consistent
basis for assessing renovations, which compose a
significant part of recent building development in
the Aspen area. Much of the detail in the ECU
table in Ordinance 2? is concerned with ensuring
that the table can be applied to a very wide range

of fixture configurations.

Finally, Ordinance 2? imposes a surcharge for
unmetered accounts. These accounts will first pay
the same demand and other fixed charges as metered
accounts, will pay a variable charge based on
estimated usage, and will then pay a surcharge.
Under this surcharge structure, an unmetered
account will always pay more than a metered account

with identical water demand characteristics.

Under Ordinance 27, the increased demand charges to
irrigation, short. term: occupancy, and. unmetered .
customers will defray a larger share of the annual
water budget, and will result in lower charges to

all other customers.

31

 
 
 
 

Under the old rate structure, the mandatory
conversion to metering may have caused a
significant loss of surcharge revenue without a
concomitant increase in some other revenue.
Ordinance 2? addresses this problem with its budget
balancing provisions, under which any loss in
surcharge revenue will be made up in the charges to

metered customers.

32

 I I POLICIES 

Many of the following policy statements were first expressed
in the 1980 Comprehensive Water Management Plan, and remain
the governing policies under this 1990 edition of the plan.
other have been developed in the ensuing years, or are newly
expressed in this Second Edition. Together, they provide the
policy basis for the capital improvements, legislation, and

other specific implementing elements of this Plan.
A. 'Poliov.statement on Comprehensive Water Management.

1. It is a fundamental principle of planning that the
environment is a unitary system, with air, land,
and water interacting, affecting, and being
affected by any developnent which. takes place
within the system. Respect for this principle
mandates that the _City of ?Aspen adopt a

comprehensive approach in) the management of its

 

land and water resources. Such an approach will
allow the city to realize the full potential of the
Roaring Fork River Basin?s abundant water
resources, which, when comprehensively managed, can
be used to promote a broad range of municipal
policies and goals; For example, when resolved

comprehensively, rather- than in isolation, such

33

 

"problems" as urban runoff control, open space
irrigation, and waste water treatment and disposal
can be managed to accomplish such socially
desirable ends as the preservation of agricultural

land, green belt, and minimum stream flows. The

task thus becomes one of nmnaging Aspen?s water

resources in such a way as to foster the
enhancement of its unique physical environment and
quality of life. It is to that end that this

Comprehensive Water Management Plan is dedicated.

'COmprehensive water resource management requires

that all facets of i?ua water resources picture,
including ?Water quality, quantity, development,
hydroelectric power,, treatment, storage,
transmission, distribution, conServation and
collection, be integrated into the planning
process. Such an approach requires, further, that
the City be vested with the control, capacity, and
tools necessary to secure and achieve the ends
dictated. by ?the. requirements of jpublic ihealth,
safety, and welfare. To the extent that the City
is able to control the use of waters in its river

basin, it will be assured of its ability to secure

.the broader goals of water resource management,

including the following: the maximum utilization

34

 

 

 

of all City-owned water; the orderly and efficient
development and use of City Water utility
facilities; the preservation of water quality and
quantity; the ;preservation of ties between 'the
rural and urban communities; the optimum
utilization of all resources through techniques
designed to put resources in their proper place,
both spatially and temporally; the preservation and
expansion of? open space and parklands; the

development of recreational opportunities;_ the

'1 development of pollution-free energy; and the

successful implementation of municipal land use and

growth policies.

In order to achieve the degree of control necessary

to implement these avowed goals and principles of_

the City of Aspen, it shall be the policy of the

City:

to develop ?the :maximum.'utilization of all

citymowned water rights.

b. to develop and enact ordinances designed to
protect water quality,? particularly all
municipal water supply sources both actual and

potential;'

35

 

 

to prevent inappropriate water supply
allocation due to unnecessary competition
among private water systems located within the

watersheds supplying the city?

to prohibit the use of wells and the waters
thereof for domestic and household purposes
when the Heame are 'found injurious to the
health, safety, and welfare of the City and

its residents;

to develop and enact ordinances designed to
obtain for the City, upon subdivision
approval, annexation, or the conversion of
private Systems to City service, the supply of
water neoessaryi to I serve those areas,

regardless of when service will be provided;

to select and acquire privately-?held water

rights Critical to the implementation of

successful comprehensive water management;

to acquire additional water rights to ensure
an adequate water supply for present and

future water utility users;

36

 

to avoid creating any restriction on the
provision of utility services by others so as
to prevent the attainment of public utility-

status; and

because the problems of and soldtions to water
resources management transcend the boundaries
of political subdivisions, to tromote
intergovernmental cooperation with the County
of Pitkin to achieve the goals of this

Comprehensive Water Management Plan.

To promote the maximum utilization of City?owned

Water, it shall be the policy of the city:

a.

to seek changes in the decreed uses of water

to permit any beneficial use;

to seek other water right changes necessary to

maximize the use of water;
to_develop and implement techniques designed

to permit the reuse, lease,-or exchange of

city?owned water decreed for municipal use;

37

to promote the conserVation of water resources
to reduce demands on City treatment and

distribution facilities; and

to promote the use of raw water for
irrigation, minimum streamflows, and

hydroelectric power generation.

To ?promote water quality and preserve water

quantity in area rivers and streams, it shall be

the policy of the City:

to support water quality standards necessary

to protect and promote water quality:

to obtain minimum streamflow decrees for the
City under which all water not used for other

purposes is used for minimum streamflows;

to enter into minimum streamflow exchange
agreements with such entities as have ?the
constitutional power to exercise those rights

until such time as the City obtains its own

*decrees for this purpose;

38

 

g.

to promote the use of land treatment with

waste water and urban runoff;

-to encourage on-site detention and. use of

storm water in all new developments;.

to promote the implementation' of land. use

controls in flood plain areas; and

to encourage and' promote efficient water

transmission and conveyance facilities,

. through techniques. such 'as the lining or

pipimg of existing ditcheS, where desirable

and appropriate.

To promote and provide for the orderly development

and financial integrity-Iof. City water supply

treatment, storage, and distributiOn facilities, it

shall be the policy of the City of Aspen:

to determine the potential demands for City
services and, in' conjunction with. the
promotion of City and County' planning and
gtowth policies, to determine the necessity

and deeirability of, and schedules for,

expansion.to meet those demands;

39

b. to develop and eStablish a capital
improvements program that is integrated with
the other goals and polioies of the City and
is designed to provide the City with adequate
storage, distribution, and treatment

facilities;'and

o. to eliminate 'the 'use of 'treated.?water for
irrigation and other uses for which raw water

is suitable.

By-the adoption of this policy statement, the City
Council of Aspen directs all City staff and
consultants to consider the spirit and intent of
the policies, goals, and plans Set forth herein, to
ensure that all activitieS' undertaken by such
personnel will promote and implement those policies
and goals, .conSistent with sound _engineering,
financial, environmental, and legal principles, and
to ensure that this Comprehensive Water Management

Plan becomes a reality.

This Comprehensive Water Management Plan is adopted
with 'the full knowledge of past, present, and

eXpeoted problems regarding growth, land use, and

40

 

the quality of life of the Roaring Fork River
Valley; The careful implementation of the separate
but interrelated. parts of this plan can help
alleviate.current and expected lend-use problems
associated with economic and population growth.
This plan was developed to provide Support for the
achievement of the espoused goals of the City and
the County in dealing with the quality of life in
the City of Aspen and the Roaring For}: Valley in

general.
Poliov Statement on Service Areas.

Logical water utilitv planning hegine by defining areas
of existing and potential service by the City of Aspen
water utility. In the interest. of- landowners and
residents of the City of ASpen, and for the preservation
and promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare,
the needs and capabilities of service within these areas
must be identified? By designation of areas of?potentiel

Service, the City is not holding itself out as willing or

able to provide water service to these areas.? However,

the majority? of these areas are contiguous to the
existing municipal limits. of the City. Historically, the
City has annexed contigoous areas, on az case?hy?oase

basis for non-utility related reasons, subsequent to 

4i

providing eater service to those areas, and has also
annexed existing' developments which. have theretofore
provided -their own.*water service. Pursuant. to -the
policies of this Comprehensive Plan and the Water Main
Extension Policy, the city desires that if and-when any
area is annexed, it containJWater facilities and services
which are consistent With City specifications_and levels
of service, Thus, extension of services to such areas of
. potential service must insure that_if, in the future, the
City anneses any one or more such contiguous areas, the
City will not he burdened with the assumption of
responsibility for serving and maintaining inadequate
facilities. - The service caress are designated for
planning purposes only, and all extensions of service
outside the then?existing incorporated limits of the City
of Aspen shall be made in the proprietary capacity of the
'City, on an individual contractual.basis, pursuant to the
Water Main Extension Policy, shall be consistent with
Resolution No. 13?73 of the City of Aspen, and shall be
subject to adequate water availability and to prior
service to existing customers. The existing and

potential service areas are hereby designated.as follows:

1. Central Aspen. Original service area of the City
of Aspen, including the incorporated limits of the

City and WilliamS.Addition.

42.

 

Eastside. Present service area of MOuntain Valley,

Knollwood, and Aspen Grove.

Northeide. North of Roaring Fork west of Hunter
Creek, including potential service to exieting
private lines on Red MOuntain, Smuggler MOuntain,

Pitkin Green, Droete, and Benedict._

.Westaide. North of State Highway No. 82 and Castle

Creek Road, between Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, and

- the Roaring_Fork River, including West Aspen, West

Meadow, Snow Bunny, Red Butte, and Castle Creek

Subdiviaions.

Maroon/Castle Creek. Castle Creek to Maroon Creek,
south of State Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road,
including' potential service to Highlands Water

District, Meadowood, and Aepea Tennis Club.
Airport. Maroon Creek to Airport, north and south
of State Highway No. 82: Pfieter subdivision,

Airport Business Center, McBride.

Music School.

43

west of Airport. to_ Brush Creek: Brush. Creek

 

8.
Homeowners.
C. Policy Statement on Interdovernmental Cooperation.
1. It is the policy of the City of Aspen utility to

provide its customers, at such times as the City is
able, with the quality and reliability of service
that the residents of the City deserve and demand,
and that its municipal utility has always strived

to achieve and provide. The areas of petential

Aservice are designed to determine the water utility

services necessary to the incorporated municipal
limits of the city of Aspen and to such adjacent_
extraterritorial service areas as public health,
safety, and welfare dictate or as existing
commitments require. Additionally, designation of
service areas will further vital municipal rights
of the citizens of the City of ASpen and Pitkin
County ih general; Included within the ambit of
those municipal rights to be preserved and.promoted
for the citizens of the City by the exercise of
this extraterritoral water service are the
preVention of misallooation of water utility
services caused by the existence of unnecessary

competitive water utilities, the promotion of

44'

basin?wide ?water lresource planning, and an
increased reliability of supply for all customers
of the ?municipal water supplyu Prevention of
inisallooation of water utilities insuree to the
City and its citizens the control of vital Water
rights essential for the continued reliability of
the supply of water for all municipal water utility
users, as well as for sound water management for
aesthetic purposes. Prevention of misallooation of-
water utility serVice caused by =unneoessary

competing Water utilities will also prevent the

.restrictione and limitations in flow which result

from multiple demands on single sources and will

result in the most efficient use of existing water

lresources. Additionally, the inefficiencies

resulting from unnecessary proliferation of water
utilities will_ be avoided; .and the. economic.
benefits which accrue from the efficiencies gained
will'benefit all municipal water utility customers.
Finally, legal conflicts over. the right to use
water will be eliminated by- prevention of
misallocation of water utility service caused by

unnecessary competition among water utilities.

The designated areas of potential service are also

designed to jpromote basinnwide jplanningu ?This

45


policy recognizes the fact that the City of hepen

is located at or near the confluences of the

'Roaring Fork River and. Difficult Creek, Hunter

creek, Castle Creek, and Maroon Creek. Therefore,
the water resources of the City affect, are
dependent ?upon, and. are affected. by activities
transcending the geographic bonndaries of the City.
Reduction in water quality, interference in the
administration and use of water, and water rights
acquisition or development on other than a basin?

wide basis work to the disadvantage of the City of

'Aspen and its residents. The obligation of the

City of Aspen to promote the public health, safety,
and welfare makes it imperative that residents and.

. . sass?
Visitors to the City he assured of a -pese,

constant, and dependable supply of Water.

It is the policy of the City of Aspen to be capable
of meeting all present and future needs of its
incorporated area,.present extraterritorial service
area, and all.other areas capable of being served
consistent with sound utility planning. One
vehicle to accomplish this policy is
intergovernmental cooperation between the City and

Pitkin County.

46

Intergovernmental cooperation shall provide that
future treated and raw water service outside the

presently-existing service area shall be provided

only when economically feasible, when service to

existing customers will not be jeopardized or
diminished in quality and reliability, when
sufficient water supplies and physical facilities
are available, and when consistent with the land
use and growth management policies of the City of
aspen and Pitkin County as embodied in Resolution

No. 13, .Series at 1973. Intergovernmental

. cooperation shall further the intent and policy of

the City of Aspen that the City does not hold
itself out as able or willing to serve all
potential customers within or v?thout itS'then~
existing service area, and that extension of
service by the City outside its incorporated limits
shall be made in the City?s proprietary capacity,
on an individual contractual basis, subject to and
pursuant to the then-existing policies of the City.
Intergovernmental Cooperation.shall also further
the policy and intent of the City of Aspen that if
and when any potential or existing service area

outside its incorporated-limits is annexed, such

"area shall contain water facilities and services

which are consistent with City specifications and

47

_to or acquired by the County.

levels of service, to insure that any such
annexation does not burden the City with serving
and maintaining inadequate facilities. All water
service extensions shall be consistent with all
provisions and policies of the Comprehensive Water
Management Plan. Intergovernmental cooperation
shall also encourage Pitkin County to adopt
provisions similar to those set forth in the Water
Quality and Water Rights Dedication sections of the
Comprehensive Water Management Plan and. shall

provide for the use of all water rights dedicated

r2;

. 6?1

New physical facilities located outside ent
areas of service shall be owned 
City or jointly by the City needs
indicate. ?All operations and maintenance shall
remain under City control; water use shall be
subject to any and' all City regulations and

ordinances.

The utility service connection charge shall contain
a charge to be dedicated to the City~County Water
Trust. This charge shall be established in the
utility? service. connection: charge ordinance and-

shall apply only to utility service connections for

48

 

eXtraterritorial water service. The City; however,
shall reserVe the right to eet all water rates and

shall be responsible for kdlling and collecting

-water charges and fees.

The utility service connection charge ordinance
adopted by the City provides for the iepoeition of
utility connection charges upon all additions to
existing structures ohich result in an increase in
water use._ Intergovernmental cooperation between

the'city and the County will ensure that the City

"is adequately apprised of all new additions outside

of the City limits which are served by the water
utility. ?In this manner, the city can effectively
monitor such new additions and impose utility?
connection charges where appropriate. Thie
cooperation should include adequate recordkeeping
by the County and efficient exchange of information
between the City and the County, so the City is

informed, in advance, of all planned new additions

or remodeling.

Intergovernmental cooperation is necessary to
promote the policies of the City and is premised on
the need for basinewide water resource management.

city~Ccunty cooperation will ?provide for the

49

orderly and efficient extension and deVelopment of
water service consistent with growth.management and
land use planning. Finally, the city and the
County, acting together, will be able to exercise a

greater degree of control over water resources and

will therefore provide a more dependable water I

supply than either governmental unit can exercise

acting alone.

D. Policy Statement on Service Expansion.



_Fnture treatment plants. For the' purpose of
extending treated water service into
extraterritorial areas or increasing treated water
capacity to meet designated service area.demands,

it is the policy of the city to construct satellite

- water treatment plants to the extent such are'

justified on economic and engineering grounds.
This policy will maximize utilization of the water
resources of area streams and, at the same?time;
minimize the effect_ of water diversions and
decrease City reliance on any given-stream. Also,
such plants will maintain the integrity of the
water system as a whole and will permit the
redirection of Maroon and Castle Creek supplies to

additional water users and water use areas.

50

 

Private water supply systems and water districts.
In the event the City extends service into an area
served by a private water supply system or a water
district, .the Director of Water. Treatment and
Supply, the City Engineer, the City Manager, and
the Environmental Health Department shall.nndertake

an evaluation of the quality of the existing water

supply of .the system, along with existing

transmission, treatment, and storage facilities.
If the existing facilities are determined to be
inadequate, the City shall sell, ,at the then-
existintj rate, raw water only, or treated water
through a raster meter, to that area until such
time as acceptable-arranoements have been made to_
bring the facilities up to the standards and
quality of the municipal facilities.- The service
agreement under iwhich raw water _or wholesale'
treated water is supplied shall provide a
reasonable limitation'cn1 the time period within
which facilities must be brought up to standard.
The supply of treated water to areas serviced by
private water supply systems or to water districts
may be contingent upon the transfer to the city, or

to ?the County' pursuant 'to an intergovernmental

lcontract, of all existing facilities and adequate-

51

water rights to service the new area and upon
compliance with all ordinances and policies of the
City or the County concerning the extension of

treated water service.

The City of Aspen now does, and plans to continue

to provide the benefits of its municipal water'

supply to areas Iboth within _and without the
presently established municipal boundaries. In the
past the provision of new water service by the City

to such areas has not been pursuant to an official

'policy. The lack of such an establiShed plan has

at time resulted in piecemeal additions to the city

water system required jprotracted. discussions

before such additions could be commenced, and such

additions have often been of substandard quality
and design, such substandard systems have resulted
in numerous hardships on both those served by such

systems, as well as on the community as a whole.

The City of Aspen shall establish and follow a
process for the orderly expansion of the water
distribution system within municipal boundaries and
provide a mechanism for the orderly expansion of
the distribution system to those persons outside of

the City either requesting or contemplating a

52

 

request for the provision of water service by the
City of Aspen. To promote the. physical and
financial integrity of the Aspen Water System and
the health and safety of all residents, both within
the City and those of the-surrounding community,

such an official policy is essential.

A method for the orderly growth and expansion of

- the City of Aspen Water Utility System is essential

to the physical and financial integrity of the

-system and necessary to provide for the health and

. safety of both present users and potential future

users of the system. The City of Aspen shall adopt
by ordinance a proceSS'which shall provide the sole:
method by which extensions of the water utility may
be made. By adopting this process, the City shall
assume no ability, other
than as expressly stated in this policy, to provide
water seryice to any area not presently served.
This process shall cover the approval and contract
required for an extension, the replacement of?
private mains, the - extent of. mthe City?s
participation, if any, and the extent of the
developer?s reimbursement, if any. General design
requirements for' all extensions shall be as

provided for in all 'applicable ordinances and

53

 

codes, and in particular as stated in the Aspen

Community Water Distribution System Design Code.

Individual aspects of the Community Water SYstem

Extension Process :may be negotiated 'within

'Intergovernmental Agreements for areas provided

water for which the City of Aspen does not provide

water system maintenance.7

i lIn assessing the ability of the City water system

to accommodate any proposed extension the process

'shall consider the following. The amount of

treated water storage to be maintained by the City
of Aspen water system shall include required fire
protection storage, plus a factor of two times peak
day" water usage due to the lack of raw ?water

storage on Castle and Maroon Creeks.

Should the City adopt an ordinance requiring the
dedication of water rights as a condition to
granting an extension of the City water utility
system, the jproVisions of that ordinance shall-
become'an additional part of the Community Water

Distribution System Extension Process.

54

10.

11.

13.

The City may, in cases where such extensions are
deemed necessary for the public health and safety
of the City, order such extension installed and
assess the cost against the benefitted property

without the submission of any petition.

The assessments against 'the ?benefitted. property

shall not exceed the actual cost of the extension,

. plus engineering and administrative costs.

The water utility shall_pay all excess cost for-

mains over the size as determined by the City, to

be necessary to serve the property.

All extensions outside the city limits_ shall

-require a water service agreement with the City.

The agreement shall be revocable and shall provide
that the City may terminate service at its option,
that the owner of the property served will annex
the land to the City when it becomes eligible, and
that the owner will comply with.the current version
of the Aspen Community Water_Distribution System
Design Code, as well as all other.applioable City-

ordinances.

55

13.

Areas now within the City limits, or annexed to the
City at some future time, and served by private
mains not constructed in accordance with City plans
and specifications, shall have City mains extended

to serve the.area under the same conditions and

'requirements-as for an extension. This may require

the abandonment_of the nonwconforming system and

reconstruction, at the developer's sole Cost, of a

Idistribution syStem meeting all the requirements-of

the City code.

E. PoliCy Statement on water Rights Acquisition.

City Service Area. To prevent the misalioCation of
water utility service due to competing water
utilities, to provide efficient water service to
all customers within the Service Area, to promote
the maximum utilization of water, to preserve and
conserve water resources, and to promote the goals
of this Comprehensive Water Management Plan, it
shall be the continuing policy of the City of Aspen
to acquire all privately-held water rights located
within'the City area of potential service which are
of unique value to the City of Aspen. The city
Manager shall actively pursue the purchase of all

such water rights, either outright or by options to

56

 

buy or rights of first refusal. As part of any
such negotiations, the leasing back of water rights
for irrigation, aesthetic, or recreational purposes

shall be considered.

PriVate Wells. Pursuant to the authority granted
the City in Section the
City shall prohibit the use of any ?ells.and the
waters thereof for domestic or household purposes
when the same are found detrimental to the health

of City residents. Even when the use of wells does

not pose a threat to health, it shall he the policy

of the City to negotiate with any user of private
wells within the municipal service area for the
extension of treated water?service to such users in-
exchange for the dedication of the-previous source
of Water and on such terms as the City determines

are appropriate.

Water Rights Dedication. To ensure zn1.adequate
supply of water to serve the City service area, to
prevent the abandonment of water rights by others,
to ensure the financial stability of the City water
utility,.and to promote the goals of this Water

Management Plan, it shall be the policy of the City

of Aspen to require:the dedication of water rights

57

upon the extension of treated or raw water service
to new consumers. This policy shall be implemented

by the_ordinance hereafter Set forth.
Policv Statement on Water Conservation.

Water conservation is to be encouraged. To encourage
water conservation the City'must impose a code provision
which establishes a water using fixture requirement and

a rate ordinance which aesesses excessive use.

IPolicy statement to be completed by staff
with_ assistance from consultants as

necessary.]

Policy Statement on Hydroelectric Power Generation.

The City of Aspen lies in an area of abundant water
power. The area?s steep mountain streams represent a
plentiful supply of clean, renewable energy, waiting to
he harnessed. Over one hundred years ago, the first
residents of the City of Aspen recognized this resource,
and made Aspen a pioneer in the use of hydroelectric

power.

58

 

Growing concern in the past two decades over water and
air pollution, depletion of non-renewable fossil_fuels,
over?dependence (31 foreign sources of fuel, and. the
safety and expense of other alternativa forms of energy
has renewed public awareness of the many benefits to the

City of Aspen and society as_a whole to be derived_from

continuing to develop hydroelectric power projects.

Therefore, it shall be the policy of the City of Aspen to
include consideration of hydroelectric power generation
in all water. system studies and investigations, to
include hydroelectric generation facilities in new water
system projects whenever feasible, ?to continue its
membership in and support_for the Ruedi Water and Power

Authority, and the Authority?s projects, and to continue
evaluation of existing water system -facilities_ for

retrofit of hydroelectric generation'faoilities.

Policv- Statement on ?Water 'Utilitv Svstem Rates and

Charges.

1. Utility connection charges and water rates should
be fair, simple and understandable, with growth
paying its own way, and be consistent, as much as

practicable, with the electrical utility ordinances

59

to promote consolidation ofv the two utilities?

services in the future.

Utility connection charges and water rates should
reflect the goal of providing similar eerviCe at
similar costs and reliability? to all similarly
situated customers regardless - of political

boundaries. Users located outside of the

incorporated limits of the City, at high pumping'

levels or luxurious water demands, however, should

not be permitted to avoid certain costs that users

_within the City must pay.

Utility connection charges and water rates should
be compatible and consistent one with the other and
recognize the unique characteristics of providing

service to the Aspen community.

Utility connection charges and water rates should
be sufficient to retire all costs including
establishing a reserve fund for unanticipated
revenue shortfalls. gig-preserve fund for future
replacement of utility ggstem facilities should not
he established? The costs of replacement will be

funded in future capital programs. A single

60

 

IX.



To implement this Comprehensive Water Management Plan and the
capital improvements program, it is necessary to maintain a
water rates schedule and.a utility connection charge which are
compatible with the programs, policies, and.goals embodied
herein.- 'The rate and utility. service connection charge
ordinance is set forth in Section X. The goal of the
ordinance is to- maximize the .use 'of City-owned Water
resources, reduce unnecessary demands for treated. water,
encourage the utilization of raw water for uses not requiring
treated Water, preserve open space and park land; promote the
water rights dedication ordinance, and provide for payment by
customers of rates and charges which clearly and accarately
reflect the actual costs incurred by the municipal water

utility in delivering water_to them.
A. Utilitv Service Connection Charges.

The Utility Service Connection charges set forth in the
ordinance establishes a unique capital funding scheme.
The ordinance is designed to implement the service area
designations established by this Plan and to fund the
planning and-construction of those facilities necessary

to serve anticipated growth in each service area.

To put this ordinance into context and to establish why
it is unique, it is useful to explore the philosophy of

216

other ordinances ehich levy capital charges under the
terms ?tap fee" or "Plant Investment Fee." Under those
. systems, municipal water utilities set a capital
contribution fee designed to pay for the cost of
extending a water tap to the customer and, in addition,
provide an investment into the existing system. 'Ehus, in
theory, the new customer covers the cost of extending
eervice (new facilities), plus "buys in? to the existing
sYstem (old facilities). In practice, these charges are
often arrived at with no real inquiry into the actual
Capital needs of the system. The tap fees are determined
based.upon charges by'other'municipalities, past charges,
or upon an unsubstantiated idea of reasonableness.
actually, the fees are an eStimate of a charge which.wi11
hopefully. fund future improvements and which infect
rarely'does. The result is that existing users subsidize
new users by paying higher eater rates to fund facilities

necessary to serve only new growth.

By'the designation of service areas and.the establishment
of a capital improvement program in this Plan, the City
is aware of the facilities and costs necessary to eerye
both. present. and. future Eneeds of each. existing? and
potential service area. Thus, a basis exists upon whiCh

to charge a capital fee for water service.

Under the utility service connection charge_ordinance,
?new water users pay their pro rata share of the costs of

217

those facilities necessary to serve future growth within
that particular service area. This pro rata share is
determined by reference to (Equivalent Capacity
Units), a number which utilizes standard emgineering
formulas and national data to establish the relative
demand of various water Consuming devises. The system is
based upon one ECU, which equates to the amount of water 
used by 3.4?people living in one single?family residence
?with two bedrooms, one full bath, Hone kitchen, one
clothes washer, and up to 2,500 square feet of irrigated
lawn and garden? ?Under the ordinance, connection charges
are determined by dividing the total inflated cost of
those facilities necessary to serve the future growth of
a service area by the anticipated future in that
service area, multiplied by the number .of ECU's
associated with a given connection. Connection'charges'
established hy the ordinance are based upon the Phase 1
capital improvements program of the Water Management
Plan. The ordinance requires connection charges not only
for new structures, but also for any new addition of a

water consuming facility onto an existing connection.

Capital contributions for facilities necessary to provide
service to existing customers within a service area are
paid by all water customers, new and old, through the
capital contribution charge in the rate ordinance..'rhus,
new users pay for the.system improvements necessary to
serVe them and also "buy in" to the existing system

218

through. capital contributions in their ?water rates.
Existing users must also help pay for those facilities
needed.to provide adequate service to meet existing needs

and do this through this charge.
Treated Water.

The water rate ordinance establishes four components to
the treated water rate structure. First, all customers
pay a water capital debt charge as part of their 
bill. This charge provides a capital contribution based
on the number of of the customer and is used to
fund those facilities necessary to provide service to the

exiSting demands of the particular service area.

Second is an.operation and maintenance charge for'metered
water users. This_charge reflects the operation
and maintenance expense required to bring water to the
customer?s tap. The metered water.user operation and
maintenance charge is multiplied by a metered
coefficient charge, which operates as 21 surcharge on
those water users who consume water in excess of average
needs. ConVersely, customers using less than average
amounts of water receive a discount in their water bill.
This coefficient charge is designed not only'to encourage
water conservation, but also to equalize capital
contributions to an extent, by increasing and decreasing
water rates based on actual usage.

219

 

The third element of the rate structure is an operation
and maintenanCe charge to flat rate (non?metered)'
customers. Although metering. is required in the
ordinance, flat rate users must continue to be charged an

equitable rate under the rate ordinance. This rate is
based.upon the number of being served.under a given
billing. The rate is multiplied by a service charge
factor which encourages a switch to meters and also
covers extra bookkeeping expenses necessitated by non?

metered-billings.

Finally, there are a number of supplemental chargeS'which
serve special functions in the rate schedule. These
include surcharges for non-metered users, out?ofwcity
users, and pump station users. This latter charge aids-
in the recovery of_the high operation and maintenance
expenses necessary-to serve water users in high altitude

areas .



The basic raw water rate of per year per
acre irrigated is charged for the sale and distribution
of raw water from City wells. irrigation ditches, and
other sources of raW'water supply. The raw water rate is
set at a level much lower than treated water rates, to

promote the use? of raw ?water for lawn and garden

220

irrigation, construction _water or other uses not

requiring treated water.

The primary purpose of encouraging the use of raw water
is to reduce the current dependence on and need for
treated 1eater and, in turn, reduce the large capital 
operation, and maintenance expenses generated by. the 
collection, treatment, and distribution of treated water.
Raw water use also promotes the maximum utilization of
the City's water rights and distributes diversions of

water among several sources of supply.
Carriade Rate.

Carriage rates are established to allow the City to
recover capital, operation, and maintenance expenses
associated with the delivery of raw water from City?owned
facilities in special circumstances in which a raw water
rate is not charged. Raw water rates are designed to he
used by individuals upon application to the City for
personal irrigation use. Carriage rates most commonly
will apply to water users who dedicate Water rights
pursuant to the water rights dedication ordinance in
excess of dedication requirements for treated water use.
The City may also allow a water user who has dedicated
water rights to utilize those rights for their historic
purpose until such time as they are needed for municipal
purposes. This continued use promotes beneficialnse,

221

prevents abandonment of these water rights, and will be

_undertaken_under carriage rates. Finally,_the City_may

grant a raw water tap to a City?owned raw water facility

and charge a carriage rate for the conveyance of water

rights which the City does not own. If the water right

being used through a raw water tap is owned by the City
and conVeyed. through a City-owned facility in this
situation, the customer pays both a raw water rate and a
carriage rate. Carriage rates shall he set at a rate
which. will allow the city to recover the capital,
operation, and maintenance eXpenses, including ditch
assessments incurred by the City in relation to the

particular facility involved.
Water Rights Dedication.

To insure an adequate legal supnly of water, it shall be
the policy of the City to require the dedication of?water
rights upon annexation, subdivision, or replatting
approval, or upon the extension of treated water service.
The water in: be dedicated shall equal the potential
demand on the municipal utility, and all dedications
shall be _made .at the time of service commitment

regardless of the time 'of actual extension of water:
services. Until or unless the amount of water dedicated

exceeds the treated water requirements (providing the

water rights are of sufficient legal quality), it shall

be the policy' of? the ICity' to 'permit the ?water so

222

 

dedicated to be used on property not yet developed. In
the event-City facilities are utilized to convey water
for this purpose, such water shall be extended by the
City pursuant to a raw water tap at carriage rates. iIn
the event City structures are not used, a lease-badk
contract shall be executed; and the charge shall be at

the_existing carriage rate.
Easements and Land Dedication.

In addition to requiring that water rights be conveyed
under the water rights dedication ordinance, the City
Shell also require the dedication of easements and land
for the purpose of installing transmission lines; pump
stations, storage tanks, and other physical facilities

necessary for Water utility service.

223

 

X.



A.

Existinq Ordinances.

l.

Drouhht Conservation ordinance.

The following section of the Aspen code deals with
water conservation and curtailment'during dronght.
The ordinance is based upon the experiences of
Colorado and California during the 1976 and 1977
drought, the worst drought 3211,25 years in most

areas 0 -

The ordinance may need to be revised based upon the
direction taken in the_balance of the Comprehensive
Water Management Plan 1990 Update. The ordinance
was based upon lthe statewof?the?art drought"
curtailment at that time, but adjusted to the Aspen
experience. I The ordinance? contains concepts
developed in Petaluma and Marin County, California,
as well as Colorado. The experiences of ?Santa
Barbara and- San ?Diego, California, as well as
benver_and suburbs of Denver, as a result of the

current drought may be helpful in this revision.

224

DIVISION 6. WATER SHORTAGES

Sec. 23-200. Applicability.

This division shall become effective upon a ?nding by the city council that the city is
facing a shortage in its supply of water. Such a ?nding shall be made upon a vote by the city
council, with a majority of the council required to vote that a water shortage exists. To the
extent reasonable, ?ndings of applicability 0f the stagesset forth in this division shall be
coordinated with similar ?ndings by other water users in the some drainage basin, and
?ndings by the state engineer and the water conservation board shall he considered to be of a
persuasive nature. The provisions of this division shall apply only to the use of the treated
water supply of the City of Aspen-

Upon such ?nding, the threestage plan set forth in this division will be implemented.
The duration of each stage will be decided by the city council according to the exigencies of the
particular situation in question. 

(Ord. No. 27-1985, 1)

Sec. 23-201. Stages.

Stage One. During the period designated Stage One:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

(8)

There shall be do Washing of sidewalks, dr

iveways, parking areas, tennis courts,
patios, or other paved areas. 

There shall he no re?lling of swimming pools with water furnished by the city.

There shall be no noncommercial washing of'privatcly-owned cars, other motor -

vehicles, trailers, or boats, except from a bucket and except that a hose equipped with
a positive shut-off nozzle may be used for a quick rinse.

There shall be lawn watering only-to the extent determined permissible by the city
council according to the demands of the particular period in question.

No new public or private landscaping installations-shall be allowed.

No new water connections shall be auth orized, however, existing authorizations shall
be honored; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to users on a well

. whose well has run dry.

Watering of golf courses shall to the watering of tee bohes and greens,
and such watering shall be permitted only at the times set forth by the city council.

water shall not be used for dust control, except pursuant to authorization from the

City of Aspen or Pitkin County environmental Health Department.

 

rx?:

(bl Stage Two. Prior to the expiration of Stage one, a- period known as Sta ge Two shall be-
designated by the city council, if the council deems the entry of such stage necessary. The
council may continue Stage One or terminate the water shortage period at its discretion.

During Stage Two, all restrictions under Stage One shall remain in? effect. In addition,
upon commencement of Stage ?leo, the following measures shall be adopted:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Except for ?ghting ?re, there shall be no use of water from a fire hydrant i? or human

consumption, or for use in connection with animals, street washing or construction
water supply. 

Watering of any lawn, garden, landscaped area-treel'shrub or other plant shall be.
prohibited, except from a hand-held hose or container, or drip irrigation system. Such
watering shall be permitted only at times designated by the city council. 

There shall be no use by a car washing or bus washing facility in excess of seventy
(70) percent of the amount used by it during the correSponding billing period in the
preceding year. If the facility was not operating during the preceding year, an
assumed amount shall be computed from its records and from the rate of use of?
comparable facilities; provided, however, that this paragraph shall not apply?to any
facility that recycles water in a manner satisfactory to the city council.

There shall?be no nonresidential use in excess of seventy (70) percent of the amount
used by the customer during the corresponding billing period in the preceding year. If

connection to the city system was not in existence during the preceding year, an .
assumed amount will be computed based on the rate of comparable facilities. Said -

percentage may be increased by the city council 1? or any connection, use, or customer
if the city council by majority vote determines that such increase is necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare, or to spread equitably among water
users of the city the burdens imposed by the water shortage and the resulting lack of
water in the city?s supply; provided, however, that this provision regarding equitably
spreading such burden shall in no way serve to injure, weaken or deprive the legal

. demands of an adjudicated waterright under state statutes.

Stage Three. Prior to the completion of Stage Two, the city council shall determine by
majority vote whether to: (1) terminate the water shortage period; (2) revert to Stage One; (3)
extend the time for Stage Two; or (4) enter Stage Three. If entered. Stage Three sh all last until
the city council determines by majority vote that the water shortage no longer exists. The city
council Shall have the power to revert back to Stage One or Stage Two in its discretion. should
circumstances during Stage Three change and suggest such a course of action. The restrico
tions which go into effect upon entering Stage Three are as follows:

(1) Use in any dwelling or separate residential unit in excess of fifty (50) gallons p?cr day

(or some other quantity decided by the city. council) for each permanent resident
thereof shall not be permitted. Each citizen supplied with water by the city shall
certify to the city water department in writing, under oath and penalty of perjury,

the number of residents of each dwelling or separate residential unit billed to the
customer.



(2) There shall be no nonresidential use in excess of fifty (50) percent of the amount used
by the customer during the corresponding billing period of the previous year. If
connection to the city system was not in existence or use during the preceding year,
an assumed amount'will?be computed based upon the city?s records for comparable
facilities. Said percentage may be increased by the city council for any connection,
use or customer if the city council, by majority vote, determines that such increase is
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, or to spread equitably
among the water users of the city the burdens imposed by the water shortage and the
resulting diminution of the city?s supply.

(0rd. No. 27-1985, 1)

Sec. 23-202. Violations and sanctions.

If and when the city council, water department or police department become aware of
any violation of any provision of this division, 2. written notice shall be placed on the property
where the violation occurred and mailed to the person who is regularly billed for the service
where the violation occurs and to any other person known ?30 the City who' Is responsible for the
violation or its Correction. Said notice shall describe the violation and order that it be
corrected cured or abated immediately or within each speci?ed time as the city council
determines is reasonable under the circumstances. If said order' 15 not complied with, the
water department may disconnect the service where the violation occurs.

A fee of twenty~five dollars 00) shall be paid for the reconnection of any service
disconnected pursuant to subsection during Stage One.

A fee of ?fty dollats 00) shall be paid for the reconnection of any service discon-
nected pursuant to subsection during Stage Two.

A fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be paid for the reconnection of any service
disconnected pursuant to subsection during Stage Three. Furthermore, no service discona
nested pursuant to subsection during Stage Three shall be reconnected unless a device
furnished by the water department which will restrict the flow of water to said service is
installed.

(0rd. No. 22-1985, 1)

Plumbinq Advieorv Code.

.The- following plumbing code provisions ?were

recommended by the 1980 Water Management Plan and
subsequently enacted by ordinance. Enforcement and

compliance has been relaxed by Council direction at

various times. While innovatiVe at the time, these

maximum flow levels established in 1980 are now

generally required tar state statute, $9-1.3u104,

C.R.S. (1989 Supp.). Likewise, the landscaping'

suggestions, while not vigorously enforoed, were
innovative for the time in which they were

proposed.

[The balance of existing water-related ordinances to be

inserted by Mueiok and Cope.]

228

 

PLUMBING cons

Sec. 7-213. Adopted.

The Technical Plumbing Code Regulations of the State Board of Public Health of the
State of Colorado effective October 28, 1953, as amended, is hereby adopted as the plumbing
code of and for the city for regulating the installation, enlargement, alteration, repair and
maintenance of plumbing and drainage of all kinds. Three (3) certified copies of such code are
on ?le in the of?ce of the city clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours.

See. 7.214, Amendments. 

The Technical Plumbing Code Regulations adopted by reference in this article are amended
in the following particulars: 

(1) Piumbing shall be de?ned as follows:

(2)

(3)

I Plumbing is the practice, materials, and ?xtures used in the installation, main-
tenance, extension, and alteration of all piping, ?xtures, appliances, and appurte-
nances in connection with any of the following: Sanitary drainage or storm drainage
facilities, the yenting system and the public or private water supply systems, within
or adjacent to any building, structure, or conveyance; also the practice and materials
used in the installation, maintenance, extensions, or alteration of the storm water,
liquid waste, or sewerage, and water supply systems of any premises to their connec-
tion with any point oi? public disposal or other acceptable terminal.

All starred items pertaining to water in the Technical Plumbing Code become man-
datory instead of recommended with the exception of Section 10.3.6.4 Reliefmame
Location, etc., which shall remain a recommendation.

For the purpose of this Code the term ?domestic appliance? shall include apparatus
and equipment used for household, purposes where the same are connected to the
water supply System and are not connected to a drainage system. Included, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, are washing machines and dishWashing
machines, and law: sprinkling systems. The term ?water heating appliances? shall
include those having a heating capacity not in excess of two hundred (200) gallons per
hour, based on a temperature rise of sixty (60) degrees per hour. other than those
used for building heating purposes exclusively. The term ?water conditioning a?ppli.
ances? shall include equipment which is not connected to a drainage system which is
designed to soften or otherwise treat water. The term ?connection to a water supply
system? shall not be construed to include connections to existing faucets.

(4)

(6)

I-

It shall not be required that any person who shall make a connection to a water
supply system for the purpose of installing, altering or repairing water service pipes,
domestic appliances, ?rater heating appliances, and water conditioning appliances as
herein defined,'shall be licensed as plumbers as herein provided. It is the express
intention of this section to exempt all such persons who engage in the business of

installing, altering or repairing Such appliances from the licensing provisions of this
Code.

All connections made to a water system for the purpose of installing, altering
or repairing water service pipes, domestic appliances, water heating appliances, and
water conditioning appliances as? herein de?ned, shall be made in conformance with
all other provisions of this Code.

In all cases where a permit shall have been obtained for other purposes directly
connected with the installation, alteration or repair of such appliance, it shall not be
required that a separate permit be obtained under the provisions of this Code;

- provided, however, that in any case herein a permit is not required for other purposes-

in the installation, alteration or repair of such appliance, a permit for such installa-
tion, alteration or repair shall be obtained under the provisions of this chapter. -

Sec. 7-215. Utility assessment or utility connection permits; fees.

Any person who desires to connect to the municipal water utility system or who is already
connected to the municipal water utility system and intends to add or change a water demand
factor or ?xture shall pay all [see related to an utility assessment permit or a utility connec-
tion permit before obtaining a plumbing permit from the building department. I




. 


- 
(0



For each tap into a sanitary or storm sewer the fee shall be ?ve dollars" 

For each plumbing installation where there are not more than live (5) ?xtures, the
fee shall be four dollars Where there are more than ?ve (5) fixtures the fee
shall be four dollars for the first ?ve (5) 'plus fifty cents for each
additional ?xture in excess of five (5).

For additional fixtures installed to an existing plumbing installation, the fee shall be.
two dollars for each fixture. -

For the replacement of old plumbing ?xtures with new, the fee shall be one dollar
1.00) for each ?xture.

F01. each new installation of a water softener, the fee shall be two dollars No
permit shall he required for the exchange or servicing of such water softeners.

Fer each water heating appliance connected to the water distribution system, the fee
shall be two dollars 

For each installation of a lawn sprinkling system, the fee shall be two dollars 




Sec. 7?213. Tapping charges.

For each plumbing installation where a water test is not required and there shall be
not more than ?ve (5) waste outlets the fee shall be three dollars therefor, and shall be

?fty cents for each additional outlet.

(13) For each plumbing installation where a water test is required and there are not more
than ?ve (5) waste outlets the fee shall be four dollars 00). Where there are more than ?ve

(5) waste outlets the fee shall be four dollars .00) for the first litre (5) and ?fty cents 50)
for each additional outlet.

Sec. Compliance required.

It shall be unlawful for any person to install, enlarge, alter, repair or maintain any
plumbing or drainage of any kind in the city, or cause the same to be done. contrary to or in
violation of any of the provisions of The Technical Plumbing Code Regulations as adopted in
this article, or without obtaining a permit therefor whenever a permit shall be required.

WATER AND PLUMBING ADVISORY cone

Sec. 7~231. Applicability.

The provisions of this article shall govern the construction and the landscaping oi? new
residential, commercial and industrial structures,? and the remodeling of existing residential,
commercial and industrial structures within the City of Aspen, Colorado.

See. 743%. Installation of water conserving structures.

No building permit shall be granted 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 01? remodeling incorporates,

to the maximum extent economically feasible as determined by the director of water treat.
ment and supply, commercially available ?xtures designed to achieve the maximum censor.
vation of water possible. In the instance of an indoor or outdoor remodeling, complianCB will
be limited to that portion of the structure addressed within the building permit; and will be
voluntarily implemented to the remaining portion of the structures. The director of water
treatment and supply shall develop, within one hundred twenty (120) days of passage of this
article, on inventory list of commercially available ?xtures and criteria designed to achieve
conservation of water in an economically feasible manner. These fixtures and design criteria
listed shall be automatically approved as acceptable for the purpose of issuing a building

 

permit. Any fixture or design criteria not listed may be approved by the building department
in consultation with the director of water treatment and supply. The applicant shall provide
to the city all information requested and reasonably necessary 1? or the city to make a determi-
nation of acceptability. Any person aggrieved lay-a determination of the building department
may request a hearing before the city council. The inventory list shall include, but shall not
be limited to the following ?xtures and design criteria:

(1) Low flour water closet using lees than three and five-tenths (3.5) gallons per flush.
(2) Air pressure water closet (not commercially available). I

(3) Shallow drip water closet (not-commercially available).

(4) Low ?ow shower heads (2.56 PM or less) permanent type.

Pressure reducing valves.

(5) Instant mixing thermostatic valve or similar device reducing time for tap outflow to
reach the desired hot water temperatures. 

(6) F311th aerators. 
(7) Self-regulating automatic cutoff faucets (commercial).
(8) Dye tablet testing for toilet tank leaks (commercial).
(9) Water conserving dishwashers. I I

(10) Water conserving clothes washing machines.

(11) Use of air-cooled air Conditioners (commercial).

Sec. 7-233. Outdoor criteria; construction, remodeling and landscaping.

To the extent practicable and consistent with the proposed design and use of the
property, landscaping shall utilize, for grassy areas, Buffalo grass, western wheat grass,
crested grasses, or comparable grass which will have the effect of minimizing the consumptive
use of water applied to such grass or grasses for irrigation. For nongrassy, mourned-producing
areas, plants native to Colorado or states bordering Colorado shall be used. The landscaping
criterion provided herein shall not apply, however, to golf courses, parks, athletic ?elds, or
other uses where landscaping other than that provided in this subsection is necessary for the
primary purpose of such area. I 

For all outside irrigation, the development proposal shall include, to the extent
practicable, an irrigating 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 is 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 dis-
turbance of the coverage (pulsating type).

(3) Where the slope gradient of the proposed development so requires, be designed to
cont1 oi ?ow for the purpose of reducing runoff.

Sec. 7-234. Raw water supplies (nonpotahio).

Raw water supplies for irrigation systems shail be provided exclusively by the City of
Aspen Water Utility. The owner of the property proposed to be irrigated from City of Aspen
water facilities shall dedicate to the city all raw water transmission facilities andail water
to the proposed property. For those developments in which raw water

irrigation can he used, development proposals shall inciucie provisions for recording of covea
nants and restrictions against the use of treated water outdoors and against the use of
untreated water other than in accordance with the landscaping, irrigation and drainage
management plan provided for in a development proposai.

 

BI

Future Ordinances.

Water Conservation Ordinance. In the past ten
years technological improvements and consumer
acceptance have made .more dramatic savings
possible. The jproposed, ordinance that follows
represents a further, more stringent reduction in
the water demands of common plumbing fixtures, of
levels currently achievable topline, commercially
available fixtures proven to have reasonable
consumer acceptance. The ordinance proposes
encouraging voluntary retrofits in existing

dwellings through a rebate program.

Before the proposed ordinance 'is adopted,
consideration should be give to whether etch state?
of?the?art :measuree Hare warranted. in. the City.
Factors to be evaluated should include: effects on
water utility revenue, 'consumer and builder
acceptance, increased costs of development,
potential maintenance problems for the user and the
sewage collection system, and amount of water that
could be saved. Additional decisions- involve
whether such. a program should be mandatory or
voluntary, and. if voluntary' what, if any,
incentives and subsidies the City should provide to
encourage participation.

234

aAdditionally, Section 3 of the ordinance 'would
replace the suggestion ?that _native grasses and
Iplants be used_ to the "extent practicable and
consistent with the proposed design," with a
mandatory limit on the area devoted to non-drought
tolerant species. Sections 4 and 5 would require
additional water saving measures in sidewalk areas

and along public rights?of-Way?

235

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
ORDINANCE No.

SERIES OF 1990

AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED WATER CONSERVATION

ORDINANCE OF 1990;" AMENDING SECTION OF 7~232, OF.

THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
ENTITLED OF HIGH-EFFICIENCY

PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

MANDATORY INSTALLATION OF HIGHHEFFICIENCY PLUMBING.

FIXTURES NEW COMMERCIAL: OR

. INDUSTRIAL AND PROCEDURES RELATED

and

ENACTING NEW SECTION 7?235, TO BE ENTITLED
PROGRAM FOR RETROFIT OF.HIGHHEFFICIENCY
PLUMBING FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF A REBATE PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE

OF HIGH-EFFICIENCY PLUMBING FIXTURES.

IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL and

AMENDING SECTION 7-233 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY .OF .ASPEN, COLORADO, ENTITLED 
CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING AND

PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

MANDATORY TURF REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL and

'236

 

 

 

AMENDING- SECTION 1_9-121, ENTITLED 
REQUIRED FOR LANDSCAPING IN SIDEWALK AND
ENACTING NEW SECTION 19?128, To BE ENTITLED
OF WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING
ON PUBLIC PROVIDING FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OE REQUIRED WATER EFFICIENCY IN
LANDSCAPING ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to?implement a
policy to eliminate the unnecessary waste of water,
and provide for- more _effioient use of natural

resources, and

WHEREAS, as there is an increasing demand on raw
water supply by water users both within and outside

of the municipal boundaries, and

WHEREAS, this increased demand on raw-Water has
directly resulted in increased withdrawals of

streamflow, and

WHEREAS, deoreed.minimum streamflows were supported
by the City in order to promote and maintain the
'aesthetic and recreational qualities of its

environment, and

237

WHEREAS, the City desires to implement a policy of
water use efficiency? in order to reduce its
depletions and thereby meet its minimum
streamflow obligation for each of these streams,

and

WHEREAS, the City desires to provide an alternative
to the traditional methods of meeting increasing
demand: the purchase of water rights, expansion of
potable Water treatment and waste treatment 

facilities, and construction of raw water storage

. reservoirs, and

.WHEREAS, the City has chosen an institutionalized
approach to water?use efficiency to meet its long?
term objectives, rather than a policy which

responds to shorteterm needs, and

the City IdesireS' to implement -ooSt?
minisizing strategy'which.will forestall additional
investment in its water distribution system, lower
operating costs within treatment plants, and'
provide substantial energy savings to its

consumers, and

WHEREAS, the uSe of high efficiency plumbing
fiXtures in new construction is a-proven method of
implementing that strategy, and

238

 the City also desires to promote the use
of high_effioiency fixtures in existing structures,

and

WHEREAS, residential and commercial landscaping
account for as much as fifty percent of municipal

water needs in the City, and

WHEREAS, the.use of'drought?tolerant, indigenous
plant species in outdoor landscaping will
substantially reduce demand on the raw treated

'water supply, and

WHEREAS, in order to promote long?term ability to
meet the potable water needs of a rising

population, such a policy is essential.

NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council

of the City of hepen, Colorado,


That Section 7?232 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read

-as follows:

Section 7?232, Installation of hiqh?efficiencv
fixtures.

239

?No building permit _shall be granted for the

construction of aiinew residential, commercial or
industrial structure or for the indoor or outdoor
remodeling of an existing commercial, residential
or industrial structure 'unlese the design,
construction or' remodeling incorporates high?
efficiency plumbing fixtures. In the instance of
an indoor or outdoor remodeling, compliance will be
limited to that portion of the structure addressed
within the building permit; and will be voluntarily
implemented to the remaining portion of the

structures.

High' efficiency plumbing _fixtures are per ?e
defined as those fixtures which comply with the

following standards of water use:.

Maximum
Use I Number of Gallons
Toilets (tank-type, fluehometer)

,per flush I 1.6
Urinals, per flueh 1.0
Shower heads, flow per minute 2.5
Kitchen sink and lavatory faucets,

flow per minute a2.5

other types of high efficiency fixtures will be
allowed provided that those fixtures are proven to

240

'use no more water per use than those fixtures
defined as per ?g high efficiency fixtures. Such.
proof Shall be made to the satisfaction of the
building department official revieWing the

application for a building permit._

Any person aggrieved by a determination of the
department may requeSt a hearing before the City

Council.
SECTION 2

That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a Section 7-

235, which said eection reads as fellowe:

Section 7-235. Incentive Program for Retrofit of

High?Efficiency Plumbing Fixtures.

The city will pay $80 per toilet for the purchase
and installation of any ultrawlow flush toilets,
which utilize 1.6 gallons or less per flush, to any
customer of water service by the City of Aspen,-who
is rated as long term residential by the
superintendent in accordance with Section 23~44 of
this Code, and who provides all necessary proof of
said purchase and installation- at the time of
rebate.

24].

 

For purpose of this rebate, the installation of any
ultra?low flush toilet must replace an' existing
toilet and occur on the premises for which the
water service customer is billed} The rebate is
limited to the greater of the present number of
toilets in the dwelling oi fiVe toilets per long-"
term residential user, and in no instance shall the

rebate per customer exceed $400l

This Section 7~235 shall be automatically repealed
as of December 31, 1992, Unless re-enaoted by

ordinance prior to that date.
SECTION 3

That Section of the Municipal Code of

Aspen, Colorado, is ~hereby amended to. read as

follows:'

All landSCaping installed within the City of
Aspen or at any_ location now served or
hereafter served by the City's water system

shall comply with the following provisions:
(1) Definitions.
(A) Lawn, turf or sodded areas shall be

defined as those areas primarily

242

(2)

devoted to the cultivation of any
species of grass for aesthetic
purposes, and not for agricultural

food production.

(B) Soil prenatation shall be defined as
the addition to existing soil of a
minimum of three "cubic yards (a
layer one-half to one inch deep) of
organic matter and pounds of

or equivalent per

 

one-thousand (1,000) square feet of
pervioue area, introduced by
tilling, diecing or other suitable
method to a minimum depth of

inches. Acceptable'organic matter
will ihclude compost, peat moss,
aged manurea, aged sawdust, or any
combination of the above.
Unacceptable materials will include,
but are not limited to, sand, gypsum

and lime.
Exemptions.

It shall be the duty of the director of
utilitiee to promulgate. a list of
drought-tolerant grass species' and

243

 

(3)

acceptable. mixtures of such species.
This list will be updated as research and
experience indicate such a need for
revision. 'Areas of landscaping devoted

to the cultivation of_ thoee listed

'Speciee and acceptable mixtures will be

exempt -from the area _limitations' set
forth below. Parks owned, maintained and
operated by the City or any 'other
governmental entity, as ?well as areas
owned and maintained by school districts,
shall be exempt from the provisions of
this paragraph provided such entities
present to the water department a water

conservation.plan for their area.

No provision of this subsection shall
apply to any lawn, tarf, or sodded areas
in existence prior to the effective date
of this Ordinance, except where prior

existing areas are to be enlarged.

-It shall be Unlawful for any person or

entity, using water supplied Hand
delivered by? the City of Aspen, to
install or develop any Ilawn, turf or
sodded area, to enlarge any lawn, turf or
sodded area,_ without first 'having

244

conducted soil preparation and obtained a

permit.from the director of utilities of-

the City of Aspen, for such installation

or enlargement as is provided herein.

(A)

(B)

Lawn, turf or sodded area
limitations: For areas covered by
planned unit developments and

specially planned areas, where the

 

underlying zone is I 
such development may not_devote more
than percent of the
required deVelopment open space to
the cultivation of lawn, turf or
sodded areas composed of grass
species which do not appear on the
drought?tolerant list prescribed in

paragraph (2) above.

For all other residential,
commercial and industrial zone
districts, no more than

percent of any landscaped area
required for lot coverage can be
devotedl to lawn, turf, or? sodded
areas, up to a maximum of

square feet.

245

 

1.

a? .



4

That Section 19u212(g) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado is hereby amended to read

as follows:

Special consideration be given. to the
efficiency of ?water ?use *within the landscaping
plan.

SECTION 5_

That a new Section 19~128 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado is hereby added to read

as follows:

Section 19u128; Requirement of conservation of

water in landscaping on public right?of-way.

All plans for landscaping on sidewalk areas and
public rights of.way shall seek to conserve water
based 'upon, Ibut not limited to, the following

Considerations:

Limiting the' area on which frequently
irrigated and mowed turf is to be maintained
to functional areas or areas proximal to entry
ways;

246

 



(C)





Insuring the use of efficient irrigation
techniques, including, but not limited to, the
use of :nonwtreated raw' Water, the ?use of
seasonally'variable irrigation schedules which
closely match the evapotranspiration needs of

the 'Vegetation, and ?the use of irrigation

techniques which' minimize water _waste and

maximize the amount of water applied to

beneficial use;

Using lower-water demand plants; ground cover,

and grass species to conserve water;

Restricting use of frequently irrigated and
mowed turf from street median strip

landscaping;

Using mulches and improved soil on the site to
maximize moisture availability for plant

intake and to reduce water demands.

SECTION 6

The Director of Public'Works_shall report to the

City Council each year no later than December 1,

after consultation.with his staff and the Finance

Department, on the status of water conservation

247

efforts by users of the City Water System. The

annual report shall include as a minimum:



(C)









An accounting of per capital water use;

An estimation_of unmetered water use;

An estimation of unaccounted water loss within
the City's distribution system;

An estimation of the amounts of; water
conserved by various conservation measures;
The number of low flow fixtures inStalled
during the previous twelve month period;

The amount of irrigated landscaped areas added.
to the areas served by the City system;

Any customer complaints concerning the
effectiveness of low flow fixtures;
Recommendations Ifor additional actions to
further reduce per capital water use;

The extent of educational activities conducted
during the year to encourage voluntary water
conservation; I

recommended improvements to the City?s
distribution system and the projected usefnl
life of existing treatment and storage

facilities.

248

 

2.

'Waste of Water ordinance.

City of Aspen, Colorado
ORDINANCE NO.

SERIES OF 1990

AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED OF WATER
AMENDING 23-151 OF THE
MUNICIPAL OF THE CITY. OF CITY OF 
COLORADO, PROVIDING FOR, THE OF

UNNECESSARY WASTE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF.
SECTION 1

That Section 23-151 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado is hereby amended'to read

as follows:
Section 23-151. Wasting of Water Prohibited.

It shall be unlawful for any person using
water from the water utility to waste water,?
Waste of water is defined as, by' way of

illustration but not limitation:

(1) The unnecessary running of water, which
is not applied to any beneficial use,
through or out of? any water oloeet,

249

 

 

 

lavatory, urinal, bathtub, hose, hydrant,
faucet or other fixture, Iapplianoe or
apparatus whatsoever, through neglect or
by reason of faulty or imperfect plumbing

or fixtures; or

(2) The continuous application of water to
lawns or sod resulting in pending or the
flowing of water into drainage or storm
drainage facilities, failure to repair
irrigation I system units which Hare
leaking, application tn? water intended
for lawn irrigation. to impervious
surfaces, and all other applications of
water which do not result in beneficial

USER.

Violators.of this provision regarding waste shall

be subject to the enforcement provisions set forth

in subsection below.



Enforcement. The aforementioned prohibitions

.may be enforceable by any member of the city

-oounoil, water- department or police

department. The person or entity billed for

'water service to any given premises, whether

owner or occupant, shall be responsible for
compliance with these antiuwaste measures, and

250

 

violators of said measures will be subject to

the following actions and penalties:

(1)

(2)

(3)

In the eveat of a first violation, the
person or entity billed will be advised
in writing of said violation and a
twenty-five dollar charge will be added

to the water bill for said premises.?

In the event of any second violation at

the said premises, the person or entity:

billed will be advised in writing of said
violation and a fifty dollar charge will
be added to the water bill for said

premises.

In the event of a third or any subsequent
violation at the same premises, the
person or entity billed will be advised
in writing of said violation and a one-
hundred dollar charge will be added to
the water bill for said premises. In
addition, the Water department may
disconneot the water Service upon a third
or subsequent violation, and water
service shall not be reconnected until a

device furnished by the water department

251

 

 

 

which will restrict the flow of water to

said premiSee is installed.

Any person or entity to which the aforementioned
sanctions are imposed may request a hearing before

lthe city council.

[The balance of the newr ordinances required to implement

the 1990 update of 'the Water Management Plan'to be

_prepared by staff with the assistance of consultants as

required.]

252

 
 
 
 
 
 

   
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

billing system should_be-adopted for establishing

water rates which is self?enforcing and

where the rates are automatically raised to ensure
proper cash flow. This system must contain a
method for council and citizen review to ensure

accountability on water rates.

The reserve fund for unanticipated revenue
shortfall is designed to smooth out cash flow and
thereby water rates by collecting and

reserving money to be used to replace shortages due

- to insufficient water tap connections and

shortfalls in anticipated water usage?

Billing for all costs will be fairly apportioned
among all manner of customers, including existing
customers, new customers, residential customers and.
commercial customers, in a manner which recognizes
the community of interests among all customers in

the following manner:

a. Debt service costs for upgrading the existing
system. Debt service for upgrading the
existing system along with the fixed costs of

operating the entire system will be recovered

61

from existing and new customers by 

water.? rates, with 45% of the capital debt

service allocated for Collection out of

water rates.

Debt service for new customers. Debt service 

for adding additional capaCity to the existing
systems for new customers as represented by
the remaining 55% of committed debt service
will be recovered_fr0m new customers out of

utility connection charges.

Service area factor. A single utility
connection charge and a single water
rate demand charge will be established for the

City and each serVice area will be rated at a

.factor to be compared to a standard service

area which will be used for arriving at all
rates and 'utility' connection
charges. Emese factors will be reassessed

every five years.

AVoidance of caste. So that certain
customers, whether located outside' of the
municipal limits Hor' Whether ?residential or

commercial, do not avoid paying their full and

62

 

fair' share of .the' cost of operating and
developing the utility system, customers will
be Charged different rates thrOugh their ECU
?rating based upon established factors. TheSe

factors will be reassessed eVery five years.

To minimize the impact of fluctuations of 

water rates, actual meter ?readings and. 

water billings will he averaged to levelize 

payments and to simplify meter readings on a

quarterly or Other basis.

The rates will include the following

Charges:

Demand charge. .A fixed charge for all
water users regarleSS of water use. Emis
will consist of annual debt service reserve
account contributions, and fixed operating and
maintenance costs.' This charge will be
applicable- to all oustOmers, including

irrigation-only customers of the utility.

Variable charge. A oost-of?servioe charge_
will be based upon the cost of chemicals and

other items of variable cost which will be

63

allocated on a ,per 1,000 gallon basis to
determine the charge. There will be
no mihimum meter quantity. EVeryone will pay

this charge if they use water.

c. Additional demand charges. These are chargee

unique to service of cuStomers such as:
(1) pumping charges

(2) avoided cost charges

(3) luxurlous water demands

To arrive at the utility connection charge, the
following demand characteristice will be rated in
fractions or multiples of-a unit reflecting that
part of the capacity of the treated water system
necessary to Serve a etandard user: number
and type_ of fixtures; peak and seasonal
demands; (0) fire protection requirements; 
luxurious water demands; other. This unit will
be called an equivalent capacity unit (ECU) which
ie a unit established by fixture unit capacity

times a demand factor.

64

10.

11.

Capital costs, including interest costs, are to be

allocated Ibetween existing' users collected by

water rates and new connections collected

Iout of utility connection charges on a 45/55% basis

and between 'service areas? by the IsChedule of

utility connection charges adopted by ordinance.

Capital and ordinary repair and_maintenance costs

not allocated to new connectione,-essentially for_

upgrading and replacing the exieting system rather

than expending? it, will be allocated 'unifotmly

'among service areas, need not be factored in the

same way as utility connection charges, and_will be
collected out of the demand charge portion of the

water rate?

65

 

 

 
 

 TREATED WATER SYSTEM.

The -Policy Statement on Service Areas acknonledges that
"logical water utility planning begine by defining areas of
existing and potential service by the City of Aspen water
utility," and that the needs and capabilities of service

within these areas must be identified. ,The planning procees

which began prior to the Water Management Plan and continued

under the Plan identified a number of . capital improvement

projects necessary to bring the City *water eyetem into
conformance with accepted AWWA standards (Phase 1), extend
service to eligible areas (Phase 2), and provide adequate raw
water storage (Phase 3). 'Phase 3 projects will be discussed
in Part IV, Raw Water, and Part V, Hydroelectric. Phase 1 and
Phase 2, being treated.water facilitiee, are addressed in this

Part .
A, Water Management Plan Phase 1 Proiecte.
The specific projects in the Phase 1 program, the need

for each, and the 1981 estimated construction costs,

land, and water rights costs were as follows:

66

 

Q?di?~

[015? 

apt~??
sew"

Aspen?Monarch?Mill?Durant Interconnect and 20"

Southside Transmission Main.

Estimated Cost: $361,840

The ?Aspen-Monarch-Mill Street interconnect was

- required to provide a dual feed to the 1.0 MG Aspen

Mountain tank, to meet the terms of the snowmaking
contract with the Aspen Skiing Corporation (ASC)
and to meet fireflow and pressure needs in the

downtown area. The completion of the 20? southside

main to Wagner Park was required to supply Water to

the existing feed to the 1.0 MG Aspen Mountain tank

?nder the ASC contract, and was also necessary to

?provide fireflow and pressure in the downtown area.

The completion of the southside main was identified
as a ?critioal project in a 1974 report, which

recommended its construction prior to 1978.
Knollwood 1.0 MG Tank.

Estimated Cost: $1,145,500

This tank was required to supplement the east side

water system and to meet existing in?city fire and

domestic demands. The fire capacity without the

67

tank was limited to 500 and had to be increased
to -2000 for this residential area} In
addition,_Knollwood service was dependent on one
vulnerable transmission main. Storage in this area

was recommended in 1964 and again in 1977.
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam.

Estimated Cost: $529,000

The Maroon Creek diversion dam was constructed in

1893, and ?its rehabilitation was necessary to

protect the City?s water rights on Maroon Creek and
to fully utilize the $332,000 Maroon_Creek Pipeline
(1974 cost). Without rehabilitating the diversion
dam, only 20% of.the pipeline capacity could be
used. This meant that. when the Castle Creek

pipeline was shut down for water quality reasone,?
the Maroon Cree}: Dam would limit the supply of

water to 5 (3.2 MGD less backwash) which would

-require limited service throughout the City under

even the lowest uSage periods. The project was
reoommended in 1955, 1963, 1969 and 1973 and was a
critical project (to be completed by 1978) in the

1974 report.

68'

. .1 f. 

4. Maroon Creek Pipeline Crossing.
Estimated Cost: $115 000

The suspended bridge pipeline crossing'was the only
supply of water west of maroon Creek. The
suspended pipe was almost lost in 1979. The new
pipeline had to be buried and even then was not
100% reliable without storage west of?Maroon Creek.
Without a new crossing, water service to the
airport was vulnerable. The 'projeot was

recommended in 1968 and during the 19?0?s.'

5. Maroon and Castle Creeks Water Rights.

n! ?315-.

Estimated Coat: $845,000

The City needed to acquire water rights so that the
'16 MGD CaStle Creek Treatment Plant could be fully
supplied just from Maroon Creek on those occasions
when the Castle Creek Pipeline was shut down. The
magnitude, natnre and timing of the acquisitions
were to be determined after conducting an overview

study of the City?e raw water supply needs.

69

 



7535!}, .

IL-JK



Meadowood 0.25 MG Tank.

Estimated Cost: _$372,000

The Meadowood. tank :was necessary to serve the
existing demands of the Meadowood subdivision and
of the Highlands Water and Sanitation District.
Under the oontraot.with the Highlands District,
Highlands was to contribute to the costs of the

tank, pipeline, and pump station modifications

_necessary to serve the District.

Tie-Hack 2.0 MG Tank.
Estimated Cost: $793,500

This tenk was required to meet existing aemands
west of_ Maroon Creek, McBride, Airport
Business Center, Airport, Buttermilk ski Area, and
the Pfister Subdivision. Even with the new Maroon
Creek Pipeline Crossing, t?is area must' haVe
treated water storage to meet fire protection and
water supply needs. The project was recommended in

1964, 1968, 1959 and 1970.

70

 

 

Aspen Grove 0.02 MG Tank.
Estimated Cost: $46,000

This tank was required to provide minimum 2000 9pm
fire protection-requirements in the pumped zones of
Aspen Grove, Knollwood and Mountain Valley.' The
existing treated water storage in these areas could
not supply" minimum domestic or fire jprotection

demands.?

_Willoughby Way Interconnect.

Estimated Cost: $126,500

This interconnection was required to feed water
from the Red Mountain 2.0 MG tank to the North Mill
Street area. In the absence of this interconnect
much of Red Mountain.would be out of water if there
was interruption of service from the 16" line

across the Roaring Fork River.
Renovation of Castle Creek Treatment Plant.

Estimated Cost: $380,000

71

 

 

 

 

 

ll.

12.

.4 

The plant was constructed in 1964 and had received
no major rehabilitation since then. The renovation
was necessary to meet existing_demands of 7.0 MGD

and to protect against Giardia Lamblia,

Expansion of Castle Creek Treatment Plant.

.Estimated Cost: $1,651,000

The most cost effective way to renovate the Castle

Creek Treatment Plant was to first expand it by 8.0

MGD. This expansion would permit continued service

of existing demands while renovation was
undertaken, and, after renovation, would provide
some redundancy and-the capacity to meet future

demands 0

Hunter Creek Treatment Plant, Pump Station, and

Water Rights.
Estimated Cost: $563,300

These'Hunter Creek improvements were necessary to
meet existing domeetic and fire protection demands
in the Red Mountain, Smuggler, and Mountain Valley

areas, and to provide a back~up treated water

72

 

 

13.

supply for the entire system. The acquisition of
an additional 0.5 cubic. feet per second of the
senior Red Mountain Ditch water right was targeted,
but see to be reviewed as part of a comprehensive

raw water supply study, like the Maroon and Castle

-Creek water right acquisitions.

Pipeline Upgrades.

Estimate Cost: $1,390,400

_The replacement of a number of deteriorated and

failing old steel pipelines was necessary to
preVent continual outages of water service. These

upgrades were first recommended in 1956 and'Were

critical prejeots (to be constructed by 1978) in

the 1974 report.

Actual Cost.

The

actual such costs of these projects after

construction (or bid) compared with the 1981 estimates

were as follows:

73

Aspen-Monarch?Milleurant

Interconnect and 20" South?

side Transmission Main.

a. Aspen-Mill-Durant
City of Aspen

Ski~?0rp.

Sub-Total

b. 20" Southside.

Total

74



Estimated

88,300

59 542

147,840.

214,000

361,840



Actual

144,990

2g1,790

425,730

(3)

Estimated
Aspen-Grove (Knoilwoed).
1.0 MG Tank
Land 100,000
1.0 MG Reservoir 529,000
Pump Station 115,000
Inlet Pipeline (In Above).

14" 16" Pipeline 401,500

Total 1,145,000


Actual

100,000
468,228
.03,300
102,504

396 530

1,150,562

This tank was moved from Knollwood Subdivision to Aspen Grove

Cemetery due to non~aveilability of land;

The move added

$50,000 in landscaping and exterior reservoir treatment not in

the original 1979 budget.

maroon Creek Diversion Dam.

Total 529,000

200,000

Based on.bids received. Construction September, 1985. Excess

funds of $329,000 transferred to Castle Creek Water Treatment

Plant which Was bid at the same time.

75

 

Marocn Creek Pipeline.

CroSeing

Maroon and Castle Creek

Water Rights.

Highlands 0.5 MG

(Meadowood 0.25 MG) Tank.

-Tank (City)

Tank (District)
Landscaping

Highlands Pump Station
Total

TieHHack 2.0 MG Tank.

2.0 MG Tank

Inlet Pipeline

Landscaping

Total

76

115,000

845,000

172,000

200,000

Above)

(In Above)-

372,000

793,500
(In Above)

(In Abeve)
793,500

See item
133
Pipeline

_Upgrades

246,000
(In Abdve)
30,000

78,800

366,100

682,100
66,700
21,900

770,700

10.

11.


Estimated Actual

Does not include fire pro?ection lines for Pfister Barn and
Pfiater Residence which were added as part of Pfiater

agreement.

Pfister Barn 24,980

Pfister Residence 24,900

Total 49,880
Aspen Grove 0.02 MG Tank. 46,000 31,050
Willoughby Way Interconnect. 126,500 156,040 

Renovation of Castle Creek.

Treatment Plant 380,000 

Expansion of Castle Creek.

Treatment Plant 1,322,000 1,741,800'
Diversion Dam Transfer 329,000 

Total 1,651,000 1,741,800

77

 

12._

Includes sanitary sewer main to Caatle Ridge in lieu of septic
ayatem (required by sanitarian}, new clarifier (to handle
Castle Creek runoff for a longer periodj and Home construction
which is a part of_the exinting treatment plant renovation

project. (The $380,000 estimated for Irenovation is net

included in this item).

Hunter Creek Treatment Plant, Rubey (Hunter Creek)

Pump Station and Pipeline, Hunter Creek' water

Rights. 

Pump Station 115,000 . 129,645.
'Pipeline I (In Above)
Sub?Total 161,300 129,645

Treatment Plant Expansion 152,000_ 

Water Rights 2501000 - 

Sub?Total 402,000 
_Total 563,300 -129,645

78

 

13.

14.

Estimated
PipelinewUpgrades.
a. Specific Upgrades.
(1) Maroon Creek
Crossing 115,000
(2) Castle Creek
Road to Bridge- 316,000-
(3) 1 a 2 Combined
(Maroon~West) 
Total 431,000
b. General Upgrades. 1,0?4,400
Added by City Council
and Management.
a. Music Associates of Aspen 

0. -2*20" Butterfly Valves

79



Pfister Fire Protection 





Actual

406,730

406,730

1,195,250

104,560
49,880

32,200

 

- d. Garmish Street . 24,440
e. Main street Fire Hydrants 29,420
f. Gillespie Street 87,100

Castle Creek Plant

(Dual 20" Feed) . - 186,770
Total . 514,370

15. Phase projects which were not constructed were:

Maroon and Castle Creek Water Rights.
Renovation of Castle Creek Treatment Plant.

-Hunter Creek Treatment Plant Expansion.
Hunter Creek Water Rights.

Ute Avenue and Lake Avenue Upgrades.
Future Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction.

Subsequent events, including newly?proposed development
proposals and the addition to the City water system of-
existing, privately?owned water systems, have resulted in
the:need and/or opportunity torexpand.system_improvements
beyond those identified in the original Water Management
Plan and earlier'updates and modifications. _These system
improvements are considered Phase 1 improvements, as they
do not extend to the projects originally identified as

components of Phase 2 or Phase 3. Those phases presently

80

 



remain as described in the 1983 Water Management Plan

 

Update:
Phase 2
Project Cost

1986?1987 Roaring Fork Plant and

Appurtenant Facilities 6,688,000
1987?1988 Buttermilk Plant and

Appurtenant Facilities 6,695,000
1988?1990 Bruek Creek Transmission

and Distribution System 5,230,000
1990 Pitkin Green Improvements.? 805,000

TOTAL 19,418,000

Phase 3 of the capital improvement.program.extende beyond
the 10 Year program, and will address the development of
the raw water storage facilities which will be necessary
in critical dry years. This phase may include the
construction of one or perhaps two raw water storage

reservoirs in the Roaring Fork.River Basin, along with

81

hydroelectric power generating facilities, at a capital
cost of about $50 million. The jphasing and. basic
parameters of such raw water storage development will
.also depend on the results of the water supply studies

referenced above.

The construction proposed for the 1990?1993 construction
seasons is intended to accomplish the construction of
?projects delayed-in Phase 1 of the Water Management Plan
and benefit only existing customers of system. IBut, by
utilizing proven, sound, creative "engineering and
management techniques, existing and 1x3 be constructed
private water systems can be connected to_the system at
minimal asst and oneuhalf of the total expenditures can

be recovered through water agreements.

The Red Mountain_system improVements are primarily to
correct eXisting deficiencies in the Red Mountain system
and not to Serve new development. ?The Airport Business
Center construction serves new? development. which is
within the scope of the Growth.Management Plan. 'The City
.has sufficient treatment capacity to serve this growth
and other projected under the Growth Management
Plan, during the 1990?s, without expansion of the water'
_treatment facilities. The possibility of the Airport
Business resulting in
eventual expansion of snowmaking on the l?eu?ack and

82

Buttermilk ski areas also does not require the expansion
of the water treatment facilities. The water treatment
facilities are designed.t0'meet.the seasonal high.demands
which occur in the summer months. Therefore, providing
treated water for snowmaking during the winter months
results in the efficient use of the City's investment in
plant capacity and generates additional income for the
City without creating a-demand for increased treatment

plant capacity.

The benefits and impacts of each individual. project
proposed for construction in the 1990-1993 rater capital

improvements program are as follows:

1. 1990 - Red Mountain Upgrade--Phase 1, Highlands

Interconnect and Miscellaneous Projects.
a. Red Mountain Water System Upgrade Phase 1.

The Red.Mountain'Water System Upgrade?~Phase 1

is required to:

(1) Provide treated water storage Ion Red
MOuntain to remove the reliance on total
pumping during heavy usage. There is
presently one 20,000?gallon tank in-the
high Red Mountain pressure zone which
includes the homes along East Red?s Road

83

(2)

and Red Mountain Road above East Red?s
Road (39 late). The storage would be
provided by the proposedoQoEwM.G. Droete
Reservoir which would be constructed on
property'purchased by Wexner from.Droste.
The City's contract with Droete, which
passed with the land to Wexner, provides
for a tank site to be given to the City.
Wexner would contribute $75,000 to bury
the tank and be totally responsible for
the cost of landscaping and revegetation'

of the tank site.

The highest homes (16 lots) along the top
Red Mountain Road would_oontinue to be
served by the existing 30,000~gallon
tank, but_the 045 M.G. reservoir would
serve the homes on East Red?s Road (23
lots), "and remove the Zhomes from ?the

existing 20,000~gellon tank.

Allow the City. to perform under the
contract proposed with, the West Red?s
Road homeowners who are presently
provided.water from their privete'epringe

(14 lots).

84

b.

(3)

(4)

The 0.5 M.G. reservoir elevation proposed
is based upon providing gravity water
service to the West Red?s Road homes.
The homeowners 'will be contributing
$160,000 towards the estimated

construction costs.

'Provide a second source of pumping into

the high Red Mountain Zone through a pump
station to be constructed near the new
0.5 M.G. reservoir. The pump station
would alsoi provide domestic pressure,
through modulating pumps to the East
Red?s Road homes and be the primary pump
station to fill the proposed 0.5 

reservoir.

Provide. a heckfeed from. the 0.5 M.G.
reservoir to the lower Red Mountain
pressure zone (34 lots) and supplement
the ?$0,000 gallons of storage on East
Red's Road during high daytime usage

periodsy

Highlands Interconnect.

The Highlands Interconnect is -required to

provide a second source of water supply to the

85..

Highlands Water and Sanitation District and

has the additional benefit of connecting the
Meadowood Subdivision to the Highlands 0.5
M.G. treated water storage tank. The
connection of the tank to Meadowood will, for
the first time, provide fire. flows to the

Meadowood Subdivision.

The Meadowridge housing project, presently
being by Pitkin County, cannot
receive fire protection without constructing
water storage abOve the City water treatment
facility, or assisting in funding' the
Highlands interconnect. Although the City has
passed an ordinance to exempt employee housing
projects from paying utility investment
charges, the project ?would. he Irequired, to
provide fire flows "for protection of' the

residents.

I The total cost .of construction of the
Highlands Interconnect was proposed to be
Split between the Highlands Inn _and the
Highlands base area improvement projects. The
program. between _the ?two projects would. be
based upon 'their reSpective water -uees.
Neither project has proceeded to date, but at
the time the projects are constructed, the

86

City should recover the full cost of the
interconnect and rebate the houSing.project

contribution.
Airport Business Center ABA MCDC.

The Airport Business Center upgrade has been
modified from that' previously proposed to
position the City to be able to provide
treated water to the ABA and MCDC projects
without compromising the intent of the.Airport
Business Center upgrade project to irerVe
water service._ The modifications to the plan

are:

(1) 'Relocate the_proposed 1.0-M.G. reservoir
I from adjacent to the business center to a
location above the ABA.development (elev.
'8700), construct a pump station adjacent

to the'Tie?Haok 2go M.G. water reservoir

to fill the reservoir, and install a 12"
pipeline from the pump station to the
reservoir. future pressure reducing
Valve structure shall be constructed at
Owl Creek Road and State Highway No. 82

so that' the 1.0 M.G. reservoir will
function as emergency supply in the event
that the current supply from the_Tie?Haok

87

 

(2)

t3)

(4)

2.0 M.G. reservoir_or the proposed 16"
looped supply from the Maroon West
pipeline are both interrupted at the same

time.

Upsize the original 12" looped, supply
from Tie?Hack Road to a 16" looped s?pply 
to compensate for the relocation of the
reservoir etorage. The pipeline would
extend from a point east of Tie?Hack Road
north_ to Stage Road, northwest? along
Stage Road to Hwy 82,_and then northerly
on the east side of Hwy 82, to the south

side of the 

Original components of' the Airport
Business Center upgrade that have been 

retained include:

The 8" loop from the bus barn to the
north side of the Airport Business

Center.

Croee Connections between the existing
18" and 24" pipeline on the west aide of
Hwy 32 and the new 16" pipeline on the

east side of Hwy 82.

88

(5)

Isolation velvee on the existing 18" and
24" pipeline to limit the length of pipe
out of service_in the etent of a main

break.

The location and elevation (8700) of the 1.0

M.G.

(6)

(7)

(8)

reservoir will:

Allow the reservoir to function as

emergency domestic and fire supply for

the Airport Business Center.

Provide domestic and fire storage for the-
ABA developments. The developer
will be required to install 3,300 feet of
12" pipeline from the reservoir to the
development end the internal distribution

system in the development.

Position the City to provide snowmaking
weter to the Aspen Skiing Company for the
Tie?Hack and the Buttermilk ski slopes.
Based 'upon 'the approximate $1,500'jper
night income the City receives for Aspen
Mountain, it is projected that snowmaking
on TiewHack/Buttermilk would generate_
$1,000 per night. The use of treated
water for enowmaking has been proven to

89

be an efficient use of the investment in
plant capacity as normal winter use is

_lese than summer.uee.

The components of the Airport Buoiness

'Center upgrade that would be constructed

in 1990 are those required to provide

immediate Service to the ABA and MCDC

with the remainder constructed in 1991.
The 1990 components to be constructed are:

(9) The 1.0 M.G. steel.on?grade reservoir.

(10) The pump stetion at the base of the

existing Tie?Hack storage reservoir.

(11) The 12" Interoonnecting pipeline from the

pump station to the 1.0 M.G. reservoir.
1991 -'Airport Business Center Upgrade.

The components of the Airport Business Center

upgrade to be constructed in 1991 are all remaining

-portione of the project not constructed in 1990.'

These components are:

90

 

 

1992

The 12" Interconnecting pipeline from. ABA,
through West Buttermilk to State Highway No.

82 at Owl creek Road and the Owl Creek PRV.

The 16" Interoonneoting pipeline from?rieHHaok
Road and State Highway No. 82 to Stage Road to
the north side of State Hwy 82 and along the
easterly side of State Hwy 82 to the Airport

Business Center.

The 8? Interconnection from the bus barn to

the Airport Business Center.

24" and 18" isolation valves on the existing

_transmission main.

Red MDuntain Upgrade Phase 2.
Red_Mountain Water System Upgrade -- Phase 2.

The Red Mountain Water System upgrade Phase

2 is required to:

(1) Provide the second source of supply to
the 0.5 M.G. reservoir and Red Mountain
by upgrading the Ridge Road pump station
to pump to the elevation of the
reservoir; installation of inter?

91

connecting piping from. Draw Drive to
Wright's Road and in wright's Road west
to the existing West Red?s Road

Homeowners 8" water main.

(2) Provide for replacement of deteriorated
Water mains in East Red?s Road and north
to Red Mountain Road, These water mains

incur up to 4 breaks each year.

4. '1993 Replace Water Mains; West (Castle Creek)

'Plant Renovations.

Replace Water Maine and New Water Maine.

The water main replacements propoeed include
Cooper AVenue, Lake AVenue, Ute_Avenue, Aspen
Mountain Reservoir Feed to Spring Street and
Park Avenue from Park Circle to State Highway

No. 82.

These water main replacements, Cooper, Lake,
Ute-and Park Avenues, are required to replace
undersized, deteriorated water mains. The
Park Avenue 12? water main replacement will
also complete the northeast loop from 'the

Ridge of Red Mountain 2.0 M.G. reservoir to

State Highway No. 82. The Aspen Mountain

92

reservoir to' Spring Street water main
installation will provide ?a feed .from the
reservoir to the east side of the core
business area. If the prop03ed Ute Avenue_
Improvement District (currently under
discussion) is implementedq the 'Ute ?Avenue
portion of the water main replacements'
should be constructed prior to

street improvements on Ute Avenue.

The Cooper and- Lake Avenue projects were-
scheduled for replacement in' 1982; but
deferred by Council in favor of construction
of the water main from the Castle Creek Water
Plant to the MAA facilities on Castle Creek

Road.

West (Castle Creek) Water Plant Renovations.

The renovation of the original Castle Creek
Water Plant (West Plant) is required to update
the electrical, ealving, controls and filter
beds to current standards. The West Plant was

originally constructed in 1965 and operated

?continuously until relief' was obtained by

construction of the East Plant in 1985.

93

 

The renovation of the West Plant, prior to
further deterioration, will allow the City to
continue to meet its increasing treated Water
demands 'without new plant construction
throughout the 1990's; The intent of the 
Water Management Plan construction of the East
Plant was to bring_it on line and then be able
to shut down the West Plant for renovation so
that both plants would be back on line before
peak water demands for treated water exceeded
?the capacity of the East Plant. The past year
has seen a 10% increase in_peak water demands

for treated water capacity.

94

 

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

4 YEAR WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

1990 - 1993

PROJECT 1990 1991

RES MOUNTAIN PHASE.1 $790,400
Domestic/Fire Protection,-

?Storage System Upgrade

HIGHLANDS INTERCONNECT 358,000
Domestic/Fire Protection,

Second Source-Highlands
LAND DATA SYSTEM - GIS 50,000'

FIRE HYDRANT REPAIRS 30,000

Fire Protection

- 42,000
TELEMETERING

System Upgrade

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER . - 1,429,500
System Upgrade
Domestic, Fire Protection,

Storage, Second Source

95

RED MOUNTAIN - PHASE 2
System Upgrade

Second Source

-REPLACE WATER MAINS

System Upgrade

CASTLE CREEK PLANT

RENOVATIONS

System Upgrades

ANNUAL TOTAL

$372,200

$532,700

400,000

 

 

 

$1,270,400

$1;429,500

96

$372,200

$1,032,700



FIRE PROTECTION COST ASSIGNMENT

1990
Red Mountain Upgrade Phage I

0.5 M.G. Reservoir:'

1/3 $387,900

Pipeline: Pump Sta. to Reservoir:

'1/3 $50,600

West Red?s Road Fire Hydrants:

100% $7,600

New Pump Station:

1/3 $189,750

Same trench 12" Pipeline:

100% $41,750
Sub?Tetal (1)

Highlande Interconnect:

1/3 $358,000

Land Data System:

97

$129,300

16,900

7,600

63,250

41,750

$258,800

$119,300_

 

Fire Hyarant Repairs:

100%_x $30,000
Pump/ReservcirITelemetaring
TOTAL 1990 FIRE PROTECTION
1991
Airport Business Center Upgrade

Pump Station and Storage:'

. 1/3 $759,000

Highway 82 Crassings:

1/3 $25,300

16" Pipeline:

1/3 $473,200

TOTAL 1991 FIRE PROTECTION

98

30,000

$408,100

$253,000
8,400

159,400

$420,300

D. 15?Year Water Improvements Proqram.

. 1. 1991 ($1,044,000)

a.

13.
am psi-?3973?"

d.

2. 1992

Airport Business Center Phase 2 974,000
Feasibility studies for 2 Castle 10,000
w?wz?,

Creek power plants (Winter 1990?1991)

Update Water Management/Raw Water Plans 50,000


SIS?Water System map updates 10,000

($472,200)
Red Moentain Upgrade Phaee 2 01%? 372,200
Feasibility study for Castle Creek 3 50,000
Raw Water Reservoir Wem?
EERC approvals on Castle Creek Rem 50,000

($1,437,700)
Replace Water Maine I 582,700
Cooper A0enue $13?
(2) Lake Avenue 
(3) Ute Avehue (Street Improvement
District may accelerate)
(4) Park Avenue to Hwy 82
(5) Aspen Mtn. Reservoir Feed to
I Spring 0treet
Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant 400,000
Renovation 0030?
Castle Creek Hydropower on Water 455,000
0?00

Plant overflow

99

 

4.

pr peer
api?i?
5.
6.
7.
8.


1994

a.

1995

1996

1997

($865,000)

Expand Castle Creek Water Plant M?m?y 250,000
Raw Water Storage 

Reconstruct Meadowood Pipeline pL?" 100,000
to High School I

Supplemental water to Snowmaes 5090' 515,000
0-0 a District (Total $1,870,000:

Difference by SWSD and Ski Corp.)

($1,500,000)

Treated water storage Castle Creek, $1q600,000


(4 MaGo) I 

($550,000)

Castle Creek Hydropewer south of 450,000


diversion dam (plus $750,000 by 

?Ski Corp. for snowmaking raw Water)?

Standby power Castle Creek Water 100,000

Plant and add soft start to backwash pumps.

($550,000) 
Hunter Creek Treatment Plant Expansion, 550,000

Diversion Dam and replacement pipe_dam




to plant.

1998 ($700,000)
Red Mountain 0.5 0.0. Treated Water 0- 700,000
Storage (8690) (includes 6,000 feet of pipe)


100

 

 

 


'h

11.

12.

13.

1999

a.

 

2002

2004

($2,900,000)

Additional Treated Water Storage $Jq500,000
(3 - 1.0 M.G. reservoirs) '?fmagm??
20 Blocks of water main replacement $1q400,000


within the city 9:001.

($24,000,000)
Castle Creek Raw Water Reservoir $24,000,000

w/Hydropower Ehw?we0t

($400,000)

Upgrade water mains in streets to 400,000

be "mailed" (5 Blocks) 

($800,000)

Purchase Castle Creek and Roaring Fork 800,000



Water Rights 
($5,400,000)
Roaring Fork Water Txeatment Plant :35,400,000

($5,400,000) plus pump station and 

'pipeline for snowmaking ($700,000)

 

by Ski Corp.

($15,000,000)

Maroon Creek Raw Water Reservoir $15,000,000
5?30?;


wf?ydropower

101

 

 

 

Water Distribution Svetem'Desidn Code.

To ensure that water distribution systems added to the
City water system on. annexation, acquisition of
privately-owned systems, or extension of service are

compatible with the City water system and meet minimum

_system standards, the City has developed a set of design

standards. These standards are intended for adoption by
the City, and aleo by Pitkin County, to ensure that
future additions to the City syatem, when necessary, can
be accomplished at the least cost to the City and the
customers of such systems. These standards have been
arranged in the form of a design code, and are contained

in Part of this Plan, below.

102

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

IV.

RAW 

Raw Water Requirements.

The City is the principal supplier of treated water-
within its City limits and in neighboring?unincorporated
areas. The City supplies raw water for irrigation of

residential land.and.open space areas, and for snowmaking

purposes on AspeniMountain and.sspen Highlands. The Cit"

is committed to the maintenance of minimum.stream flows

below lits various existing and preposed points. of

diversion on the Roaring Fork.River, Hunter Creek, Maroon
Creek, and Castle Creek; 'There are competing private and
quasi?governmental suppliers of water in the area for
snowmakingy agriculture, municipal, and industrial.needs.
In some instances, this may 'causelconflicts in the
priorities for the use of the water during lOW'streamflow

periods.

As continued population growth odours, the demands for

-treated water, raw water irrigation, and snowmaking will

increase. The minimum streamflow requirements are based'
on the preservation of environmental features in the
streams and are, therefore, continuous and do not-

increase with the population of the service area.

- 1. Population Projections.

103

The area served by the City water system, for all
practical purposes, includes the entire population
of the .Aspen metropolitan area connected to a

central system.

Sines Aspen is primarily a recreational resort, the
population to be served varies from month to month.
Peak usage is experienced in the months of November
through march during the ski season and in June
through early September during the tourist season.
In terms of total population, both of these peak
'seasons are the same. Water use, however, is
higher in the summer due to irrigation

requirements.

The water usage projections for the service area
based on 1980 levels of demand and consistent with
the City Water Department records of actual water
usage in 1980, extrapolated to the year 2005, based
upon growth anticipated following the Aspen/Pitkin
County? Growth JManagement. Policy' Plan, including
adjustments for-employee housing, projeot a 100%
increaSe over 1977 and an average rate of growth of
3% per year since 1980. The plans for expanding
and upgrading the water system are based upon 2005
as the design year. If the growth rate is faster

than projected, the conclusions of this study will

104

 

 

apply to some year prior to 2005; if slower, to

some year after 2005.
Raw Water Requirements.

The raw water Iroquirements fall into five
categories: potable Water service to the permanent
residential, tourist, and employee housing units;
snowmaking; maintenance of minimum streamflOWs; raw-
water irrigation of urban residential and _open

space areas; and hydropower.

The economical flow rate for hydropower will vary
substantially from stream. to stream. In some
instances, it may be possible-to deVelop hydropower

without diverting water from.the stream or without

Ioonetructing any major reservoirs. It is desirable

to. install. hydropower facilities, therefore *the
feasibility of these installations ehould be the
subject of additional more detailed site?specific

investigations.
Pctable Water System.

The City is fortunate to have detailed records
of system?wide potable water usage.? .Aotual
daily potable water deliveries for the service
area from June,.1977 through May, 1978 Show 

105

that daily usage_peaked at 3.3 (5.1 cfs)

 

during the winter and 5.1 (7.9 cfs) in the
summer. The 1977-78 period is the driest year
of record in the upper Colerado River basin.
Thus, these water demands are representative
of the. worst dry year condition for water

supply in the Aspen area.

The year 2005 water demands are estimated by
increasing the historical demand proportional
to the expected increases in demand. The
stream diversions needed to. supply the
municipal potable water demand will increase
by 110% oner the 1979?78 rates. (100% for
population growth and 10% for backwash flows
at the treatment plant). Peak winter use will
increase from 3.3 (5.1 cfs) to 8.0 
(12.4 cfs) and peak summer usage will increase
from 5.1 (10.71 cfs) to 10.7 (16.5

cfs).

 

b. Snowmaking System.

Water for enemaking is delivered to Aspen
Mountain from the City's potable water
pipelines. In addition, I. the City has the
right to substitute other raw water.eupp1ies
such as the Aspen Well No. 4. _For the

106

 

 

 

purposes of this study, it is assumed.that the
Aspen Mountain snowmaking requirements will be
supplied from the . potable system.

Approximately 155 acres of snowmaking

equipment was installed on Aspen MOuntain for

the 1981?1982 ski season. The Aspen Ski



CorpOration estimates ?1 critical peri_d?iew
water requirement for such an area be 2.2\

cfs.

Snowmaking? has also been -'installed at
Buttermilk and Aspen Highlandsr- These areas
can be supplied with raw water sources and do
not Iplace' a burden on the' potable water
system. Aspen.Highlands has a centract with
the City for 5.5 of snowmaking capacity
from the Maroon dreak pipeline. The City must
supply' 1.0 ofs on a firm basis With. the
remaining 4.5 cfs-on an interruptible basis
subject. to. the City?s municipal. demands.
There is no contract at this time for Aspen to
serve the Buttermilk ski area. This report,
however, includes this demand by Buttermilk as

a part of the overall system because of its

importance to the economy of the region.

Approximately 1.0 -cfs from the Stapleton

Brothers Ditch is identified for this purpose.

107

 

?i

 

Preliminary plans indicate that the future

needs by 2005 will be as much as 6.0 cfs.
Minimum Streamflows.

The minimum streamflows from existing decrees

.are 14.0 for Maroon Creek, 12.0 for

Castle Creek, 30.0 for Hunter Creek, and?.
32.0 for the Roaring Fork River in the
Aspen area. Aspen is committed to the
maintenance of these flows below its various
points of diversion on a year?round basis to
maintain the fishery and recreational assets
of nearby streams. For the purposes of this
study, minimum streamflows are considered to
he a loWer priority demand on the stream to be
met after all potable and irrigation demands
are satisfied but before any diversions for

hydropower.
Irrigation.

Potable water usage during the critical summer
period is higher due to the use of potable
water for outside irrigation. These peaks
would he even higher if it were not for the
raw ?water irrigation system diVerted in a
complex series of open ditches from lthe

108

Roaring Fork 'River, Hunter Creek, Castle
Creek, and Maroon Creek. It provides
irrigation water for the golf course, parks,
residential lots, and is used for aesthetic
purposes? on the Aspen ZMall. It meets a
signifioant portion of the summer
critical municipal water demands at a very low
cost; . The water flowing in Open ditches
through the City also provides an important
and historic aesthetic feature; If these same
low costs are to be enjoved in the futureI it
will be necessary to continue the extensive
operation, maintenance and replacement of this_
system as the Aspen area grows. Otherwise, it
will be.neoessary to serve these irrigation
requirements with treated 'water, thereby
placing 'even greater demands Upon the
treatment. plants,_ distribution system and_

treated water storage reservoirs.

The growth in use of the raw water irrigation .
system is not expected to keep pace with the
growth in potable water demand because a large
portion. of ?the diverted. flows satisfy the-
aesthetic uses of the water. Some growth,
however} must. occur if it is to ;remain a
significant water management tool. For the
purposes of this report an overall inorease'in

109'

 

 

 

 

diversio of 20% is a sumed for a total
demand 0; 38.5 ofs in 20f5.

While tree-ed. wataii usage recordS' are
usage records for the
raw ?water irrigation. system. are quite 
sporadic. _It was possible, however, to obtain
order of magnitude information from interviews
with City personnel and records maintained by

the State Engineer.

(1) Maroon Creek. Areas on the east side of
Maroon- Creek have 'historioally been
irrigated by Stein?Arlian~Marolt ditch.
Aepen currently owns or leases 11.0 
out of 25.0 decreed to these rights.
It' is possible to divert this water
through the Maroon Creek pipeline to the
Aspen filter plant site, and then
irrigate nearby areas from treatment
plant-raw water overflows. These areas
include the?Meadowood Subdivision and the
hospital grounds. It will be possible to

-irrigate .the Castle Ridge employee
housing' grounds, Iselin ZPark, and ?the
-high school athletic fields from this
point. other points will also become
available in the Buttermilk area if the

110

 

(2)

Stein-Arlian?Marolt, Herrick and Willow
Creek Ditches are rehabilitated.' For

planning purposes, a future demand of 2.0

-.cfs of raw water irrigation under the

Stein?Arlian-Marolt decree is assumed.

Castle Creek. The ditch system serving
the west side of Castle Creek includes
the Holden and Marolt ditches. They are
used for the irrigation of the golf
course, the Castle Creek area homes and
the Red Butte Cemetery. Current City
usage averages about 20 cfs. It is
estimated that future municipal usage
will average about 26.0 cfsu on this
system if raw water irrigation is to
continue to ?play an important role in the

Water Management Plan .

The urban areas on the eaSt side of
Castle Creek are served by the Si Johnson
Ditch. The principal areas of use are
along 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Streets and
the Aspen Institute. The ditch also"
drains into Hallam Lake. Current usage

(City and private) averages about 5.0 ofs

for the irrigation of about 90 acres.

This is a relatively high fraction of the

111

5.5 decreed to this ditch and
demonstrates high usege of this resource.
Aspen?s ownership in the ditch is limited
to 2.55 and therefore future use is
projected to he-only about_2.55 cfs.. The_
balance of the ditch is apparently used
to irrigate other smell private ptoperty

and U. S. Government land.

(3) Roaring Fork River. Theeast side of
Aspen is served by ditches diverting from
the south side of theiRoaring Fork River.
The diversions are made at the East
Aspen?iheeler headgate and serve Glory
Hole Park, the ZMall Hares, Rio Grande

Park, several condominiums, and several
residential lots. The water rights owned
by Aspen in the Wheeler, East Aspen? and

_Nellie Bird ditehes can be used in this

system. Additional Roaring Fork rights
are used to irrigate the east end of
Aspen on both the north and south side of
the Roaring Fork River, but this water is
not out of the mainstem source of supply.
I These mainstem water rights total about
16.65 cfs, but current mainstem usage

averages about 8.5 with peak

 

diversions at the decreed capacity} This

112

 

(4)

system can oontinue to serve Wagner Park
and other residential areas of the east
side. Future expected mainstem- demands

will increase whit usage to an average of

.9.5 cfs, thus making better use of the

rights already owned by Aspen.

Hunter Creek. I Aspen currently irrigates
the Red Mountain area with raw water from
Hunter Creek via overflows. from the
Hunter Creek filter plant under the
Droste leasebaok. This usage averages
0.5 ofs. Future average usage is
projeoted to increase to about 1.0 ofs
for the-irrigation of about 100- acres
along Red Mountain. This raw water
irrigation I?demand is met as mentioned
through the Aspen leasebaok of the Droste 
right, as well as the 15.0 ofs Hunter
Creek Flume and Pipeline. Aspen
currently owns 0.50 ofs in basin rank
#193, 15.0 ofs in #3075, and 1.33 ofs in
#4083 for this purpose. Thecity is
currently changing the use of #198 (now
used for irrigation) to include municipal
and minimum stream flow. It is also
changing #3075 (now decreed for municipal
use only) to include minimum streamflow.

13.3

 

 

Raw Water Avajlability.

Maroon.and Castle Creeks have been the primary sources of
potable water supply for the Aspen area due to their
reliability. Large diversions from the Roaring Fork
River (Twin Lakes and the Salvation Bitch) and Hunter
Creek (Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and the Red_Mountain
Ditch) have dictated in the past that these streams be
used as supplemental sources of potable water supply.
The Water Management Plan includes capital improvements
such as new or expanded treatment plants on the Roaring
Fork River and Hunter Creek. The purpose of this
diversification is to provide more reliable sources of
supply during periods of emergeney on the maroon-and
Castle Creek systems. V?mulproperly combined with senior
water rights, they will- also provide additional
flexibility and reliability during low streamflow

periods..

The purpose of this Section is to examine the entire
Aspen municipal system'to identify potential shortages in
the available raw water supply sOurces under the growth_
conditions which are expected to occur by 2005. The
basis for this analysis includes the projections for
future water use described above, the capital

improvements already scheduled in the Water Management

114

 

Plan, and a repeat of the extreme dry year conditions

experienced in 1977?78.

The 1980 included the
expansion of the Castle Creek Plant_to 16.0 (24.8
cfs), expansion of the Hunter Creek Plant from 0.58 
to 1.15 (1.8 cfs), and the construction of a new 4.0
(6.2 cfs) plant on the Roaring Fork River. After
this construction, the total reliable filter plant
capacity will be 21.15 mgd"133.8 cfs): Detailed plans
have not yet been developed for the relative usage of
these plants during the critical potable water supply
-periods. The plant capacities will exceed the peak 24*
hour summer demand for the_year 2005 by 10.45 mgd.(16.a
cfs) or 98%. The reserve plant capacity? will be
necessary to maintain full treatment capability during?
periods of maintenance and repairs,'meet fire fighting
-demands, and meet diurnal fluctuations in potable water
use. The reserve capacity in one or more of the plants
may also be needed to cover shortages in available-
supplies on the other stream systems during operational

emergencies and long?term droughts.

For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that each
plant will provide'its pro rata share of the potable
water demand during the critical periods. The raw water
irrigation, snowmaking, and minimum streamflow demands
are assigned to the.streams based on the locations of the

115

anticipated needs and the decreed water rights for these
purposes. Although not precisely accurate, this type of
analysis provides a basis for identifying' potential
-shortages and the options for eliminating those shortages
on a stream by stream basis. Even with the construction
Iof the new plants, the major portion of the Aspen
area peak summer water needs are in the Maroon/Castle

Creek systems.
1. Maroon creek.

'The amount of water available for diversion by
Aspen from. Maroon Creek is dependent upon. the
physical availability of water and the legal

limitations on its use.
a. Physical Atailability.

The physical availability? of water can be
estimated from streanflow records. The United
States Geological.3urvey (USGS) has maintained
a stream gage on Maroon Creek at its present
location, 3.7 miles upstream from the Manoon
Creek; diversion. dam, since the 1970 water
Iyear. Prior to that time, a gage was located
90 feet upstream from the divetsion dam from

1911_to 191?.

116

 

 

Estimates of the undepleted natural flows
available at the diVersion dam can be made by
adjusting the-gage flow records for tributary
area and differences in.precipitation.patterns
between the gage and diversion dam locations.
The differences in tributary areas were
identified from USGS topographic maps. The
differences "in precipitation patterns were
determined from statewide ieohyetal maps

prepared by the U. 8. Weather Bureau for the

period 1931?1960.

-The tributary area at the diversion_dam ie 19%
larger than at the gage. The annual
precipitation patterns for the two areas are
essentially the same. Therefore, no
adjustment for precipitatiOn is necessary and
the virgin flows at the diversion dam are

estimated to be 19% higher than at the gage.
Limitatione on Use.

In the Maroon Creek basin, the three most

_senior rights actually divert from ?Willow

Creek, a tributary of Maroon Creek. These 

three rights have.the capability to dry'up
Willow Creek during the critical -eummer
months. _The City does not presently have any

117

 

"ownership in these rights. Their ability to
dry In) Willow Creek indirectly affects The
City?s ability to divert water and maintain
minimum streamflows- in Maroon Creek since
Willow Creek is a major tributary flowing into
Maroon Creek about one quarter mile 
of the diversion dam. In other words, during
Critical flow periods, it has to be assumed
that no inflows to.Maroon Creek will-be coming
from Willow Creek to help maintain minimum

streamflows.

The City owns the Nestell Ditch in- its
entirety. This is the most senior right on
the main stem of Maroon Creek. The City also
owns the Maroon Ditch, the -number nine
priority on the stream. only 5.0 ofs of the
maroon Ditch, however, has been confirmed for
summer use only. The remainder may or may not
be legally limited to hydropower .use only.
The types of use allowed under this right will
have a major impact in Aspen?s ability to meet
its municipal-requirements from Maroon Creek
during-low flow periods. For the purposes of
this study, it is assumed that the municipal
use of this right is limited to 5.0 ofs.- The

City also owns or leases various other rights.

118

 

During periods of water shortage, only the
most senior rights are allowed to divert water
for beneficial use. In the past, curtailments
in diversions. have been the result of "calls"
for water from rights on Maroon Creek rather
than from rights on the Roaring Fork or the
Colorado main stem. This is because Maroon
Creek has more senior rights for the amount of
water available than the Roaring Fork or the

Colorado Rivers. This will continue to be

true into the future even withthe development .

of water rights by energy interests and others
on the Colorado River because thoserights are
generally junior to the dependable rights on
Maroon Creek. This situation is sometimes
referred to as an internallecontrolled
stream. It, therefore, is only necessary to
examine the priorities of rights on Maroon
Creek during the periods -of critical water
shortage to determine which rights are in
priority and have the ability to divert and

call water away from other users.-
Water Shortages.

To deternine the amount of water the City
could divert for its various needs; a daily
analysis of streamflow conditions on Maroon-

119

Creek assuming'aa repeat of the 1977?78 dry
year strean conditions is necessary. The

results of this analysis follow.

The 197??78 period is selected for analysis
since this was the driest period of record in

the Upper Colorado River basin.

The cumulative 2005 water demands are drawn
from the flows expected at the Maroon Creek
diversion dam in the following order of

preferred uses:

(1) bypasses to senior water rights,
potable water,

(3) raw water irrigation,

(4) minimum streamflows, and

(5) hydropower.

During' the jpeak spring' runoff, it is not
_po?sible to use Castle Creek for potable water
due to the poor stream'quality. Therefore,

during this period of time, Maroon Creek must

supplf all the potable water diversions for

the Castle creek treatment plant.

All of the shortages are limited to minimum
streemflow and raw water irrigation, with the

120

 

exception of a 0.28 short term shortage in
potable use in September. Although this is
not: a ?major shortage, it. demonstratee the
I marginal nature of the potable supply in the-

late summer months.

Shortages in the 14 minimum streamflow
will occur on za'virtually continuous basis
beginning soon after the peak spring runoff
has passed. In the later part of may, the
?bypasses to senior water rights will exceed
the minimum streamflow 'requirement at the
diversion dae. Most of this water, however,
will be diverted by the water
rights and the stream will be dry. In August
and Septeaber, the flows 'will_ increase to
about 5 past the senior headgates. During
October, it will be possible to nmintain a
full minimum streamflow throughout the entire
reach of Maroon Creek.- From early November'
through the end of February, the stream will
gradually deteriorate to a zero flow condition
if all of the eXpected. snowmaking demands
materialize. During March, April, and early
May, the minimum streamflows will range from

10 to 14 cfe.?

123.

There will be shortages in the 2.0 ofs of.raw
water irrigation if the peak demands
materialize during the nonth of May. These
shortages will taper off during the? peak
spring runoff and resume in the later part of

September.

2. Castle Creek.

Physical Availability.

The USGS gage on Castle Creek is located 6.1
miles upstream of the Castle Creek diversion
dam. Stream flowe have been measured at this

gage location since the 1970 water year. The

tributary area is 115%_larger at the diversion_

dam than at the ?gage. The expected
precipitation oVer this larger area, howeVer,
is about 30% less than for the area above the
gage. Therefore, the expected etreamflows at
the diversion dam could be 51% higher than at

the gage in the Iabeenoe of additional

-ieformation. Mr. James Markalunae, the Aspen

Director of Water Supply, however, has
personally observed the flows in Castle Creek
for the peat several deoadee and has found
them to be more stable than such a projection
would indicate. For the 'of this

122

O.

 

 



(1


report, it is therefore assumed that the flows
at the diversion dam are 80% higher than at
the gage due to stable inflows from-Conundrum

Creek in drought year conditions.
Limitations on Use.
The City does not own any of the number one

rahkihg water right, the Castle Creek Ditch.

It does own the second and third priority

rights, the Midland and Castle Creek Plumes,

in their entirety. It also owns 14.6 out
of the 18.6 fourth priority Marolt Ditch.
The City also owns various other direct flow

rights for a total of 203.05 on Castle

 



 

 

Creek. Castle Creek, similar to _Maroon Creek,-

?he-?mm 

pattern of ownership, the City is in an

excellent position to divert water from Castle,

Creek for its various uses. 

Water Shortages.

Shortages ?will occur in ?the categories of
minimum streamflow and raw water irrigation.
The minimum streamflow requirement of 12 
will be met during the peak runoff frOm mid-
May through early? July. and. during' October

123

is an internallymoontrolled stream' With its\\




after the irrigation demands have ceased.
From mid?July through the end 0f September,
the stream will be virtually dry except during
short periods of precipitation. During the
winter season, the minimum etreamflow will be

reduced to the range of 4 to 10 cfs.

The raw water irrigation requirement of 25.0
cfe can be met from.mid?May through the end of
August. If the full demand for raw water
irrigation materializee in early May, it will
be possible to meet only about 23 of this
demand. During SeptemberJr the flows available
for raw water irrigation will gradually
diminish to about 20 except during periods
of? precipitation and_ excess 'runoff in. the

Castle Creek basin.

3. Hunter.Creek.

a.

Physical Availability.

The USGS has maintained a gage on Hunter Creek
about BOO feet upstream of the Red Mountain
Ditch headgate from 1950 through 1956 and from
1969 to the present. The data from this gage
provides a good record .for projecting
atreamflows under various hydrologio conditions. -

124

 

 

?Limitations on Use.

The City owns 0.5 ofs of the 2.0 most
Senior water right on Hunter Creek. The City,
however. does 'not -own any. portion of the
second and third jpriorities on. the stream
which are decreed to the Red Mountain Ditch?
Extension. These priorities.total 15.14-cfs
and can effectively control the diversions
-frcm Hunter creek during the critically dry
summer ?months. The City owns the fourth
priority, the Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline,
in its entirety: 'The flow decreed to this
.right is 15.0 cfe and has been decreed for
year around municipal nee. 'This is an
important right which allows _the. City to
effectively control the diversions-on Hunter
Creek during the winter months, but because it
is junior to the Red Mountain Ditch Extension
rights, its effectiveness during the summer

low flow periods is extremely limited.

The minimum streamflow decrees on Hunter Creek
total 30 for the lower portion of Hunter
Creek. Although these decrees are very junior
in the priority system, the diversions by the
Fryingpan/Arkansas Project are restricted by
minimum streemflows in decree W?839u75. They

125

 

must he reduced whenever the flow at the USGS
gage just upstream of the Red Mountain Ditch
headgate is less than _51 cte land the
diversions by the Fryingpan/Arkansas Project
reduce the flow of Hunter Creek at its
confluence below 21 ofs. This requirement has
not been administered to date because there is
no gage on Hunter Creek at its confluence with
the Roaring Fork. The studies in this report
assume that the FrYingpan/Arkansas project
diversions are limited by It should
be noted, however, that ?the 'laok of full
administration of this decree is allowing the
Fryingpan/Arkansas Project to divert? more
water than it would otherwise be entitled to

divert.
water Shortages.

Shortages.will occur in potable_water use, raw
water irrigation and minimum streemflows. The
potable 'water' use shortages, however, are
quite small (less than 0.3 ofs during the
later part of the summer) and can. be
eliminated by shifting these demands to the
other Water treatment plants. The resultant

potable shortage is a result of no additional

126

 

water rights purchases to aid in meeting these

demands.

There will'be no water available for the raw
water irrigation demand of 1.0 on a
virtually continuous basis once the spring

runoff has passed.

The minimum streamflow standard of 30 die will
be met.only during the spring runoff. In the
winter months only about 5 ofs will flow in
the stream past the City's potable water
diversions._ In the summer months, the senior
irrigation decrees have the capability to dry

up the stream on a continuous basis._

Roaring Fork River.

Physical Availability.

The USGS has maintained a gage on the Roaring

Fork River about 3.00 feet upstream of the

Salvation Ditch headgate since 1964. The data_

collected at this gage provides a good basis

_for estimating the available streamflows in

the Aspen area under 'various hydrologio

conditions;

127

 

 

Limitations on Use.

The City Owns 10.0 ofs of the most senior
rights on the River. The Wheeler Ditch is the

second. priority? right for 10.0. and is

owned entirely by the City. The Salvation

Ditch has the fourth priority with a direct
flow decree of'53.o ofs for irrigation and
effectively controls the stream during the dry
periods of the irrigation season. The City
does not own any of this ditch and is,
therefore, not able to divert' any of the
Roaring Fork flows between 10 and 68 ofs.
The next most senior right owned by the city
is 0.65 ofs out of 3.94 ofs in the Nellie Bird
Ditch. This is followed-by 0.33 out of
3.0 of the Riverside ditch which diverts
from the north side of the River. The next
right ewned by the City is 6.0 of the East

Aspen Ditch. This right, however, is junior

to the Salvation Ditch decrees for 96.5 

but the original Twin Lakes decrees haVe been

subordinated to the East Aspen priority.

Water Shortages.

Shortages can he expected in the categories of
raw water irrigation and minimum streamflows.

.128

 

 

During spring runoff, it will be possible to
Meet all of the 9.5 ofs raw Water irrigation
'requirements. As soon as the spring runoff
has passed. only about 8 will be available

for raw water irrigation.

The only time that the minimum streamflow during April after the
snowmelt begins and before irrigation demands
start. .During the winter months,
approximately half of the minimum streamflow
is met. During the summer months after the
.peak runoff has passed, the River is dry due
to transmountain diversions and large

diversions by the Salvation Ditch.

There are also shortages or curtailments in
diversions hy? Twin iLakes and other senior
irrigation rights in the Aspen area. .Although
the Roaring Fork River is the largest stream
in the Aspen area, .it is also the most
developed. street! and. during' the 'irrigation
season of a dry year its flow is reduced
practically to zero as the- River passes

through the City.

129

5. Summary of Shortages.

The total shortage is about 36,000 acre feet per a_

 

year. The largest portion of it is in 35,532
acre feet of minimum streamflows. The remainder of'
the shortages are in raw water irrigation, and it
is unlikely that any shortages will occur in the
domestic potable water use, potable water use for
snowmaking, or raw water use for snowmaking. The,
potable supply on Maroon Creek, however, is
marginal in. the late summer months and future

planning needs to be sensitive to this'faot.

The largest shortages will occur on the Roaring
Fork River and Hunter Creek. The Roaring Fork
River shortages are _primarily' due to. the high
diversions for export by the Twin Lakes system and
irrigation by the Salvation Ditchs This is already
reflected in the dry streamflow conditions which
have persisted in the past during dry years as the
Roaring_Fork River passes through Aspen. Shortages
on Hunter Creek are primarily due to the relatively
'high r?nimum flow requirements and large direct

flow rights decreed for this size of stream.

The Maroon and Castle Creek shortages are fairly
well balanced betWeen the two streams. As the
Aspen area grows, and more reliance is placed on

130

 

em. . these two streams for municipal purposes, it will
be important to diversify the sources of water to
improve upon the system reliability during periods

of emergency and for flow conditions.

 

Generally speaking, the.shortages are a manageable
condition since they occur in the areas of minimum
streamflows and raw water irrigation. The.city at
least is not faced with a Very high probability of
water rationing in the potable system. - These
shortages can be reduced lay several alternative

programs to enhance the local supplies.
C. - Programs to Reduce Ray Water Shortages.

The expected shortages in the Aspen- System can be
substantially avoided through the implementation of three
types of programs: improvements to infrastructure,
purchase additional water rights, and construct raw water

Istorage.

131

 

These three programs are analyzed in this _section.
Conceptual level cost estimates as well as anticipated
yields are included for each program. This information
will provide a basis for selecting the most favorable

program elements for refinement and-implementation.
1. Infrastructure Improvements.

There are several posSible options for improving
the efficiency of the water system, thereby
reducing overall demands and expected shortages.
'Deliveries in the potable water sYstem averaged 130
"gallons per capita per day during the peak tourist
season in the winter of 1980. This is an unusually
high rate for indoor usage even in a resort area.
A more reasonable delivery on the order of 90 to
100 gallons per capital per day including expected
losses due to leakage in the municipal distribution

system Should be expected.

The raw water irrigation system also presents some
opportunities for conservation. It is a relatively
low coat system with a very low rate of efficiency.
Only about 20% of 'the 'total. water- diVerted is
actually consumed. by? the irrigated grasses and
crops. An irrigation efficiency of about 40% is a
reasonable goal whidh ooubi be achieved without
substantial additional expense. Another

132

 

poSsibility is to substitute wastewater from the

- Aspen Metro plant for clear water diverted from

streams. The water saved through a more efficient

delivery system or through wastewater substitution

can be left in the stream to assist in maintaining

minimum streamflows or it can be used'to extend raW'

water irrigation into new areas.

Additional information on each of these options is

presented in the following sections.

Reduce Potable Water Use and Leakage.

A number of benefits can accrue to the system
by reducing the demands on the potable water

System,

The utility benefits through reductions in raw
water supply shortages, reductions in pumping
costs; deferment of system expaneion, and

reductions in the hydraulic loading of sewer

'facilities. The homeowner may benefit through 

reduced energy costs for heating water and

_reduced water bills.

The. implementation of a prograal to reduce
potable water deliveries will require a

1-3 3

commitment by the water utility, good public
relations and education, and an acceptance by
water users that conservation is necessary and

desirable.

The reason for the .high potable water
deliveries for in?home .nse in the City is
unknown'at this time. It could be due to
leakage in the distribution system or due to
waste at the individual tap from inefficient
fixtures or running of tape during the winter

months to avoid freezing of the lines.

The City has instituted a program for
replacing and paralleling old lines in the'
distribution system. The. effectiveness of
this program to date, however, is generally
unknown_and it is difficult to pinpoint the
remaining major leaks, if any, in the system.
It should be possible in the winter peak usage
period to isolate .the major leaks in the
system by monitoring the pump operations in
each pressure zone, monitoring daily water
deliveries from 'the clear* well, monitoring
'huilding occupancy rates in leach pressure
zone, and measuring flow rates through the
installation of two or three meters in
strategic water mains.

134

 

Until this information is collected and
analyzed, it will be_diffioult to set a budget
or, project a 'water use _reduotion from a
leakage repair program. reasonable goal,
however, would be to reduce the per capital
Water deliveries by 5 gallons per oapital per
day at a capital cost of $2,000,000. If
successful, such a_program would reduce the
annual shortages during critical periods by
280 acre feet at a unit capital cost of $7,100

per acre foot.

It may also be possible to reduce deliveries
to individual dwellings by retrofitting them
with water conserving fixtures or by replacing
individual service .lines to avoid winter

freezing.

The dwellings for a retrofit program could he
Itargeted by a review of water bills or, in
unmetered-units, by interviews with.the owners
of those units. A fairly ambitious retrofit
program would cost an average of $250 per
dwelling unit. Assuming that 5,000 dwellings
I are a part of the program, it is reasonable to
orpeot that the average-system?wide deliveries
could be reduced by 0.15 (0.23 ate) at a
cost of $1,250,000. This could reduce water

135

Shortages by 130_aore feet per year during the
critical months at a unit cost of $9,600 per

acre foot.

Effluent Irrigation.

Another promising option for water
conservation is to use effluent from the Aspen_
Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant to irrigate-
the Aspen Golf Course, Salvation Ditch or Red
Mountain Ditch areas. Some proposals .for
effluent irrigation as a method for achieving
advanced wastewater treatment have been made
in the past, but none have been seriously
pursued or considered as a part of a

comprehensive water Supply-plan.-

Effluent irrigation of open space areas Suoh
as golf courses and pasture lands is a well?
acoepted practice and can play an important
role in helping the City avoid future water
shortages. The clear water formerly diverted
from Castle Creek for the golf course or from
the Roaring Font River and Hunter Creek to
irrigate the Red Mountain and Salvation Ditch
areas could be left in the stream to maintain

minimum flows.

136

 

 

The' installation of EH1 effluent irrigation
system for the golf courSe should not require
any changes in the operation or design of the
wastewater treatment plant. It should only
require. a. pump and a pipeline from the
polishing ponds to the golf course ponds and
ditches. The construction cost of a system to
deliver a peak flow rate of 5 will be
about $600,000 and.?will save approximately
1,250 acre feet in diversions from Castle
Creek in the critical summer months. At a
cost of about $480 per acre foot, this is one
of the least expensive options available to

Aspen for making up shortages in its raW'water

supply.

The remaining wastewater "could be delivered
across the Roaring Fork River to the areas
irrigated by the Salvation and Red Mountain
Ditohes. Under the design year-conditions, an
average of about 7 ofs of wastewater should be
available for this purpose. A supply of this
nature would be adequate to serve about 300_
acres of irrigated land. The oapital costs of-
a wastewater delivery system appropriate for
this application is . about $2,500,000.
Assuming that '7 ofs would be left in the
stream at the Red Mountain ditch and/or the

137

Salvation Ditch headgates, the regional water
shortages would he reduced by about 1,700 acre
feet per year at a cost of $1,500 per acre

foot.

There are additional interesting side benefits
to a wastewater reuse system. 'In addition to
increasing the amount of water available in
the local streams,'it will provide advanced
wastewater treatment and will improve the
quality of the Roaring Fork River 
of the existing Aspen Metro Plan. I It will
also provide free nitrogen fertilizer to-the
irrigated areas with an approximate value of
$7,060 per year at the Aspen Golf Course and

$15,000 per year in the other irrigated areas.
Ditch Lining.

The concept of lining ditches to conserve raw

water supplies is a common approach in

agricultural areas. The City's raw water

irrigation system is somewhat unique for an

'urban area, but there is no reason why a ditch

lining program which is freq?ently economical
in an agricultural setting should not aleo be

economical for an urban water supply.

138

 

The ditches drawing water from Maroon and
Castle Creeks travel several miles over highly
permeable formations Ibefore nthey' reach ?the
irrigated areas.\ It should be easy to
substantially reduce the ditch losses by
lining selective sections I of these ditches
with plastic pipe or an open concrete channel.
For planning purposes, a goal of 20% of total
diversions or 0.4 on Maroon Creek and 5.2
on Castle Creek seems reasonable. This'
will reduce shortages by about 60 acre feet
per year on Maroon Creek for a. total
construction cost of about $200,000 or $3,300
per acre foot. The reduction of shortages on
Castle Creek will be about 900 acre feet per
year for a total construction Cost of about?
$2,000,000 or $2;200 per acre foot. Depending
upon the success of other 'water saving
programs on Castle Creek, it may be desirable
to reduce the ditch lining program_on_0astle

Creek by about 50%.

It may also be possible to reduce shortages by
lining ditches owned by others. Two prime
. candidates for this concept are the. Red
Mountain Ditch on Hunter Creek and .the
Salvation Ditch on the Roaring Fork River. By
?1ining ditches and reducing seepage losses, it

139

 

 

 

 

n.

 

will be possible.to reduce headgate diversions
without reducing the beneficial deliVery of

water to the irrigated lands. These reduced

diversions can be quantified and the water

left in the natural stream and applied to the
maintenance of minimum streamflows or

diversions by Aspen for its own needs.

The City has already studied the possibility
of lining the Red Mountain and Salvation
Ditches. These studies included estimates of
cost and water saved. The current costs for
lining the Red.Mountain Ditch are estimated to
be This will save
580 acre feet per year during the critical
summer months on Hunter Creek at a unit cost
of $3,100 per acre foot.' Lining the Salvation

Ditch will cost_approximately $4,000,000 and 

.will save 2,600 acre feet per year during the

critical summer months on the Roaring Fork

River for a unit cost of $1,500 per acre foot.

PurchaSe Water Rights.

Another conservation option is to purchase senior

water rights from the ditches which were formerly

used to irrigate the urbanizing areas around Aspen.

These. rights could be used' to increase the

140

 

 

diVertable flows by the City during periods of 
shortage. They could also he dedicated to the
stream to help maintain minimum flows in critical
areas. During non~critical periods, they could be
leaSed to local agricultural interests for

irrigation.

Seme additional purchases are already a part of the
Water Management Plan. These purchases, however,
will be helpful in reducing only the summer water
shortages since historic use of the water has been

limited to the summer irrigation season.

-The purchase of 2.0 in the Red Mountain Ditch
could be used to reduce summer shortages in the
Hunter Creek system by 600 acre feet per year. At_
an estimated cost of $300,000. per safe, this is
equivalent to?a cost of $1,000 per acre foot. The
purchase of 5.0 in senior water rights on the
Roaring Fork could reduce the shortages on that
system by 1,500 acre feet during the critical
summer months.' This is equivalent to $1,000 per

acre foot at a purchase price of $300,000 per cfs.

Similar purchases could also be made on Maroon and
Castle Creeks. A 3.0 senior right could reduce
the shortages by 630 acre feet per year on Maroon
Creek. Assuming the same purchase price_ of

141

 

$300,000 per cfs, this is equivalent to $1,400 per
acre foot. Ion Castle Creek, a 2.0 senior right
could reduce the shortages by 300 acre feet per
year. Assuming the same purchase price of $300,000
per ofs, this is equivalent to $2,000 per acre

_foot.
Raw Water Storage.

The City currently holds two major decrees for
water storage on_Castle Creek (9,062 AF) and Maroon
Creek (4,567 AF). Although these rights are
relatively junior, water should he available for
storage during the spring runoff periods even in
dry years. These reservoirs should be developed as
a part of a plan deSigned for the
purposes of water supply, hydropower, streamflow

enhancement, and lake recreation.

Releases from storage could be used to meet the
shortages on Maroon and Castle Creeks both in the
winter and summer months. It is one of the few
options available for_water supply that can meet
shortages on a year around basis. The hydropower
could be generated from releases at the new
reservoir sites, spillages at the existing
diversion dams, and by diversions into the Maroon

and Castle Creek pipelines for in?line pipeline

142.

 

hydropower. If desirable, releases could also be
used. to sustain.?minimum Istreamflows during dry
periods. The environmental advantages of such a
release program would be countered. by the
environmental disadvantages -of' declining _lake
levels and exposed shorelines in an area adjacent

to the Maroon Bells Wilderness area.

Additional facilities can also be Constructed in -
the maroon and Castle Creek basins to maximize the
beneficial use of the stored water. The existing
?Maroon Creek Diversion dam has been replaced with a
concrete structure to improve its potential for
hydropower generation and to lower operation and
maintenance costs. The Herriok'and Willow Creek
ditches can be lined to reduce seepage losses and
to carry additional ?raw Iwater to the western
portion of the city's service area and generate

hydropower.

Similar improvements can be made in the Castle .
Creek basin. The Castle Creek diversion dam has
already been replaced with a concrete structure,
but additional modifications may be desirable for
hYdropower 'generation. An existing _orib dam
located between the City?s diversion den and the

proposed reservoir could also be modified for

143

 

 

hydropower to take advantage of the levelized flows

provided by the new reservoir.

The City has already undertaken a number of

reconnaissance level studies associated with the

Maroon and Castle Creek units. TheSe include the

following:

Water Supply for the City of Aspen (1956),

Stream Gauging, Hydrology, and Water Supply in

the Upper Roaring Fork Basin (1958),

Development Treatment and Distribution of

Maroon Creek Water Supply (1974),

Hydrology of Castle and. Maroon Greeks and
Hydroelectric Power Projection on Castle Creek
(1974),

Water SyStems Report: .Aspen, colorado (1974},

Water Supply DeVelopment Feasibility Study:

Castle and.Maroon Creek for 4 Water Supply

-and Treatment Plan (1964),

144

 

9. Proposal for Low Head Hydroelectric
Demonstration Project on Maroon Creek (1978),'

and

h. Preliminary Feasibility Assessment maroon

Creek Hydroelectric Unit (1983).

The firm annual yields of the two reServoirs are
estimated to be approximately 1,800 acre feet for
the Maroon Creek Reservoir and 3,100 acre feet for
the Castle Creek Reservoir. The unit costs for
. firm annual water yield are $6,300 and $7,300 per
acre foot per year for the Maroon and Castle Creek
Reservoirs, respectively. Because the reservoirs
are among -the most' expensive water supply
alternatives, they may not be economically feasible
unless developed as multipleeuse. project
including hydropower and- lake recreation. A
detailed feasibility study could optimise the sizes
and locations for these facilities and reduce their
unit costs. Because each of the project elements
would. be interdependent, a basin?wide approach

would be necessary.

These facilities will be paid for-by revenues from
the hydropower facilities and user charges from the
City's water service area. The hydropower revenues
(using 1984 rates of $.04 per kilowatt hour) will

145

 

 

 

 


?x

be approximately $534,000 per year. This stream of

revenues will retire about one sixth of the debt

for constructing the two basin?Wide systems.

The hydropower units, in combination with Ruedi and

other hydropower unite in the area, could provide'

gthe -City with -a major portion of its energy

-requirements.

The usefulness of these units, however, will be

limited if their pattern of energy production does

'not_match the City's pattern of energy consumption.

For instance, the hydropower will tend to produce
more energy? during the months of ZMay- thorough
September, but the City's peak energy consumption

is during the winter months.

By integrating hydropower in a phased manner into

the water system, it will be possible to provide?

virtually all of the City's summer energy

requirements. This will provide a major economic

adVantage to Aspen_'and its wholesale power

supplier, the Nebraska Municipal Power Pool (NMPP),
since it reduces the City?s power purchases when
the other customers of NMPP are at their peak usage
and the generation facilities are operating at

their limits.

146

A budget of $80,000 would be appropriate for a
comprehensive engineering and financing feaeibility
study. additional $30,000 should be budgeted
for an environmental aseesement. It may be
poesihle to obtain partial funding of a feasibility
study from the cwca. The CWCB guidelines limit its
maximum share to_ 50% of the engineering ?and
financial etudies and - zero ;peroent of\ the
environmental assessment. Thus, participation by
the CWCB will be limited to $40,000 with Aspen

paying for the remaining $70,000.

3.48

 

During the winter-months, the hydropower_production
is considerably less and it can meet about 30% of
the City?s needs. lThis is not critical, however,
since the electrical usage. by the remaining'
customers of less during the winter and the
peak Aspen requirements can he met with otherwise.

idle capacity in the NMPP system.

The construction of either the marodn or Castle
Creek Reservoir would be a major undertaking for
Ithe City. In addition to the potential major -
economic impacts on the region, major environmental
effects must.a1so be considered. Any decision to
construct or to not construct should be approached
carefully. This and previous studies should be
consolidated and amplified into one comprehensive
feasibility study following guidelines established
by the Coloradd Water Conservation Board (CWCB).
The Bureau of Reclamation could be another source
of funding since the Authorizing Act and Operating
Principles of the Fryingpan?Arkansas Project
require.the Bureau to prepare a feasibility study
on a reservoir up to a capacity of 5,000 acre feet
in order to offset adverse stream flow conditions
in the Roaring Fork River upstream of Aspen. If
desirable, the plan could then be submitted;to the
CWCB for low interest debt support or construction'
grants. 

147

 OF WATER CONSERVATION OPTIONS

 

Flows {AcrevFeet} - Cagital Costs

stream Element Summer Winter Total 

(May?Oct) (Nov?Apr)

 

Maroon Creek

Shortage 642 2,905 3,541 
Remedies

~Reduce per capital use 20 30 50.. 480
?Reduce leakage 43 63 106 753
hnitch linin? 50 0 60 100
-Purchase water righta 630_ 030 900
euaroon Creek storage 720 1,000 1,300 11,417

 

Subtotal_A 1,473 - 1,173 2,646 13,750
Caatle Creek

shortage 1,454 1,173 3,146 0/1

Remedies

-Reduce per capita use 20 30 50 480
"Reduce leakage d3 63 106 . 753
HWaatewatek'irrigation 1,250 0 1,250 600
?Ditch lining I 900 900 2,000
-Purchaae water nights 300 0 300 600
~0aat1e Creek atorage 1,450 1,650 22,655

 

 

Subtotal 3,963 1,743 5,706 27,088

149

up;

9,500
7,100
3,300
1,400

6,300

 

5,200

0/21

9,600
7,100
400

2,200

_2,000
_7,300

 

4,750

Hunter Creek



shortage 8,528 3,006 15,534 N/a Nxa

Remedies

?Reduce per capit? nae 2 _3 5 48' 9,600
~Reduce leakage 6 . 8 14 99 ?,100
-Waatewater irrigation 600 0 600 1,500 2,500

"Line Red Mountain

 

 

 

Ditch 580 0 580 1,800 3,100
-Purchase water righta 600 0 600 600 1,000
Subtotal 0 1,788 11 1,799 4,047 2,250

Rcaring Fork

 

 

 

 

Shortage 8,524 4,130 _12,754 NIH
Remedies
?Reduce per capita use 10 15 25 242 -9,600
-Raduce leakage - 29 29 .-54 395 7,100
~0aatawatar irrigation 1,100 0 1,100 1,000 910
whine Salvation Ditch 2,600 0 2,600 4,000 1,500
~Purchase water rights 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 1,000
Subtotal 5,235 44 5,279 '7,137 1,350
TOTAL 500022000 19,248 15,733 35,981 - 0/2
TOTAL REMEDIES 12,459 2,971 15,430 52,022 3,400

150

PRIORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMS

 

 

 

 

Stream Yield Capital Cost
5
Program hF/Yr $000 
1. Wastewatar irrigation
at golf course Castle 1,250 600 480
2. wastewater irrigation
at Salvation Ditch R. Fork i,100 1,000 910
3. Purchase water rights Hunter 600 600 1,000
For}: 1,500 1,500 1,000
Maroon 630 900 1,400
Castle 300' 500 2,000
4. Ditch lining of .
Aspen ditches Castle .900 2,000 2,200
Maroon 60 200 3,300
5. Ditch lining of
Salvation Ditch R. Ford: 2,600 4,000 1,500
Red th. Bitch Hunter 580 1,800. 3,100
6. Wastewater irrigation
at Red Mtn. Ditch Hunter 500 1,500 2,500
7. Reduce leakage and
per capita use All 410 3,250 7,900
castle Creek Res. Castle 3,100 22,655 7,300

 

151

:Maroon Creek Res. Maroon 1,800 11,417 6,300

 

TOTAL 15,430 - 52,022 $3,372

152

 

 

Water Rights Adiudicatione.
Golf Course Ponds.

An application for water storage rights for the 16
ponds located at the Municipal Golf Course was -
filed in December 1976. 'The 
water storage rights is 'neceseary to ensure He
continued supply of water in these ponds for use
for irrigation and all other_municipal purposes,

including domestic, aesthetio,-recreational, and

. fish, game and wildlife propagation purposes.

All unadjudicated storage and existing direct flow

water rights.

The City shall immediately undertake an
investigation of all existing direct flow and
storage water rights to determine whether thoee
water rights have been adjudicated. All
unadjudicated water rights within the City service
area shall be adjudicated and appropriated for the

benefit and use of the City of Aspen.

Conditional Water Rights.

1.

Castle Creek Regervoir and Maroon Creek Reservoir.

153

 

 

F.

 

As discussed earlier, development of these
reservoirs represents the final step in the overall
system development and is vitally necessary in
order to ensure a reliable water supply in
successiVe? drought years. To pursue the
development of? these water rights and the
application of water to a beneficial use, City
staff.shall continue to develop data as to design,
hydrology, and engineering to determine optimum
reservoir -construction.- An application for

quadrenaial finding of reasonable diligence is due

'in February 1981. The City shall ensure that these

conditional water rights are maintained until such

time as they are made absolute.
Well No. 4.

An application for quadrennial finding of
reasonable diligence concerning this water right
was filed in June 1980, with the next such filing

being due in June 1984. The City shall maintain

this conditional water right by proceeding with due

diligence in its development until such time as it

is made absolute.

Transfer and Auqmentation Proceedings.

1.

?unter Creek Treatment Plant.

154

The City shall continue to pursue the acquisition
of a dependable year?round supply of raw water to
the Hunter Creek Treatment Plant, conSistent with
the preservation an? enVironmental, recreational,
and aesthetic Values on Hunter Creek?
Additionally, the City shall continue to explore
the jpossihility of acquiring storage rights on

Hunter Creek to meet these goals.

Roaring Fork Treatment Plant.

. The water rights applications required to provide a

firm, year-round raw water supply to this treatment
plant shall be undertaken at such, time as is
necessary to ensure that Iraw water will be

available to the plant upon its'completion.

-Snowmaking Water Supply Contract.

If a transfer or other change of_water rights is
necessary for the purpose of supplying water for
snowmaking er in conjunction with the dedication of
water rights, the Water Court proceedings required

to ensure a legal supply of water at the necessary

location shall be undertaken. Such proceedings

shall, if necessary, include the transfer of the
conditionally decreed water right of Well No. 4 or
the Aspen Ditch water right to an alternate point

155

 

of diversion, as more fully discussed in the

succeeding sections.

Raw Water Supply Contracts.

If a transfer or other change in water rights is
necessary to implement any raw water supply
contract entered into by the City, or by the City
and? the' County persuant to an intergovernmental
contract, the Water Court proceedings required_to

provide _a legal supply of water at the needed

'looation shall be undertaken.

G. Contractual Arrangements.

Highlands Ski Corporation.

The city shall negotiate a contract with the
Highlands Ski Corporation for the purpose of
selling raw water to the Highlands Ski Corporation
from the Maroon Creek Pipeline. An acceptable-
agreement should provide for the conveyance by the
Highlands Ski Corporation of water rights owned by_"
Highlands and formerly carried in the Marcon Creek
Flume and Pipeline, in exchange for the sale of raw

water to Highlands. 'The contract 'shall also

provide for' participation by the Highlands Ski

Corporation, or by any other water user to whom

156

 

Water is sold .by the City, in the cost of
_oonetructtma of the pipeline. The pipeline wae_
originally bid at both a. 25 and a 40- 
capacity. Those parties other than the City who
formerly used the Maroon Creek Flume structure to
convey their water rights were given the option of
participating in the construction. of a larger
pipeline to provide the capacity to carry their
water.. Since none of these parties chose to
participate in the costs of a larger structure, the
pipeline was constructed at the-sole expense of the

City to the 25 capacity.

The City expended $832,000 in 1974 for construction
of the pipeline. any carriage right that the City
may choose to grant in the pipeline should"
therefore_ recover, at a. minimum, the -pro rata
capital cost and investment of construction of the
capacity associated with any such carriage right.
Any carriage right contract shall further provide
that the use of'the pipeline by the City of Aspen
shall have priority_over all other rights in the'

pipeline.

157

Highlands Water and-Sanitation District.

The City, or the City and the County pursuant to an

_intergovernmental contract, shall explore with the

Highlands Water and Sanitation District the
potential for a cooperative water supply,
arrangement for raw or treated water sales to the
Highlands Water and Sanitation District. The City
shall insure that acceptable water rights owned by

the District are dedicated to the City, or cash in

. lieu of water rights dedication payments are made,

for the purpose of satisfying the City?s policy

concerning the dedication of water rights.
Snowmaking_by the Aspen Skiing Corporation.

The City shall negotiate and execute a contract
with the Aspen Skiing Corporation for'the purpose
of selling raw or treated water, at appropriate
rates, to the Corporation for snowmaking purposes.
The City shall negotiate for the dedication to the
City of water rights sufficient in quantity and
priority, as the City'Manager, with the approval of
the City Council, deems to be necessary to satisfy
the policy of the City regarding' water rights
dedication. .Although.phyaical delivery limitations
may require that Itreated water be supplied
initially for snowmaking use, the City shall

158

 

'reserve the right to supply raw meter for this

purpose to permit the subsequent development of
other potential sources of supply, such as Well No.

4.
Exchange Contracts.

To promote the Maximum utilization of City water
resources, it shall be the policy of the City to
negotiate the execution of annual exchange
agreements for the purpoee of maintaining minimum

etreamflows and other of ?water which are_

consistent with this Comprehensive'Water Management

Plan. .An example of ?this ?policy? is the 1978

license-agreement between the City and the Colorado

Water-Conservation Board, which provides for the

license of the CitY's Hunter Creek Flume and

_Pipeline water right and the City's interest in the

Red Mountain Ditch water right to the CWCD for

. minimum stream flow purposes on Hunter creek when

those rights are not needed for municipal use by?

the City.

chance of Water-Riohte Applications.

To ensure flexibility and to promote the goals of this
Compreheneive Water Management-Plan; the City shall file

in the'Water Court the change of water right applications

159

 

necessary'to permit the use of City?owned water resources
for all beneficial purposes, including minimum
Streamflowe, and to permit the use of Cityeowned water-
resouroes at alternate points of divereien. A study-
shall be immediately undertaken to deternine which City?
owned IWater rights should be the subject of these

proceedings.
Raw Water Storaqe.
1. Maroon Creek ReserVoir and Caetle Creek Reservoire

The Maroon Creek Reservoir and Castle Creek
Reservoir were conditionally decreed in 1971 for
_.4,567 acre-feet and 9,062 acre?feet respectively.
The timing for the construction of these facilities
shall be contingent upon the rate of growth of the
service areas and upon the needs of treatment and
distribution facilities. The reservoirs are the
final step to be implemented in the upgrading of
the entire Aspen water supply system, to ensure
reliability of water quality and Quantity during
succesSive drought years. These reservoirs are?
Halso instrumental to the implementation of City
polioy' providing for stream flOW' and aesthetic
protection. 'Utility system capability shall be

such that either or both reservoirs may be_

160

 

constructed or filled without reducing available

. dry year peak period supplies to the entire City.

The City Manager shall seek proposals from
engineers specializing _in the fields of
engineering, geology, and hydrology to determine
the supply availabbe to each reservoir, for the
purpose of determining. how to best design,
schedule, and utilize existing. system and inew'
system development, as well as to determine optimum

reservoir construction. Such proposals shall

?include the consideration of proper dam and

reservoir area construction to minimize
environmental hazards and impacts and to prevent
deterioration of ?water quality? and quantity in

Maroon Creek and Castle Creek during_oonstruotion

and reservoir filling; The water department shall

determine what system development prerequisites are
neoessary prior -to -oommencement of reservoir
construction or filling. Studies shall be

undertaken to determine the possible use of these

_reservoirs for hydroelectric power generation,

recreation, augmentation, lease, and exchange.
Hunter Creek Reservoir.
The U. 3.. Forest SerVioe and the Colorado Water

Conservation. Board are in the process I of

161

negotiating a water rights-land exchange for the
purpose of securing minimum stream flow rights on
Hunter Creek. To this end, a joint application has
been filed with the Division No. 5 Water Court,
seeking to transfer a number of rights owned.by the
Forest Service, including 'the Hunter Creek
Reservoir, to minimum stream flow use, The City
supports the concept of ndnimum streamflows and
this application. The City shall also continue to

inveStigate the possibility- of acquiring and

Iutilizing this water right-for municipal purposes,_

including minimum streamflows, hydroelectric power

generation, recreation, and augmentation and

exchange.

-Additional raw water storage.

In order to further expand its options for future
development, the City shall aotivelf pursue the
acquisition of any' water storage right in ?the
Roaring Fork River Basin which becomes available
for purchase. Additionally, the City shall require
the dedication-of water storage rights, or the oash
equivalent, upon the extension of treated water

service.

162

Transmission and Distribution Maroon Creek Diversion

Dam .

The Maroon Creek Diversion Dam was 87 years old and
required extensive repairs each year to prevent further
deterioration. 'The existing apron on.theidam?was in very
poor condition. This structure provides the intake for
the Maroon Creek Raw Water Supply Pipeline, which the
City constructed in 1974 at a cost of $832,000. The
pipeline provides raw water to the Castle Creek filter
plant. However, the Maroon Creek Diversion. Dam had
deteriorated to the point that it was unable to divert
more than 20% of the capacity of the :Maroon Creek
Pipeline, and would therefore have proved inadequate to
supply the filter plant raw'water demand in the event the
Castle Creek pipeline was out of service for any
significant period of time.? also, and equally important,
the Maroon Creek Pipeline will be the raw water supply
source for the Aspen Highiands Ski Corporation and
poSSibly the Highlands Water Sanitation District under
the proposed agreements between the City and those
entities. The Maroon Creek Pipeline may also he the
ultimate source of supply? for? Buttermilk snowmaking
operations. Therefore, construction of a new diversion
dam was imperative not only to supply the Cityfs filter
plant, but also to supply raw Water to the Highlands Ski
Corporation. or to the Highlands Water and Sanitation
District. The construction of this diversion dam was

163



absolutely essential to:meet the minimum standards of the

municipal water utility.

The Water Management Plan lcalled for replacing the
existing wooden dam with a concrete structure. "The

design of this diversion included an analysis of the

 

potential for an ;n situ direct connected hydropump for
the generation of electricity for service area needs.
The Maroon Creek Pipeline.has been designed for its full
25 cfe capacity to be diverted by gravity into the
Herrick Ditch by construction of a 30?inch pipeline from
Maroon.Creek Road.at.the'Voorhees driveway to the.Herrick
Ditch. Therefore, the 25 can be made available by 
gravity flow to the Buttermilk are at the elevation of
the Herrick Ditch. This improvement of the Maroon Creek
Diversion Dam can also serve GNP levels of growth from

Maroon Creek to the Airport.
Raw Water and Irrigation Ditches.
1. City Irrigation Ditch NetWork.

It is and always has been the policy of the City of
Aspen to utilize, to the greatest extent possible,
raw water for uses not requiring treated water.
This is the policy of the City of Aspen in regards
. to its own water use, as well as to water use by
reeidents of its service area. Therefore, the City

164

 

shall continue its longstanding policy of annually
reconstructing, rejuvenating, developing, and
expanding the irrigation ditch_network that exists
within. the' City of Aspen. "These ditches and
laterals shall continue to be used for lawn, open
space,.and park land-irrigation by the City and
service area customers. All City departments shall
seek to maximize the use of raw water by the City
and its residents for those purposes which do not

require treated water.

By continuing the implementation of this policy;
city personnel and service area customers will be
able to oarry out the City?s longstanding practice
of using of rat water for all nonhhouSe related
water needs, without suffering the adverse
consequences which would result-from the use of raw'
water' supplies 'for in?house :related.?uses.l The.
continual implementation of-this policy will permit
the maximum supply of quality treated water to
users with a_minimum degradation of stream quality
or quantity during times of short supply and will
reduce the dependence on capital facilities. This
program is _a recogaition of the concept that
citizens should have water for in-house use during
times of short supply, but that during times of
short supply, all but in?house uses should be
curtailed.

165

-The irrigation ditch network is also necessary to

implement that portion of the treated water rate

ordinance hereafter set forth in Section which

is designed to encourage the use of raw water for

lawn irrigation by water utility customers.

Raw Water Ditches and other Diversion Structures.

a. Roaring Fork River.

(1)

(2)

Wheeler Ditch and East Aspen City Ditch.

The Wheeler Ditch and East Aspen City
Ditch were decreed.in 1889 for 10 and
6 cfe, respectively, for irrigation,
Stock watering, and domeStic uses. The
diversion structure on the Roaring Fork?
shall 'be re-developed to provide the
capability of continuing to divert the
entire amount to which the City is
entitled. This development shall also
include provisions - for adequate
measurement and bypassing of water for

minimum stream flows.

Nellie Bird Ditch.

166

 

b.

The Nellie Bird DitCh- is a relatively
senior water right, decreed in 1936 for
3.94 ofs for irrigation purposes, all of
which is senior to, and located at the
same point as, the Salvation Ditch
diversion facility located on the.Roaring
Fork River.' The City acquired, by
dedication upon. subdivision. approval,
0.65 ofs of this water right and also

obtained the right_ to negotiate to

- purchase ?the balance of the right

associated with the subdivided property.
Until an appropriate transfer is secured,
this water right ehall' be used by
exchange at the.Wheeler?East Aspen City
Ditches point of diversion, thus
providing added supplementation of_senior
water_to the WheeleruEast Aspen hitch for-
use in the City land also. thereby
maintaining a live stream below the.
Salvation Ditch during times of low flow
on the Roaring Fork and heavy use by the
Salvation Ditch. The balance of this
water' right should be acquired by

appropriate meane by the City of Aspen."

Hunter Creek.

167

 



(3)

Hunter Creek Flume and Eipeline.

The Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water
right was decreed in 1936 and 1949 for 15
ofs for' domestic and- irrigation.?uses~
This water right shall be used to provide
raw water to the Hunter Creek Treatment
Plant in conjunction with the use (and
transfer and exchange) of senior Hunter.
Creek irrigation rights. Also, this
water right shall be used for exchange
and.-lease ?with. various irrigators *who_
currently have the capability and need
for diverting this water, Additionally,
the City filed an applioation in water
Court, with the colorado Water
Conservation Board as comapplicant, to
modify this decree for minimum stream
flow use. Such use will always be
subject to the City?s need for water, but
will help assure that _the valuable
aquatic and riparian environment of

Hunter Creek is preserved.
Red Mountain Ditch.
In 1978 the City acquired 0.5 of the

Red Mountain Ditch Priority No. 90 water

168

Go

right (.05 ofs was dedicated pursuant to
a water rights dedication agreement, the

balance was purchased by the City). This

-right is one of the most senior water

rights on Hunter Creek and providee the
City with the needed assurance that it
will be able to legally divert water from
Hunter Creek during low flowe. The City,

together with .the Colorado Water

_Conservation Board as co?applicant, filed

in the Water Court for Division No. 5 to
transfer this right _to municipal and
minimum etreamflow use. If approved,
this_ change in water right application
will also allow the right to continue to

be utilized for irrigation purposes,

- although the minimum 'streamfiow and

irrigation uses will be subject to the
City's municipal use. The City shall

continue to cooperate with the 
of this water right to assure its maximum'

utilization for all beneficial_uees.

Castle Creek.

(1) Midland Flume and Castle. Creek Flame.

'169

 

 

(2)

The Midland Flume was decreed in 1892 for

100 .cfs for irrigation, domestic. and

.other purposes. The Castle Creek Flume

was decreed in 1892 for 60 for
irrigation, domestic, and other purposes.
These Water rights are used to supply raw
water to the Castle Creek filter plant.
Investigation of the use of this water
for hydroelectric power generation has
been.previously'discussed. .Additionally,
the possible use of this water at other
points of diversion shall be investigated
and implemented by exchange until such

transfers or changes can be secured.
Holden andKMerolt Ditches.

The Merolt Ditch was decreed in 1934 for
18.6 for irrigation purposes, aed the
Holden Ditch was decreed in 1952 for 30.0
tor irrigation purposes. The City,
which owns the ?vast 'majority' of both
water rights, has undertaken _a major
ditch improvement and rehabilitation
program. as outlined in the jplans and
drawing prepared by the Engineering
Department of the City, entitled'
??elden/Marolt Ditches" (Number 

170

 

1976 Irevision). These. ditches supply
Water to the municipal golf scomz?seJr the
golf course ponds, and ether land located
west of Castle Creek. TheSe ditches and
the improvements thereto are necessary to
promote the City?s policy of encouraging
the use of raw water- for irrigation
purposes and shall be integrated into the
irrigation ditch network for the purpose
of inplementing the City's rate ordinance
set forth in this.Plan. The balance of
the ?water in these ditches should be
acquired by appropriate means and at the
apprOpriate time to facilitate ease of

Ioperation, to prevent the continual
'reOccurrence of competitive use by other
owners and the failure to pay assessments
for ditch rehabilitation, and to prevent
continued opposition by other owners to
the city practice of temporary detention
'of water for flow modulation and optimum
utilization. 



. a: ?we . 
(3) 35. Johnson. .5) ?fe 
:93) ?3.197 'J?-atrr?x
The Si Johnson Ditch waS'decreed in 1936
for 5.5-cfs for irrigation.purposes. The
City owns approximately 2.5 of this

171

water right, which diverte from the east
bank of Castle Creek south of the City.
The Si Johnson is used to supply
irrigation water to the City irrigation
ditch network and to the property
belonging to the Aspen Institute. Any
development by the Institute ehould -
require the dedication of water rights,
p?rsuant to an agreement under the water
rights dedication ordinance. Such. an
agreement should provide for the
dedication of water rights owned by the
Institute, with the lease-back of such
rights as the institute might continue to
need for the irrigation of open Space

areas a

The City shall continue its policy of
maintaining the irrigation.ditoh:network.
A study shall Ihe undertaken for the.
expansion of the ditch-network, including
an investigationd of water rights
available to'supply such an expansion,
such as the transfer and use of Midland
and Castle Creek Flume water rights for
thie purpose. The balance'of the Water
in these ditches should be acquired by
appropriate means and at the appropriate

172

 

time to facilitate eaSe of operation, to
prevent the continual reoccurrenoe of
competitive use by other owners and the
failure to pay assessments for ditch
rehabilitation, and to prevent continued
opposition by other owners to the City
practice of temporary detention of water
for flow modulation and I optimum

utilization.
Maroon Creek.
Nestelleierson.

Deotees and agreements have set forth the
City ownership of this senior water right
on Maroon Creek; It is imperative that
the municipal- intake on all creeks,
including Maroon Creek, be capable of
diverting all necessary water even at the
lowest flow periods of any given year.
To _this end, the' City staff Shall
immediately seek to_remove any cloud upon
the City ownership of and right to use
the entirety of this water right. The_
staff shall utilize such options for the
implementation of this task as are in the'
best interests of the City.

173

(2)

maroon Ditch.

This water right was decreed in 1949 for

this for other than irrigation use.

 

The Meroon Ditch, which diverts through
the Maroon Creek Diversion Dam, discuSSed
previously, was reconstructed in 1974 as
a pipeline. The.poseible use of this
water' right for hydroelectric power
generation, in conjunction with the
reconstruction of the diversion dam or.
otherwise, has also been previously
discussed. The use of some of this water
right for supplying raw water" for_
snowmaking purpoSes shall aleo be

investigated.

e. other Diversion Structures.

(1)

Aspen Ditch.

The Aspen Ditch was deereed in 1889 for 5
ofs for irrigation, domestic, and stock
watering uses. This wate; right diverts
from Spa: Gulch land the Roaring Fork
River. 'For the purpose of supplying raw
water for snowmaking and other uses, the
conversion of the Aspen Ditch water right

174

 




(2)

(3)

point of diversion to one or tWo wells,

to be. drilled and constructed in 'the

'future, shall be explored. A study shall

be immediately undertaken of the geology
of Spar Gulch. to determine the best
location for groundwater withdrawal from

the source of this water right.

Durant Ditch.

The -Durant- Ditch is a junior- decree

_Secured by the City for the flows of

water from certain water eourcee'on.Aepen
Mountain near the Durant Mine. other
water rights exist in the same general
area and, to the extent in conflict with
City policies for the use of.the City
Durant decree?f shall be appropriately
acquired. The water-shall be used to
supplement the water needs of Glory Hole.
Park, Ute Children Perk, Ute Cemetery,

Aspen -Mall, and' snowmaking on Aspen

Mountain.

Wells.

Wells 2, 3, and 4.

175

 

 

Well Nos. 2 and 3, located on Mill
and Springs Streets, respectively,
are decreed for a total of 4.46 ofs.
Well No. 4, ?located near Little
Nell, is decreed for 0.65 
absolute and 2.64 conditional.
The City suspended the use of these
wells for municipal in?house uses in
1965, when the Colorado Department
of Health declared the groundwater
.from these 'wells unfit for? human
consumption. The wells have
remained in service for other direct
and standby municipal services.
Well. Nos. 2 and' 3 should be
maintained in operational order and
the water ltested to ascertain
Whether its quality is acceptable
for irrigation, construction truck
water, street washing truck use, and
other municipal uses. The utility
department is directed, to the
extent possible, to permit street
washing and construction trucks to
fill from Wells Nos. 2 and 3. The
charge for that service shall be the
one time flat rate set forth in the
rate schedule ordinance. These

.176

 

wells shall also be_utilized for the
irrigation of adjacent City property
and for the irrigation of the County
Rio Grande property pursuant to an
intergovernmental contract to be
negotiated between the City of Aspen

and Pitkin County.

Once ntilized for irrigation of the
County Rio Grande property, this
water, along With Wheeler and East
Aspen Ditch water utilized in the
mall area and directed to the Rio
erande property, and in conjunction
with the water from Wells 2 an& 3,
ehall be utilized for mechanical and
in-plant purposes at the Aspen

Sanitation District plant.

Utilization of the 2.64 
conditionally decreed to Well No. 4-
shall be achieVed either by
redrilling Well No. 4 to increase
its capacity or by drilling another
well and transferring the
conditional right Ito the other
structure. In the event Well No.'4
is not need to Supply raw water to

177



the Aspen Ski Corporation for
snowmaking purposes, the
consideration of the possible uses

of the water from Wells 2 and 3

Ishould then include the water

'deoreed to this well.

Since these wells are also decreed

for domestic and municipal uSes, the
City shall also immediately
investigate the development of these
water rights.for all uses during the

non?irrigation season.
The Anthony Well.

The (0.168 cfs) was
acquired by the City pursuant to an
annexation agreemente This 'well
Shall be used to provide domestic
water servioe.pursuant to the Alpine'
Acres Subdivision - Annexation
Agreement.? At such time as treated

water service from the municipal

- water utilities is provided pursuant

to the terms of the annexation
agreement the Anthony Well Water
right-shall be leased back to the

178

Alpine Acres Homeowners Association
for irrigation and aeSthetic uses.
Such 'a lease arrangement is
consistent _with and promotes the
policy 'of the City of Aspen to
maximize the use of City water,
Iencourage the utilization of raw
water for uses which do not require
treated water, provide added low?
coet revenue to the' City, and
promote open space areas within the

City of Aspen.
Land Treatment.

The use of eecondary effluent for.land treatment shall be
encouraged wherever practicable as . a matter of City
policy. The City shall work with Pitkin County, via an.
intergovernmental contract, to promote and implement this

policy.

Land treatment has been proven to be a eafe and
productive method of sewage dispoeal and reflects the
conservation ethic upon which this Water Management Plan
is premised. Land treatment maximizes the use of water
resources, creates opportunities for minimum stream flow
preservation, increases the capacity of receiving waters
to dilute any treated'waste'water that is discharged into

179

area streams, increases crop yield, reduces the need for
. artificial petroleum?based fertilizers, accomplishes
tertiary treatment, preserves agricultural and open space

land, and promotes growth management policies.

The Cityis engineers have reoohmended land treatment as_
a viable method of tertiary treatment, and this position
wae supported by the Aspen/Snowmass 201 Waetewater
Facilities Plan. One method of land treatment would be
to undertake an agreement to utilize the Salvation and/or
Red Mountain Ditch to convey treated secondary effluent.
Such an agreement would save plant costs, since in?plant
tertiary treatment would not be required in the summer.
It would aleo benefit*water users on the ditch, 
receive nutrientwrich water. This secondary effluent
would be exchanged for water out of the Salvation and/or
Red Mountain Ditch, and the city would therefore have
aVailable to it the senior priority associated with that
right for eXchange, use, or for minimum streamflows in

Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River.

Such a land treatment program will create significant
water rights benefits to the City as well. With a land
treatment program utilizing the Red Mountain Ditch, water
would he left in Hunter Creek, both for minimum flows and
for diversion and nee at the Hunter Creek_rlant. Upon
development of the Roaring Fork Plant, the use of the Red
Mountain and Salvation Ditches would permit the City to

180

 

 

 

9"

move water upstream by exchange to the Roaring Fork Plant
as 'well. Such _exchange jprograme ?will create added
flexibility for the city to utilize its rights and to
avoid water shortages which have historically been
created by diversions by Twin Lakes and the Salvation
Ditch. Further, the prograe should saVe the City
significant sums of money by helping to forestall
construction of rawrwater storage, or the condemnation or
burchase of senior water rights (with resultant and.
undesirable transfer of agricultural land into 

residential development).

Agreements allowing for the development of a land

treatment program shall cohtinue to be pursued.

181

 

 
 

 

 

 
 
 

V.

HYDROELECTRIC.

In 1981, Congress enected.the Public Utility'Regulatory Policy

Act (PURPA), 16 ??2601, gt eeg. Several of the Act's

-provieione provided a huge impetus to development of

alternative energy supplies, and led to a flurry of filings
for permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Conmission
(FERC) to retrofit existing dams with hydroelectric generating
facilities. Ruedi Dam, a feature of the FryingpanwArkaneas
Project, was one of these. Realizing that PURPA provided an
opportunity to the City to gain a foothold in the operation of
Ruedi Reservoir, as well as obtain a low?cost, source of
electric power for the City's electrical distribution eyetem,
the City acted.quickly?t0?nake the first municipal filing with
FERC for retrofitting Ruedi Dam. Due to municipal
preference, the City eventually was in obtaining

the FERC license to generate el?ctridity at Ruedi._

Seeing Ruedi and hydroelectric power as resources beneficial
to the entire Roaring Fork River Valley, the City joined with
Pitkin county, the City of Glenwood Springs, Eagle County, the
Town of Snowmass Village and the Town of Basalt in forming the
Ruedi Water and-Power Authority (RWAPA). The City?s FERG-
license'was aeeigned to RWAPA,'which became the official owner
of the project.. Today, of the City?s electricity is

supplied by.the Ruedi Hydroelectric Plant.

182

In 1583, in connection with reconstruction of the Maroon Creek
Diversion Dam, the City conducted a feasibility study of
developing a hydroelectric plant using the City'staroon Creek
water rights and maroon Creek Pipeline. This study led to
construction the Maroon creek Hydroelectric Project in

1989.

Hydroelectric power generation has_benefite Which transcend
the energy field. Environmental quality, through reduced air
and water pollution, economic health, through reduced energy,
cost and foreign purchases, environmental preservation,
through saintenance of minimum streamflows, Land maximum
utilization of Citywowned water rights, all flow from

hydroelectric projects.

RWAPA is currently evaluating possible additional hydro sites
in the Roaring Fish Valley and nearby. In addition,
throughout this Plan the hydro aspects of various water system
projects are discussed. In furtherance of the policy set_
forth in this Plan, the City will continue to.evaluate the
hydroelectric potential of area streams and City water
projects, and continue to expand the hydroelectric generating
capacity of the City and the Roaring Fork Valley whenever

technically and eConomically feasible.

183

 

VI.

LEGAL AND-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.

The City has become a party to numerous agreements and Water
Court cases in the operation of the water utility system.
These agreements and the decrees entered in the Water Court

proceedings contain both benefits to the city and obligations .

,on it, which affect the comprehensive management of water

338501113065 9

The following sections of this Plan contain summaries of the
agreements and decrees to which the City ie-a party, as well
as statutes and regulations that affect the City?s Water
resource management decisions. These summaries are not legal
interpretations of the agreements or decrees, but rather are
intended as management tools. The full text must always be
referred to in determining the exact legal rights and

obligations of the City.

A. Agreements.

1. City of Aspen ?_Benediot Land Cattle Company, et

a1.

Aspen provides up to O.65.ofs of water on an 
Ineeded basis-from the Nellie Bird Ditch for the
maintenance of specified n?nim?m water-level in
Lake (located on lot Callahan
subdivisiOn). Benedict conveys to the City 0.65

184

?cfs of the Nellie Bird Ditch, priority no. 3136,
adjudication date 8/25/36 out of the Roaring Fork

River; grants to City a right of first refusal on

that portion of Nellie. Bird Ditch right not

conveyed to City by the Agreement; right of first

refusal applies only if water right offered for

sale independently' of lands irrigated thereby;
negotiates a lease for city use of remaining Nellie

Bird right; grants to City a right of first refusal

on Hunter Creek water right carried by the .Red

Mountain Ditch, priority no. 90, adjudication date

5/11/89, transferred to Hunter Ditch by decree

recorded in Book 252, page 575; applies only if

water right is offered for sale independently of

lands irrigated thereby; and negotiates with the
City concerning the City?s acquisition of Hunter
Creek Right referred to above.to facilitate the
construction of a package filter plant on Renter

Creek.

City of AspennLuke Anthony/Nick Coates (Alpine

Acres).

Aspen agrees to annex Alpine Acres'Subdivision and
provide water serVioe, and agrees to negotiate with
homeowners ?within subdivision. to lease back to
homeowners for irrigation-uses, water associated
With Well adjudicated in Case Water Division

185

-No. 5 (.168 cfs). Lease executed 1/23/77 $50.00

annual payment provision for 1 year renewal.

Anthony quit claims well adjudicated in Case 
Water Division No. 5 (Decree 9/30/71), and pays for
costs of connecting their respective lots within-
the subdivision to the City Water System.

City of Aspen Frank Goldsmith.

Aspen provides water service to Goldsmith property

for single family? domestic in house use on a

contract basis.

soldemith builds 6 inch -water line connecting
existing City system to the Hunter Creek.Treatment
Plant,- grants necessary easement for line
construction, and provides money for acquisition of.

Hunter Creek water rights 

_City of Aspen-Meadowood Homeowners Association.

Aspen allows Meedowood to withdraw 100 gpm_of_water
from the overflow structure located adjacent to
Castle Creek at specified rates (at such time as
Meadowood desires). .Meadowood may purchase
additional amounts above 100 subject to City's
right to supply this ?excess" to third parties.

186

Water may only be used to supply "aesthetic" waters
to the_ existing subdivision pond, and for
irrigation and recreational purposes. If City
ceases to maintain Castle Creek jplant overflow
structure because it becomes unlawful, inefficient,
uneconomical, etc., it will supply Meadowood with

another suitable source of-municipal water.

Meadowood conveys to Aspen all of its rights, title
_and interest_to Stein, Arlian and Marolt Ditch and

its first enlargement.
City of Aspen Albert C. Droste.

Aspen provides. six 3/4" water taps and water
service for single family residential use on land
in Pitkin County, NE of the Aspen City limits for
in?house use and irrigation use under certain
limited circumstances; also one 3/4" tap service
without use restrictions for residential lot in
same area; and leases to Droste by Separate
agreement sufficient raw water to irrigate up to 30
acres of land at such times as the flow of Hunter
Creek equals or exceeds 30 at the Red Mountain

Ditch headgate.

Droste conveys to the City the following Water
rights: 0.5 out of the Red Mountain Ditch,

187

priority No. 90, any and all interest'in 1.33 ofs

out of the Red Mountain Pipeline, and conveYs to

.the city any easement necessary for the operation

and maintenance of water service provided by the

City pursuant to the agreement.

city of Aspen - J. R. Williams Property/Investment

Realty (Lone Pine Development).

Inspen provides water service for up to 28 P.M.H.

units and 3.2 three bedroom townhouse units for
domestic residential use only, and leases back to
the developer any raw water irrigation rights.

oonVeyed to the City by the developer.

Lone Pine Developer _oonstructs and installs
physical facilities necessary to_serve Lone Pine

according to facilities plan, pays Aspen $25.00

upon_ sale of 6th non?P.M.H. free market unit

constructed, pays all applicable plant investment
and tap fees for extension of service by City; if
subdivision not approved w/14 years, agreement
void, but developer still pays City $500,00; and if
the deVeloper acquires a water right for lawn and
open space irrigation in the subdivision, then he
will immediately convey this water right to the

City for no additional consideration.

188

City of Aspen Albert C. Droste

Aspen leases to Droste for 15 years, sufficient raw_
Water from City?s Hunter Cree}; water rights to
irrigate 30 acres of Droste meadow lands in the
historic manner. Deliver? point is Droete turnout
at the Red Mountain Ditch.- City only obligated to
deliver water when its Hunter Creek Flume and
Pipeline water right is in priority. When not in
priority, City must' deliver difference between

amount of ite diversions to Hunter Creek treatment

plant and 0.5 cfs. In no event need City deliver

when HUnter Creek flow is below 30 cfs.

Droste pays an annual charge to City of $5.00 per
acre per year prior to plat per
acre per year after final plat approval, these
charges to escalate at a rate of 2% per year; and
paYe all of City?s Red Mountain Ditch 
levied by reason of City?e ownership of 0.5 out
of the Ditch, priority No. 90, adjudication date

5/11/89.
City of Aspen-Aspen Skiing.Corporation.

Aspen constructs certain structural additions to
water supply system, 12" interconnect from 1.0 mg
reservoir to Monarch, Mill, Aspen Durant

189

-Streets/Avenue, and supplies ASC with water (raw or
treated at City?s discretion) (no_supply'required
during City emergencies), under specified schedules
year round.(expressed in gallons per minute varying
from to 1500 depending on time of day and time of
year. Point of delivery? is near 1.0 mg tank.
Rates for water specified in contract. Water is to

be used for snowmaking or irrigation.

The Skiing Company is obligated to convey three

'pipeline easements to the City. The City Engineer

has prepared the legal descriptions for these
easements which have, in turn, been forwarded to
counsel for the Skiing Company for review 5/34.
Conveys Begley Ditch Priority 660', 1.5 cfs, and

Leases Stapleton Bros. Ditch to Aspen?

City of Aspen-Aspen Highlands Ski Corporation.

Aspen. installs diversion dam on Maroon Creek,.

conveys to _Ski Corp. Maroon Creek Flume on

'Highlands land, allows Highlands a right of

carriage through the pipeline (carriage charge

imposed) (withdrawal at station 116 40) as

follows: 1 ofs at all times except City

nemergencies; 4.5 following replacement of the

diversion dam, this right 'of carriage is
subordinate to the City?s own needs at all times;

190

 



.10-

installs at Cit? expense flow meter at Maroon Creek
pipeline intake; pays the cost. above $2,000 of
installing a flow :meter at the 3 valve Jones
drawoff in the Maroon Creek pipeline (station 115 
40); agrees to recognize Highlands.ownership of 5.5
of Stein, Arlian and Marolt water right;
conveys to Highlands for pro rata cost of
construction 200 acre feet of capacity in City?s
Maroon Creek reservoir if built; and agrees to
provide treated water service to 24 units in Aspen

Highlands subdivision Filing 2 and Aspen Highlands

'Villas.

Aspen Highlands Ski Corp. conveys Neetell water
right to Aspen, conveys pipeline easements to
Aspen; conveys easement for construCtion of treated
water storage tank adjacent.to existing Highlands
Sanitation District Tank; agrees to recognize
City?s ownership of whatever' Stein, Arlian and
Marolt water' right the City acquires from ?the
Meadowooleomeowners Association (Book 352, Page
707; Book 344, Page 56); and agrees to lease to
City for $1.00 per year 4.5 of Stein, Arlian
and Marolt water right (out of 21 ofs priority) for'

use by City when not being used by Highlands..

City of .Aspen Aspen Highlands Water and
Sanitation District.

191

11.

12.

Aspen constructs treated water storage tank
adjacent to existing district tank, provides water
service to existing Dietrict- customere- without
further tap charges on 21 contractual basis, and
serves an additional 24 taps for $200,000 to be

paid by the District.

Aspen Highlands 3 District conveys to Aspen all

water rights including any interest in Stein,

Arlian and Marolt 21 priority, Stein, Arlian

and Marolt Ditch 1st enlargement 4 cfs. and Nestell

. Ditch 3.4 cfs.

City of ASpen - Loma Alto Corporation.

Aspen leases perpetually (in 20 year increments)
1/9 interest in Riverside Ditch for use as
irrigation and pond water on certain lands. Lease

terminable upon breach of covenants.

Loma Alto Corporation conveys to City of Aspen (by
virtue of separate annexation agreement)'all water

rights attached to the annexed property 

'apparently limited to 119 interest in_the Riverside

Ditch.

City of Aspen Castle- Creek Homeowners
Association.

192-

Aspen.'waives all claims against. homeowners for
costs of maintenance and repair of the Holden bitch
and Holden~Marolt Interconnect Ditch prior to date
of agreement, recognizes _individual members of
homeowners' ownership of 0.5 ofs of Holden Ditch
water right, and agrees to Ideliver same to
homeowners .at weir on south?end of 'homeowners?

lateral at east side of Cemetery Lane.

Homeowners agree to waive all claims against the
City for the latter?S'having rerouted Homeowners?
'water through City ponds and having relocated a
portion. of the Homeowners lateral, agrees that
their Holden Ditch rights may be carried through
City ponds, wai?es all right, title and interest to

Holden Ditch water right (other than amounts

 

specified in the contract, .5 cfs) by virtue
of their ownership of real property in the Castle
Creek subdivisiOn, agrees to pay pro-rate share of
all capital, improvements, maintenance, repairs,

cleaning and operation of the Holden and Holden-

Marolt Interconnect Ditches, agrees that City has

sole reSponsihility and authority for administering
and operating Holden Ditch, agrees that City can
deliver more than 0.5 ofs into Homeowners' lateral
if the City makes necessary increases in ditch
capacity, and during term of agreement, Homeowners
can?t transfer all or part of 0.5 for purposes

193

 

13,

. other than irrigation or for carriage in other than

Holden Ditch except on specific terms stated in

agreement.

City of Aspen - Colorado Water Conservation Board

(owes)

. Aspen authorizes CWCB to use, on a loan or exchange

basis, Aspen?s Hunter Creek water rights (15 cfs;
Priority No. 284 appropriation date of 6/10/1386)?

exclusively for the purpose of augmenting and

. preserving minimum streamflows on EHunter Creek

between the point of diversion of the Hunter Creek
Flume and pipeline and the confluence of Hunter
Creek and the Roaring Fork RiVer, authorizes CWCB
to use on a loan or exchange basis 0.5 of Aspen
Hunter Creek water -right decreed- to. the Red
Mountain IDitch (2.0 ofs, Priority No. 90),

augmenting and preserving minimum stream flows on

.Hunter Creek between the point of_diversion for the

Red Heuntain Ditch and the point of historic return-
flow of this water right. Each of the foregoing

loans is subject to the right of Aspen to divert
these water rights for the purpose of supplying the
City's municipal and domestic needs. Aspen also
retains right to_use the censumptive use associated
with the two water rights for any decreed purpose
that it wishes, at any point from the

194

hieteric point of return flow of the subject water

rights.

cannot object or enter an appearance in any
change in water right application er other Water
Court preceeding brought by Aspen for the water
rights that are the subject of the agreement; any
change in the decree for either water right will
modify -the licenee agreement accordingly; and
egtees to defend any legal [Challenge to the

agreement.

[Summaries of additional, subsequent agreements

being.prepared by Musick.and Cope.)

195

B. Water-Court Decrees.
[Summary of_all Water Court Decrees to which the city is-

a party being prepared by Musick and Cope.)

196

C. Federal Statutes.

[Summaries to be prepared by Musick and Cope.]

197

 

D. Federal Requlations.

[Summaries to be prepared by Musick and Cope.]

198

E. State Statutes.

[Summaries to be prepared by Musick and Cope.)

3.99

 

F. Stage-Regulations.

[Summaries to be prepared by Musick and Cape.]

200

 

 

 

GI

Pitkin County Ordinances;

[Summaries to be prepared by Musick and Copeqi

201

f:

VII. WATER-CONSERVATION.

.Discussion.

All water management policies are driven by the need to
meet existing and anticipated demands on the utility

system. While the City has full budgetary and design

. control over its options to water, it must also

assert its control over the demand side of the equation.
A water conservation program is the method by which a
city can' control. the demands jplaoed on its system.

Therefore, it is essential that any comprehensive water

management plan carefully consider the role of demand

modification_in reaching policy objectives. _However, it
should not_be assumed that reduction in demand, merely
for the sake of reducing demand, is in all cases an'

advisable policy.

lndesigning a water conservation programthe policymaker

must first determine which policies should and will be
promoted through conservation. There -are numerous
economic and aesthetic rationales for reducing demand,
not all of which are applicable to any given?community.

Since conservation programs may initially impose painful

'new burdens on both the consumer and the utility, the

policymaker must be sure that adequate community resolve
exists to support implementation of the progrann This is
done by developing sound rationales, relevant to the

202

 



 

particular community, for the programf setting practical
objectives to be met; selecting palatable strategies to
meet those objectives; monitoring and evaluating the
effectireness.of'those strategies} revising strategieS'to
reach unmet objectives; and, finally, _setting new

objectives as necessary to meet changed circumstances.

There are really two aspects to water conservation:

using a smaller amount of the-resource, particularly
when the available supply is reduced, and, more
importantly,_ assuring that each increment of that'
resource is used efficiently: only the amount actually'
needed to economically satisfy a need is used for that

need.

Aspen is a headwater community, close to.the Continental
Divide, and situated along four major drainages: Hunter
Creek; the Roaring Fork River, Castle creek and Maroon
Creek. Since these streams normally provide a full water
supply to the City} the City has not had to invest in raw
water storage, nor has it had to give much attention to
water conservation. To meet the rare but inevitable
periods of_ short supply, the City has a -drought
contingency ordinance in place which forces consumers to
curtail various types and levels of use. ZMunicipal Code,-
??23w200, at egg. However, that response to periods of
low streamflor places unequal and harsh_burdens on the
community: As the community grows and the economic value

203

 

 


l.

of water uses increases, this approach will be, in all
likelihood, unacceptable and there will be increased
pressure I. to develop raw water storage reservoirs on
Castle and/or Maroon Creeks. A comprehensive
conservation program designed to reduce peak and average

water demands might allow the City to live within the

'firm.dry~year flow of its existing supply without resort

to:reservpirs, or at least allow construction.of smaller,
less expensive, and less environmentally damaging

reservoirs.

The following outline suggests a sequence for developing,

and the potential contents of, a comprehensive water
conservation program. By facing these issues now, the
city can avoid the need to readt to a crisis situation
such as occurred in Marin County, California in the mid
1970?s or Ithe current drought. crisis causing major
hardships in Santa Barbara and elsewhere in Californian
While the California experience has been positive in the

sense that the droughts have mobilized institutional and

eonsumer support for overdue efficiency enhancements, it

has been a diffioult experience that can be avoided with
proper planning. Likewise, the City Can avoid the
embarrassment and expense recently experienced by Denver
when the demand premise on which the Two Forks Reservoir
relied -was challenged for failure adequately to
incorporate serious water conservation and efficienov
enhancement measures.

204

 

1.

B. Initial QuestionsZPoliog Decisions

Do you want to save water and why?

a.

b.

General Conservation Program

Drought Emergency

How to do it?

How to know if you have been successful?

C. Bationales

l.

 

 

Moral/Aesthetic
a. thoughts on "efficiency? and "waste?
b. use only those resources necessary, eliminate
I 'waste
0. increase streamflow through_ the City 
aesthetic and recreational benefits
d. Kwater quality: reduce contaminated runoff and

salinity problems

Stretch limited supplies

lack of raw water storage

reduce need to acquire additional sources of
supply

alternative 'use of surplus supply, realize

true_eoonomio value of city assets

Fixed Costs: Forestall additional investment in

plant capacity by reducing demand, prolong useful

a.

b.



design life of existing facilities

- reduce peak demands

reduce average demands
water treatment plant capacity/expansion

205

 

d. distribution system and treated water storage
e. storage of raw water
f. waste *water 'treatment. plant land collection
I system -
4. Continuing Operating Cost Savings
a. _savinge to_conSumers energy, water charges,
landscaping costs

b. treatment costs (pumpi?g, chemicals)

Water Efficiencv Strategiee_
1. Voluntary -
a. pricing
(1) invested price structure

(2) metering vs. flat rate

 

b. fixtures retrofit of. low flow fixtures
(showerheads and toilets)

(1) suggested, technical advice_

 

(2) subsidized
0. education and demonstration projects
(1) information to consumers.
(2) programs in schools
(3) Evapo?transpiration measurements for
irrigators
(43 City xeriscape of parks and roads
d. subsidies ane incentivee
(1) budget supported

(2) general revenues used

206

 

 

 

2'

'Mandatory

a. metering

b. plumbing code revisions

(1)
(31

new construction; additions

retrofit of commercial units

0. landscape controls

(1)

(2)

In-houee,

ordinance restricting size and type of

new landscaping

limits on area of turf

require drought resistant/tolerant
species I

promote conversion to raw :water

irrigation

'modify-utility operations (City should

set an example)

a. ?leak detection; reduce unaccounted water

b. pressure :reduotion/modification. of' pressure
zones I

o. parks irrigation controls and reuse of treated
effluent

d. ditch lining

'Drought Response

a. special rate structures and penalty rates

b. phased curtailment of non~essential uses with

?water police"

c. watering restrictions

(1)

time of day, day of week, area

207

 

(2) mandatory . across~the?board percent
reductions

(3) flow restrictors in- service lines of

 

?violators
E. Tailorino a Prooram to the Citv
1. Community Parameters
demographic statistics population income
levels a
h. statistics re: water .use, present- and
'projected
0. "statistics re: capacity ;'(raw water,
treatment)_
2. Environment
a. climate_
soil conditions
seasonal needs
(1) population variance
(2) balance irrigation demands with
-snowmaking demands I
3. Values
a. The City is committed to the maintenance of
minimum streamflows below its ?arious points
of diversion on a yearmround basis to maintain
the fishery and recreational assets of nearby
streams, I I
b. In order to minimize the adverse impacts of

rising water costs, must develop efficient,

V203

F.

cost?minimizing ,water strategies aimed at
meeting long?term water needs.

Promoting low cost housing for employees.

Allowing for desirable levels of growth

without taxing existing infrastructure and

residents. "Growth pays for growth."

Maintain the unique character and ambiance of

an historic mountain village

(1) preserve irrigated open space

(2) architecture and landscaping compatible
with mountain setting

(3) recognize role of 'tcuriSm in Aspen

economy

Current Practices in The City

1.

- Comprehensive Drought Emergency Ordinance

a. already in place
b. may need updating er modification
Pricing I
a. metering
(1) mandatory metering in plade
(2) still allow some flat rate
b. Inverted Price Structure (the higher the use,

the higher the charge for each increment cf

use)
(1) The City is inverted but rates

are primarily designed to recover fixed

209

capital costs (investment in facilities)
and annual operating expenses.
(2) need to analyze price elasticity of
demand I
Education
State Statutes
a. mandatory hetering:IHB 9091106
new conetruCtion I
(2) retrofit 50% of accounts by year 2000,
lall by 2009 I
b. ?oderately low-flow fixtures required in new
_construction, ?_m_wm C.R.S. (1939 Supp.)
Raw Water Use Program
a. need to maee more available for irrigation 
improve delivery system .
b. need to streamline process
0. encourage use for eno?making_

d. 'City.open space and parks should be leader_

Measuring Effectiveness

1.

Set Goals

a, reduoe raw water diversions by percent

13.. 'reduce water treatment plant volume by 
percent

0. sewage treatment plant volume by 
percent

Evaluate Performance

a. reduction in use and volume

210

 

voluntary compliance

(1) participation in incentive programs
(2) increased use of raw water
c. consumer satisfaction I
Determine Impact on utility'Revenues, potential for
further incentives and rane modification
Analyze Useful Life of Existing Capital Plant

Re-evaluate and.Revise Program to Reach Unmet Goals

211

 . FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS .

A. Existing ObliqationsL

[To_be prepared_by Finance Department.]'

212

Financial Reguirements of ConstrUCtion and Acquisition


[To be prepared by Public' Works Department and Rea,

Cassens and 

23.3

 

C. Current Conditions;

[To be prepared by Finance Department.]

214

?x

D.

Financial Plan.
[To be prepared by Staff with assistance of consultants

as-reduired.)

215