COMPREHENSIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
OF

THE CITY OF ASPEN

Originally Prepared July 7, 1980, by the Staff of the City of Aspen,
most notably:

City Manager, Wayne Chapman

City Attorney, Ron Stock

Director of Water Treatment and Supply, James J. Markalunas
City Engineer, Daniel A. McArthur

City-County Planning Department Director, Karen Smith
Finance Director, Lois Butterbaugh

City of Aspen Environmental Health Officer, Tom Dunlop

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

Rea-Cassens Associates

Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth, COpe, P.C.

Preliminary Update February 25, 1983 by: Musick and Cope

Limerikmi
?24

Bates 002912 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

i
i
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tables

Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Policy Statement

I.

II.

Policy Regarding Areas of Potential Services . . . . .

A.

B.

Designation of Service Areas . .

Physical Facilities Necessary for Implementation of

the Comprehensive Water Management PlanTreatment FacilitiesPolicy Concerning Expansion of Treated
Water Services . . . . . . .

2. Hunter Creek Treatment Plant

3. Roaring Fork Treatment Plant

4. Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant . . . . .

5. Buttermilk Treatment Plant .

6. Purchase of Aspen Sanitation District Plant.

Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Treated Water Storage . . .

2. Raw Water Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transmission and Distribution . .

l.

2.

Maroon Creek . . . . . . . .

Transmission Mains . . . . .



Bates 002913 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

Page

29

D. PumpingFacilites
1. Hunter Creek Booster Pump . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 29

2. Knollwood Pump Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

E. Raw Water and Irrigation Ditches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 

1. City Irrigation Ditch Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 

2. Raw Water Ditches and Other Diversion Structures . . . 31

F. Hydroelectric Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

G. Land Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

H. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Ill. Water Rights 46
A. Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1. City Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Rights Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

47

$7



2. All Unadfudicrted Storage and Existing Direct

 

 

 

 

Flow Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

C. Conditional Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
l. Caszle Creek Reservoir and Maroon Creek

Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.weiiNo.4 49

3. Snowmass Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

D. Transfer and Augmentation Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1. Hunter Creek Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2. Roaring Fork Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O

 

(ii)

Bates 002914 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



F.

1V. Specific Service Requirements of the Potential Service Areas



3. Snowmaking Water Supply Contracts 

4. Raw Water Supply Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contractual Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Highlands Ski Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Highlands Water and Sanitation District . . . . . . .
3. Snowmaking by the Aspen Skiing Corporation . . . . .

4.ExchangeContracts

Change of Water Rights Application - - - - - - - - - - - -

Original Service Area of the City of Aspen, including the
incorporated limits of the City and Williams Addition . . . .

Present Service Area of Mountain Valley, Knollwood, and
Aspen Grove North of Roaring Fork west of Hunter Creek, including
potential service to existing private lines on Red Mountain,
Smuggler Mountain, Pitkin Green, Droste, and Benedict

North of State Highway 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 Subdivisions - - - - . - - - - - - - - - -

Castle Creek to Maroon Creek, south of State Highway No. 82
and Castle Creek Road, including potential service to
Highlands Water District, Meadowood, and Aspen Tennis Club
Maroon Creel: Airport, north ard south of State Highway
No. 82: Pfister Subdivision, Airport Business Center,
[?cBr?ide . . . . . . . . . . . . - .

West of Airport to Brush Creek: Brush Creek Homeowners 



Bates 002915 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/V. Originally Proposed Capital Improvement
Program VI. Updated Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . . 76

VII. Implementation of Phase I of Updated Capital
Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77C

3 Rates 78

 

 

A. Utility Service Connection Charge . . . . . . 78
B. Treated Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
C. Raw Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
D. Carriage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
E. Water Rights Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . 83
F. Easement and Land Oedication . . . . . . . . 84
IX. Water Quality 85
X. Water Main Extension Policy 90
XI. Status of Proposed Ordinances 92
A. Adopted 92
B. Pending 93

C. Review of Utility Connection and Water Rate
Ordinances 93



 

 

 

(iV)

 

 

Bates 002916 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

Table No.
Expansion

Table No.
Expansion

Table No.
Expansion

Table No.
Expansion

Table No.
Expansion

TABLES
- Water System Improvements and
Proposed Construction 1980-1990 .

2 Water System Improvements and
Bond Issue Construction 1980-1990

3 - Water System Improvements and
Bond Issue Construction 1980-1985

4 Water System Improvements and
Phase Water System Improvements and
Phase II Preliminary . . . . .

.1222
. . . 77B

Bates 002917 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 



APPENDICES
Appendix A - Service Area Map

Appendix - City of Aspen Treated Water
Usage Growth Rate)

Appendix - Construction Costs of Facilities
Necessary to Serve Designated Facilities

Appendix Specific EQR Allocations

(vi)

Bates 002918 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

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 development which takes place within the. system.
Respect for this principle mandates that the City of Aspen adopt a
comprehensive approach to 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 "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 managing 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
the water resources picture?~including water quality, quantity,
development, treatment, storage, transmission, distribution, 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 public health, safety, and welfare. To the extent that the

City is able to control the use of waters in its river basin, it will be

Bates 002919 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

assured of its ability to secure the broader goals of water resource
management, including the following: the maximum utilization 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 spacially and temporally; the
preservation and expansion of open space and parklands; the development
of recreational opportunities; the development of pollutionwfree 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: (1) to develop the maximum utilization of all
City-owned water rights; (2) to develop and enact ordinances designed to
protect water quality, particularly all municipal water supply sources
both actual and potential; (3) to prevent inappropriate water supply
allocation due to unnecessary competition among private water systems
located within the watersheds supplying the City; (A) to prohibit the use
of wells and the waters thereof for domestic and household purposes when
the same are found injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of the City
and its residents; (5) 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 necessary to serve

othose areas, regardless of when service will be provided: to select

Bates 002920 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 



 

and acquire privatelywheld water rights crucial to the implementation of
successful comprehensive water management; (7) to acquire additional
water rights to insure an adequate water supply for present and future
water utility users and. to avoid any restriction of utility services by
others so as to prevent the assessment of public utility status; (8) and,
because the problems of and solutions to water resources management
transcend the boundarie of political subdivisions, to enter into an
intergovernmental contract with the County of Pitkin to achieve the goals
of this Comprehensive Water Management Plan.

To promote the maximum use of Citywowned water, it shall be the
policy of the City: (1) to seek changes in the decreed uses of water to
permit any beneficial use; (2) to seek other water right changes necessary
to maximize the use of water; (3) to develop and implement techniques
designed to permit the reuse, lease, or exchange of City?owned water
decreed for municipal use; (A) to promote the conservation of water
resources to reduce demands on City treatment and distribution facilities;
and (5) to promote the use of rav.r water for irrigation purposes and for
minimum stream flows.

To promote water quality and preserve water quantity in area rivers
and streams, it shall be the policy of the City: ii) to adopt water quality
standards necessary to implement the ordinances designed to protect and
promote water quality; (2) to obtain minimum stream flow decrees for the
City under which all water not used for other purposes is used for
minimum stream flows; (3) to enter into minimum stream flow exchange
agreements with such entities as haze the constitutional power to exercise

those rights until such time as the City obtains its own decrees for this

Bates 002921 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 



purpose; (4) to promote the use of land treatment with waste water and

urban runoff; (5) to encourage on?site detention and use of storm water in
all new developments; (6) to promote the implementation of land use
controls in flood plain areas; and (7) to encourage and promote efficient
water transmission and conveyance facilities through techniques such as
the lining or piping of existing ditches, where desirable and appropriate.

To promote and provide for the orderly development and financial
integrity of City water supply treatment, storage, and distribution
facilities, it shall be the policy of the City of Aspen: (1) to determine the
potential demands for City services and, in conjunction with the promotion
of City and County planning and growth policies, to determine the
necessity and desirability of, and schedules for, expansion to meet those
demands; (2) to develop and establish a capital improvements program
that is integrated with the other goals and policies of the City and is
designed to provide the City with adequate storage, distribution, and
treatment facilities; and (3) 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 Counctl 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 Compre?
hensive Water Management Plan becomes a reality.

This Comprehensive Water Management Plan is adopted with the full

knowledge of past, present, and expected problems regarding growth, land

Bates 002922 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use, and 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 land 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 Fork Valley

in general.

1. POLICY REGARDING AREAS OF POTENTIAL UTILITY SERVICE

A. Designation of Service Area.

 

Attached hereto as Appendix A is a map outlining areas of
existing and potential service by the City of Aspen water utility. It
is determined to be 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 of these persons that the needs
and capabilities of service within these areas be identified. By
designation of areas of potential service, the City is not holding
itself out as willing or able to provide water service to these areas.
The majority of these areas are contiguous to the existing municipal
limits of the City. Historically, the City has annexed contiguous
areas, on a case?by?case basis for nonmutility related reasons,
subsequent to providing water service to those areas, and has also
annexed existing developments which have theretot?ore provided their
own water service. Pursuant to the policies of this Comprehensive

Plan and the Water Main Extension Policy, the City desires that if

Bates 002923 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 



 

and when any area is annexed, it contain water 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 annexes any one
or more such contiguous areas, the City will not be burdened with
the assumption of responsibility for serving and maintaining
inadequate facilities. The service areas 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 then?existing water main extension policy and
shall be subject to adequate water availability and to prior service
to existing customers. The existing and potential service areas, as

shown on Exhibit A, are hereby designated as follows:

1. Original service area of the City of Aspen, including
the incorporated limits of the City and Williams Addition.

2. Present service area of Mountain Valley, Knollwood,
and ASpen Grove.

3. North of Roaring Fork west of Hunter Creek,
including potential service to existing private lines on Red
Mountain, Smuggier Mountain, Pitkin Green, Droste, and
Benedict.

4. 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 Subdivisions.

5. Castle Creek to Maroon Creek, south of State
Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road, including potential service
to Highlands Water Meadowood, and Aspen Tennis

Club.

6. Maroon Creek to Airport, north and south of State
Highway No. 82-: Pfister Subdivision, Airport Business Center,
McBride.

Bates 002924 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 



 

 

7. West of Airport to Brush Creek: Brush Creek
Homeowners.

B. Policy.

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 potential service 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
dictates 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 in 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
extraterritorial water service is the prevention of misallocation of
water utility services caused by the existence of unnecessary
competitive water utilities, the promotion of basinwwide water
resource planning, and an increased reliability of supply for all
customers of the municipal water supply. The prevention of this
misallocation of water utility service caused by the existence of
unnecessary competing water utilities insures to the City and its
citizens the control of vital water rights which is absolutely
essential for the continued reliability of the supply of water for all

municipal water utility users, as well as for sound water

Bates 002925 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management for aesthetic purposes. The prevention of misallocation

of water utility service caused by unnecessary competing water
utilities will also prevent the restrictions and limitations in flow
which result from multiple demands on single sources and will result

in the most efficient use of existing water resources.

Additionally, the inefficiencies resulting from the unnecessary

prohferation 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 the prevention of
misallocation of water utility service caused by unnecessary
competition among water utilities.

The designated areas of potential service are also designed to
promote basin?wide planning. This policy recognizes the fact that
the City of Aspen 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 boundaries 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 basinwwide basis
work to the disadvantage of the City of Aspen and its residents. The
obligation of the governing body of the City of Aspen to promore the
public health, safety, and welfare makes it imperative that
residents and visitors to the City be assured. by the Steps taken

herein, of a pure, constant, and dependable supply of water.

Bates 002926 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 an intergovernmental agreement between the
City and Pitkin County.

The City shall immediately undertake negotiations with the
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County for the purpose of
entering into an intergovernmental contract regarding the principles
governing the extension of water service outside the present City of
Aspen service area.

The intergovernmental contract 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 realiability, when sufficient water supplies and

U)
P)

hy 'cal facilities are available, and when consiStent with the land



us and growth management policies of the City of Aspen and Pitkin

(7.)

County. The contract shall further express 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 without 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. The contract

shall also express the policy and intent of the City of Aspen that if

Bates 002927 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 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 this Water Management Plan. The intergovernmental
contract shall also provide that Pitkin County adopt provisions
similar to those set forth in the Water Quality and Water Rights
Dedication ordinances hereinafter set forth in Section VII, and shall
provide for the use of all water rights dedicated to or acquired by
the County.

Nev.r physical facilities located outside the present areas of
service shall be owned and financed by the City or jointly by the
City and the County as 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 extraterritorial
water service. The City, however, shall reserve the right to set all
water rates and shall be responsible for billing and collecting water
charges and fees.

The utility service connection charge ordinance as set forth in

Sectiwn Vii of this Plan provides for the imposition of utility

Bates 002928 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

connection charges upon all additions to existing structures which

result in an increase in water use. The intergovernmental contract

shall provide for cooperation between the City and the County, so
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. This cooperation
should include adequate record keeping 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.

An intergovernmental contract is necessary to promote the
policies of the City as set forth herein and is'premised on the need
for basinwwide water resource management. City~County cooperation
will provide for the orderly and efficient extension and development
of water service consistent with management and land use
planning. Finally, the City and the County, acting together
pursuant to an intergovernmental contract, will be able to exercise
a greater degree of control over water resources and will therefore
provide a more dependable water supply than either governmental

unit can exercise acting alone.

Bates 002929 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll. PHYSICAL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

A.

Treatment facilities .

 

1.

Policy Concerning Expansion of Treated Water Seer



a. Future treatment plants.

For the purpose of extending treated water service

into extraterritorial areas pursuant to an
intergovernmental contract, 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 from an
economic and engineering vantage point. This policy will
maximize 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
casge Cree?; supplies to additional ?rate and
water use areas.

b. 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

-12-

Bates 002930 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

Health Department shall undertake 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 existing
rate, raw water only, or treated water through a master
meter, to that area until such time as acceptable
arrangements have been made to bring the facilities up
to the standards and quality of the municipal facilities.
The service agreement under which raw water or
wholesale treated water is supplied shall provide a
reasonable limitation on 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 County pursuant to an
intergovernmental contract, of all existing facilities and
adequate water rights to service the new area, and upon
compliance with all ordinances and policies of the City
or County concerning the extension of treated water

service.

Hunter Creek Treatment Plant.

The Hunter Creek treatment plant was consu?ucted as

originally planned in 1977. The plant is a ?OO?gallon per



minute (.9 e.f.s.l or 576,000 gallons per day gravity filter

Bates 002931 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 




i



3
i


I
I

plant with a capability of expansion to 800 gallons per minute
(1.8 at a future date. The plant will utilize the City's
Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water right, which is the
most senior winter (domestic) water right on Hunter Creek. The
water rights necessary to keep the plant in priority with a
firm supply during the late summer and early fall are
available to the City by purchase or exchange. in 1978, the
City took the first step in assuring a dependable year-round
supply at the Hunter Creek Plant by purchasing 0.5 c.f.s. of
the senior right in the Red Mountain Ditch. These water rights
are the most senior irrigation rights on Hunter Creek. Hunter
Creek, with a low mineral content, is advantageous from a
water quality standpoint, particularly in the winter when
Castle Creek and Maroon Creek water is quite hard. The Hunter
Creek treatment plant also will provide an increased service
area capability for the Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain
areas, as well as improved fire fighting capacities. This
latter benefit will improve insurance ratings, and will thus

benefit all residents of the City.

3. Roaring 3?ng Treatment Plant.

The planning and construction of a Roaring Fork
Treatment Plant will increase treated water capacity for the
entire City system by utilizing water rights presently owned
by the City out of the Roaring Fork River, which water rights

are some of the best in the Basin. The Plant will minimize and

_14_

Bates 002932 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 



balance the effect of the City?s demand on area streams by
allocating diversions among four sources (Hunter Creek, Castle
Creek, Maroon Creek, and the Roaring Fork River); will
provide additional treated water capacity; and will provide
service to areas not now capable of being serviced but which
are within the Aspen service area. The Plant will also provide
the capacity to expand treated water service, pursuant to an
intergovernmental contract with the County, into additional
service areas. This treatment facility would be designed to
treat 4 million gallons per day (MGD) and would utilize the
Knollwood Storage Reservoir for distribution into the water
system. This facility will be needed in order to provide for
growth within the City limits, as established by the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), as well as growth levels in
annexed and present service areas of Mountain Valley,
Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and the Williams Addition. The

facilit'r would {150 be seed. to serve Gull) Growth levels for






existing platted lots in the Red Mountain and Smuggler
Mountain Subdivisions, and would serve existing areas
currently providing their own service, such as Pitkin Green,
and potential new developments, such as the Droste
Development and Benedict Development. The Roaring Fork
Treatment Plant would further provide service capability for
GMP levels of growth in the Highlands Water District,

5

lx'leadowood, and the Golf Course.

I
c-


I

Bates 002933 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

4. Castle Creek Treatment Plant.

The Castle Creek Treatment Plant is the City's primary
treatment facility. It is 16 years old and has a rated capa?
city of 7.0 MGD with 1.0 MGD of backwash capacity. The City
is able to exceed the 7.0 MGD capacity to meet existing 12
hour and instantaneous peak demands by using the backwash
capacity and drawing on treated water storage. The drawdown
on existing treated water storage facilities for this pur-
pose, however, leaves no water for fireflows during peak
demand periods. Even if the system is so stressed, it will
not be adequate to meet the projected growth in peak treated
water demands through 1985, and will be insufficient to meet
the project growth in daily demands through 1990. See -

Appendix B.

The rated capacity of the existing facility could be
increased to 8.0 MGD by replacing its present filter beds
with high rate, mixed media filters. The existing facility
must be shut down for this renovation. This means that the
facility must be first expanded, or that the City must risk
reliance on potentially unhealthful well supplies, impose
city wide curtailments, and undertake expensive night work.
The expansion of the facility prior to renovation is the only

practical approach.

The facility can be expanded another 8 MGD by installa-

tion of additional filter beds and the construction of a 24

~16-

Bates 002934 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

inch pipeline from the east side of the clearwell to the
existing Meadowood Pump Station. After renovation and
expansion, the facility will have the capacity to treat 16.0
MGD. This will be sufficient to meet the projected growth in
the daily demand for treated water through 1990 with 50%
redundancy. See Appendix B. Such renovation and expansion
is necessary to provide reliable treated water supplies to
meet existing and projected GMP demands through 1990
throughout most of the Aspen service areas (in-city, Mountain
Valley, Knollwood, Aspen Grove, Smuggler Mountain, Pitkin
Green, Droste, Benedict, Highlands Water District, Meadowood,
the Golf Course area, Pfister Subdivision, the Airport
Business Center and McBride). Such renovation and expansion
could also be part of one alternative for providing service

to Brush Creek.

5. Buttermilk Treatment Plant.

This facility is an alternative to service to the Brush
Creek area and would be located on Buttermilk. In order for
a treatment plant to operate efficiently, a new Maroon Creek
Diversion Dam or alternative facility would have to be
constructed, which would use Maroon Creek water rights. In
addition to the treatment faciltiy itself, this alternative
would require a raw water pipeline from the new diversion
dam, the Tie-Hack 2-million gallon storage tank and new

distribution lines within the area of service.

-17-
Bates 002935 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Purchase of Aspen Sanitation District Plant.

Under the Aspen/Snowmass 201 Waster Water Facilities
Plan (December 1975 and May 1976), the Aspen Sanitation
District waste water treatment plant on Mill Street was sched-

uled to be retired from service by the District in 1980.

The City must negotiate with the District for the
acquisition of this plant for use in treating urban runoff as
contemplated in the Urban Runoff Management Plan, prepared
for the City by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers in August 1973.
The City Manager shall immediately undertake a study of
alternative methods of financing the purchase of this plant,
including the formation of a special improvement district and
the availability of state and federal funds. Although the
expected cost of the Plant may range from $600,000 to
$800,000 in 1979 dollars for the Plant itself, not including
the land it is on, the exact value can only be determined
after detailed discussions with the Aspen Sanitation

District.

The City must acquire and operate this plant to treat
municipal storm water runoff, so as to be in compliance with
the requirements of the Clean Water Act, PL-92-500. The City

water department should operate this facility and recover the

~18-

Bates 002936 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

necessary revenue for its operation. This will prevent the
development of another statutory district to handle the
problem, and will give the City control over its valuable

municipal irrigation and storm water rights.

B. Storage.

Current treated storage reserves are approximately 1,640,000
gallons, consisting of one 1.5 million gallon tank and seven buried
tanks of roughly 20,000 gallons. Depending on the time of day and
location, pumped storage varies from a maximum of 20 hours to as
low as 2 hours. Critical areas exist in Meadowood, Aspen Grove,
Knollwood, and Mountain Valley; and growth has outstripped the
ability of the system to deliver and maintain adequate storage

reserves.
1. Treated water storage.
a. Knoliwood l,000,000 gallon storage reservoir.

Current plans call for construction of this tank at
an elevation of 8,120 feet. on Lots 6 and 7 in the
Knollwood Subdivision. The tank, approximately 30 feet
deep and 75 feet in diameter, would be pure; 
underground. This site is not only an ideal site for the
tank, but is the only feasible site left. Moreover, this
tank is absolutely necessary to provide adequate
service. The City must therefore take whatever action is
necessary to acquire this site and the necessary

"ements. Construction of the Knollwood

0Bates 002937 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 



storage reservoir would supplement the east side water

system and is required to meet current in-City fire and
household demands, the annexed and present service
areas of Mountain Valley, Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and
Williams Addition, present service demands of Red
Mountain and Smuggler Mountain, service for existing
areas currently providing their own service, such as
Pitkin Green, and GMP growth level service needs in the

Red Mountain area.

b. Tiehack Storage Reservoir.
This storage reservoir would be located on property

within the prOposed Pfister Subdivision. Although

currently planned for 2 million gallon capacity, actual
sizing will be dependent upon Brush Creek and down
valley water requirements. it is also required to meet
current levels of service for existing customers within
the Pfister Subdivision, Airport Business Center, and the
McBride Subdivision.

c. Meadowood Treated Water Storage.

Construction of a 250,300 to 500,000 gallon treated

water storage tank is required to provide existing
service demands of the Meadowood Subdivision and the
Golf Course, or potential service to the Highlands Water
District. This storage facility would be designed to
supply water during power outages and to eliminate the

current variable speed pumps.

420?

Bates 002938 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

Additional storage for service area expansion.

As treated water use increases, additional treated
water capacity will be required. To help achieve this
capacity, whenever water service is extended to an area
with treated water storage facilities, the City shall
require the dedication to the City, or to the County
pursuant to an intergovernmental contract, of all such
existing facilities. In the event such facilities do not
exist, or if existing facilities do not meet City
specifications, additional facilities will be financed or
constructed by the developer, pursuant to the

extraterritorial water main extension policy.

Raw water storage .

a. Maroon Creek Reservoir and Castle Creek Reservoir.

The Maroon Creek Reservmr and Castle Creek
Reservoir were conditionally decreed in 1971 for 4,567
acre?feet and 9,062 acre?feet respectively. Elie timing fe?
the construction of were facilities shail 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 also

Bates 002939 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

instrumental to the implementation of City policy

providing for stream flow and aesthetic protection.

1

Utility system shall be such that either or

both reservoirs may be 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
available to ?each reservoir, for the purpose of
determining how to best design, schedule, and utilize
existing system and new 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 ano quantity in Maroon
Creek and Castle Creek during construction and reservoir
filling. The water department shall determine what
system development prerequisites are necessary prior to
commencement 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.

I
ix)
1? 

Bates 002940 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

b. Hunter Creek Reservoir.

The U. 8. Forest Service and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board are in the process of 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 minimum stream flows and this
application. The City shall also continue to investigate
the possibility of acquiring and utilizing this water
right for municipal purposes, including minimum stream
flows, hydroelectric power generation, recreation, and
augmentation and exchange.

c. Snowmass Project.

The City also has available to it (jointly with the
County) three of four components of the Snowmass
Project, located on Snowmass Creek and the Roaring Fork
River. As discussed below. these rights have been
declared abandoned, but are currently on appeal.

d. Additional raw water storage.

in order to further expand its options for future
devgiopment, the City shall actively pursue the

acquisition of anv water storage right in the Roaring

Bates 002941 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

C.

Fork River Basin which becomes available for purchase.

Additionally, the City shall require the dedication of
water storage rights. or the cash equivalent, upon the

extension of treated water service.

Transmission and Distribution

 

1. Maroon Creek Diversion Dam.

The Maroon Creek Diversion Dam is 87 years old and
requires extensive repairs each year to prevent further
deterioration. The existing apron on the dam is 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 has deteriorated t0 the point that it is unable
to divert more than 20% of the capacity of the Maroon Creek
Pipeline, and would therefore prove 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 Highlands 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 be the

ultimate source of supply for Buttermilk snowmaking

operations. Therefore, construction of a new diversion dam is

. 
Hg.


Bates 002942 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

imperative not only to supply the City's filter plant, but also
must be undertaken prior to supplying raw water to the
Highlands Ski Corporation or to the Highlands Water and
Sanitation District. The construction of this diversion dam is
absolutely essential to meet the minimum standards of the
municipal water utility.

Current plans call for replacing the existing wooden dam-
with a concrete structure. The design of this diversion shall
include an analysis of the potential for an Egg direct
connected hydropump? for the generation of electricity for
service area needs. The Maroon Creek Pipeline has been
designed for its full 25 c.f.s. 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 2Scf.s. can be made
available by gravity flow to the Buttermi?k area at the
elevation of the Herrick Ditch. This improvement of the Maroon
Creek Diversion Dam can also serve CMP levels of growth from

Maroon Creek to the Airport.

2. Transmission Mains.

a. South Side transmission main (20" to Wagner Park).
This unoradini of the South side line is necessarv to meet
?55 .4
exiSting and GMP growth demands within the City limits and in

annexed and present service areas of Mountain Valley,

Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and Addition.

H35-

Bates 002943 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

b. South Side transmission main (16" Hunter Street to

Spring and Cooper). This extension of the South Side line is
necessary to serve existing and GMP growth demands within
the City limits and in annexed and present service areas of
Mountain Valley, Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and Williams
Addition.

c. South Side tranmission main (14" Spring and Cooper

to Knollwood Subdivision). This further extension would be

necessary to meet present needs in the annexed and present

service areas of Mountain Valley, Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and
Williams Addition. ~The Southside transmission lines will
provide a dual method of providing water to the system,
achieving needed balance, as well as eliminating the potential
hazards to the City water supply in the event of a line failure
in the existing 20?inch transmission main. This addition, with
the Knollwood extension, will also provide for the backfeed of
water from the proposed Roaring Fork Treatment Facility into
the City of Aspen.

d. Highway 82 to Knollwood Reservoir. This addition,
from the Roaring Fork Treatment Plant, is necessary to serve
those areas to? he served by the plant and the Knollwood
Reservoir. This includes future growth demands within 6MP
limits in Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain, along with
existing areas currently providing their service (such as
Pitkin Green), and GMP grOWth service needs in the Red
Mountain area, principally for new developments (such as the

Dros te Subdivision).

Bates 002944 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

e. Roaring Fork Treatment Plant to Highway 82. This
14?inch extension from the preposed Roaring Fork Treatment
Plant is needed to service GMP growth levels in the City limits
and in annexed and present service areas of Mountain Valley,
Knollwood, ASpen Grove, and Williams Addition, along with
demands in Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain. The line
is also needed to provide service for existing areas presently
providing their own service (such as Pitkin Green), GMP
service needs for potential new development (such as Droste),
and GMP service needs for the Castle Creek to Maroon Creek
area.

f. Maroon Creek Buried Pipeline Crossing. The section of
the Maroon Creek Pipeline currently suspended under the
Maroon Creek Bridge should be replaced with buried pipeline.

This will be necessary to meet current needs and projected GMP

19,615 of growth in the area from Maroon Creek to the Airport.

g. Upgrading of existing transmission lines.

In order to provide for existing service
demands within the City limits. the Cooper Avenue
pipeline will need to be upgraded to 8" ductile iron, the
7th Avenue line will need to be upgraded to 20? ductile
iron, and the Ute Avenue line will need to be upgraded
to 12" ductile iron.

(ii) in order to meet the present service needs of
annexe" and present service areas of Mountain Valley,

Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and Williams Addition, the

Bates 002945 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aspen Grove pipeline will need"- to be upgraded to 8" and

6" ductile iron, the Knollwood line will need to be 8"
and 6" ductile iron, the Riverside line will need to be 8"
and 6" ductile iron, the Hopkins Avenue line will need to
be 8? ductile iron, the Castle Creek line will need to be
6" ductile iron, the Snowbunny line will need to be 8"
ductile iron, the West Meadow line will need to be 6"
ductile iron, the Lake Avenue line will need to be
8? ductile iron, and the Williams Addition line will need
to be upgraded to 8? duct?e iron.

In order to provide continued service to
Meadowood and the Golf Course at existing levels of
demand, or future service to the Highlands Water
District, the Cemetery Lane pipeline (Highwav 82 to North
Snowbunny) will need to be upgraded to 12? ductile iron,
the Castle Creek line will need to be :5 ductile iron (as
above), and the Snc?bzinnv line will need to be 8"
ductile iron (as above).

(iv) In order to meet present system demands in
the Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain areas, the Old
Hunter Creek Pipeline will need to be 12? ductile iron,
and a new Willoghby Way 12" ductile iron line will need
to be constructed. This replacement should be undertaken
in conjunction with construction of the Hunter Creek

Booster Pump.

-23-

Bates 002946 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.

Pumping facilities .

 

Providing water service to the City of ASpen and its
environs presents a unique problem, because planning and
capital construction must be undertaken not only horizontally
but vertically. Certain areas at higher elevations require
pumped water service; and pumping stations require not only
initial capital outlay, but also large maintenance expense. It 
is the policy of the City, as incorporated within this Water
Management Plan, utility connection charge and rate

structures, for those "users served by pumping stations to pay

for the increased costs associated with such service.
Distribution and storage problems associated with high
elevation areas require that special consideration be given to
pumping facilities.

1. Hunter Creek Booster Pump.

This pump station would be constructed in conjunction
with replacement of the Old Hunter Creek Pipeline and
expansion of the Hunter Creek Treatment Plant and will be
necessary in order to adequately meet present system demands

on Red Mountain and Smuggler Mountain.

2. Knollwood Pump Station.

This pump station, constructed in conjunction with the

Knollwood l?millionugallon storage tank, is necessary in order

to meet current in?City fire and household demands; the

Bates 002947 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

annexed and present service areas of Mountain Valley,
Knollwood, Aspen Grove, and Williams Addition; present service
demands of Red Mountain and Smuggler. Mountain; service for
existing areas currently providing their own service, such as
Pitkin Green; and GMP growth level service needs in the Red

Mountain a rea.

 

E. 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
I 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 residents of its service area. Therefore, the City 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 carry out

 

the City's longstanding practice of using of raw water for all

a non?house related water needs, without suffering the adverse
a -30-

. Bates 002948 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consequences which would result from the use of raw water

supplies for in?house related uses. The continual implementa-



Ava r~


4.).

policy ?ss?ili permit the ?-iaximum supply of quality

3

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
recognition 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 uses shouldrbe
curtailed.

The irrigation ditch network is also necessary to
implement that portion of the treated water rate ordinance
hereafter set forth in Section VII which is .designed to
encourage the use of raw water for lawn irrigation by water

utility customers .

2. Raw water ditches and other diversion structures.
a. Roaring Fork River.
(1) Wheeier Bitch and East Aspen City Ditch.

The Wheeler Ditch and East Aspen City Ditch
were decreed in 1889 for 10 c.f.s. and 6 
respectively, for irrigation, stock watering, and
domestic uses. The diversion structure on the
Roaring Fork shall be re-deveIOped to provide the

capability of continuing to divert the entire amount

-31-

Bates 002949 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to which the City is entitled. This development

shall also include provisions for adequate
measurement and bypassing of water for minimum

stream flows.

(2) Nellie Bird Ditch.

The Nellie Bird Ditch is a relatively senior
water right, decreed in 1936 for 3.94 c.f.s. 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, .65 c.f.s. 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 approprate
ii

transfer is secured, this water right she; be used

by exchange at the Wheeler?East Aspen City ditches
point of diversion, thus providing added
supplementation of senior water to the Wheeler?East
Aspen Ditch for use in the City and 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

means by the City of Aspen.

Bates 002950 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Hunter Creek.

(1) Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline.

The Hunter Creek Flume and Pipeline water
right was decreed in 1936 and 1949 for 15 c.f.s.
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 application in Water Court, with the
Colorado Water Conservation Board as co-applicant,
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 .

(2) Red Mountain Ditch.

In 1978 the City acquired 0.5 c.f.s. of the

Red Mountain Ditch Priority No. 90 water right

(.05 c.f.s. was dedicated pursuant to a water
rights dedication agreement, the balance was
_33_

Bates 002951 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.

purchased by the City). This right is one of the
most senior water rights on Hunter Creek and
provides the City with the needed assurance that it
will be able to legally divert water from Hunter
Creek during low flows. The City, together with the
Colorado Water Conservation Board as co?applicant,
filed in the Water Court for Division No. to
transfer this right to municipal and minimum
stream flow 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 stream flow and irrigation
uses will be subject to the City's municipal use.
The City shall continue to cooperate with the
licensees of this water right to assure its maximum

utilization for all beneficial uses.

Castle Creek.

Midland Flume and Castle Creek Flume.

h.

The Midland Flume was decreed in 1892 for
100 c.f.s. for irrigation, domestic, and other
purposes. The Castle Creek Flume was decreed in
1892 for 50 c.f.s. for irrigation, domestic, and
other purposes. These water rights are used to
supply raw water to the Castle Creek filter plant.

lnvestigaticn of the use of this water for

Bates 002952 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

(2) Holden and Marolt Ditches.

The Marolt Ditch was decreed in 1934 for
18.6 c.f.s. for irrigation purposes; and the Holden
Ditch was decreed in 1952 for 30.0 c.f.s. for
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 plans and drawing prepared by
the Engineering Department of the City, entitled
"Holden/Marolt Ditches? (Number 815?10, 1976
revision). These ditches supply water to the
municipal golf course, the golf course ponds, and
other land located west of Castle Creek. These
ditches and the improvements thereto are necessarv
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 implementing the City's rate ordinance
set form in this Plan. The baiance of the water in

these ditches should be acquired by appropriate

Bates 002953 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

means and at the approprate time to facilitate ease
of operation, 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.

(3) Si johnson. 

The Si Johnson Ditch was decreed in 1936 for
5.5 for irrigation purposes. The City owns
approximately 2.5 c.f.s. of this water right, which
diverts 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 should
require the dedication of water rights, pursuant to
an agreement under the water rights dedication
ordinance. Sucn 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.

The City shall continue its policy of

maintaining the irrigation ditch network. A study

Bates 002954 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

shall be undertaken for the expansion of the ditch
network, including an investigation of water rights
available to supply such an expansion, such as

the transfer and use of Midland and Castle Creek

 

Flume water rights for this purpose. The balance

of the water in these ditches should be acquired by

 

approprate means and at the appropriate time to
facilitate ease of operation, 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



I
i

utilization.

 

. Maroon Creek .

(1) Nestell?Pierson.

 

Decrees and agreements have set forth the

 

City ownership of this senior water right on Maroon
Creek. It is imperative that he 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 snail immediately seek to remove any

cloud upon the City ownership of and right to use

i
i
i
i

the entirety of this watertight. The staff shall

 

?2 7 
a Bates 002955 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

utilize such options for the implementation of this

task as are in the best interest of the City.

(2) Maroon Ditch.

This water right was decreed in 1949 for

 

65 c.f.s. for other than irrigation use. The Maroon

Ditch, which diverts through the Maroon Creek

 

Diversion Dam, discussed previously, was

 

reconstructed in 1974 as a pipeline. The possible

use of this water right for hydroelectric power

 

generation, in conjunction with the reconstruction

I 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 also be investigated.

 

e. Other diversion structures.

 

Aspen Ditch.

 

The ASpen Ditch was decreed in 1889 for

5 c.f.s. for irrigation, domestic, and stock

 

watering uses. This water right diverts from Spar
Gulch and the Roaring Fork River. For the purpose

of supplying raw water for snowmaking and other

 

uses, the conversion of the Aspen Ditch water right
point of diversion to one or two wells, to be

drilled and constructed in the future. shall be



3
i
i

Bates 002956 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i
i

i
i
i
i

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.

(2) Durant Ditch.

The Durant Ditch is a junior decree secured
by the City for the flows of water from certain
water sources on Aspen 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,
shall be appropriately acquired. The water shall
be used to supplement the water needs of Glory
Hole Park, Ute Children Park, Ute Cemetery, Aspen

Mall, and snowmaking on Aspen Mountain.

Wells 2 3, and 

Well Nos. 2 and 3, located on Mill and
Springs Streets, respectively, are decreed for
a total of 4.46 c.f.s. Well No. 4, located
near Little Nell, is decreed for .65 c.f.s.
absolute and 2.64 c.f.s. conditional. The
City suspended the use of these wells for

municipal in?~house uses in 1965, when the

Bates 002957 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado State Department of Heal?i declared
the grounrhyater front these wells unfit for
human consununion. The wens have remained
in service for other direct and. staruiby
services. Well Nos. 2 and 3 should
be rnanneined in opera?onal order and the
water tested to ascertain ivhether its quality
is acceptab_e for irrigation, construction
truck \Mater, street washing truck: use, and
other nuuncipal uses. The Lmihty department
is directed, to the extent possible, to pernut
street trashing zand construction trucks to fiH
front Wells Nos. 2 arui 3. The charge for that
service shall be ?Une one time flat rate set
for?i in the rate schedule ordinance. These
wells shall also be ut?ized.for the irrigation
of adjacent Ciug proper?; and for the
irrigatUNi of the County Rio Grande property
pursuant t: an intergovernn?ntal contract to
be negotiakxi between the City of Aspen and
PiH?n County.

(Dnce utilized. for irrigatiori of the
County Rio Grande property, this ?water,
along w?th liheeler and. East Aspen Ditch
water ii?lized in tae {nail areei and chrected

to the Rio (Stande property, and. in

-40-

Bates 002958 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

a

conjunction with the water from Wells 2 and
3, shall be utilized for mechanical and

in?plant purposes at the Aspen Sanitation

 

District plant.

Utilization of the 2.66. c.f.s.

 

conditionally decreed to Well No. .4 shall be

 

achieved either by redrilling Well No. A to

increase its capacity or by drilling another

 

well and transferring the conditional right to

the ?other structure. In the event Well No. 4

 

is not used to supply raw water to the Aspen
I Ski Corporation for snowmaking purposes, the

consideration of the possible uses of the

 

water from Wells 2 and 3 should then include

the water decreed to this well.

 

Since these wells are also decreed for
domestic and munieipai uses, the City shall

also :zilmediately investigate the development

1

of these was? right-3 fcz? all uses during the

now-irrigation sea son .

 

(ii) The Anthony Well.

The Anthony Well (.168 c.f.s) was

 

acquired by the City pursuant to an

annexation agreement. This well shall be

 

used to provide domestic wine': service

 

 

Bates 002959 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

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 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, encourage
the utilization of raw water for uses which
do not require treated water, provide added

low?cost revenu to the City, and promote



open space ar_as within the City of Aspen.

F. Hydroelectric Power Generation.

 

The investigation of the feasiblity of hydroelectric power
generation in conjunction with the development of the Maroon,
Castle, and Hunter Creek Reservoirs and the Maroon Cieek diversion
dam has been previously discussed. Additionally, the City may have
available to it, through assignment from the Colorado River Water
Conservation District, hydroelectric power from the Snowaiass Project,
discussed below. The Director of Treatment and Supply shall also
report to the Council concerning the feasibility of the construction of

low head on~stream hydroelectric generation plants at other water

 

Bates 002960 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

supply intakes, including the Castle Creek diversion dam, the Castle
Creek hydroelectric station, the Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt
intakes on Castle Creek, and the Hunter Creek and Roaring Fork
diversion dams and intake structures. On?stream hydroelectric power
generation provides a pollutionwfree source of energy in conjunction
with other water uses and results in the comprehensive utilization of
water resources. On?stream power generation preserves stream flows
and minimizes environmental distruptions to the greatest.extent

possible.

G. Land Treatment.

 

The use of secondary 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 safe and productive
method of sewage disposal and reflects the conservation ethic upon
which this Water Management Plan is premised. Land treatment

maximizes the 



of w7e: resistors, creams opportunities for
minimum stream flow preservation, increases the capacity of
receiving waters to dilute any treated waste water that is
discharged into 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 .

-43-

 

Bates 002961 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wright?McLaughlin Engineers has recommended land treatment
as a viable method of tertiary treatment, and this position was
supported by the Aspen/Snowmass 201 Wastewater 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
try?plant tertiary treatment would not be required in the summer. It
would also benefit water users on the Ditch, who would receive
nutrient?rich water. This secondary effluent would be exchanged for
water out of the Salvationnand/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 stream flows 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 be left in Hunter
Creek, borh for minimum flows and for diversion and use at the
Hunter Creek Plant. Upon development of the Roaring Fork Plant. the
use of the Red Mountain and Salvation Ditches would permit the City
to move water upstream by exchange to the Roaring Fork Plant as
well. Such exchange programs 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 program should save the City

Significant sums of money by helping to forestall Construction of raw

Bates 002962 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

water storage, or the condemnation or purchase 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 continue to be pursuedthe policy of the City of Aspen to provide for the general
upgrading of City water utility facilities. The City staff shall, on a
continuing basis, upgrade the system by making improvements such
as the elimination of linedeaks, installation of emergency by-pass
lines, equipment overhauls, general renovation, pump station
improvements, ruptured main repairs, street and curb valve box
repairs and replacements, fire hydrant installation, replacement and

improvement, etc .

Bates 002963 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

Ill. WATER RIGHTS

A. Acouisition.
1. City Service Area.

To prevent the misallocation 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
I 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 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 .

 

A study shall be immediately undertaken to identify all

water rights senior to City water rights on Hunter, Maroon,

 

and Castle Creeks and the Roaring Fork River. The study shall
result in a report identifying those senior rights which present
a potential conflict to City water supplies. The City shall then
actively party: the conveyance, by purchase or otherwise. of

those water rights.

11'
tub..?

 

Bates 002964 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to the authority granted the City in
C.R.S. 1973, (1975 Cumm. Supp.), the City
shall prohibit the use of any wells 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 be 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.

2. Water Rights Dedication.

To ensure an 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 upon the of treated or raw
water service to new consumers. This policy shall be

implemented by the ordinance hereafter set forth.

Adjudications.
1. Golf Course Ponds.

An application for water storage righ

(-9
{fr

for the lb ponds

- v. 
located all. tne MuniCipa~ uOlf Course Was tiled in

Bates 002965 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

December 1976. The adjudication of these water storage rights
is necessary to ensure a continued supply of water in these
ponds for use for irrigation and all other municipal purposes,
including domestic, aesthetic, recreational, and fish, game

and wildlife propagation purposes.

2. All unadjudicated store-?Ye 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 those water rights have been adjudicated. All
I unadjudicated water rights within the City service area shall

be adjudicated and aspropriated for the benefit and use of the

 

C. Conditional Water Rights.

 

1. Castle Creek Reservoir and Maroon Creek Reservoir.
As discussed earlier, development of these reservoirs
represents the final step in the overall system aevelopment and

is vitally necessary in order to ensure a reliable water supply

a

in ucsescive drou



at years. To pursue the oi

..

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 quadrennial finding of

reasonable diligence is due in February 19-51. The City shall

 

Bates 002966 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

ensure that these conditional water rights are maintained until

such time as they are made absolute.
2 0 Trial}. . ?1 0

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.

 

3. Snowmass Project.

In 1977, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County were jointly

a if. - "m .. . 
assigned Lion: the Colciaco Rye, mate: conservation District

(.1

three of the four conditional water rights

 

encompassing the Snowmass Project, a hydroelectric and

multiv?purpose storage project with components located on

 

Snowmass Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The water rights
decreed to the Snowmass Project are:

a . Paepcke Forebay

 

. Gerbaz Conduit

c. Pabst Reservoir

 

Pabst Power Conduit

*Reserved by in the conditional assignment.

 

i, 

A failure by me enact; to inclut?le the power component

 

water right reserved in the assignment (the Pabst Power

 

 

Bates 002967 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.

Conduit) in an earlier application for quadrennial diligence
resulted in this water right being canceled by the Water
Court, in a decision upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The remaining three conditional water rights assigned to the
City and the County were recently canceled by the Water Court
due to a failure by the to develop the rights with
reasonable diligence during the period May 1972 April 1976.
This period was prior to the conditional assignment of these
rights to Aspen and Pitkin County. The Water Court's ruling is

presently before the Colorado Supreme Court on appeal.

Transfer and Augmentation Proceedings.

1. Hunter Creek Treatment Plant.

The City shall continue to pursue the acquisition of a
dependable year?round supply of raw water to the Hunter
Cr::k Treaffsent Plant, consistent with the preservation of
environmental, recreational, and aesthetic values on Hunter
Creek. Additionally, the City shall continue to explore the
pcssibilitv oz? acquiring storaoe ricthii on Hunter Creek to meet

4 

these goals.

2. 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 raw

water will be available to the plant upon its completion.



Bates 002968 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

3. Snowmaking Water Supply Contract.

If a transfer or other change of water rights is
necessary for the purpose of supplying water for snowmaking

or 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

 

preceedings shaii, if neces



ary, include we transfer of the

conditionally decreed water right of Well No. .4, or the Aspen

 

Ditch water rinht to an alternate point of diversion, as more

fully discussed in the? succeeding sections.

I 4. 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 pursuant to an
intergovernmental contract, the Water Court proceedings
required to provide a legal supply of water at the needed

location shall be undertaken.

T1

:3 . Contractual Arrangements.

 

l. 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
acceptaole agreement should provide for: the conveyance by the

Hijhlinds Ski Corporation ct water rigi?fs owned by Hinhlands



-51-

 

Bates 002969 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and formerly carried in the Maroon 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 water is
sold by the City, in the cost of construction of the pipeline.
The pipeline was originally bid at both a 25 c.f.s. and a
40 c.f.s. 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 c.f.s.
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.

2. Hi hlands Water and Sanitation District.
8

r-r

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

intergovernmental contract, shall explore with the Highlands

Bates 002970 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 cast. in lieu of water rights
dedication payments are made, for the purpose of satisfying

the City's policy concerning the dedication of water rights.
3. 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 ri icient? 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 physical
delivery limitations may require that treated water be supplied
initially for snowmaking use, the City shall reserve the right
to supply raw water for this purpose to permit the subsequent

development of other potential sources of supply, such as Well

No. 4.

4. Exchange Contracts.

To promote the maximum utilization of City water
resources, it shall be the policy or the City to negotiate the

execution of annual exchange agreements for the

Bates 002971 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

maintaining minimum stream flows and other uses 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 Creel; Plume
and Pipeline water right and the City's interest in the Red
Mountain Ditch water right to the CWCB for minimum stream
flow purposes on Hunter Creek when those rights are not

needed for municipal use by the City.

F. Change of Water Rights Applications.

 

 

To insure flexibility and to promote the goals of this

Comprehensive Water Management Plan, the City shall file in the

 

Water Court the change of water right applications necessary to

permit the use of City?owned water resources for all beneficial

 

purposes, including minimum stream flows, and to permit the use of

City?owned water resou?ces at alternate points of diversion. A study

 

 

 

 

shall be immediately undertaken to determine which water
right should be the subject of these proceedings.


 

Bates 002972 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. SPECIFIC SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF POTENTIAL SERVICE AREAS

This section analyzes specific development proposals
and projections, outlines the facilities and improvements
necessary to serve those developments, and estimates the.
capital costs of those various facilities in terms of the
principles and guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth
Management Policy Plan, as well as the policies contained in

this Comprehensive Water Management Plan.

The outline set forth immediately below provides a more
specific breakdown of the facilities needed in each service
area, and estimates the capital costs of these facilities.
The costs in this outline are the costs of construction in
1980 only and do not reflect engineering costs which
will be incurred in design, planning, and inspection. In
addition, certain legal expenses are not included in this
outline. These legal expenses relate to land acquisition,
securing necessary federal and state permits, water right
acquisitions, water court proceedings, or other matters which

will arise concurrently with given projects.

Each proposed new facility or improvement can be iden?
tified to one or more areas which it will serve. For
example, certain major system improvements, such as the
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam Replacement, are neceesary to serve

all areas. Other projects, such as the upgrading of the Ute

-55-

Bates 002973 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avenue distribution line, are only necessary to serve a
small area. The outline identifies which projects are

necessary to serve which areas.

The projects for each service area have also been broken
down into those serving present needs and those serving
future needs. The projects set forth under the first sub?
category under each service area in the outline represent
those improvements which must be made to meet current demands
on the system. They are necessary even if no additional
water service is provided by the City. The improvements
given under the second subcategory under each service area in
the outline are those projects necessary to serve future
growth in each service area. Thus, the outline provides the
City and its taxpaying citizens with an awareness of the
costs and facilities necessary to provide water service to

new customers in any given area.

It will be noted that several proposed facilities are
duplicated in several categories in the outline immediately
below. Under this format, the project requirements of each
service area may be analyzed as a separate unit, and alter-
natives may be weighed with regard to the total costs related
to each individual service area. As a practical matter,
several decisions regarding service area improvements will be
made simultaneously. The recommendations and policies pre?

sented in this section should also allow for an assessment of

-56..

Bates 002974 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

the costs to serve present needs in each area with a

knowledge of the costs which will be incurred in the future

 

to service new demands.

 

Current and projected needs in each of the service areas

are based upon existing levels of demand and upon anticipated

 

growth projections under the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth

Management Policy Plan with adjustments to include employee

 

housing. Capital contributions from utility connection

 

charges and water rates will pay for those facilities

necessary to serve present and future needs. Under the

 

utility connection charge ordinance proposed herein, connection
I charges will fund the capital costs of those facilities

necessary to serve new customers in each service area. Under

 

the water rate ordinance, also proposed herein, all

water users, both current and future, will contribute to the

 

payment of the capital costs of those facilities necessary to

serve present needs.

 

-57-

 

Bates 002975 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

Original Service Area of the City of Aspen, including the
incorporated l?n?s ofthe City and Wiuiams AddiUQn.

a. In order to meet present levels of denmuid within this
category, including the service demands of the other
categories at pre:ent levels of service and, in the absence of
any growth, the City must constmactthe ??lowing:

1090

Cost

in?llons



of dollars)

 

Maroon Creek Diversion Danireplacement $0.400
Install 20" line to existing Wagner Park 16" line 0.135

Install 16" line from ihinter Creek to
Spring Streeteand Cooper Street 0.063

 

$0.598

b. in order to rneet growth levels established byt<3MP,
including employee housing, for ?U?s area, the ??lowing
facihties must be constructed:

1980
Cost



of dollars)

 

Cas?e Creek Water Treatment
Plant expansion $1.000

Cas?e Creek water Treatment Plant
renovation 0.250

Upgradec??Exis?ng Pipehnes:

Hopkins'Avenue n, 35

Lake Avenue. 0.030

Cooper Avenue 0.060

7th Avenue 0.030

Ute Avenue 0.035
?58?

Bates 002976 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roaring Fork Water Treatment Plant 2.000

14minch pipeline from treatment

 

facility to Highway 82 0.075

14?inch pipeline to Knollwood

Subdivision 0.192

Water Right Acquisition (Roaring .

Fork) 0.500

Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600


Present Service Area of Mountain Valley, Knollwood, and
Aspen Grove.

a. In order to meet present levels of demand within this
category, including the service demands of the other
categories at present levels of service and, in the absence of
any growth, the City must construct the following:

1980
Cost
lmillions
of dollars)
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam replacement $0.400
Knollwood 1 million gallon storage reservoir 0.5,00
Knollwood Pump Station 0.1L0
Install 20" line to existing Wagner Park:
16" line 0.135
Install 16? line from Hunter Street to
Spring Street and Cooper Street 0.063
14" pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision 0.192
ASpen Grove 20,000 gallon storage 0.0.40
$1-330

Bates 002977 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. lr1 order to Ineet grovnli levels established lay the
GMP, including employee housing, for Hus area, the R?lowing

facil?ies must be constructed:

Cas?e Creek Water Treatment Plant expansion
Cas?e Creek water Treatment Plant renovation
Roaring Fork Water Treatment Plant

Knollwood n?llion gallon storage reservoir
Knollwood tnunp station

14-inch pipeline from treatment facihty
to Higlnvay 82

14-inch pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision
{Jpgrade of existNig pipelines:

Aspen Grove

Knollwood

RiverSide

lkehiition
Water Right Acquis?ion (Maroon Creek}

Water Right Acquis?ion (Roaring Fork)

-t,Cy_

1980
CoSt
inullions

of doiiE?ES)

 

$1.000
0.250
2.000
0.400

0.100

Bates 002978 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

3. North of Roaring Fork west of Hunter Creek, including
potential service to existing private lines on Red Mountain,
Smuggler Mountain, Pitkin Green, Droste, and Benedict:

 

a. To meet present levels of demand in this area,
including the service demands of other areas at present levels
of service, absent of growth, the City must construct the

 

 

 

 

 

 

following:
1930
Cosr
lmillions
of dollars)
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam $0.400
Hunter Creek Treatment Plant expansion 0.100
Willoughby Way pipeline 0.110
Old Hunter Creek pipeline 0.035
I Hunter Creek booster pump 0.100
Old Hospital connection 0.050

 

Upgrade existing pipelines within the

 

 

new service area 0.400
Droste treated water storage 0.250
11+? pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision ?91719?

$1.537

b. To meet GMP levels of growth for existing platted
lots, the City will have to construct the following facilities;

r?J

080

Cost
(millions


 

 

Castle Creek Water Treatment Facility expansion $1.000

Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant renovation 0.250

Roaring Fork Twater Treatment Plant 2.000

Maroon Cc- Diversion Dam 0.430
_51_

 

Bates 002979 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14? pipeline from the Roaring Fork

Treatment Plant to Highway 82 0.075
Droste treated water storage 0.250
Water Right Acquisition (Roaring Fork) 0.500

$4.475

North of State Highway 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 Subdivisions.

a. To meet present levels of demand in this area,
including the service demands of other areas at present levels
of service, absent of growth, the City must construct the
following:

1980
Cost


of dollars)

 

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam replacement $0.400

Install 20" line to existing Wagner Park

16" line 0.135
lnstall 16" line from Hunter Street to

Spring Street and Cooper Street 0.063
14" pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision 0.192

Upgrade of existing pipelines:

r?

 

Castle reek 0.050
Snow Bunny 0.055
West Meadow 0.025
Cemetery Lane 0.130
$1.050

-62..

Bates 002980 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. in order to meet growth levels established by the
GMP, including employee housing, for this area, the following
facilities must be constructed:

 

1980
Cost
mlions
of dollars
Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant expansion $1.000
Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant renovation 0.250
Roaring Fork Water Treatment Plant 2.000
14?inch pipeline from treatment facility
to Highway 82 0.075
Cemetery Lane upgrade 0.130
1.4?inch pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision 0.192
Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
Water Right Acquisition (Roaring Fork) 0.500


Castle Creek to Maroon Creek, south of State Highway No. 82
and Castle Creek Road, including potential service to
Highlands Water District, Meadowood and Aspen Tennis Club.

a. To provide continued service to this area at existing
levels of demand, including the connection of additional
facilities Highlands) onto the system, the City must
construct:

1980


(millions


 

Meadowood Treated Water Storage $0.150
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam 
330-550

?63_

Bates 002981 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. To provide services at GMP levels of growth,
including employee housing, the City will have to construct
the following:

1980
Cost
(millions

of dollars)

 

Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant expansion $1.000
Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant renovation 0.250
Roaring Fork Water Treatment Plant 2.000
14?inch pipeline to Knollwood Subdivision 0.192
Meadowood Treated water storage 0.150

14?inch pipeline from the Roaring Fork Plant

to Highway 82 0.075
Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
Water Right Acquisition (Roaring Fork) 

$4.767

Maroon Creek to Airport, north and south of State Highway
No. 82: Pfister Subdivision, Airport. Business Center, McBride.

a. To meet current levels of service for existing
cascomers within this service area, the City will have to
construct:

195-0

ost
(millions
of doila rs)



 



 

Maroon Creek Water Pipeline crossing 0.100
Upgrade Maroon Creek pipeline to river crossing 0.275
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam 
Tieheck 2 million gallon Storage reservoir 0.800
Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
$2.175

-54_

Bates 002982 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

b. Unless this service is in conjunction with service to
Brush Creek, to meet service demands by GMP levels of growth
within the area of Maroon Creek to the Airport, including
employee housing, the City will have to construct:

1980

Cost
millions



 

 

Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant expansion $1.000
Castle Creek Water Treatment Plant renovation 0.250
Tiehack 2 million gallon storage reservoir 0.800
Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
$2.650
I 7. West of Airport to Brush Creek: Brush Creek Homeowners.

a. To provide service to the existing 45 homes in Brush
Creek Village and to be capable of providing service to 
levels of growth for the balance of the 62 lots yet to be
developed within Brush Creek Village, including employee
housing, the City will have to construct one of the following:

 

 

i1) - -

-.. mam-oi; creek treaZment facility located on
Buttermilk with the following features:

CO
CD

 

19


(millions

 

I

(n
.1

 

 

 

 

?otlars)
Maroon Creek Diversion Dam $0.400
Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
Raw water pipeline 0.900
Buttermilk treatment plant 1.000
Tiehack 2 million gallon storage tank 0.800

 

DlSIrlbUt?lOl?i lines (within Brush Creek
Subdivision 32,100 linear feet) l.100

 

 

 

Bates 002983 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brush Creek transmission lines (Highway 82

and Snowmass Road) 0.800

Brush Creek 1 mg. storage reservoir and

pump station 0.700
$6.300

or,

(2) Enlarge the existing Castle Creek Plant with the
following features:

1980

Cost
(millions
of dollars)

Castle Creek Plant expansion and renovation $1.250

New Maroon Creek transmission line to

Maroon Creek crossing 0,275
Maroon Creek crossing 0.100
Tiehack 2 million gallon storage tank 0.800

Brush Creek transmission lines
(Highway 82 and Snowmass Road

14,600 linear feet) 0.800

Distribution lines within Brush Creek

Subdivision (32,100 linear feet) 1.100

Brush Creek 1 mg. storage reservoir and

pump station 0.700

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam 0.1100

Water Right Acquisition (Maroon Creek) 0.600
$6.025

-55-

Bates 002984 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

V. ORIGINALLY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

 

A tenwyear schedule for the planning, design and

construction of all of the projects outlined above is

 

essential to the orderly and rational development of the

City's water utility system and for the fulfillment of this

 

Plan. Such a ten?year framework is set forth in Table 1

 

below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~67~

 

Bates 002985 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

-68-

Bates 002986 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

TABLE NO. 1

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

 

 

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION

CONSTRUCTION

1980

Knollwood M.G. (Land Acquisition

14" Pipeline to Knollwood Start

1981

 

l4" Pipeline to Knollwood?Complete
Knollwood M.G. Storage

Knollwood Pump Station

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam

Aspen Grove 20,000 gallon Storage
Tank

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION l980~l990

PLANNING - LEGAL

Knollwood M.G. Storage Tank
Knollwood Pump Station
14" Pipeline to Knollwood

Plan Maroon Creek Diversion
Dam and Acquire 404 Permit

Castle Creek Plant Expansion
Plan Maroon Creek Crossing
and Acquire 404 Permit
Meadowood 0.25 M.G. Storage

Water Right Acquisition
Maroon Creek

Castle Creek Plant Expansion
Tiehack 2 M.G. Reservoir
Willoughby Way

20" to Wagner Park

16" Hunter to Spring Cooper

DESIGN

Knollwood M.G. Storage Tank
Knollwood Pump Station

13" Pipeline to Knollwood

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam
Aspen Grover 20,000 gallon
Storage Tank
Maroon Creek Crossing
Meadowood 0.25 M.G. Storage
1981 Sytems Upgrade
Knollwood
Williams Addition
Cooper Ave.
Tiehack 2 M.G. Reservoir
Willoughby Way
20" to Wagner Park
16" Hunter to Spring Cooper
1982 Systems Upgrade

Old Hospital Connection
Older Hunter Creek Line

?cyan-1n

 

~69?

Sam wm? mam Hum law: Imam was nun aw. main Emmi

 
 
 
 

TABLE NO. 1 continued

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1980-1990

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING - LEGAL DESIGN

Water Right Acquisition
(Maroon Creek)

0.25 Storage

1981 Systems Upgrade
Knollwood
Williams Addition
C00per Ave.

1982

 

Tiehack 2 M.G Reservoir Castle Creek

Castle Creek Plant Expansion
to River Crossing Pipeline

Willoughby Way Castle Creek

River Crossing Pipeline

20" to Wagner Park 1983 Systems Upgrade

16" Hunter to Spring Cooper 7th Avenue

Aspen Grove
Riverside
Cemetery Lane

1982 Systems Upgrade
Old Hospital Connection
Old Hunter Creek Lane
Ute Avenue

1983

 

Castle Creek Expansion?Begin Droste 0.50 M.G. Reservoir Castle Creek Renovation

Bates 002987 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

Castle Creek to River 
Crossing Pipeline Hunter Creek Plant Expansion Hunter Creek Plant Expansion



-70-

Bates 002988 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

TABLE NO. 1 - continued

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1980-1990

CONSTRUCTION PLANNING LEGAL DESIGN

1983 Systems

7th Avenue
Aspen Grov
Riverside

Upgrade Brush Creek Distribution Hunter Creek Pump Station

Brush Creek 1 M.G. Reservoir 1984 Systems Upgrade
West Hopkins
Castle Creek

Cemetery Lane Snowbunny

1984

 

Castle Creek
Complete

Castle Creek
Hunter Creek
Hunter Creek
1984 Systems
West Hopki
Castle Cre

Snowbunny

1985

 

Castle Creek
Complete

Droste 0.50 

Brush Creek Transmission Main

Plant-Expansion Roaring Fork Plant Droste 0.50 M.G. Reservoir

Brush Creek Distribution
Plant Renovation~Begin

Brush Creek 1 M.G. Reservoir
Plant Expansion

Brush Creek Transmission Main
Pump Station

1985 Systems Upgrade
Upgrade West Meadow
ns Lake Avenue
8k Pitkin Green

Plant Renovation? Roaring Fork Plant
Water Rights Acquisition
Roaring Fork

.6. Reservoir

 

-71-

Bates 002989 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 
 
 

CONSTRUCTION
Brush Creek Distribution
Brush Creek Tansmission Main
1985 Systems Upgrade
West Meadow
Lake Avenue

Pitkin Green

1986

1987

 

Roaring Fork PlantuBegin
l4" Roaring Fork~Highway 82

Water Right Acquisition (Roaring
Fork)

1988

 

Roaring Fork Plant?Complete

1989

 

Buttermilk Plant~Begin

 

  
  
 

TABLE NO. 1 continued
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION l980~1990

PLANNING LEGAL DESIGN

Buttermilk Plant Roaring Fork Plant

Maroon Creek Raw Water 14? Roaring Fork?Highway 82
Pipeline

Buttermilk Plant

Maroon Creek Raw Water
Pipeline

Buttermilk Plant

Maroon Creek Raw Water Pipelin

Maroon Creek Raw Water-Pipeline Begin

 

Bates 002990 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

I
\1



 
 

CONSTRUCTION

1990

 

Buttermilk Plant?Complete

 

 
 
 
 
 

TABLE NO. 1 continued
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION l980~1990

PLANNING - LEGAL

Maroon Creek Raw Water?Pipeline Complete

 

 

 

DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix is a graphic illustration of the above
breakdown of facilities and capital costs. This matrix
identifies facilities which will serve more than four areas
as "common" facilities, and labels those projects with green
dots. The Maroon Creek Diversion Dam which is necessary for
every service area is so labled. Facilities which will ser?
vice between two and four areas are labeled with yellow dots
and are called "interrelated." The Knollwood 1 M.G.
Reservoir is such an interrelated facility. ?Unique" facilin
ties, labeled in orange, will only serve one service area.
The upgrade of the Ute Avenue distribution line is an example

of a unique facility.

The "future" and "present" water demands in each
service area on the matrix are expressed in EQR (Equivalent
Residential Unit). An EQR is a unit which uses standard
engineering formulas and national data to establish the
potential demand of various water consuming fixtures. It
represents the water use associated with one singlewfamily
house, occupied by 3.4 people, with a sink and dishwasher,
clothes washer, two bedrooms, one full bathroom, and up to
2,500 square of irrigated lawns and gardens. This unit
can also be used to quantify commercial, multifamily,

industrial, and other water demands.

Although the EQR number for ?present" needs in each ser?
vice area on the matrix is based on present population

figures it is more useful than a population figure, because

~713~

Bates 002991 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it represents the potential water demand of a certain popula-
tion. The EQR numbers for ?present" needs on the matrix are
consistent with the City Water Department records of actual

water demands through 1980.

The improvements under the ?future" needs categories on
the matrix are those projects necessary to serve further
growth in each service area. The EQR number for "future"
needs in each service area is based on the growth projec?
tions in the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Plan with
adjustments to include employee housing. The specific basis
for all the EQR allocations shown on the matrix is set out in
Appendix D. These allocations were made in 1980 and are sub"

ject to review.

The costs of construction shown on the matrix are
inflated costs which are derived by inflating the cost of
construction in 1980 by 15% per year to the year of sche?
duled completion. The year of scheduled completion is taken
from the general schedule set out in Table 1 above. The
costs on the matrix do not include design, planning and engi?
neering costs, which are separately totaled in Tables 2 and
3 below. The costs on the matrix also do not include legal

expenses.

The "total costs? for ?present" and "future? needs in each
service area on the matrix are calculated by adding the
inflated, unallocated construction cost of each facility which
is needed to serve either "present" or "future? needs

~71c?
Bates 002992 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

within a particular service area. For example, the total
costs for "present" needs within Service Area 1 ($.722
million) is the addition of the inflated construction costs
of the Maroon Creek Dam Replacement ($.460 million), the 16"
Line from Hunter to Spring Street and Cooper ($.083 million),
and the 20" line to Wagner Park ($.l79 million). This $.222
million "total cost" is not the real cost of serving
"present" needs in Service Area 1, however, since these same
projects ii- the Maroon Creek Dam and the two pipeline upgra-

des are also necessary to serve other areas.

The proportionate shares of the costs of the projects
which will serve several areas at once are totaled in the far
right hand column on the matrix. These costs are derived
by dividing the entire cost of a particular project by the
total EQR (both present and future) which that project will
serve in all areas, and then by multiplying that cost/EQR by
the number of present or future EQR in a particular service
area. For example, the Maroon Creek Diversion Dam will cost
$.460 million (inflated) and will serve a total of 7,154 pre?
sent and future EQR in all areas for a cost/EQR of about
$.00006 million. This cost/EQR can then by multiplied by the
present EQR (5,199) for Service Area 1 to obtain the allo?
cated share of the cost of the Maroon Creek Dam for present

demands in this area.

?7lD-

Bates 002993 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the cost of the Maroon Creek Diversion Dam,
or about $.335 out of $.460 million is allocated to present
demands in Service Area 1 under this method. ?This is a fair
and rational allocation because most of the present demand

or EQR for this project is located in this service area.

The total "shared costs" for present demands in Service
Area 1 are equal to the share of the cost of the Maroon
Diversion Dam allocated to present demands in this area
(about $.335 million) plus the pro-rated share of the costs
of the two pipeline upgrades which will serve these demands
($.215 million), for total "shared costs" of about 3.550
million. These total "shared costs" indicate how much of the
inflated construction costs of the three projects needed to
serve present demands in Service Area 1 should be recovered
from existing and future and water users in that area, and
provide a basis for a contribution to capital costs by
all water users in the area through a water service

charge.

The total "shared costs" for future demands of EQR shown
on the matrix are calculated in the same way. The ren?
novation of the Castle Creek Treatment Plant will cost 3.437
million and will serve 2,300 EQR in all areas for a cost/EQR
of about $.0002 million. The share of the cost of this pro?
ject for the 228 future EQR in Service Area No. 6, for example,

would then be about 3.045 million. The total "shared costs? for


Bates 002994 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

future demands in Service Area 6 on the matrix are repre?
sented by the sum of this proportionate cost million)
plus the allocated share of the cost of the expansion of the
Castle Creek Plant (about $.150 million), the Tiehack 2.0
M.G. Storage Reservoir (about $.350 million) and Maroon Creek
Water Rights Acquisition (about million) or about $.6lO
million. These "shared costs" for future demands in Service
Area 6 provide a basis for a tap fee or utility connection
charge for new users in this service area. A utility connec?
tion charge per future EQR of $2,675 for Service Area 6 could
be obtained by dividing the "shared costs" on the matrix for
this area (about $.6lO million) by the 228 EQR of projected

EQR growth for that area.

It should be noted that the EQR and cost allocations for
Service Area 7 shown on the matrix are not broken down into
"present" and "future" needs. Instead, the matrix presents
two alternative capital improvement programs for this area,
either of which would be necessary to serve a total of 127
present and future EQR in this area. Only 127, rather than
254, EQR should be used in calculating the ?shared costs" of
any project which will serve this area in combination with

others.


Bates 002995 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

The schedule set forth below as Table 2 summarizes the
construction costs associated with the ten-year construc?
tion schedule set out in Table 1. As with the matrix, the

1980 cost figures have been increased by an inflation rate of

 

15% per year to provide a more accurate estimate of capital

 

expenditures in the year incurred. The figures in Table 1

also include expenses associated with design, planning,

 

inspection, and water and land acquisition. Thus, Table 2

provides a breakdown of all potential expenses, from initial

 

planning through final inspection, for all projects in this
5 Plan. The total cost of the ten year program is about $30

million. This total does not include debt serviceBates 002996 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

TABLE NO. 2

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION
BOND ISSUE CONSTRUCTION 1980?1993

COSTS

EATER RIGHT
AND LAND



Bates 002997 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

$103,000
1,774,000
1,365,000
1,725,000
1,564,000
6,835,000

0

2,860,000
2,660,000
3,330,000
3,330,000

0ES16N

 

$98,000
94,300
166,000
69,900
458,500
0
384,000
0
465,000

PLANNING

$10,000
11,500
13,200
15,200
17,500
20,100
23,100
26,000

0

0

INSPECTION

 

$0,000
34,500
39,600
43,600
39,300
90,600
0
60,000
70,000
79,200
91,000

ACQUISITION

100,000
690,000
0
0

 

TOTAL

$319,000
2,604,300
1,583,800
1,855,700
2,079,300
6,945,700
407,100
4,276,000
3,195,000
3,409,200
3,421,000

 

$29,909,500



The impact of a $30 million bond issue to fund a ten?

year program is staggering. For this reason, a fivewyear

 

program, modified somewhat to accomplish more short-term

goals, is set forth below in Table 3. This table

 

includes construction, design, planning, inspection, and legal

costs, along with the costs of land and water right acquisi-

 

tions, but does not include debt service. This program does

 

not provide for construction of the Roaring Fork Treatment

Plant, Buttermilk Treatment Plant, and water supply to Brush

 

Creek.

 

This alternative will allow the City to embark upon a
I path which is consistent with the proposed ten-year program.

At the same time, the City will have the opportunity to

 

reassess the proposed ten?year program, and the population

and cost estimates on which it is based, after the five*year

 

program has been implemented. This table represents the

minimum level of initial bonding and presents a more affor-

 

dable bonding program.

 

-74Bates 002998 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12



Bates 002999 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

YAAR

 

1900
1981
1982
1983
1980
1985

 

CONSTRUCTION

 


I,7i4,000
1,365,000
1,725,000
1,564,000
1,635,000

 
 

 

 

TABLE NO. 3

 

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

WATER SYSTENIIMPROVFMENTS AND EXPANSION

BOND ISSUE CONSTRUCTION 1980?1985

DESIGN

$98,000

94,300

166,000

69,900

107 000


HTS

PLANNING

 

$10,000
11,500
13,200
15,200
17,500
20,800

INSPECTION

 

$8,000
34,500
39,800
45,800
39,500
30,200

WATER RIGHT

 

AND I



?9001;

$100,0u

END



I


3

$690 DUO

0

0
0
0

 

 

TOTAL

$319,000
2,604,300
1,584,000
1,855,900
1,728,000
__686,000

 

$9,777,20

VI. UPDATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

 

 

In Novembeerecember 1980, the 5 year capital improve-

ment program described above in Table No. 3 was re?evaluated

 

and refined. The modified short range capital improvement

program is set forth below in Table No. 4. This program will

 

constitute Phase I of the capital improvement program under

this Comprehensive Water Management Plan. This phase will

 

largely involve the upgrading and rehabilitation of the

 

existing raw and treated water system systems. The installa-

tion of another 8 MGD of capacity at the Castle Creek

 

Treatment Plant during this phase will be necessary both to
permit the badly needed renovation of the existing 7 MGD

plant, and to meet the minimal projected demands for treated

 

water supply.

 

The project costs shown in Table No. 4 include the

cost of design, planning, legal, construction and inspection

 

and an inflation factor. The actual implementation of this
shortwrange program has been subject to further refinements

in design, and in year-to?year phasing.

 

 

 

s76-

 

 

Bates 003000 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1981

1982

Table No. 4

CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO

PHASE I
PROJECT

Aspen?Monarch?Mill
Durant Interconnect

20" Pipeline to Wagner Park

Knollwood M.G.
Reservoir

16" Transmission Line to
Knollwood

16" Transmission Line from
Hunter to Spring

Knollwood Pump Station

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam
Maroon Creek Crossing

Water Rights - Maroon and
Castle Creeks

Meadowood .250 M.G.
Reservoir

Aspen Grove
.002 M.G. Reservoir

Systems Upgrade

Knollwood

Williams Addition

Cooper
Tie-Hack 2 M.G. Reservoir
Maroon Creek Transmission Line

Willoughby Way Interconnect

Castle Creek Plant Expansion

-77-



WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION

COST

97,100

202,000

620,600

245,300

79,900

127,600

530,400

132,600

845,000

166,500

51,200

33,000

888,000
404,200

161,000

1,467,400

Bates 003001 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Systems Upgrade 910,000
Old Hospital
Old Hunter Creek
Ute Avenue
7th Avenue
Aspen Grove
Riverside
Cemetery
West Hopkin
Castle Creek

Snowbunny
1983 Castle Creek Plant Renovation 421,800
Hunter Creek Plant Expansion 168,700
Hunter Creek Pump 168,700
Water Rights - Hunter Creek 270,000
Systems Upgrade 93,000

West Meadow
Lake Avenue

TOTAL $8,386,000

Phase II of the capital improvement program is set forth
in a preliminary fashion in Table 5 below. This phase of
the program is intended as the first step in the stabiliza-
tion of the City?s long term raw and treated water supply.
The design and implementation of this phase will depend on
the results of water supply studies called for in Section II

b.2. above which are still in progress.

-77Aw

Bates 003002 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table No. 5
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION

PHASE II (Preliminary)

PROJECT COST

 

l986~l987 Roaring Fork Plant and

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

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

and Distribution System 5,230,000
1990 Pitkin Green Improvements 805,000
TOTAL 19,418,000

Phase of the capital improvement program extends
beyond the 10 year program originally outlined in Table 1
above, 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 hydroelectric power generating faci-
lities, at a capital cost of about $50 million. The phasing
and basic parameters of such raw water storage development
will also depend on the results of the water supply studies

referenced above.

-77B-

Bates 003003 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE UPDATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.

 

 

The Aspen electorate approved the issuance of bonds for
the implementation of the first phase of the updated capital
improvement program by a 2?1 margin in the Spring of 1981.
The first set of bonds was issued for $2.7 million shortly
thereafter, and another set for $6.3 million was issued in

the Spring of 1982.

Actual construction began soon after the first bond
issue. This initial work concentrated on systems upgrade
because of construction scheduling and other practical con~
siderations, and the following projects were completed in the

1981 season.

1. Aspen-Monarch?Mil1-Durant Interconnect (bid and
constructed as two projects demonimated as: a) Aspen
Mountain Interconnect, and b) part of Southside

Transmission Main)

2. 20" Pipeline to Wagner Park (bid and constructed as

part of Southside Transmission Main)

3. 16" Transmission Line to Knollwood.

4. Knollwood (Aspen Grove) 1 M.G. Reservoir - Land
Acquisition

5. Aspen Grove (Mountain Valley) .002 M.G. Reservoir

-77c-

Bates 003004 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maroon Creek Transmission Line (upgraded from

Cemetery Lane to Tie?Hack Road)

Willoughby Way Interconnect

Systems Upgrade

a. Cemetery Lane

b. Snowbunny

c. Castle Creek

d. Mountain View (West Meadow)

e. Williams Addition
f. Knollwood

g. 20" Butterfly Valves

The second year of construction in 1982 also included a

great deal of systems upgrade. The construction of the

following projects was initiated in this season.

1.

Knollwood (Aspen Grove) 1 M.G. Reservoir

Knollwood Pump Station

Tie?Hack 2 M.G. Reservoir

Systems Upgrade

a. Riverside
b. Old Hospital Interconnect (includes 6" King
Connection and Gibson Connection)

c. West Hopkins



Bates 003005 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lake Avenue
e. Cooper Street (part of Southside Transmission

Main)

f. 7th Avenue

g. Gillespie

The following construction is planned for 1983:

1.

Complete Knollwood (Aspen Grove) 1 M.G. Reservoir
(including 12? pipeline from Knollwood Transmission

Main)

Complete Tie Hack 2 M.G. Reservoir (including pipe?

line from Maroon Creek Transmission Main).

Meadowood (Highlands) .500 M.G. Reservoir.

Maroon Creek Diversion Dam

Hunter Creek (Rubey) Pump Station

Castle Creek Treatment Plant Expansion

Systems Upgrade

a. Ute Avenue
b. Aspen Grove

c. Old Hunter Creek

Water Rights - Maroon and Castle Creeks

-77E-

Bates 003006 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

The first phase of the updated capital improvement
program will be completed in 1984?1985 with the renovation of
the Castle Creek Treatment Plant, the expansion of the

Hunter Creek Treatment Plant, and the acquisition of water

 

rights on Hunter Creek.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-77F-

 

Bates 003007 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RATES

The implementation of this Comprehensive Water

Management Plan and its capital improvements program

requires the adoption of water rates and utility con~
nection charges which fairly allocate the costs of water ser?
vice among service areas, and which ensure that new growth
will pay its full share of the cost of the system. The ordi~
nances should also be structured to maximize the use of City?
owned water resources, encourage the conservation of treated
water, encourage the utilization of raw water for uses not
requiring treated water, preserve open space and park land,
and promote the water rights dedication ordinance. The ordi~
nances which are necessary to achieve these goals are

discussed below.

A. Utility Service Connection Charges

 

The utility service connection charge ordinance
should be designed to implement the service area designations
established by this Plan and should fairly allocate the costs
of planning and constructing those facilities necessary to
serve anticipated growth in each service area. Under most
systems, municipal water utilities set a capital contribution
fee designed to pay for the cost of extending a water tap to
a new customer and, in addition, provide an investment into the
existing system. Thus, in theory, the new customer pays for

the cost of extending service (new facilities), plus "buys

~78-
Bates 003008 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in to the existing system (old facilities). In practice,
these charges are often determined without any 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 reasonablew
ness. Actually, the fees are an estimate of a charge Which
will hopefully fund improvements and Which in fact rarely
does. The result is that existing users subsidize new users
by paying higher water rates to fund facilities necessary to

serve only new growth.

By the designation of service areas and the establish?
ment of a capital improvement program in this Plan, the City
is aware of the facilities and costs necessary to serve both
present and future needs of each existing and potential ser?
vice area. Thus the Plan provides a rational basis for

capital charges for water service.

Under the utility service connection charge ordinance
proposed herein, new water users would pay their pro rata
share of the costs of those facilities necessary to serve
future growth within that particular service area. Under
the proposed ordinance, connection charges would be determined
by dividing the "shared costs" of those facilities necessary
to serve the future growth of a service area by the anticim
pated future EQR in that service area, multiplied by the

number of EQR associated with a given connection. The ordi~

-79-

Bates 003009 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

nance would also impose connection charges not only for new
structures, but also for any new addition of water con~

suming facilities onto an existing connection.

Capital contributions for facilities necessary to pro~

vide service to existing customers within a service area

 

should be paid by all water customers, new and old, through a

capital contribution charge in the water rate ordi?

 

nance. Thus, new users would ?bu in" to the existin stem
9 

 

through capital contributions in their water rates. Existing

users would also help pay for those facilities needed to pro?

 

vide adequate service to meet exsting needs and would do this

1 through this charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~80?

Bates 003010 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Treated Water.

 

The proposed water rate ordinance would establish four
components to the treated water rate structure. First as
discussed above, all customers would pay a capital charge as
part of their water bill. This charge would provide
a capital contribution by both new and existing customers and

would be based on the number of EQR of the customer.

Second, metered customers would pay an Operation and
maintenance charge. This charge would reflect the 
operation and maintenance expense required to bring water to
the cumstomer's tap. This charge would be multiplied by a
metered coefficient charge, which operates as a
surcharge on those water users who consume water in excess
of average needs. Conversely, customers using less than
average amounts of water would receive a discount in their
water bill. This coefficient charge would be designed not
only to encourage water conservation, but also to equalize
capital contributions to an extent, by increasing and

decreasing water rates based in actual usage.

The third element of the water rate structure
would be an operation and maintenance charge for flat rate
(non?metered) customers. Although the eventual conversion to
metering would be required in the ordinance, flat rate users
would continue to be charged an equitable rate under the rate
ordinance in the interim. This rate would be based upon the
number of being served under a given billing. The rate

?81-
Bates 003011 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would be multiplied by a service charge factor which encoura?
ges an early switch to meters and which also covers extra

bookkeeping expenses necessitated by nonnmetered billings.

Finally, there would be a number of supplemental
charges. These would include penalities for nonemetered
users, an out-of-City surcharge, and a pump station
surcharge. This latter charge would aid in the recovery of
the high operation and maintenance expenses necessary to

serve water users in high altitute areas.

C. Raw Water.

A basic raw water rate of $60 per year per acre irri~
gated should be 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 should be set at a
level much lower than treated water rates, to promote the
use of raw water for lawn and garden 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
water 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 promo?
tes the maximum utilization of the City's water rights and

distrubtes diversions of water among several sources of supply.

D. Carriage Rate.

 

~82?

Bates 003012 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carriage rates should be established to allow the City
to recover capital, operation, and maintenance expenses asso~
ciated with the delivery of raw water from City owned facili-
ties in special circumstances in which a raw water rate is
not charged. Raw water rates would be designed to be 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 require?
ments for treated water use. The City should also be able to
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 beneficial use, prevents abandonment of these water

rights, and will be undertaken under carriage rates.

Finally, the City should be able to grant a raw water
tap to a Citywowned 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 Citywowned
facility in this situation, the customer should pay both a
raw water rate and a carriage rate. Carriage rates should be
set at a rate which will allow the Ciy to recover the capi?
tal, Operation, and maintenance expenses, including ditch
assessments incurred by the City in relation to the par-

ticular facility involved.

~83~

Bates 003013 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Water Rights Dedication.

To insure an adequate legal supply of water, the City
should require the dedication of water rights upon annexa?
tion, subdivision, or replatting approval, or upon the extenm
sion of treated water service. The water to be dedicated?
should equal the potential demand on the municipal utility,
and all dedications should 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 dedi?
cated exceeds the treated water requirements (providing the
water rights are of sufficient legal quality), the City
should permit the water so dedicated to be used on property
not yet developed. In the event City facilities are utilized
to convey water for this purpose, such water should be
extended by the City pursuant to a raw water tap at carriage
rates. In the event City structures are not used, a lease
back contract should be executed: and the charge should be at

the existing carriage rate.

F. Easements and Land Dedication.

 

In addition to requiring that water rights be conveyed
under the water rights dedication ordinance, the City should
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. The staff will prepare such an ordi-

nance which will be applicable to all persons seeking appro?

-84-

Bates 003014 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

val of the annexation of any land to the City, approval of

the subdivision or replatting of any land within the City, or

 

any new extension of treated water service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Bates 003015 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

IX. WATER QUALITY.

 

The preservation of water quality in the Upper Roaring
Fork Valley is a central tenet of this Comprehensive Water
Management Plan. Deterioration of water quality would not
only have a devastating effect upon ecological and aesthetic
values, but would impact adversely on an economy which is
closely tied to and dependent upon the recreational attrac-

tion of the high quality of the basin's water resources.

In order to insure the continued integrity of area water
quality, the city (in cooperation with Pitkin County) has
petitioned the Water Quality Control Commission in its pro?
cess for the classification of State waters, with the goal of
maintaining and improving the existing water quality in the
Roaring Fork Basin. The upgrading of the upper Roaring Fork
streams and rivers water were recommended three years ago in
Water Quality Management Plan: Roaring Fork River Basin
(Wright-Engineers, May 1974) and is long overdue. Additional
delays will result in the degradation of the quality of area
water supplies and cannot be tolerated. Specific recommen?
dations made by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, and the
staff recommendations of the Water Quality Control

Commission, are summarized as follows:

 

 

 

Aspen/Pitkin
Stream Segment WQCC Recommendation Recommendation
1. All tributaries to the High Quality, High Quality,
Fork River, including Class 1 Class 1

all lakes and reservoirs
within the Maroon Bells/
Snowmass Wilderness Area

Bates 003016 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mainstem of the

Roaring Fork River,
including all tributaries
lakes and reservoirs,

to a point immediately
below the confluence with
Hunter Creek, which are not
on National Forest lands

Mainstem and all tributaries
to the Roaring Fork River,
from a point immediately
below theconfluence with
Hunter Creek to the con-?
fluence with the Colorado
River, not on National
Forest lands

All tributaries to the
Roaring Fork River
including all lakes

and reservoirs, from

the source to the confluence
with Colorado River,

which are on National
Forest lands

Mainstem of the Fryingpan
River from the confluence
with the North Fork to the
confluence with the Roaring
Fork River, including Ruedi
Reservoir

Mainstem of the Fryingpan
River from the source

to the confluence with the
North Fork

Recreation, Class 1

Aquatic life, Class 1,
cold water

water supply

agriculture

Recreation, Class 2

Aquatic life, Class 1,
cold water

water supply

agriculture

High Quality,
Class 2

Highest uses

High Quality,
Class 2

High Quality,
Class 2

Recreation
Class 2

Aquatic life
Class 1, cold
water

water supply
agriculture
segmentation of
Brush Creek
below outfall of
Snowmass Treatment
Plant

High Quality
Class 2

High Quality
C)

Class 42

High Quality,
Class 2

Bates 003017 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7A.

10.

11.

12.

All tributaries to the
Fryingpan River, including
all lakes and reservoirs

All waters within
the Hunter/Fryingpan
Wilderness Area

Mainstem of the 
River from source to
confluence with
Avalanche Creek

Mainstem of 
River from Avalanche
Creek to confluence
with the Roaring
Fork River

All tributaries to the
River, including
all lakes and reservoirs,
which are on

National Forest lands,
except for specific
listings in segment 12.

All tributaries to the
River, including
all lakes and reservoirs,
which are not on

National Forest lands,
except for specific

listings in segments 12 and
13

Mainstem of Coal Creek,
including all tributaries,
lakes and reservoirs,
from source to confluence
with River

High Quality,
Class 2

No recommendation

High Quality,
Class 2

High Quality,
Class 2

Highest uses

Highest Uses

High Quality 
Class 2

High Quality 
Class 1

High Quality,
Class 2

High Quality,
Class 2

High Quality,
Class 2

High Quality
Class 2

High Quality,
Class 2

Bates 003018 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

l3. Mainstem of North Highest Uses High Quality,
Thompson Creek, Class 2
including all tributaries,
lakes, and reservoirs,
from National Forest lands
to confluence with the
River

To the maximum extent authorized by law, the City should prohibit
the discharge of any pollutant (as defined by Section 502(12) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500) and any activity

which contributes to the deterioration of municipal water supplies.

Urban runoff and agricultural runoff are significant sources of

 

 

pollution. ,(See Water Quality Management Plan: Roaring Fork River
I Basin, Wright?McLaughlin Engineers, May 1974; Urban Runoff Management

 

Plan: Citv of Aspen, Wright?McLaughlin Engineers, August 1973). These

 

non-point sources of pollution must also be controlled as technology

permits and as the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

 

92?502) mandate. By encouraging sound irrigation practices and by

 

collecting and treating urban runoff, these major sources of water

pollution can be reduced or eliminated. The purchase of the Aspen

 

Sanitation District waste water treatment plant by the City will be a

significant step toward protecting the integrity of area waters from urban

 

runoff pollution. The acquisition of this plant will enable the City to

 

immediately proceed with implementation of the Urban Runoff Management

 

Plan that was prepared by Engineers in August 1973..

 

Another important policj designed to reduce pollution and provide
adequate water treatment is the development of a land treatment program.

A progressive land treatment program will not only aid the City by

i
i

 

Bates 003019 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

reducing costs related to tertiary treatment and by reducing seasonal
fluctuation in treated water demand, but also will effectively accomplish
advanced treatment required by State and Federal law and therefore
maintain the high quality of area waters. Additional benefits of a land
treatment program were discussed in Section ll.F.

The preparation of a map illustrating the points of diversion of all
City water ights is hereby authorized in order to assist the
implementation of the policies expressed herein and the Water Quality
Ordinance set forth herein. The map will additionally highlight that

geographic area which is subject to the policies expressed herein and the

ordinances hereafter set forth.

?'559.

Bates 003020 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

i
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

X. WATER MAIN EXTENSION POLICY.

 

The capital improvements program outlined in this Plan
provides for water service to both existing and potential
service areas. In order to implement the policies of the
Plan and the capital improvements program, a further policy
must be established which will govern the extension of
treated water service to new developments and service areas.
The basic tenet of this policy is that the City does not hold
itself out as willing or able to satisfy all requests for
water serivce within or without its incorporated limits.
Because of utility related limitations, the City is unable to
provide unlimited water service either within or without its
now-existing service area. Therefore, criteria must be
established which specify the conditions under which water
service is to be extended. New water service shall not be
extended unless all applicable ordinances and policies of the
City are satisfied and until the City determines that service
to existing customers will not be jeopardized by the new

extension of service.

Any extension of water service where either the utility
connection or any point of consumption is located outside the
incorporated limits of the City of Aspen shall be made in the
City's proprietary capacity and shall be undertaken on a
contractual basis. Such service shall only be undertaken on
terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the City Manager,
the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Director of

Water Treatment and Supply.

Bates 003021 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12
.. 9 0 ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many of the problems currently being experienced with the Aspen
Water Utility stem from the extension in the past of service to
sub?standard systems. As a result, the City has inherited and now must
cure a plethora of leaks, low pressure zones, and other maladies
associated with these areas. It shall be the policy of the City, therefore,
to not extend water service except to those systems which have been
constructed, upgraded, or replaced to City specifications and design
standards. Any contract for water service may provide for such planning,
design, construction, and inspection criteria as are appropriate to assure
compliance with this policy.

One of the central principles of this Comprehensive Plan is that
water users should pay for the costs of extending water service to their
tap. Consistent with this principle, developers shall pay the entire cost of
all storage and pumping facilities, distribution lines, transmission lines,
or any other facility necessary to provide adequate water service to a
particular development. Any such facilities shall be deeded to the City
upon satisfactory completion, together with sufficient easements,
rights-of?way, or other interests in land necessary to operate and
maintain the same. The developer also shall reimburse the City for any

-r

expense incurred by the City in extending the service. if wil



serve more than one particular develOpment, the developer shall be
responsible for his pro rata share of the cost of any such facilities. When
appropriate, the developer may pay for the entire cost of any such
facility and then be reimbursed by the City of his actual costs (less his
pro rata obligation) under the terms of an appropriate reimbursement



 

Bates 003022 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12 i I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, it shall be the policy of the City to acquire
dollar equivalancy or other equivalent non?monetary con-
sideration for the extension of water service in those
situations Wherein strict compliance with the terms of this
policy would prove onerous upon either the City or the devel-
oper, or in situations in which the developer can provide a
needed improvement or interest in land. A degree of flexibi?
lity is required, consistent with this policy, which allows
the City to capitalize on opportunities to acquire unique and

valuable alternative consideration when the situation warrants.

XI. STATUS ORDINANCES.

 

A. Adopted

The following ordinances proposed herein have been

adopted by the City:

 

 

Subject Ordinance No. Aspen Municipal Code

General Water 39?1981 Sections 23-36 through

Utility Provisions 23-40

Utility Connection 40-1981 Sections 23?54 through

Change 23?71

Miscellaneous 41?1981 Sections 23~150 through

Water Utility 155

Provisions

Water Shortages 42*1981 Sections 23~200 through
202

Water Conservation 43?1981 Sections 7~231 through

and Plumbing 234

Advisory Code

Health and Water 44~l981 Sections ll?l through

Quality 11-14

-92-
Bates 003023 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12

 

 

 

i
i
i
i

 

 

B. Pending

The water rate, urban runwoff, and water rights

dedication ordinances proposed herein are still under con-

sideration.
C. Review 9?_Utility Connection Charge and Water

 

Rate Ordinances.

The adopted utility connection charges in Section
23-58(d) of the Aspen Municipal Code were based on the
inflated "shared costs" of Phase I of the updated capital
improvements program described in Table 4 above. These
charges only reflect the inflated construction, engineering
and legal costs under the schedule contemplated at that time.
They d?.22E reflect debt service costs, and therefore should
be adjusted upwards. They also may not reflect any signifi-
cant changes in construction scheduling or growth patterns
which may have occurred since December 1980. Accordingly,
these charges will be reviewed in accordance with the poli-
cies and principles of this Comprehensive Water Management
Plan. This review will be conducted in conjunction with the
further consideration and adoption of the water rate

ordinance proposed herein.

-93..

Bates 003024 Plaintiffs? Disclosures 9/28/12