Findings  and  Recommendations   City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Convening   Assessment     March  30,  2017           Prepared  by  Ryan  Golten  and  Patrick  Field   Consensus  Building  Institute,  Inc.         INTRODUCTION     In  late  January  2017,  the  City  of  Aspen  hired  facilitators  from  the  Consensus  Building  Institute   (CBI),  a  facilitation  organization  with  significant  experience  working  on  the  Western  Slope  and   with  complex  water  challenges,  to  help  the  City  design  a  collaborative  process  informed  by   the  needs  and  expectations  of  community  stakeholders.  In  February  2017,  CBI’s  Patrick  Field   and  Ryan  Golten  conducted  this  Assessment  to  learn  about  stakeholders’  interests,  needs,   perspectives  and  ideas  for  structuring  a  collaborative  process  to  study  the  City’s  long-­‐range   municipal  water  needs.  Information  from  the  Assessment,  as  well  as  information  from  many   other  sources,  will  be  used  to  develop  the  community-­‐based  process  for  studying  the  need   and  options  for  securing  the  City’s  water  future.  It  is  CBI’s  understanding  that  the  City   anticipates  launching  the  process  by  late  spring  or  early  summer.         This  brief  report  seeks  to  summarize  the  range  of  views  and  ideas  we  identified,  without   attribution,  in  our  interviews.  This  brief  report  is  not  intended  to  be  a  detailed  record  of  those   comments  or  concerns,  nor  to  arbitrate  facts  and  legal  issues.    Rather,  it  is  intended  to   summarize  the  views  we  heard  and  share  those  views  as  the  basis  of  our  process   recommendations.    Any  errors  or  omissions  in  this  report  are  the  sole  responsibility  of  CBI.   BACKGROUND   It  is  CBI’s  understanding  that  the  City  of  Aspen  is  responsible  for  providing  a  legal,  safe  and   reliable  water  supply  for  its  water  customers.    The  City’s  customers  include  residences,   commercial  enterprises,  including  Ski  Co,  and  larger-­‐acreage  land  owners.    The  City  of  Aspen   currently  obtains  its  municipal  water  supply  almost  entirely  from  natural  systems  including   snowfall  and  snowmelt,  with  limited  flexibility  in  the  system  for  ensuring  a  reliable  water   supply  in  times  of  excess  demand  or  constrained  supply.    Because  Aspen  is  remote,  it  is   unable  to  have  interconnection  agreements  with  neighbors  to  provide  a  water  supply  in  times   of  crisis,  unlike  many  water  providers.    Simultaneously,  the  City  has  voiced  a  commitment  to   water  conservation  and  to  operating  its  water  rights  and  supplies  to  protect  decreed  instream   flows.         The  City  currently  has  an  integrated  water  supply  system  that  includes  conditional  storage   rights  for  potential  storage  in  Maroon  and  Castle  Creeks.    The  most  recent  diligence  filings   have  raised  public  awareness  of  and  concern  about  Aspen’s  long-­‐range  water  supply  planning,   particularly  with  regard  to  the  reservoirs.    It  is  CBI’s  understanding  that  the  City  seeks  to   evaluate  its  long-­‐term  water  planning  including  supplies,    storage,  and  conservation  through  a   collaborative  process  to  create  a  broadly-­‐supported  long-­‐range  water  supply  plan  for  the  City.     The  Aspen  City  Council  has  directed  the  water  department  to  conduct  a  robust  engagement   process  during  its  study  of  Aspen’s  future  demands,  risks,  and  options  for  securing  its  future   water  supply.    The  Council  has  indicated  that  it  is  imperative  for  the  water  department  to   engage  the  community,  stakeholders  and  opponents  in  this  process.     Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Convening  Assessment     1     It  is  CBI’s  understanding  that  the  City’s  goals  in  designing  a  collaborative  process  include:     -­‐ Fostering  trust  in  the  community   -­‐ Utilizing  a  transparent  process   -­‐ Encouraging  and  supporting  an  atmosphere  of  collaborative  and  creative  issue   identification  and  resolution   -­‐ Building  on  other  community  efforts  focused  on  the  City’s  future   -­‐ Creating  a  framework  that  is  focused  on  mutual  understanding  of  risk  to  the  City’s   water  supply  and  options  for  mitigating  that  risk.         The  City’s  desired  outcome,  as  we  understand  it,  is  a  long-­‐range,  implementable  water  plan   that  secures  the  future  for  Aspen’s  water  demand  and  supply  commensurate  with  community   values  in  the  face  of  uncertainty.       INTERVIEW  FINDINGS   To  understand  and  reflect  a  variety  of  perspectives  regarding  the  process  and  attendant   issues,  expertise,  and  concerns,  CBI  conducted  29  confidential  interviews  with  35  individuals   representing  a  range  of  residential,  conservation,  business,  community,  landowner,  and  local,   state,  and  federal  government  interests.  These  interviews  were  conducted  primarily  in-­‐ person,  with  phone  interviews  as  needed.  Some  interviews  included  multiple  participants.  CBI   also  conducted  an  open  small-­‐group  session  with  interested  members  of  the  public  and   stakeholders  with  whom  we  were  unable  to  schedule  individual  interviews.    CBI  distributed  a   draft  report  on  March  16,  2017,  received  comments  from  nine  (9)  interviewees  as  of  March   24,  and  sought  to  incorporate  those  comments  into  this  final  assessment.     CBI’s  interview  questions  included  the  following:   • What  do  you  see  as  opportunities  in  a  collaborative  process  to  study  Aspen’s  long-­‐ range  water  supply  and  storage  needs  and  options?  Thoughts  for  maximizing  these?   • What  do  you  see  as  the  biggest  challenges?  Thoughts  for  managing/minimizing  these?     • How  could  a  facilitated  problem-­‐solving  process  be  structured  to  foster  trust  and   collaboration  regarding  the  City’s  future  water  supply  needs  and  potential  options?       • What  other  groups  and/or  individuals  need  to  be  at  the  table,  for  purposes  of   inclusivity,  expertise,  necessary  buy-­‐in,  and/or  other  reasons?  In  what  capacity?     • How  do  you  see  this  process  best  relating  to  the  City  and  County’s  Upper  Roaring  Fork   Stream  Management  Planning  process,  which  is  also  getting  underway?     • What  might  you  or  others  need  to  participate  meaningfully  in  this  process?   • What  else  would  help  ensure  the  process  is  set  up  for  successful  outcome?   The  following  themes  reflect  common  stakeholder  interests  for  the  collaborative  water   supply  study  process.  Input  has  been  categorized  broadly  and  will  not  be  attributed  to   particular  groups  or  individuals.    The  themes  are  organized  in  no  particular  priority  or  order.     Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   2     These  themes  are  not  meant  to  be  statements  of  facts  or  fact-­‐finding.  Rather,  they  reflect   interests,  issues,  and  concerns  raised  in  the  interviews.  The  themes  are  ideas  or  issues  that   arose  in  two  or  more  interviews.  All  errors  or  omissions  are  the  sole  responsibility  of  CBI.     The  Opportunity   ! The  City  currently  has  a  unique  opportunity  to  plan  for  Aspen’s  future  water  needs  in   an  engaged,  collaborative,  and  comprehensive  way,  but  some  daunting  challenges  do   exist.   ! Through  an  effective  process,  the  City  can  leverage  and  apply  its  historic  global   leadership  role  in  environmental  sustainability,  conservation,  and  protection  of  iconic   landscapes  to  developing  a  resilient,  sustainable  and  adaptive  approach  to  managing   and  planning  for  future  water  needs.     Collaboration   ! There  is  broad  interest  in  supporting  and  working  collaboratively  with  the  City  to   secure  its  future  water  supply  needs.   ! There  is  a  need  to  carefully  manage  the  relationship  and  timing  between  the   collaborative  process  and  the  due  diligence  case  currently  before  the  water  court   referee  in  Division  5.  For  example,  there  are  concerns  about  the  conditional  water   rights  and  reservoirs  issues  in  the  collaborative  process  when  those  issues  are  being   addressed  in  the  court  process,  and  vice  versa.    There  is  concern  that  the  timing  and   sequencing  of  these  two  different  processes  is  challenging  at  best  and  problematic  and   mutually  exclusive  at  worst.   ! There  is  concern  that  if  the  case  goes  to  court,  it  will  make  the  broader  collaborative   efforts  far  more  difficult.   ! There  is  interest  in  understanding  the  City’s  needs  and  interests  as  a  starting  point,   rather  than  starting  from  bottom-­‐line  positions  and  trying  to  make  the  case  for  them  –   e.g.,  what  is  the  Utility’s  and  Council’s  sense  of  the  City’s  current  needs,  operational   challenges,  future  water  need  possibilities,  and  vulnerabilities?     ! An  open  dialogue  and  study  process  can  go  a  long  way  to  building  a  sense  of   credibility.   ! There  is  interest  in  drawing  on  the  expertise  of  Aspen  stakeholders  and  their  networks   where  possible.   ! Neighboring  and  downstream  jurisdictions  expressed  interest  in  the  City’s  water   planning  efforts,  in  light  of  the  City’s  headwaters  location,  and  the  wish  to  be  informed   and  consulted  in  order  to  help  coordinate  regional  water  planning  efforts  and  forestall   future  misunderstandings  or  conflict.     Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   3     Transparency  and  Engagement   ! Stakeholders  expressed  interest  in  transparency  regarding  the  data  and  studies  being   used  by  the  City,  including  the  City’s  underlying  assumptions  and  beliefs  regarding  the   data,  its  sources,  comprehensiveness,  and  predictability.  This  includes  better   understanding  the  data  used  by  the  City  to  indicate  the  actual  need  for  more  reliable   future  water  supplies  as  well  as  input  on  who  the  City  selects  for  technical  support  and   advice.   ! There  is  a  recognized  need  for  balance  between  inclusivity  and  transparency  with   stakeholders,  on  the  one  hand,  while  ensuring  the  City-­‐led  process  is  efficient,   expeditious,  and  not  overly  cumbersome  or  ‘process-­‐heavy’.   ! The  City  has  the  opportunity  to  increase  trust  in  its  process  and  decisions  and  also   must  overcome  a  deficit,  to  some  degree,  of  public  trust.   ! Stakeholders  would  like  to  see  City  Council  and  City  staff  actively  engaged  in  the   process  to  ensure  close  communication,  coordination,  and  collaboration  among  City   Staff  and  Council.   ! Stakeholders  expressed  concern  regarding  the  degree  of  transparency  that  will  be   possible,  in  light  of  the  concurrent  conditional  water  rights  case  and  indications  from   the  City  that  some  of  the  information  germane  to  the  court  case  may  not  be  publicly   released  during  that  time.     Issues  to  Address  in  a  Collaborative  Process   ! There  is  interest  in  an  increased  understanding  of  the  City’s  water  operations,   including  mechanics  and  areas  of  vulnerability  or  concern.   ! There  is  interest  in  a  better  understanding  of  why  the  City  considers  recent  water   studies  insufficient  to  more  fully  and  accurately  project  future  water  supply  needs.     ! Stakeholders  are  interested  in  understanding  future  demand  and  supply  scenarios  that   include  a  reasonable  range  of  different  population  projections,  changes  in  occupancy   (even  under  current  built  conditions),  and  climate  change  impacts.   ! Questions  of  future  demand  raise  strong  interests  around  overall  growth  in  the  upper   valley,  including  many  citizens’  interest  in  reducing  pressure  on  current  water  supplies   by  limiting  growth  and  increasing  water  conservation  rather  than  trying  to  identify  and   construct  new  storage  or  identifying  and  obtaining  new  sources.   ! It  will  be  important  for  a  discussion  of  potential  climate  change  implications  on  future   supply  and  demand  to  include  a  range  of  nuanced  considerations  –  e.g.,  timing  of   snow  melt,  tourism  impacts,  water  use  fluctuations,  relevant  water  impacts  in  the   region  –  with  an  opportunity  for  dialogue  regarding  these  potential  impacts.   ! There  is  interest  among  stakeholders  in  better  understanding  the  City’s  water  rights   portfolio,  including  how  water  rights  are  being  used,  how  much  water  is  being  used,   areas  of  risk  or  concern,  and  implications  for  Aspen’s  future  water  supply  in  light  of   Colorado  water  law,  the  Colorado  River  Compact,  and  future  climate  change  scenarios.   ! After  understanding  community  values  and  potential  future  needs,  stakeholders     would  like  to  provide  input  into  Council’s  decision-­‐making  regarding  how  much   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   4     ! certainty  the  City  should  have  regarding  its  future  water  supplies,  in  light  of  the   severity  and  likelihood  of  the  various  future  scenarios.   There  is  widespread  interest  in  exploring  innovative  and  robust  conservation  measures   as  the  City  studies  potential  options  for  meeting  its  water  needs  and  current  demand   including  residential,  commercial,  landscape,  snow-­‐making,  and  agricultural  uses.   There  is  also  interest  in  looking  at  how  various  choices  may  affect  in-­‐stream  flows.   !   Suggestions  for  the  Collaborative  Process   • Roundtables  and  advisory  groups  can  work,  if  well  structured,  but  they  must  be   carefully  coordinated  with  technical  assistance  and  decision  makers  (i.e.,  the  City   Council).   • Whatever  an  advisory  group  or  task  force  might  recommend,  at  the  end  of  the  day  the   City  Council  decides,  and  that  does  not  always  mean  it  can  or  will  accept  the  advice   developed.  For  this  and  other  reasons  it  will  be  important  for  Council  to  be  engaged   throughout  the  process.   • There  should  be  broad  public  engagement  and  information  so  that  the  public  in   general  understands  and  participates  in  the  process.    This  should  not  be  piecemeal  nor   a  mere  supplement  to  any  advisory  group,  but  complementary,  robust,  and  on-­‐going,   allowing  the  whole  community  to  participate  in  different  ways.   • The  collaborative  process  should  be  coordinated  with  the  City  and  County’s  Stream   Management  Plan  process,  particularly  to  ensure  river  health  considerations  are   integrated  with  a  study  of  potential  options  for  meeting  the  City’s  water  supply  needs,   and  also  with  the  many  other  on-­‐going  planning  processes,  from  the  Colorado  River   Basin  processes  to  various  local  land  use  and  ordinance  efforts.   • Some  interest  was  expressed  in  using  the  process  to  develop  broader  policy  positions,   e.g.,  those  that  could  be  incorporated  in  a  revised  Aspen  Area  Community  Plan  (AACP)   regarding  water  provision,  expansion  of  water  utilities,  and  industrial  water  projects.   • There  was  interest  in  using  the  public  process  to  enhance  community  awareness  and   education  regarding  the  watershed,  how  individuals  impact  the  watershed  through   daily  water  consumption,  different  types  of  water  uses,  and  monetary  and  non-­‐ monetary  costs  of  increased  growth  and  water  demand.   • There  is  some  skepticism  about  how  effectively  a  public  engagement  process  can  work   due  to  past  experiences  and  the  complexities  of  the  water  court  case  regarding  the   City’s  conditional  water  rights.  Stakeholders  expressed  concern  that,  if  the  court  case   moves  from  settlement  to  trial,  many  of  the  issues  being  addressed  in  the  public   process  could  instead  be  decided  by  the  water  court,  thus  undermining  the   stakeholder  process.       Issues  Raised  by  City  Staff   CBI  also  interviewed  various  City  staff  who  expressed  some  of  the  following  issues.   • The  stakeholder  and  engagement  process  should  be  carefully  coordinated  and   sequenced  with  the  diligence  case  for  reasons  described  above,  despite  the  clear   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   5     • • challenge  of  being  wholly  separate  proceedings  with  quite  different  approaches   around  transparency,  participation,  and  scope.   Given  the  City’s  fiduciary  and  public  health  responsibilities  to  its  ratepayers,  the  Water   Department  needs  to  have  a  central  role  in  the  process.   The  process  should  consider  a  number  of  operational  issues  as  it  conducts  it  work,   including  but  not  limited  to:    1)  very  limited  current  storage;  2)  water  quality   considerations  related  to  water  supply,  such  as  mixing  of  sources  of  water,  current   condition  of  City  well  water,  and  so  forth;  3)  the  need  to  provide  for  water  demand   peaks,  not  just  averages,  and  to  be  prepared  for  rare  but  extreme  events;  4)  the  City’s   commitment  to  minimum  stream  flows  above  and  beyond  state  regulations;  5)  effects   of  climate  change,  particularly  changes  in  snow  pack,  timing  of  run-­‐off,  and  increasing   risks  to  later  summer  and  fall  water  supplies;  6)  past  and  existing  water  conservation   efforts;  7)  water  reuse;  8)  shorter  and  longer-­‐term  water  storage  options  that  meet   the  operational  needs  and  risks  of  the  system;  9)  the  different  types  of  water  demand,   including  agricultural  and  landscaping;  and  10)  the  impacts  of  different  options  and   choices  on  rates  and  costs.   STAKEHOLDER  GROUPS  INTERVIEWED   For  this  Assessment  CBI  interviewed  the  following  interest  groups  and/or  their   representatives,  in  addition  to  relevant  City  staff:     • City  of  Aspen  elected  officials     • Pitkin  County  elected  officials  and  staff   • Conservation  organizations,  including  but  not  limited  to  parties  to  the  conditional   water  rights  court  case   • Aspen  business  leaders,  including  local  ski  area  interests     • City  and  County  advisory  groups,  including  those  representing  young  people  and  river   health  interests   • Local  climate  change  experts     • Organizations  representing  regional  water  interests     • Relevant  state  and  federal  agencies   • Residents  and  local  landowners,  including  but  not  limited  to  parties  to  the  conditional   water  rights  court  case     OVERALL  PROCESS  RECOMMENDATIONS   CBI  believes  the  City  is  well  positioned  to  launch  a  robust  public  process  to  study  Aspen’s   future  water  supply  needs  and  options.  There  is  a  window  of  opportunity  to  harness  the   interest  and  passion  of  citizens  and  organizations  around  current  water  supply  questions  to   create  a  multi-­‐decade,  implementable,  environmentally-­‐sound,  resilient  plan  for  Aspen’s   future  water  needs,  from  which  future  generations  will  benefit.     CBI  recommends  a  process  that:   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   6     • • • Is  supported  by  City  staff  with  close  coordination  and  involvement  of  City  Council;   Includes  active  involvement  by  the  City  Council,  including  participation  in  and   attendance  at  various  meetings;   Harnesses  the  resources  of  the  Valley  in  technical  expertise,  outreach,  and  education.     Specifically,  CBI  recommends  that  the  process  include:   • A  balanced,  inclusive  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  to  carry  out  extensive  work  over   a  period  of  time;  and   • Periodic  and  robust  public  engagement  linked  to  the  issues,  topics,  and  progress  of  the   Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  to  ensure  broader  public  input,  learning,  and  dialogue.     The  process  can  be  sequenced  appropriately  for  the  City  and  its  stakeholders  to  understand   the  City’s  existing  needs  and  supplies,  to  study  potential  future  needs  and  supplies  based  on  a   range  of  factors  and  scenarios,  and  to  study  and  evaluate  options  for  meeting  those  needs.   The  process  can  allow  relevant  data  for  each  stage  of  the  process  to  be  reviewed,  discussed,   and  vetted  openly.  It  can  result  in  recommendations  to  the  City  Council  regarding  a  range  of   scenarios  the  City  should  be  planning  for  and  various  alternatives  for  meeting  those  scenarios,   with  the  understanding  that  Council  is  the  decision-­‐maker.  Council  members  should   participate,  with  the  intent  to  build  understanding,  provide  feedback  to  the  Technical   Advisory  Work  Group,  bring  back  relevant  issues  to  the  full  Council  for  consideration  during   the  process,  and  provide  leadership  in  final  decision  making.     To  ensure  the  process  is  successful  and  results  in  broadly  supported  outcomes,  CBI   recommends  rigorous  public  engagement  at  key  points  in  the  process,  particularly  in  light  of   the  current  interests  and  concerns  regarding  water  supply  issues  and  the  public’s  strong   desire  to  be  engaged.       In  addition  to  drawing  on  its  typical  means  of  public  outreach,  the  City  can  take  advantage  of   its  stakeholders’  many  networks  and  existing  forums  for  engaging  and  providing  information   their  members  and  constituents.  Several  organizations  are  interested  in  and  willing  to  support   convening  meetings,  educational  forums,  and  other  kinds  of  engagements.    Public  outreach   and  engagement  could  include  workshops  on  topics  such  as  the  City’s  current  water   operations  and  water  rights,  potential  climate  change  impacts  for  the  Upper  Roaring  Fork   Valley,  and  the  concurrent  Upper  Roaring  Fork  Stream  Management  Plan  process  (and  the   ways  in  which  it  relates  to  the  City’s  Water  Supply  Study).  The  City  can  ensure  the  Technical   Advisory  Working  Group’s  input  and  involvement  in  planning  and  conducting  community   meetings  and  overall  outreach  to  build  credibility,  trust,  and  an  open  exchange  with  the   broader  community.       CBI  believes  an  Advisory  Working  Group  structure  as  described  below  would  be  well  suited  to   meet  the  interests  of  the  City  and  its  stakeholders.  We  believe  a  ‘Technical  Advisory  Working   Group’  process  may  be  best  suited  to  build  trust,  open  engagement  with  stakeholders,  and  a   broadly  supported  result,  while  at  the  same  time  meeting  the  City  and  stakeholders’  interest   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   7     in  an  efficient  process  that  is  not  overly  cumbersome.    Water  supply  and  demand  planning  is   complicated,  involves  a  number  of  trade-­‐offs  and  considerations,  includes  technical,  legal,   political,  and  value  based  questions,  and  takes  time  and  focus  to  do  well.    For  these  reasons   we  believe  a  sustained,  committed  Technical  Advisory  Working  Group  will  be  effective,  if  well-­‐ supported  by  City  staff,  coordinated  with  the  City  Council,  and  includes  additional  public   engagement  and  outreach.    We  detail  this  approach  below.     SUGGESTED  WATER  PLANNING  TECHNICAL  ADVISORY  WORK  GROUP  STRUCTURE   We  suggest  for  Council  consideration  the  following  approach  to  this  Technical  Advisory  Work   Group.         Overall  Goal  of  the  Collaborative  Water  Study  Process:    For  the  City  to  develop  an   environmentally  responsible  plan  for  meeting  Aspen’s  expected  water  needs  over  the  next   50  years  with  the  flexibility  to  deal  with  the  unexpected.     Purpose  of  the  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group:  To  advise  the  City  in  developing  this  plan,   including  a  study  of  demand,  supply,  and  alternatives  for  meeting  the  City’s  water  needs,   including  the  evaluation  of  various  alternatives  based  on  a  set  of  criteria  including  but  not   limited  to  technical,  financial,  operational,  legal,  and  community-­‐value  considerations.     Term:    An  estimated  one  year,  beginning  on  or  around  June  1,  2017     Stakeholder  Membership:    See  below     Objectives:    The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  will  engage  in  detailed  dialogue  and   deliberation  with  the  following  objectives:  1)  identify  a  range  of  future  municipal  water   needs,  2)  study  existing  and  future  water  supplies;  3)  identify  potential  gaps  between   future  demands  and  supply;  4)  ways  to  enhance  water  conservation;  and  5)  identify  and   evaluate  a  range  of  alternatives  for  water  storage,  for  meeting  future  needs.         Specifically,  the  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  will  perform  the  following  tasks  for  City   Council’s  review:       • Helping  the  City  refine  and  implement  a  robust  public  engagement  plan  to   accompany  the  City  and  Working  Group’s  work;   • Building  a  public  understanding  of  the  current  water  system’s  operations,  existing   supplies,  and  potential  water  supply  challenges,  in  the  context  of  the  overall   watershed  and  community  water  consumption;   • Identifying  the  possible  drivers  of  population  change,  as  well  as  a  range  of   possibilities  for  population  change  in  the  City  and  water  service  territory  over  time   under  different  scenarios,  including  consideration  of  zoning  and  the  AACP  goals   regarding  growth  and  population;   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   8     • • • • •   Working  to  develop  an  increased  understanding  of  the  potential  effects  of  climate   change  on  the  natural  hydrological  system,  operation  of  the  City’s  water  system,   and  human  demographics  and  behavior  as  they  affect  the  City  of  Aspen;   Contributing  to  a  set  of  criteria  for  evaluating  various  alternatives  for  meeting   potential  future  water  needs,  including  criteria  based  on  community  values  such  as   environmental  health  and  sustainability,  engineering  considerations,  water  rights   and  law,  and  costs  and  implications  for  rate  payers/users;       Scoping  a  range  of  possible  alternatives  and  identifying  their  strengths  and   weaknesses  against  the  criteria  created  above;     Supporting  and  working  with  other  regional  entities  who  may  host  public   education  and  information  sessions  on  related  topics;  and   Contributing  to  other  tasks  as  needed,  at  the  direction  of  City  Council  with  input   from  City  staff.     Membership:  The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  will  be  comprised  of  the  representatives   of  stakeholder  appointed  by  the  City  Council.    The  City  Council  will  hold  a  brief  nomination   process  followed  by  interviews  that  will  be  open  to  the  public.    The  Council  may  also,  as   needed,  appoint  members  and  alternates  for  those  members.    The  suggested  stakeholder   groups  and  approximate  number  of  representatives  are  as  follows:    City  Council  (up  to  2);   City  Manager  or  designee  (1);  Aspen  resident  ratepayers  (4);  business  ratepayers  (up  to  2);   non-­‐governmental  organizations  representing  environmental  interests  (2);  leaders  or   water  constituents  representing  Pitkin  County  interests  (up  to  2);  and,  landowners   affected  or  potentially  affected  by  City  water  supply  operations  (1).  Parties  to  the  City’s   conditional  water  rights  court  case  may  be  considered  for  the  above  roles  on  the   Technical  Advisory  Work  Group.     Membership  Criteria:    Members  will  be  selected  based  on  their:  1)  ability  to  represent  that   stakeholder  interest;  2)  willingness  to  commit  to  at  least  monthly  meetings  over  a  period   of  up  to  one  year;  3)  ability  to  learn,  explore,  and  take  the  time  necessary  to  be  highly   informed  about  the  issues;  4)  ability  to  reach  out  to  and  inform  constituents,  to  the  extent   the  participant  is  able  to  do  so;  and,  5)  willingness  to  be  a  collaborative,  cooperative   participant  in  the  water  study  process.     Technical  Liaisons:    The  City  Council  may  draw  on  the  rich  talents  of  Aspen’s  citizens  and   local  organizations  in  providing  relevant  expertise  to  the  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group.   The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  may  also  ask  to  specifically  appoint  technical  liaisons   who  do  not  represent  particular  constituents  but  can  offer  expertise  and  advise  the   Working  Group,  subject  to  City  approval.     Facilitation:    To  ensure  participation  and  engagement  by  all,  an  independent  facilitator   would  be  retained  to  facilitate  the  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  meetings,  help  plan   agendas,  support  broader  public  engagement,  and  communicate  with  participants  and   stakeholders.       Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   9       Role  of  the  City:    The  City  will  play  various  roles  in  this  process,  with  staff  providing  project   management  and  technical  support  in  collaboration  with  the  Technical  Advisory  Work   Group,  and  City  Council  acting  as  final  decision-­‐maker.     • The  City  staff  will  create  a  long-­‐term  plan  informed  by  the  work  of  this  Technical   Advisory  Work  Group  to  be  deliberated,  decided,  and  accepted  by  the  City  Council.   • The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  will  provide  recommendations  to  City  Staff  in   developing  the  key  components  of  a  long-­‐term  plan.   • The  City  Council,  through  selected  councilpersons,  will  be  active  participants  in  the   work  of  the  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group.   • The  City  Council  as  a  whole  will  conduct  work  sessions  on  key  topics,  as  desired,   during  the  water  study  process,  working  closely  with  the  Technical  Advisory  Work   Group  to  ensure  coordination  and  support  for  the  process.   • The  City  Water  Utility  will  provide  a  project  manager/liaison  to  the  Technical   Advisory  Work  Group.    The  project  manager  will  work  with  the  Technical  Advisory   Work  Group  and  facilitator  to  handle  meeting  logistics,  circulate  meeting   materials,  engage  technical  consultants  as  needed,  prepare  presenters,  coordinate   with  other  City  departments  and  staff,  develop  agendas  in  consultation  with   members,  and  perform  other  actions  as  needed  to  ensure  success.     • Other  City  staff  will  participate  in  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  meeting  as   needed  for  providing  data  and  information,  communications  and  outreach,  and   public  engagement  activities.       Working  Sub-­‐Groups:    The  Technical  Advisory  Working  Group  will  likely  establish  various   sub-­‐groups  to  undertake  exploration  of  specific  issues  or  elements  of  a  possible  plan.     These  sub-­‐groups  may  include  technical  experts  and  others  who  are  not  members  of  the   Technical  Advisory  Work  Group.    The  Sub-­‐Groups  may  work  sequentially  or  in  parallel,   depending  on  need,  timing,  and  effort.     Community  Engagement:    The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  with  City  staff  will  help   launch  and  implement  robust  public  and  citizen  engagement  concurrent  with  its  activities.     This  broader  engagement  should  include,  but  not  be  limited  to  the  following:   • Periodic,  well-­‐advertised  and  marketed,  community-­‐wide  meetings  for  all   interested  citizens  to  meet  together  to  discuss  and  dialogue  on  these  issues;   • A  variety  of  outreach  tools  to  reach  different  audiences,  such  as  a  project  website,   regular  email  or  list-­‐serve  updates,  focus  groups,  community-­‐wide  meetings,   workshops,  newsletters,  videos,  podcasts,  and  social  media;   • Well-­‐structured  meetings  that  include  clear,  understandable  presentations,   specific  and  precise  questions  or  explanations  of  problems  to  solve  or  ideas  to   consider,  in  order  to  develop  shared  understanding  and  a  common  basis  of   information;   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   10     • •     Clear  and  effective  groundrules  for  all  engagements  that  allow  for  transparent,   detailed,  constructive,  and  respectful  dialogue;  and,   Tracking  of  comments  and  input  through  meeting  summaries,  a  comment  data   base,  visible  and  transparent  on-­‐line  comments,  and/or  other  means  to  ensure   comments  are  considered,  transparent,  and  trackable.     “Rules  of  the  Road.”    The  Technical  Advisory  Work  Group  participants  will  abide  by  the   following  terms:   • The  Work  Group  is  advisory  with  the  direction  and  all  final  decisions  being  made  by   City  Council;   • Work  Group  members  will  come  prepared  to  meetings,  keeping  up  with   documents,  meeting  summaries,  and  other  information  provided  ahead  of  time;   • Work  Group  members  will  attend  all  or  most  meetings.  Repeated  lack  of   attendance  will  be  subject  to  replacement  by  the  Council;   • Work  Group  members  will  consider  seriously  and  take  into  account  technical   information  and  background  in  order  to  inform  alternatives  and  choices  (i.e.,  seek   an  evidence-­‐based  approached);   • Work  Group  members  may  have  preferences,  but  will  be  willing  to  explore  a  full   range  of  alternatives  for  purposes  of  deliberation;   • Work  Group  members  will  bring  any  concerns  and  issues  directly  to  the  Work   Group,  rather  than  raising  them  through  traditional  media,  social  media,  or  other   alternative  means;   • Work  Group  members  will  engage  in  robust  dialogue,  including  surfacing  and   understanding  differences  of  opinions,  in  a  constructive  and  respectful  way;   • Work  Group  members  will  refrain  from  personal  attacks  on  individuals,  focusing  on   the  substantive  problems,  not  the  people;   • Work  Group  members  are  free  to  speak  for  themselves,  but  will  not  speak  on   behalf  of  the  Advisory  Work  Group  as  a  whole.   Consensus  Building  Institute    City  of  Aspen  Collaborative  Water  Supply  Study  –  Final  Convening  Assessment   11