history & tour of water system

7 | 2016 WATER TOUR

Water has always been one of Colorado Springs’ greatest challenges and greatest successes. How and where do we get water? How shall we store it and how should we provide for the future?

Settlers began addressing water supply in the early 1870s by digging an open ditch from Fountain Creek into town. The water ran “clear and limpid through the streets,” according to early-day accounts. From the El Paso Canal, residents dipped out their needs for bathing and washing clothes. Wells were relied upon for drinking water.

In 1873, the ditch water and many wells became polluted and local citizens demanded a new system. Officials looked to the mountains for a water supply, starting with Ruxton Creek above Manitou.

Development of a local mountain system – water from Pikes Peak – began in the 1890s. Through U.S. Congress grants and other purchases, the city received title to the Seven Lakes on the South Slope of Pikes Peak and surrounding lands.

In 1891, Colorado Springs paid $70,000 for the Seven Lakes and built Lake Moraine Dam. Boehmer was developed in 1894, Bighorn and Wilson in 1896, Mason and McReynolds in 1905, and Big Tooth in 1929. The South Slope system includes seven tunnels, the longest of which is Strickler Tunnel at 6,480 feet. The South Slope and other facilities were sufficient to keep the city supplied with quality domestic water into the 1930s.

Survey work on the North Slope watershed began in 1901. In 1908, the city acquired private property

on North and South Catamount, Crystal, North Cascade, South Cascade, and Cascade Creeks. A 1913 Act of Congress set aside an additional 10,000 acres for water development. Finally, in 1930, the city purchased the holdings of the Empire Land and Water Company for $30,000.

During the 1930s, when the federal government was encouraging projects to help pull the nation out of the Great Depression, two North Slope reservoirs – Crystal and South Catamount – were built with 30 percent of the funding provided by the federal government. North Catamount Reservoir was added to this system in 1960, primarily to handle water collected from the Blue River System.

The North Slope has three reservoirs: Crystal, South Catamount, and North Catamount. There are 10 tunnels in this system, nine on the Old North Slope pipeline and one on the New North Slope pipeline.

In 1949, Colorado Springs Utilities expanded again, this time obtaining the Northfield System consisting of the Old Northfield Reservoir, Nichols Reservoir and a treatment facility. The system included water rights and was purchased for about $1.25 million.

The local system, which includes the South and North Slopes of Pikes Peak, the Northfield System, the South Suburban System and the Monument Creek diversions, can supply Colorado Springs with about 20 percent of the city’s use.

The Blue River Project, completed in the early 1950s, marked the Utilities’ first venture into

History: Colorado Springs’ Water Collection System

2016 WATER TOUR | 8

transmountain water diversion. This project was spurred on by the need to meet water requirements for the US Air Force Academy. Commonly called “The Blue,” the system is an important contributor to Colorado Springs’ water supply. While building The Blue, engineers already were at work acquiring water rights and designing a project that led to construction of Phase I of the Homestake Project.

Homestake was a joint venture of Colorado Springs and Aurora, with the two cities sharing equally the costs and the production. It opened in 1967.

Colorado Springs and Aurora proceeded with plans to further develop the Homestake Project. Work was halted when Eagle County denied a 1041 Land UsePermit for the Homestake II project configuration within the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. The Eagle County decision was unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court; however, the water rights were confirmed. Today, the cities are working to develop the remaining Homestake Project conditional water rights under a different project configuration that avoids impacts in the Wilderness area.

After long negotiations and public hearings, Colorado Springs completed a monumental water acquisition in 1972 with the purchase of shares in the Twin Lakes Company at a cost of $13.5 million. Since then, we have exercised our options and today own a majority interest in this water.

The Twin Lakes Company diverts water from the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries on the western side of the Continental Divide. Water is moved under the Divide through the Twin Lakes Tunnel to Lake

Creek for transport into Twin Lakes Reservoir near Leadville. About one-tenth of the Twin Lakes system production is diversion of east-slope water native to Lake Creek; the remainder is transmountain water.

Since the late 1970s, Colorado Springs and other cities such as Pueblo have received water from the Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. Initially, the Project supplied Colorado Springs through the existing Homestake system, but completion of the Fountain Valley Conduit in 1985 allowed water to move from Pueblo Reservoir via a pipeline to Colorado Springs. The other Fountain Valley Authority participants – Fountain, Widefield, Security, and Stratmoor Hills – share in the production according to contractual conveyance schedules.Purchase of the majority interest in the Colorado Canal, Lake Henry and Lake Meredith occurred in early 1986. Water is diverted for these sources into the Colorado Canal at the Arkansas River near Boone. Water can be released from storage in Lake Meredith to return to the Arkansas River in exchange for water stored in upstream reservoirs. The exchanged water is delivered to the city through the Otero Pump Station and Homestake Pipeline.

Colorado Springs uses transmountain return flows by exchanging the water upstream into our local water system to points that are tributary to Fountain Creek. This exchange first occurred in 1981. The Water Court decreed an exchange water right in 1987. The yields from these exchanges significantly increase the effective yields of existing and future imported transmountain water sources. The exchange program is an incredibly efficient and effective water reuse program, whereby we get multiple uses out of our valuable reusable water supplies.

In 1996, through the development of the Water Resource Plan, the need for a major delivery system to convey additional water to Colorado Springs was identified as a requirement before 2020. In April 2016, we completed the Southern Delivery System, which delivers water to Colorado Springs and our partners in Fountain, Security and Pueblo West.

We are currently in the process of developing our next iteration of comprehensive water planning, which will serve as our community’s road map for ensuring a reliable, cost-effective water supply for the next 50 years. The Integrated Water Resource Plan will be completed in 2017.

9 | 2016 WATER TOUR

Today: Colorado Springs’ Water Collection System

In 2015, the water system served an estimated 470,513 people in Colorado Springs, the Ute Pass communities west of the city, military bases and other suburban areas outside the city limits. Customers’ water use averaged 60 million gallons per day or 21.882 billion gallons across the year.

The system delivered 21.9 billion gallons of potable water in 2015. This compares to water deliveries of 28.7 billion gallons in 2012 (the most recent high water use year). When fully developed, potable and non-potable water resources will provide firm yield of about 152,000 acre-feet. Firm yield is defined as the highest level of demand that can be reliably met by the water system without realizing a shortage over a period of both wet and dry years.

As part of our updated Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP), we are moving from a supply-centric firm yield estimate to a risk-based approach, using an estimated likelihood of meeting a particular level of demand and associated reserve storage. This approach integrates reliability, resiliency and vulnerability in the development, operation and maintenance of a robust, sustainable water system.

We have sufficient water supply to meet the needs of the area into the 2040 decade under present population and per capita demand projections, assuming retention of all present water resource entitlements and timely development of necessary additional facilities, including the recently completed Southern Delivery System, or SDS.

DROUGHT CONDITIONS IN THE REGIONOur community’s water supply system is designed and operated to withstand recurring cycles of drought through a complex network of storage reservoirs, water delivery systems and related water infrastructure. We rely more heavily on storage to meet customer demands during periods of drought when water system inflows are below average.

Colorado, along with most of the western United States, experiences recurring drought cycles. The western United States has experienced drought conditions of varying degrees for the last 15-plus years. Colorado Springs’ most recent drought cycle developed in 2012 and lasted through 2013.

In 2013, we implemented a comprehensive drought

response plan to respond and minimize impact on our customers. Using a combination of demand-side and supply side water management strategies, we were able to achieve significant water savings and minimize the decline in water storage levels in 2013.

During the winters of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, Colorado Springs received average to above-average snowpack in its water supply watersheds along the continental divide and to a lesser extent on Pikes Peak. This, coupled with wet spring conditions in our service area led to reduced and delayed outdoor water demands. Today we have above average systemwide storage levels that have largely mitigated the effect of the 2011 through 2013 shortfalls. While drought conditions persist in some areas of the west, with higher than normal snowpack and lower demands locally, we have three years of demand in storage (as of August 2016). We continue to closely monitor the water supply situation and rely on a combination of water in storage, water system inflows and effective management of these supplies to meet customer demands.

RELIANCE ON COLORADO RIVER WATER SUPPLYOur community’s water supply is heavily reliant on the Colorado River Basin. Seventy percent of our water supply is attributable to the first use and subsequent reuse of Colorado River Basin supplies. We, along with other Colorado Front Range water providers including Denver and Aurora, serve about 80 percent of Colorado’s population and economy. About 72 percent of this supply comes from the Colorado River Basin. As a result, Front Range water providers have a large stake in the future of the

Colorado River at Lake Powell

2016 WATER TOUR | 10

status in relation to the state’s obligations under the Colorado River Compact.

Although the Colorado River Basin is in the midst of a 15-year drought, the Upper Basin States have delivered around 90 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin States over the past 10 years. This is well in excess of their 10-year rolling delivery requirement of 75 million acre-feet and there is little risk of aColorado River curtailment in the foreseeable fu-ture. The June 1, 2016 Lake Powell most probable forecast was 6.5 million acre feet, or 91 percent of average, and Lake Powell is approximately 56 percent full as of August 7, 2016. There is little near- term risk of the Lower Basin States entering into a shortage condition due to low Lake Mead levels.There is concern over the long-term drought as it

Colorado River and how the challenges of increasing population, long-term drought, and climate change will be addressed.

The Colorado River Compact allocates Colorado River water according to specified formulas among seven western states (the lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada and the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming). Our water rights are subject to the obligation of Colorado and the other upper basin states to ensure a certain amount of Colorado River water reaches the lower basin states over a 10-year rolling period. If shortage conditions are experienced (for example, as a result of a prolonged drought and resulting low stream flows) and the upper basin states are not able to meet their obligations to the lower basin states, it is possible that we would be unable to use all of our Colorado River water rights due to our subordinate

Average Percent YieldActual diversions 1994 through 2015

Continued on next page ...

Twin Lakes21%

Homestake12%

Blue River8% Local

17%

Exchange to Pueblo20%

Arkansas River18%

Fry-Ark ActualAllocations 4%

11 | 2016 WATER TOUR

relates to other critical storage levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Lake Powell elevations above the minimum power pool (the minimum elevation required to produce hydropower) are desired. Proactive measures to protect the Lake Powell power pool will reduce impacts to power production. Critical Lake Mead water elevations are related to Lower Basin shortage sharing agreements and Southern Nevada Water Authority water intake loca-tions. The Upper and Lower Basin States continue to work on respective contingency planning efforts in coordination with the U.S. Department of Interior.

Front Range cities, including Colorado Springs, are actively involved in numerous planning efforts and studies related to sustainability of Colorado River Ba-sin supplies. These communities closely monitor the ongoing discussions between the Upper and Lower Basin States, the Federal Government, and other stakeholders on issues involving the Colorado River. We are participating in regional studies, including:

• A state-sponsored look at a Colorado River Water Bank (facilitation of short-term sharing of water between West Slope agricultural water users and East Slope cities); and

• A stakeholder group process for developing alternatives to proposed Wild and Scenic designations in the Colorado River Basin that would provide flexibility to water providers.

• A risk study using the Colorado River Simulation System evaluating the likelihood of different Lake Powell storage levels, sensitivity to various input assumptions, and the efficacy of different demand responses.

Our IWRP has identified Colorado River shortages as a key threat to our water supply sustainability, and we are investigating possible solutions to mitigate the impacts of those shortages.

REUSE OF RETURN FLOWSWe have the legal right and, in some cases, a legal obligation, to reuse and successively use to extinction the return flows that result from the initial use of our transmountain water and certain other water sources. Based on present projections, the amount of return flow available for reuse is about 80,900 acre-feet per year when all our present sources are fully developed. Return flow reuse can occur directly through non-potable uses of reclaimed wastewater (see Wastewater System section for further information) or indirectly through exchanges (i.e., the trading of the our return flows for other water sources at different upstream locations) and through augmentation of well pumping and diver-sions.

The reuse of wastewater return flows by exchange from Fountain Creek to Pueblo Reservoir and other locations in the Upper Arkansas River Basin yields, on average, around 20 percent of our annual water supply. Exchanges provide system flexibility by placing water where the demand exists. Utilities exchanged approximately 35,400, 34,800 and 20,700 acre feet of water during 2013, 2014 and 2015 (Oct. 1 to Sept. 30), respectively. These include local system exchanges, river exchanges and contract exchanges within the Arkansas River Basin. In addition, reuse by augmentation (i.e., replacing depletions from out-of-priority groundwater pumping or diversions using substitute supplies) totals about 4,300 acre-feet annually. Through the reuse and exchange of imported water, we are able

Water collection system today continued ...

Rosemont Reservoir

Fountain Creek


to stretch existing water supplies and optimize our operations. In many cases, each acre foot of water we import can be reused up to two additional times.

ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTSLegislation often influences water development activities, specifically environmental policies that address with land use, appropriation and allocation of water resources and water quality. Environmental laws and regulations could limit our current system yield or further expansion of existing water projects (particularly transmountain projects) and prohibit new project development.

Federal Land Policy and Management ActThe Federal Land Policy and Management Act allows the federal government to grant easements or issue special use permits for rights-of-way for water facilities crossing or located upon federal property and requires that these permits include conditions

necessary to protect the environment. Upon renewal or reopening of the various special use permits that we currently hold for the water system, additional conditions such as minimum stream flows or bypass requirements, might be imposed that could reduce the yield of related parts of the system in the future.

The federal government has designated large parcels of federally owned mountain land as controlled land use areas, pending an evaluation for possible inclusion within the national wilderness preservation system. The inclusion of land within a wilderness area can render a water source unusable due to access restrictions and federal reserved water rights claims, or force a change to a less desirable, more expensive alternative

development or operation plan.

Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act The Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is designed to protect certain free-flowing rivers identified by federal agencies, and U.S. Congress has authority to designate segments of a river as wild, scenic or recreational depending upon the presence of valued characteristics. Designation of a segment requires federal agencies to manage the river and adjacent lands to protect the identified valued characteristics and provides legal support for the appropriation of any new federal water rights. Both of these efforts present potential issues that could restrict our system’s operations and development.

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act creates potential constraints on water operations and development. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court considers hydrologic modifications as “pollution” under the Act, and stated that instream flow requirements as special use permit conditions may be appropriate to protect designated stream uses.

Similarly, recent federal courts of appeals decisions (outside our jurisdiction) raise the issue of whether a permit is necessary to transfer raw water from one water body to another. Such conditions may increase the costs of future system operations and development of water resources.

The EPA’s emphasis on watershed planning and proposed modifications to the water quality standards program involve such issues as biological criteria, anti-degradation review of permitted activities and standards for clean sediment and nutrients, which could further impact water project construction and operation.

The recent adoption by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers of a new rule defining “Waters of the U.S.” could expand the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Act, creating the need for additional permit approvals, including for dredge and fill activities (section 404) and point source discharges (section 402). The need for such approvals may trigger costly and time intensive reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The rule is currently the subject of litigation and legislation.


Wetlands near Homestake Reservoir


Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by a federal agency before it issues any authorization or permit for an activity. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the proposed activity will have a detrimental impact on threatened or endangered species or their habitat, it must identify a reasonable and prudent alternative which would not jeopardize the species or result in the destruction of its habitat. This process can result in decreased project yields, increased project costs or both.

The U.S. Forest Service is pursuing, or may pursue, legal action in which it claims vested federal reserved water rights to water in and through national forests and other federally owned lands. Some of these rights are or would be superior to some of our rights within Colorado’s water allocation system, including the Arapaho and White River National Forests, both of which were reserved in 1905. These forests, located within the Colorado River and Arkansas River drainages, encompass our water rights sources and entitlements connected with the Homestake, Blue River, Twin Lakes and Fryingpan-Arkansas Projects.

STORMWATER CONCERNSStormwater, particularly that which flows into Fountain Creek, is a significant concern for Colorado Springs, our organization and other Pikes Peak regional entities. As part of the Pueblo County 1041 permit for SDS, our community is required to main-tain stormwater controls and regulations to help ensure that peak flows resulting from new develop-ment served by SDS within the creek basin are no greater than existing conditions.

To help address the issue, City Council adopted in 2014 a new drainage criteria manual designed to ensure that new development controls stormwater run-off associated with impervious surfaces.

In addition, Colorado Springs Utilities and the City of Colorado Springs signed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in April 2016 with Pueblo County to collaborate in identifying, prioritizing and funding critical stormwater projects.

Under the IGA, the City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities will spend $460 million over 20 years to fund more than 70 capital projects. Additionally, we will provide three annual payments of $1 million toward the City of Pueblo’s levee repair and improvement work with matching contributions from Pueblo. We also made a permit-required payment of $9.6 million to the Fountain Creek Watershed District and will make four additional payments of $10 million each. The IGA allowed the Southern Delivery System to begin serving customers as planned without the threat of legal complications.

WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Included in our system are 26 earthen and rock-fill dams. State safety regulations require that dams have spillway capacity and structural integrity sufficient to withstand a major flood without failing or contributing to the magnitude of the flood.

In response to our Raw Water Infrastructure Im-provement Program, we are designing and construct-ing recommended improvements at a cost averaging about $5 million per year through 2017 to remain in compliance with federal and state requirements.

Crystal Reservoir

Water collection system today continued ...

Creek drop structures help with stormwater management


The Homestake Dam rehabilitation project, which began in 2011 and was completed in 2014, was the most significant rehabilitation of this dam since its original construction and included new hydraulic asphalt that has a projected 50-year life span. Our total cost for the project was $27.8 million.

Long-term planning for the water supply system is an ongoing endeavor. The previous major planning effort was the Water Resource Plan completed in 1996 which addressed water supply until the 2040 decade, including conservation, existing system improvements, non-potable water development, and a major delivery system now known as SDS.

The Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP), due for completion in 2016, will build on and enhance the previous Water Resource Plan by assessing the water needs and supply of the community. Risk-based analysis and an extensive public process will help determine the direction and appropriate cost- benefit relationships for projects and programs.

SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEMIn September 2010, construction of the Southern Delivery System Phase 1 was initiated. SDS began delivering water to Colorado Springs Utilities cus-tomers and project partner communities in April 2016.

Phase 1 included installation of about 50 miles of underground water pipeline and the construction of three pump stations, a water treatment plant and finished water distribution facilities. The project was completed on time and more than $160 million under budget at a total cost of $825 million.

When needed, Phase 2 will address demand, system capacity and system redundancy beyond Phase 1. Components will include a terminal storage reser-voir, a return flow reservoir, and expansion of the water treatment plant and finished water pumping capacity to serve additional pressure zones within the distribution system. Phase 2 is anticipated to be built between 2020 and 2025, but a final schedule is dependent on future water demand and climate conditions being evaluated as part of the IWRP.

More information on this project is available under the SDS section of this binder.

SDS construction at Pueblo Dam


The Pikes Peak South Slope was Colorado Springs’ first major water source, with development beginning in the late 1880s. The seven reservoirs on South Slope have a combined storage capacity of approximately 2,286,100,000 gallons (7,016 acre feet).

Water collected in Bighorn and Wilson Reservoirs is diverted through the Strickler Tunnel to Boehmer Reservoir. Water from Boehmer Reservoir is released downstream into either Mason or

McReynolds Reservoirs. Water from Mason and/or McReynolds Reservoirs flows through the St. John’s Tunnel to Lake Moraine. Water from Lake Moraine can be diverted to Big Tooth Reservoir or delivered through the Ruxton Hydro Power Plant and Manitou Hydro Power Plant to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant. Water from Big Tooth Reservoir and stream flow from Main Ruxton, Lion and Sheep Creeks is diverted through the Manitou Hydro Power Plant to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

Ruxton Hydro Power Plant and Manitou Hydro Power Plant have a combined production of six megawatts.

South Slope and Ruxton Creek water can also be routed down Ruxton Creek and Fountain Creek and diverted at the 33rd Street Pump Station.

South Slope Water System

N• Boehmer• Little Beaver• Sackett• Middle Beaver• Main Ruxton• Lion

• Sheep• Cabin• South Ruxton• Willow• East Fork of Beaver

Creeks feeding this watershed

Reservoir Date completed

Capacity in gallons

Capacity in acre-feet

Big Horn 1896 62,300,000 191Big Tooth 1929 90,300,000 277Boehmer 1894 176,300,000 541

Mason 1905 640,300,000 1,965McReynolds 1905 667,900,000 2,050

Lake Moraine

1891 431,000,000 1,323

Wilson 1896 218,000,000 669


The three reservoirs on the North Slope of Pikes Peak – Crystal, South Catamount and North Catamount – have a combined capacity of about 5,916,600,000 gallons (18,157 acre feet). This was the second mountain system purchased and developed for Colorado Springs citizens.

North Slope water can be discharged from any one of the reservoirs into the transfer line to Northfield, or into the North Slope pipeline that delivers water to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

Water flowing through the new North Slope pipeline can be diverted through the Northfield transfer line for treatment at the Pine Valley Water Treatment

Plant. It also flows to the Ute Pass Water Treatment Plant, which provides service to Green Mountain Falls, Chipita Park, and Cascade, before it flows through the Manitou Hydro Power Plant and on to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

Stream flow from the Cascade Creeks and French Creek are collected by the old North Slope line prior to delivery to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

Cascade Creeks and French Creek water also can flow into Fountain Creek and be picked up at the 33rd Street Pump Station for delivery to Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

North Slope Water System


Capacity in gallons


Crystal 1935 1,148,000,000 3,523North

Catamount1960 3,920,200,000 12,030

South Catamount

1937 848,400,000 2,604

• North Catamount• South Catamount• Crystal

• South Cascade• North Cascade• French

N Creeks feeding this watershed


Northfield Water System

The total combined capacity of Northfield storage – Rampart Reservoir built in 1970, Northfield Reservoir built in 1890 and Nichols Reservoir built in 1913 – is approximately 13,599,000,000 gallons (41,733 acre-feet). This was the third watershed system to be purchased and developed for citizens of Colorado Springs.

Most water stored in Northfield Reservoirs comes from other systems. This includes water transported from the North Slope of Pikes Peak, Homestake, Blue River, Twin Lakes and Fryingpan-Arkansas, Colorado Canal and exchange water delivered from the Otero Pump Station in Buena Vista. The primary flow to McCullough and Pine Valley Water Treatment Plants from Rampart Reservoir is via the Stanley

Canyon Tunnel and through the Tesla Hydro Power Plant. Alternatively, water stored in Rampart Reservoir can flow through a pipeline 3.8 miles to the Pine Valley Water Treatment Plant. Water released from Rampart Reservoir also flows downstream into Nichols Reservoir. Released Nichols Reservoir water runs downstream into Northfield Reservoir. Water from Northfield Reservoir can be delivered via the pipeline to the Pine Valley Water Treatment Plant.

Stanley Canyon Reservoir, located on the U.S. Air Force Academy is no longer used, but is being considered for use as a non-potable water storage facility and primitive recreation site.

• Upper West Monument• Wildcat Gulch• North Fork of West Monument

Creeks feeding this watershedN


Capacity in gallons

Capacity in acre feet

Nichols 1913 191,000,000 586Northfield 1890 90,000,000 276Rampart 1970 13,318,000,000 40,871


The combined storage of Montgomery and Upper Blue Reservoirs is about 2,338,900,000 gallons. (7,178 acre feet).

A series of three tunnels and several pipeline facilities divert stream flow from the Blue River and its tributaries, as well as water stored in Upper Blue Reservoir, through Hoosier Tunnel to Montgomery Reservoir. Water from Montgomery Reservoir flows through a 30-inch pipeline, some 70 miles in length, to North Catamount or South Catamount Reservoir on the North Slope of Pikes Peak. It also can be diverted through a connection in the Twin Rock Pump Station via the 48-inch lower Homestake Pipeline to Rampart Reservoir.

Blue River Water System


Capacity in gallons


Montgomery 1957 1,658,000,000 5,088Upper Blue 1966 681,000,000 2,090

• Crystal• Spruce• McCullough• East Hoosier• Hoosier• Silver

• Middle Fork of the South Platte River

• Blue River Headwaters

N Creeks feeding this watershed

19 | 2016 WATER TOURH

omes

take

Wat

er S

yste

m

• Hom

esta

ke• M

isso

uri

• Fre

nch

• Fan

cy

• Sop

ris

• Eas

t For

k of

H

omes

take

Cree

ks fe

edin

g th

is w

ater

shed

N

Bai

ley

W

ater

Tr

eatm

ent

Plan

tSo

uthe

rn D

eliv

ery

Syst

em P

ipel

ine


Colorado Springs and Aurora are equal partners in the Homestake Project and share in the ownership, costs and yield of the water rights, collection system and much of the transmission infrastructure.

The joint venture ends on the Homestake Pipeline, south of Spinney Mountain Reservoir. Colorado Springs and Aurora individually constructed facilities to transmit water to their systems. Colorado Springs’ share of Homestake Reservoir is about 6,986,000,000 gallons. Full capacity, including Aurora’s share, is 13,972,900,000.

Water is collected in Homestake Reservoir and moves through the Continental Divide via the Homestake Tunnel into Lake Fork Creek above Turquoise Reservoir. Homestake water flows through Turquoise Reservoir and the Mount Elbert Conduit into Twin Lakes Reservoir, where it is used to generate electricity. After that, it flows into Twin Lakes Reservoir and is transported by a pipeline to the Otero Pump Station near Buena Vista. This pipeline transports Homestake, Twin Lakes, Fry-Ark, Colorado Canal and exchange water.

At Otero, the water is boosted for travel to Colorado Springs through a 66-inch diameter, 50-mile pipeline to the south of Spinney Mountain Reservoir. Aurora’s water is released at this location.

Colorado Springs’ water flows through a 48-inch diameter, 26-mile pipeline, where it is boosted by the Twin Rock Pump Station, just west of Divide, into Rampart Reservoir at Northfield, or diverted via the 30-inch Blue River pipeline to the North Slope of Pikes Peak.

The Twin Rock Pump Station was completed in 2002. As a part of the process, meetings were held with area residents to discuss the station’s outside look. The pump station was constructed to look like a barn from the outside, which fits its rural surroundings. The pump station holds four main pumps, a gravity bypass line to transfer water from

Homestake Water System

Homestake Reservoir


Storage account in gallons

Storage account in acre feet

Colorado Springs Homestake Account 1967 6,986,000,000 21,441Colorado Springs Turquoise Account 1975 10,563,000,000 32,416

the Blue River line to Rampart Reservoir, and a pumped inter-tie to send Homestake System water to North Catamount Reservoir via the Blue River Pipeline.

21 | 2016 WATER TOURTw

in L

akes

Wat

er S

yste

m

N

Bai

ley

W

ater

Tr

eatm

ent

Plan

tSo

uthe

rn D

eliv

ery

Syst

em P

ipel

ine


Colorado Springs bought into the Twin Lakes System in 1972. The Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company is a series of corporations formed for various purposes over the history of the Colorado Canal irrigation system, which was first incorporated on May 24, 1890.

The Twin Lakes Water System was formed to build the Twin Lakes Reservoir high on Lake Creek, a mountain tributary of the Arkansas River. The Twin Lakes Reservoir was originally decreed by the Chaffee County District Court with 1896 and 1897 priorities for a total of 54,452 acre feet from Lake Creek. This was for the benefit of agricultural water users under the Colorado Canal system. Even as augmented by Twin Lakes Reservoir, the supply for Colorado Canal was short.

Accordingly, in 1930 the water users under the Colorado Canal enlarged their water supply by constructing the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System, taking water from the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River for direct flow use under the Colorado Canal system and storage in Twin Lakes Reservoir.

In 1972, we completed the purchase of 54.7 percent of the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company. Colorado Springs’ share of Twin Lakes water collects from the Roaring Fork River tributaries, the New York System and Grizzly Creek into Grizzly Reservoir. Water then moves through the Twin Lakes Tunnel into Lake Creek, and finally to Twin Lakes Reservoir (now owned and operated by the Bureau of Recla-mation).

Water then flows down the Otero Pipeline to the Otero Pump Station, through the Homestake Pipeline to the Twin Rock Pump Station to Northfield, or is diverted via the 30-inch Blue River Pipeline to the North Slope of Pikes Peak. It also may flow from Twin Lakes down the Arkansas River to Pueblo Reservoir and be delivered to Colorado Springs via the Fountain Valley Authority system.In the future, water can be delivered through the Southern Delivery System.

Twin Lakes Water System

Twin Lakes Reservoir




Colorado Springs Twin Lakes Account 1900 9,705,000,000 29,786

23 | 2016 WATER TOURFr

ying

pan-

Ark

ansa

s Pr

ojec

t

N

Bai

ley

W

ater

Tr

eatm

ent

Plan

tFoun

tain

Va

lley

Trea

tmen

t Fa

cilit

y

Sout

hern

Del

iver

y Sy

stem

Pip

elin

e


The Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is a transmountain diversion that supplies southeastern Colorado with a supplemental water supply for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses, hydroelectric power generation, and transmission and recreational opportunities. The project earned its name because it collects about 59,000 acre-feet of water each year from the Fryingpan River Basin on the west slope of the Continental Divide and delivers to the Arkansas River Basin on the eastern slope.

Pueblo Dam and Reservoir, the largest reservoir in the project, is on the Arkansas River. The project also includes a 200-megawatt power plant at the base of Mount Elbert, Colorado’s highest peak, near Leadville.

Fryingpan-Arkansas water is primarily delivered to Colorado Springs via the Fountain Valley Authority Pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir. As an alternative, water can be stored in Turquoise or Twin Lakes Reservoirs and transported to Colorado Springs via the Homestake system.

The communities of Colorado Springs, Fountain, Security, Widefield and Stratmoor Hills participate in the project and all have ownership in the Fountain Valley Authority.

Fryingpan-Arkansas Project

Pueblo Reservoir and Dam




Colorado Springs Fry-Ark Account in Pueblo 1975 18,149,000,000 55,698Colorado Springs Excess Capacity Account 2011* 6,354,000,000 19,500

*40-year contract with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to store up to 28,000 AF


Fountain Valley

Authority

Bradley Pump Station

Las Vegas Water

Resource Recovery Facility

Bailey Water Treatment Plant

Fountain Creek

Williams Creek Pump

Station

Southern Delivery System

JD Phillips Water

Resource Recovery Facility

Arkansas River

Pueblo Reservoir

Juniper Pump Station

Exchange

N


The Southern Delivery System (SDS) was built 2010 through 2016 and delivered on time and $160 million under budget. SDS was constructed and integrated into the Colorado Springs Utilities system to convey water stored in Pueblo Reservoir to Colorado Springs and its three partner communities: Pueblo West Metropolitan District, City of Fountain and Security Water District. The need for SDS includes system redundancy to back up aging pipeline systems, additional water supplies for future population growth, and diversification of water sources. The exchange rights necessary for SDS to be operated date back to 1984.

The permitted capacity of SDS – meaning the pipeline capacity – is 78 mgd. As constructed in Phase 1, SDS is governed by the capacity of the three pump stations and treatment plant at 50 mgd.

SDS Phase 1 starts at Pueblo Dam in the newly constructed valve house and North Outlet Works. Under pressure from the weight of the water in the reservoir, water flows in a 90-inch pipeline past a turnout for a future hydroelectric project and delivers water to the Pueblo West Metropolitan District’s pump station. The pipe diameter reduces to 66 inches as the pipeline delivers water to Juniper Pump station, about half a mile from the dam. Juniper features four 2,270-horsepower pumps and has room for three more additional pumps when system demands call for them in the future.

Juniper Pump Station pumps SDS water more than 20 miles to the start of a mile-long tunnel that crosses 90 feet under Interstate 25, Fountain Creek and two rail lines. From here, it’s more than four miles to Williams Creek Pump Station, which features four 2,000-horsepower pumps and room for three more.

Then it’s about nine more miles to Bradley Pump Station and then its three 2,250-horsepower pumps with room for one more. Bradley pumps the water

about another nine miles to the 10-million gallon raw water storage tank at the Edward W. Bailey Water Treatment plant.

After state-of-the-art treatment, Bailey’s finished water pump station moves water north along Marksheffel Road into the Northfield Pressure Zone and southward into the Highline Transmission Main, making up more than four miles of finished water line.

Phase I of SDS is now complete; Phase II, to be built in the 2020-2025 time frame or as system demands indicate, could include Upper Williams Creek Reservoir as terminal storage; Williams Creek Reservoir to store and release return flows to Fountain Creek; up to seven additional pumps at the pump stations; and expansions at the treatment plant to serve additional pressure zones within the distribution system.

Southern Delivery System




Colorado Springs Fry-Ark Account in Pueblo 1975 18,149,000,000 55,698Colorado Springs Excess Capacity Account 2011* 6,354,000,000 19,500

*40-year contract with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to store up to 28,000 AF


Colorado Canal water is not delivered to Colorado Springs through any pipeline. Interest in this company allows us to exchange water to upstream reservoirs for delivery through the Fountain Valley Pipeline and Homestake systems. Colorado Canal water is released from one of the reservoirs to meet downstream water rights.

Colorado Canal

In 1985, City Council passed an ordinance allowing purchase of water rights, storage, land and rights- of-way, and a controlling interest in the Colorado Canal Company, the Lake Meredith Reservoir Company, and the Lake Henry Reservoir Company, all located east of Pueblo.

These facilities produce an annual average yield of about 28,000 acre-feet. They also provide valuable additional storage rights that increase the operational flexibility of our other water rights. Lake Meredith and Lake Henry are used as regulating reservoirs for exchange.

The water rights, as well as the reservoirs and the Colorado Canal, were once part of the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company. The rights, however, were separated into four distinct companies before the sale of the controlling interest in the Twin Lakes Company to Colorado Springs Utilities and others in the 1970s.

The Colorado Canal diverts water from the Arkansas River about 2.5 miles upstream from the town of Boone, 17 miles east of Pueblo. The canal travels east for 50 miles to a terminus at Lake Meredith and Lake Henry.

Lake Henry is about 1.5 miles long by 1.5 miles wide at its widest point. Lake Meredith is about six and a half miles long running southwest to northeast, and is about two miles wide at its widest point. Lake Henry has an active storage capacity of 3,051,000,000 gallons (9,363 acre-feet). Lake Meredith has an active storage capacity of 12,970,000,000 gallons (39,804 acre-feet ).

The interest purchased in the three water companies is 56.4 percent simple majority interest in the Colorado Canal Company, 51.9 percent simple majority interest in the Lake Meredith Company, and 77.2 percent controlling interest in the Lake Henry Company.


Storage account

in gallons


Colorado Springs Lake Henry Account 1890 2,184,000,000 6,704

Colorado Springs Lake Meredith Account 1890 6,728,000,000 20,650


This page intentionally left blank.

29 | 2016 WATER TOURLo

cal W

ater

Sys

tem

(Ros

emon

t an

d So

uth

Subu

rban

)

N



Capacity in gallons


Rosemont1932

(enlarged in 1962)

828,000,000 2,541

Creeks feeding watershed: Gould and East Beaver

Water from the Rosemont Watershed primarily is used for non-potable purposes on Broadmoor Hotel grounds and other users in the area. A pipeline delivers Cheyenne Creek water to Penrose Reservoir for use by The Broadmoor Hotel when Rosemont water supplies are low.

Rosemont water is delivered via South Cheyenne Canyon to South Suburban and Gold Camp Reservoirs, then on to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant for treatment to supply potable water needs.

Rosemont Water System


Capacity in gallons


South Suburban 1928 75,500,000 232

Gold Camp 1889 120,000,000 368

In 1966, Colorado Springs purchased the South Suburban Water Company, including water rights on North and South Cheyenne Creeks. An intake located one mile west of the intersection of North and South Cheyenne Canyon Roads diverts North Cheyenne Creek water. Water diverted by the intake flows through a pipeline one mile to South Suburban Reservoir, or to Gold Camp Reservoir via a branch line extending from the original pipeline and the Cheyenne Pump Station.

South Cheyenne Creek intake diverts water into a pipeline and transfers it one-half mile to a pump station, which then boosts the water the remaining one-quarter mile to South Suburban or Gold Camp Reservoirs. Another pipeline connects the pump station to Penrose Reservoir in order to enhance the water supply for the Broadmoor’s irrigation system and other non-potable uses.

Pipelines that convey South Suburban water to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant and bring filtered water back to the area were constructed in the 1990s.

South Suburban Water System

Over the years, local streams have supplied their share of water consumed in Colorado Springs. In the early 1930s, about 60 percent of the water used annually came from streams in the immediate area, compared to about 20 percent today.

Local streams are North and South Cheyenne Creeks, Bear Creek, Sutherland Creek, Fountain Creek and Monument Creek.

Bear Creek: The former Bear Creek diversion has been removed from service as part of the Surface Water Treatment Rule compliance plan. Conveyance of Bear Creek water from a new diversion structure to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant for full treatment will be completed in the future.

Sutherland Creek: Sutherland Creek water is no longer diverted directly to Colorado Springs from Sutherland Creek. Instead, it flows into Fountain Creek with diversion from Fountain through the 33rd Street Pump Station to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant. A small amount of water from Sutherland Creek is sold on an exchange basis to a private property owner who operates a campground next to Sutherland Creek.

Fountain Creek: An intake and pump station at the intersection of 33rd Street and Fountain Creek diverts Fountain Creek water and water from the North and South Slopes of Pikes Peak. The 33rd Street pump station, comprised of four pumps, boosts the water through a pipeline one-and-one-half miles to the Mesa Water Treatment Plant.

Local Stream Flow Supply


Capacity in gallons


Pikeview 1894 29,500,000 90

Creeks feeding watershed: Monument Creek

Pikeview Reservoir diverts water from Monument Creek. Raw water from Pikeview is used primarily to supply the non-potable water system. An additional pipeline allows raw water from Monument Creek to be pumped to the Mesa Water Treatment plant for treatment and use in our potable water system.

Pikeview Reservoir


to be sufficient until at least the 2040 decade.

Our system has more than 2,000 miles of water distribution system mains, most of which have been installed since 1954. Unaccounted water accounts for about 8 percent, including unmetered water, such as fire flows, main breaks and system leakage.

FACILITIES HISTORYThe Mesa Water Treatment Plant was built in 1942 with a capacity of 6 million gallons per day and was expanded in 1960 to a capacity of 24 MGD. In 1970, capacity was increased to 32 MGD. Improvements made in 1978 and 1980 upped the maximum capacity to 38 MGD. Construction during the late 1980s increased the capacity to 42 MGD.

The Pine Valley Water Treatment Plant was acquired with the 1949 purchase of the Northfield Water Company. In 1969, the original plant, with a capacity of 2 MGD, was retired when the Pine Valley Water Treatment Plant was completed. The 40 MGD plant, located on the U.S. Air Force Academy, was placed in operation in 1969. With the pressurization of the Pine Valley Pipeline in 1980, the plant’s capacity increased to 60 MGD. Expansion completed in 1987 and 1998 raised the plant’s capacity to 88 MGD.

Construction of a third water treatment plant, the Northfield Reservoir system on the Rampart Range, began in 1957. Additions of microstraining units and associated equipment in 1962 and 1963 increased the rated capacity of the plant to 16 MGD. The plant was retired when the McCullough Water Treatment Plant was placed into service in 1996.

Water treatment involves physical, chemical and biological changes that transform raw water into potable water. Treatment incorporates, modifies or supplements certain natural processes. We use a process that consists of five fundamental processes:

1. Coagulation is the destabilization and aggregation of colloidal and finely-divided suspended matter by the addition of a chemical, such as hydrated aluminum sulfate, to form precipitate comprised of floc particles that are more or less gelatinous in character.

2. Flocculation enhances the aggregation of particles into large flocs, or clumps.

3. Sedimentation is the process of gravity settling and deposition of suspended matter carried by water. It is completed by reducing the velocity of the water below the point at which it can transport the suspended material.

4. Filtration removes suspended matter from water as it passes through layers of porous material. The degree of removal depends on the character and size of the filter media, and the size and quantity of the suspended particles.

5. Disinfection is a specialized treatment for the destruction of harmful organisms. Classically, disinfection is used to destroy disease-producing organisms, specifically bacteria of intestinal origin. Disinfection is typically done by adding chlorine to the water before it enters the treatment process or just before water enters the distribution system.

WATER TREATMENT FACILITIESOur water system includes six water treatment facilities, with a sustained rated water treatment capacity of 274 million gallons per day, or MGD.

As part of SDS, the Edward W. Bailey Water Treat-ment Plant came online in April 2016. The plant has increased the system’s sustained rated water treat-ment capacity by 50 MGD. An additional increment of treatment capacity will be added under a subse-quent phase of SDS, increasing the sustained rated water treatment capacity to 324 MGD. Upon full development of the SDS water treatment facilities, our system’s treatment capacity is expected

Water Treatment and Water Quality

McCullough Water Treatment Plant


The McCullough Water Treatment Plant, with a capacity of 50 MGD, was constructed as part of the McCullough Water Treatment Center. Construction for the tunnel from Rampart Reservoir to both plants began in 1988 and was completed in 1993. More filters were added to the McCullough Plant in 1999 to increase the capacity to 75 MGD.

We acquired the Broadmoor Water Treatment Plant and distribution system in 1973. The 1.75 MGD plant was retired in 1990.

The Fountain Valley Authority Water Treatment Plant is south of Colorado Springs. Our share of this plant is about 17 MGD, but pumping capacity into the distribution system limits delivery to about 11 MGD.

A 1 MGD plant was added in 1987 in the Ute Pass area to serve Green Mountain Falls, Chipita Park and Cascade. The plant was expanded to 2 MGD in 2003.

WATER DISTRIBUTIONColorado Springs’ water distribution is generally a gravity system; however, pumped service is provided to some areas. Ground elevations range from about 7,800 feet to 5,750 feet.

There are five major service areas: Briargate, Templeton, Northfield, Highline and Lowline. Each lower service level can be fed through regulators from the higher levels and from its own distribution storage tanks. The distribution system includes more than 2,065 miles of mains and 37 treated water storage tanks and reservoirs.

WATER QUALITYColorado Springs’ water comes from a variety of sources, with most of it coming directly from high country snowmelt. That means we are primarily first-time users of the water.

One of our top priorities is providing customers with a reliable supply of high-quality drinking water. By performing chemical, physical and biological analyses our staff diligently monitors water quality at all stages of the process – from source water and treatment plant processes to finished water from the plant and in the distribution system.

Due to multiple sources and the complexity of the raw water supply system, the chemical content of the water varies; however, the finished water con-sistently meets or exceeds regulations in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Environmental requirements: waterThe Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, originally passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996, is enforced by federal and state agencies with responsibility over drinking water protection. The law requires actions by public water systems to protect drinking water from the source to the tap. This regulatory oversight applies to the public water systems’ storage, treatment and distribution, as well as operational practices.

Water quality testing

Mesa Water Treatment Plant


Water treatment continued ...


The Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national health-based standards for the protection of drinking water from naturally occurring and man-made contaminants.

Additionally, the EPA maintains a list of unregulated contaminants that are not currently subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulation, but that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may become subject to regulation in the future. As such, there is always the potential for new and more stringent standards that may impose additional costs to us, either to existing infrastructure or operations or to new water project development.

Our long-term capital improvements forecast addresses normal repairs and replacements in the treatment and distribution facilities to maintain both operational reliability and compliance with the Act and applicable regulations. We are required to provide a sufficient capacity and level of water treatment and disinfection necessary to meet EPA-established maximum contaminant levels for regulated contaminants, as well as provide regular monitoring for these contaminants in our treatment plants and distribution systems.

Our laboratory performs chemical, physical and biological analyses of finished water supplies. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the EPA enforce drinking water quality standards for the water supplied by our system. The CDPHE conducts compliance inspections of our water treatment processes. The laboratory is capable of meeting future analytical

demands in response to system capacity additions and increased regulatory requirements.

As part of the Act, we submit an annual consumer confidence report to customers outlining sources of drinking water and the levels of regulated contaminants found in the drinking water through our monitoring programs. The report consistently notes that the water treated and supplied by Colorado Springs Utilities meets applicable primary drinking water quality standards. Customers wishing to know our commitment to providing a reliable supply of high quality drinking water can review the annual report at csu.org.

Other Act provisions require us to maintain operator certifications, submit a Source Water Assessment report to the CDPHE and maintain a cross-connection program.

2016 EPA Health AdvisoryIn May 2016, the EPA established a provisional health advisory for two perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, to provide guidance regarding concentrations that should trigger action to reduce exposure to these unregulated contaminants. The provisional health advisory is 0.2 micrograms per liter (parts per billion) for perflurooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and 0.4 micrograms per liter for perfluorinated chemicals (PFOA) in drinking water.

These compounds have not been detected in our drinking water. We participated in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) 3 testing in 2013 and 2014. Testing was completed on 28 EPA-specified possible contaminants at our water treatment plant effluents. PFCs and PFOA were among the compounds tested. There was no

Water quality continued ...

Water quality testing on Fountain Creek

Water quality testing


detection of these chemicals in our water treatment plant effluents.

These compounds were manufactured for use in a wide variety of products, most commonly in non-stick cookware and food packaging but also in firefighting foams, coating additives, and cleaning products. The presence of these compounds in the environment may have occurred in the past as a result of releases from facilities that manufacture them or use them in their processes, or discharges from activities such as fire suppression systems or firefighting training. These compounds are very persistent in the environment and have been de-tected in surface and ground water throughout the United States, including locally in groundwater wells.

Research is ongoing and will likely ramp up, as will public attention, to determine what, if any, impacts these compounds in such trace amounts have on human health and the environment. We are closely following research being conducted by organizations such as the American Water Works Association to determine what types of water and wastewater treatment processes are effective in removing these compounds.

Environmental requirements: wastewaterThere are new regulations that impact the Las Vegas and J.D. Phillips Water Resource Recovery Facilities.

Regulation 85, promulgated in 2012, includes new nutrient effluent limits for Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) of 15 mg/L, and Total Phosphorous (TP) of 1 mg/L. A compliance schedule has been included in the new discharge permits issued in April 2015. The compliance schedule for meeting these limits is required by 2019. The limits are considered the first step in a multi-step point source nutrient management approach for improving Colorado’s surface water quality and reducing the number of stream segments that are considered impaired.

Regulation 31, promulgated in 2013, includes significantly lower in-stream standards for nitrogen and phosphorous as part of Colorado’s overall approach for improving surface water quality. These stream standards take effect in 2022.

Meeting these increased nutrient regulations will be a large and expensive undertaking by utilities around the United States. Because of the foresight of our planners, we transformed the Las Vegas Resource Recovery Facility to advanced treatment

capabilities in the early 1990s and built a second, state-of-the-art facility in 2007, putting us ahead of the curve in meeting future regulations.

Still, investments are required. At J.D. Phillips, the capital improvements needed to meet the new TIN and TP limits consist of a $1.5 million project to install a carbon feed system due to the facility being carbon limited.

At Las Vegas, it is estimated that about $7.5 million is needed to install new infrastructure to develop larger anaerobic zones (for phosphorus removal) and reconfigure internal recycle capabilities (for nitrogen removal). Construction will begin in early 2016 at Las Vegas to meet required permit limits.

McCullough/Pine Valley Water Treatment Complex


More than the disposal of household and business waste, our complex system of wastewater pipes, lift stations and treatment facilities work in concert to ensure the health of our community. We operate one of Colorado’s largest wastewater systems, providing environmentally-responsible, reliable wastewater collection and treatment services.

More than 42 million gallons of wastewater flow through 150 square miles of pipe to our water resource recovery facilities each day. Pipelines range in size from six to 66 inches in diameter. About 30,000 manholes provide access for the operation and maintenance of the system. In addition to hundreds of miles of gravity flow pipelines, 14 lift stations pump wastewater into mains.

COLLECTIONWe oversee one of the largest wastewater collection and treatment systems in Colorado that is regulated under a single state-issued permit.

Since 2004, we have invested more than $147 million on wastewater collection system maintenance and improvements. We will invest a total of $250 million by 2018. Our spills per 100 miles of pipe are among the lowest in the nation.

Our collection system uses a variety of methods to minimize wastewater overflows and ensure protection of human health and the environment. Our rate of releases is significantly better than most other systems of similar size, and we clean more than one-third of the system annually.

Wastewater System

Toxic chemicals used by various industries find their way into the collection system and ultimately to water resource recovery facilities. Our Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program educates users on and enforces environmental regulations, ensuring wastewater treatment facilities are protected from chemicals harmful to the biological processes used to treat wastewater.

TREATMENTThe treatment process ensures that final effluent meets or is below discharge permit levels set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the U.S. EPA.

Las Vegas Water Resource Recovery The first facility of its type in Colorado Springs, the Las Vegas plant was established in 1930, with upgrades in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s and 2000s. The permitted capacity of this plant is 75 MGD. In addition to serving as our city’s main water resource recovery facility, the Las Vegas facility is also home to our water quality laboratories and industrial pretreatment management program.

J.D. Phillips Water Resource RecoveryLocated near Pikeview Reservoir, the J.D. Phillips facility came online in 2007 to help meet the increasing service demands of the north and northeast areas of our community. The permitted capacity of this plant is 20 MGD. The state of the art facility is fully enclosed to help control odor and is operated with a small staff.

Clear Spring Ranch Solids Handling and DisposalBiosolids recovered from the Las Vegas and J.D. Phillips Water Resource Recovery Facilities are processed at this campus built in 1984 and located just south of the city of Fountain.

After traveling through a 17.6-mile long pipeline, solids are treated by an anaerobic digestion process for a period of about 20 days, at a temperature of 98F where complex organic substances are broken down into methane, carbon dioxide, trace gases and stabilized solids. Methane gas generated in the process is burned in gas boilers and used for digester heating. Biosolids are then stored in facultative sludge basins for up to 5 years for further treatment and then pumped from the basins and injected below the soil surface in fields.

Las Vegas Water Resource Recovery Facility


An adjacent dam prevents runoff or groundwater from leaving the disposal site. All liquids are contained on the site and are not conveyed to any external water sources.

NUTRIENT REMOVAL As technology evolves, so do the methods by which we measure wastewater quality. By 2019, regulators will require wastewater utilities to remove a larger percentage of nutrients, otherwise known as phosphorous and nitrogen, from treated wastewater.

Phosphorous and nitrogen, which are naturally excreted by the human body, and found in fertilizers and household cleaners, have been linked to algal blooms in waterways. Meeting increased nutrient regulations will be a large and expensive undertaking by utilities around the United States. Because of the foresight of planners at Colorado Springs Utilities, we transformed the Las Vegas Water Resource Recovery Facility to advanced treatment capabilities in the early 1990s and built a second, state-of-the-art system at the J.D. Phillips Water Resource Recovery Facility in 2007, putting us significantly ahead of the curve in meeting future regulations.

QUALITYTo ensure the effluent quality meets or exceeds permitted levels, staff routinely examines the effluent for a variety of parameters. Laboratory staff also periodically analyze Fountain Creek water samples to ensure the effluent does not negatively impact the ecosystem or downstream users. The treatment process ensures that final effluent meets

Wastewater System continued ...

J.D. Phillips Water Resource Recovery Facility

or exceeds discharge permit levels set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the U.S. EPA.

INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENTOur industrial pretreatment program protects our wastewater collection system and treatment facilities, as well as the environment, by preventing toxic, dangerous substances from being discharged into the sanitary sewer collection system. In addition to issuing discharge permits, monitoring discharges, performing site inspections, and enforcing pretreatment standards and requirements, our experts help increase local awareness by educating businesses about program requirements.

WATER REUSETreated wastewater is returned to streams or reused in our non-potable distribution system. Wastewater that goes through additional treatment, including filtration, is delivered to our non-potable distribution system, where it is used to irrigate parks, golf courses, campuses and community properties, as well for our own utilities operations.

Improvements have maximized our use of non-potable water, including the conversion of the Drake Power Plant’s cooling towers to use non-potable water, which saves more than 1 billion gallons of drinking water per year.

Non-potable water development continues to play a critical role in water supply planning and management. Today, about 13 percent of our water portfolio is comprised of non-potable water.

RECOVERY PONDSAny wastewater system carries a risk for spills. Should untreated wastewater enter Fountain Creek, the Fountain Creek Recovery Ponds (lined with concrete) divert contaminated water from the creek to the recovery ponds. The collection ponds are lined and can hold up to 18.5 million gallons of liquid. This keeps spills caused by vandalism, grease blockages and failed bypass operations from reaching downstream communities.

Captured water is transferred back to the Las Vegas Water Resource Recovery Facility for treatment. To ensure that flows are maintained, a 20 million gallon capacity pond is located next to the recovery pond. This stores clean water for water rights exchanges.


• Finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Forest Service to enhance financial sup-port and project planning to reduce the amount of fuels and risk of catastrophic wildfire on Pike National Forest lands adjacent to our City-owned watershed lands;

• Wildfire hazard assessments and post-fire sedi-mentation modeling for the Pikes Peak, Blue Riv-er and Homestake watersheds to identify priority pre-fire treatment areas and potential projects to mitigate possible post-fire conditions;

• Building alliances with other water providers, land resource management agencies, non-profit organizations and communities to partner on future forest management and wildfire mitiga-tion efforts; and

• Engaging in local fire suppression planning and coordination to maximize the value of the Colo-rado Springs Utilities Catamount Wildland Fire Team.

WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPSThe Watershed Planning Team depends on partners in a variety of local, regional and statewide capacities, as well as private landowners to address complex is-sues through holistic and collaborative management.

A few of our key watershed partners and programs include the following:

• The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District: our team members serve on the Technical and Citizen’s Advisory Groups, the Monetary Mitigation Fund, and the Outreach Subcommittee.

• The Greenway Fund: this nonprofit organization advocates comprehensive planning and develop-ment of greenways to improve recreational op-portunities and to promote a community vision of waterways. Our staff serves on the Board to provide perspectives and linkages to water qual-ity, watershed health and education.

• El Paso County Regional Watershed Collabora-tive: promotes recovery, restoration and resil-ience of watershed ecosystems within El Paso County through the efforts of watershed stake-holders. This new collaborative is growing out of the Regional Recovery Group that Utilities helped

Colorado Springs has an extensive water collection and delivery system spanning 650 square miles in 10 counties and 67 distinct watersheds. To ensure a safe and reliable water supply, we proactively manage watershed lands and natural resources while honoring operational needs and community values.

Multiple factors affect water supply, including forest health conditions, wildfire, development, recreation-al use, security, source water contamination, invasive species, threatened and endangered species and changing regulations. A proactive approach in man-aging these factors is essential in meeting Colorado Springs Utilities overall mission.

FOREST MANAGEMENT & WILDFIRE MITIGATIONSound forest management reduces the risk and severity of wildfire by mitigating the amount, types and structure of forest fuels. These activities help restore forest ecosystems to more natural conditions, making them more resilient to catastrophic wildfire, insect infestations and disease. Some management techniques include forest thinning, creating large openings up to 40 acres, cutting in fuel breaks and the responsible use of prescribed fire.

We have assessed the risks of wildfire around our water supply watersheds and implemented forest health projects to reduce the threat and severity of wildfire near collection and storage infrastructure. Examples of these projects include:

• Ongoing forest management in partnership with the Colorado State Forest Service on City-owned Pikes Peak watershed lands.

Watershed Management

Colorado Springs Utilities Wildland Fire Team Continued on next page ...


form following the Waldo Canyon Fire in 2012• The Arkansas River Watershed Collaborative

(ARWC): formed out of the Arkansas Basin Round Table to address basin-wide interests around wa-tershed health issues that can affect current and future water supply within the Arkansas Basin.

• Regional Stormwater Education/Outreach: This group was formed in 2015 as a means of open-ing communication channels and collaborating on messaging, trainings and projects. A joint purchase of pet waste bag dispensers and a joint outreach proposal are two of the first initiatives this group has taken on.

INVASIVE MUSSEL MANAGEMENTIn 2008, Colorado Parks and Wildlife verified the presence of zebra mussels in Pueblo Reservoir. Ze-bra mussels are a growing threat to Colorado water resources and water system infrastructure. The rapid spread of zebra and quagga mussels to seven other reservoirs throughout the state has resulted in sustained action by federal, state and local agencies to minimize spread. As part of this effort, Colorado Springs Utilities assisted in the development of the Colorado State Invasive Mussel Management Plan in which we work with entities to implement watercraft inspection and decontaminant programs to protect water supplies and infrastructure.

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION & OUTREACHThe Colorado Source Water Assessment and Protec-tion (SWAP) Program is part of a national program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Safe Drinking Water Act re-quired each state to develop a SWAP.

We have assessed the susceptibility of source waters and are engaged in the protection planning phase of the SWAP program. Such efforts include those with the Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments, City of Victor and Denver Water’s Upper South Platte plan. Source water protection is a focus area in our watershed management plans and protection strate-gies have been developed for the North Slope, South Slope of Pikes Peak and our Local System. Current plans are in development for the Blue River water-shed. Other areas in our system will be assessed for source water protection as additional watershed management plans are developed.

An important part to water quality protection is edu-cation and outreach. Many water quality problems result from individual actions and the solutions are often voluntary practices. Effective public outreach is key to promoting behaviors that will have positive water quality results in our watersheds. As part of the Fountain Creek Watershed, we participate in:

• Creek Week: a week-long, watershed-wide litter and debris collection event led each fall by the Fountain Creek Watershed District, now entering its third year. In the first two years, 7 communi-ties in the watershed engaged over 2,000 citizens in removing nearly 20 tons of litter from our land and waters.

• Scoop the Poop: events that raise water qual-ity awareness related to pet waste left in public parks and open spaces. We support these pro-grams with City Stormwater and El Paso County Parks.

• Splash: events designed to connect people to wa-terways with fun and recreation. These programs are led by the Greenway Fund.

• Fishing Derby: offers members of the Boys and Girls Club a day to learn how to fish and clean up at Pikeview Reservoir led by Colorado Springs Utilities.

• Colorado Springs Utilities also helped initiate the Greenway Collaborative to provide regular cleanups and outreach along the Greenway Trail along with Keep Colorado Springs Beautiful, the Homeless Outreach Team, City Parks, and Trails and Open Space Coalition.

Crystal Reservoir

Watershed Management continued ...



RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSMore than 15,200 acres of municipal watershed lands and nine reservoirs are open to recreational use. Colorado Springs Utilities jointly manages many of the lands and reservoirs with other agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, El Paso County and Colorado Springs Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. For the past several decades, we have engaged in intensive public discussion to define and implement recreational uses.• In 1967, Colorado Springs citizens passed a

charter amendment allowing the city to open the North Slope and Northfield system of reservoirs for recreational use.

• In 1991 and 1992, the City Council appointed a North Slope Advisory Committee to develop a plan for recreational use. The area opened for its first season July 8, 1992.

• In 1999, we, along with partner agencies, citizen groups and interested public completed the Pikes Peak Multi-Use Plan. The PPMUP created a regional vision for accommodating recreational activity on municipal watersheds and USFS lands.

• In 2010, after two years of public process, City Council approved the Plan for Recreational Uses on Municipal Watershed Lands allowing recreational uses on Pikes Peak South Slope and Ute Pass Trail on Longs Ranch.

• In 2012, City Council authorized us to issue revocable permits for special events on municipal watersheds that have a direct tangible benefit to the community. We have developed policies and procedures to accommodate special events while protecting water quality and natural resources as well as mitigate operational conflicts.

• In 2014 the Front Range Trail through Clear Spring Ranch was extended to offer about four miles of trail and river access points along Fountain Creek. The project was funded through Great Outdoors Colorado Lottery proceeds aimed to enhance parks, rivers, trails and open spaces.

Our reservoirs and watersheds are a natural attraction for anglers, families, hikers, bikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. We strive to balance operational needs, environmental stewardship and recreational uses; providing clean, reliable drinking water is our first priority.

Watershed Management continued ...


This page intentionally left blank.


regulation. These programs help us reach long-term savings targets that lower our costs and increase our reliability.

The more customers understand our water supply, the more informed decisions they make about water and use it wisely. Water education is an integral part of water conservation as such programs influence how adults and students learn, think about and value water and their water utility. We connect our customers to global, regional and local water facts and their personal impact on our water supply and quality. Today more customers save water because it’s the right thing to do (53 percent) than because they want to save money (30 percent).

2015 WATER USE EFFICIENCY PLANIn compliance with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Act of 2004, we submitted a Water Conservation Plan to the CWCB in 2008. Our 2015 Water Use Efficiency Plan is an update to the Water Conservation Plan and meets or exceeds all CWCB statutory requirements. The plan determines programs and measures for implementation over the next seven years. Programs were developed based on best practices, cost, savings, customer expectations and our community culture.

Water conservation and education play a significant role in our water supply planning. Our efforts help customers use water more efficiently and support a high quality lifestyle. Our programs are designed to produce a permanent reduction in water use while enhancing our community’s economic vitality and quality of life.

Our efficiency and demand management programs are designed to improve water demand, supply reliability and reduce long-term costs by:• Maximizing water use efficiency; and• Cultivating waterwise landscape practices to

promote healthy, desirable landscapes throughout our community. By careful design and management these will thrive despite inevitable periods of drought, increasing prices and poor economic conditions.

When we implement well-designed water efficiency programs, the resulting savings are an integral source of water supply; demands are moderated to limit the high and low fluctuation in water use; and water restrictions are experienced less often.Our balanced set of water use efficiency strategies include education, pricing, efficiency incentives and

Water Conservation and Education

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2015 Water Use Efficiency Plan Savings Compared to Colorado's Water Plan "Stretch Goal" Savings

Pre-2015 Plan Savings - Including Passive 2015 WUEP Savings State Water Plan Savings Estimate


WATER USE EFFICIENCY GOALS We have implemented efficiency measures with thousands of customers and are recognized as a national leader in water conservation. Use is not declining in all areas, however, and measures have not been widely applied in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining significant, permanent savings requires years of consistent implementation.

Measures outlined in our Water Use Efficiency Plan will elevate total annual community savings to more than 7,100 million gallons by 2021. Measures already implemented forecast a savings of 2,767 million gallons in 2017. When added to passive savings acquired through the EPAct, these water use efficiency savings are 6,000 million gallons in 2017.

The statewide conservation savings goal established in Colorado’s Water Plan is even more demanding. We can expect that achieving this goal without continued effort – 400,000 acre feet of active conservation savings stateside – will likely result in regulations requiring much higher conservation efforts. Colorado Springs Utilities customers have cut their water use by more than 30 percent from 2001 levels. Much of the state’s Water Plan’s conservation savings goal is overstated and would be onerous for municipalities to achieve, but it is certain that more, not less water conservation will be required. That is why it is important for our community to demonstrate a proactive and accountable approach in its conservation efforts to avoid potential mandates.

Colorado Springs Utilities will continue to increase reliable water savings by reducing waste and improv-

ing efficiency. Our efficiency solutions must promote a healthy, sustainable landscape. Achieving this will require a strong commitment to education, collabora-tion and community outreach.

CURRENT PROGRAM EXAMPLES • Landscape education: We teach customers how

to install waterwise landscapes that save water and money, as well as improve the appearance, usability and value of their property. With the help of 40 volunteers we maintain two award-winning xeriscape demonstration gardens and offer 250 in-depth presentations, workshops and tours.

• Business partnerships: We partner to improve business partner productivity and profitability through water efficiency programs. Through 2015, 3,288 multi-family residential and 450 commercial toilets were upgraded to WaterSense® models.

• Commercial landscape efficiency: Our irrigation efficiency rebates and audit programs are designed to assist customers in reducing water waste and managing their landscapes more effectively. In 2015, we rebated 2,876 irrigation products and discovered significant water leaks in all but one of our commercial irrigation audits.

• Youth education: Annually, our youth water education program connects with 40 percent of all second through sixth grade students in Colorado Springs. Overall, we reach more than 11,000 students and families each year.

A 2015 survey found that 82 percent of our customers believe it’s important for us to provide information on how to use water more efficiently. Our customers continue to rely on the work we do – and our programs have proven success.

We received the 2012 and 2014 Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense Promotional Partner of the Year Awards and the 2013 and 2015 EPA WaterSense Award for Excellence in Strategic Collaboration. We also received the Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education’s 2014 Government Award for Excellence and 2015 Innovative Program in Environmental Education. Additionally, we earned the 2015 Education and Outreach Program of the Year Award from WaterReuse Colorado and the 2015 Elevating the Landscape Industry through Excellence Award from Colorado’s Associated Landscape Contractors.

Waterwise Neighborhood at the CEC


Demand-side management: Water and energy efficiency measures, practices or incentives implemented by utilities to reduce or change the of customer demand patterns.

Diversion: Alteration in the natural course of a stream for the purpose of water supply, usually causing some of the water to leave the natural channel. In Colorado Springs this includes taking water through a ditch, tunnel, pipe or other conduit.

Drought: Water supply shortage that is caused by natural conditions such as an extended period of below-normal precipitation.

Energy Policy Act of 1992: Federal law that established maximum allowable water use requirements for toilets, urinals, shower heads and faucets manufactured, sold or installed in the United States.

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (epa.gov).

Evapotranspiration: Water lost by evaporation from the soil and through transpiration from plants.

Firm yield: the annual amount of demand that a water system can reliably meet. Fixed costs: Business costs that remain unchanged regardless of quantity of output or traffic.

GPCD: Gallons per capita per day.

Home efficiency rebates: Expenditures to encourage the efficient use of energy and water. These are classified as a deferred debit on our books and amortized over a straight-line 10-year period.

Hydrology: the science concerned with the movement of water on or near the land surface through the hydrologic cycle including the processes of precipitation, evaporation, infiltration, runoff, stream flow, and the transport of substances dissolved or suspended in the flowing water.

In-basin water: See “native water.”

Inclining block (or increasing block) rate: Pricing structure in which the amount charged per unit of water (i.e. dollars per 1,000 gallons) increases as customer water consumption increases.

Acre-foot: Volume of water that covers one acre (43,560 square feet) to a depth of one foot (often averaged to 326,000 gallons).

Authorities: Legal entity of two or more participants organized to accomplish a mutually advantageous goal. We participate in several authorities created for the acquisition, collection and/or storage of water.

American Water Works Association: Professional organization serving the drinking water supply profession, primarily in North America.

Appropriation: Amount of water a user has the legal right to withdraw from a water source.

Aquifer: Geologic formation of permeable rock, gravel or sand that stores and transmits water to wells.

Base rate: Fixed amount charged each month for utility classes of service provided to a customer. This rate excludes special rate components, such as electric cost adjustment.

CCF: One hundred cubic fee or 748 gallons.

CDPHE: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe).

Consumptive use: Water use that permanently withdraws water from its source. Water that is no longer available because it has evaporated, been transpired by plants, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by people or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment.

Contribution-in-aid: Tariff-based fees that offset construction costs and developer-contributed plans. These can also be cash and non-cash contributions from developers for specific projects.

Debt: To raise cash for a portion of capital improvements, we sell bonds to investors. The timing and the size of the bond issue is determined by the amount of capital spending identified in financial forecasts for the budget year to follow. Debt service includes both the principal and interest payments to the investors.

Demand forecast: Projection of systemwide or customer class future water demand.

Glossary of Terms


Glossary of Terms

Integrated resource planning: Open planning process emphasizing balanced consideration of supply and demand management options for meeting water needs.

Interest income: Investment of certain cash assets in order to receive interest earnings until that cash is needed. Interest earned is recorded as interest income.

Leak detection: Methods for identifying water leaks from pipes, plumbing fixtures and fittings.

Life expectancy: Time period during which an article is expected to render efficient service.

MGD: Million gallons per day.

Native water: Water which is used and remains in the basin of origin. This water is usually not reusable, which means that the return flows from native water are usually required to be returned to the river system for subsequent use by other water users.

Non-potable water: Water that has not been treated to make it safe for drinking, or is not intended for drinking.

Off-system sales: Water sales outside the system.

Operating revenue: Revenue we receive from customers for the sale of water or electricity, as well as miscellaneous revenues.

Operating and maintenance expense: Day-to-day expenses incurred to produce and deliver utilities. Administrative and general expenses are included in this category.

Outage: Period during which a generating unit, transmission line or other facility is out of service.

Peak demand: Maximum level of operating requirements placed on the system by customer usage during a specified period of time.

Potable water: Water suitable for drinking.

Priority (in and out): Right to divert or store water, based on the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation. In Colorado, this is regulated by the Division of Water Resource and is based on the date of the water right (i.e. “first in time, first in right”).

Project water: Water diverted through the Frying-pan-Arkansas project.

Return flow: Wastewater effluent or excess water returning to the stream system from lawn irrigation.

Reuse: Additional use of previously used water or the beneficial use of treated wastewater.

Reusable water: Water with the legal characteristic of being able to be used, reused, and subsequently used to extinction.

Safe Drinking Water Act: Federal drinking water quality legislation administered by the EPA through state primary agencies.

Seasonal rate: Pricing structure in which the amount charged per unit of water varies by season; higher rates are usually charged during the peak-demand season (usually the summer months). Service area: Territory in which utilities are required or has the right to supply service to customers.

Terminal storage: Storage in a water system, usually just upstream of treatment facilities, used to minimize risk by providing a reliable supply for water treatment plants, and to minimize demand fluctuation impacts on delivery system facilities.

Transmission line: Pipeline that carries water from points of supply to terminal or local storage reservoirs.

Transmountain diversion: Water project that diverts water from one river basin to another. For Colorado Springs, this typically is a project to divert water from the Colorado River Basin to the Arkansas Basin.

Transmountain water (transbasin water): Water diverted from the western slope of the Continental Divide. See also “reusable water.”


Glossary of Terms

Unaccounted-for water: Water produced from treatment plants but does not go through billing meters (e.g., water delivered to the utility or city; water lost from leaks or theft) and cannot be fully accounted for by the utility. Use to extinction: Water that has been imported to a new river basin is considered ‘foreign’ with respect to the ‘native’ water that arises or accrues within the receiving basin. Foreign water may be used successively by the importer within the receiving basin in contrast to native water that may only be used once by the first appropriator. Foreign water that can no longer be distinguished volumetrically from native water is considered to be ‘used to extinction.’

Variable costs: Costs that change with the increase or decrease of output.

Water right: Property right created by the diversion of water and the placing of it to a beneficial use (appropriation). Water rights become officially recognized and administrable when documented in a decree of the state water court (adjudicated).


Water Equivalents

1 cubic foot 7.48 gallons

1 acre foot 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons

1 cubic foot per second 449 gallons per minute 646,317 gallons per day

1 cubic foot per second for 24 hours .983 acre-feet

1 million gallons 3.07 acre-feet

1 million gallons per day 1,121 acre-feet per year

1,000 gallons per minute 2.23 cubic foot per second

1 million gallons per day 1.547 cubic foot per second 694 gallons per minute

An acre foot covers one acre of land one foot deep.

history & tour of water system

Documents