Drought news: Colorado Springs Utilities backs off tough water restrictions #COdrought

usdroughtmonitorcolorado07092013.jpg

usdroughtmonitor07092013.jpg

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (Monica Mendoza):

In a reversal from its “hold the line” stance earlier this month, Colorado Springs Utilities water experts now say the city has enough water in its reserves to relax the lawn watering restrictions and recommended going from two days a week to three days a week. They also recommended changing the amount of water each household can use per month, from 2,000 cubic feet to 2,500 cubic feet, before higher rates apply. And, they are asking to lower the penalty rate by almost half. The proposed changes were presented to the Utilities board on Wednesday. “The reason for that is a really late snow pack,” said Gary Bostrom, utilities chief water services officer. “It had accumulated and built, even well into June.”

The city tried to save water and hoped that lawn watering restrictions, coupled with penalties, would keep more water in the reservoirs. The program sailed through April and May, when spring rain showers kept people from turning on sprinklers. But in June, about 22 percent of Colorado Springs residents opened their water bills and found they had crested the threshold that triggers higher water rates. Outraged about their high water bills, residents bombarded City Council with hundreds of angry calls and emails.

Bostrom said that is not why Utilities is recommending the changes mid-summer. The city now has 1.8 years of water in storage and he feels comfortable with that, he said. “Looking at the end of June and looking at our reservoirs level and how they had responded, we went up 5,000 acre feet in one week, we didn’t expect to see that level of increase,” Bostrom said. “We are in a much better place.”

City Council is expected to vote on the issue July 23. If approved, the changes would go into affect Aug. 1…

As of early July, the city was out of runoff from this past winter’s snow pack. The city’s reservoirs are about 57 percent full. From 1970 to 2011, those reservoirs were 74 percent full. “We are in a good place to get through 2013, and our focus now is to get through 2014,” Bostrom said. “The big unknown is snow pack and where will we land in snow pack?”

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Pueblo’s water storage has rebounded in the past two months, nearly back to the point where it was a year ago. Overall water use has dropped, despite the hot, dry weather that continued until a downpour earlier this week.

As of Monday, the Pueblo Board of Water Works had stored 38,550 acre-feet of water, more than a year’s supply for treated water, in four reservoirs. That compares with more than 42,000 acre-feet at the same time last year. “So, we’re within 5,000 acre-feet of last year?” water board President Mike Cafasso asked Water Resources Manager Alan Ward during a presentation at Tuesday’s monthly meeting.

“Yes,” Ward responded.

After the meeting, Ward said it was unlikely any more water would be stored and supplies could begin to be drawn down. That depends on weather.

Last year, there was little rainfall between June and November, and Pueblo’s storage dropped by 15,000 acre-feet. There was concern earlier this year that it could fall even more as the drought continued, and the water board slashed the outside leases of raw water it typically makes to farmers. No water restrictions inside the board’s service area were applied, however.

Still, water consumption in Pueblo through the first six months of 2013 was 3.28 billion gallons, down 4.7 percent over a five-year average, and less than 2012. That’s significant, because 2013 was even drier than 2012 through June. The major reason is an effort by the city of Pueblo to apply less water to parks and greenways, said Seth Clayton, director of administrative services. Residential use, which spikes in summer for lawn watering, is up.

Revenues should keep pace with this year’s budget because the water to the city is provided at no charge, he added.

Leave a Reply