C150069 Benefits & Potential Roles Report

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . with population growth throughout the state, special water districts will be forced to more aggressively secure water for future needs. When a special district is established for secondary water service in an area, local government should view it with the same concern as if this district were providing potable service. If this philosophy is not adhered to, there is the potential for growing dissatisfaction on the part of the public in how public goods such as water are provided and administered in the region. The establishment of a special district should be overseen by the state in such a way as to ensure that ample water rights are secured for the future and that the special district will have adequate revenue to operate and maintain the water system. This was the very minimal requirement made on Title 32 districts when they were being established in Colorado in the 1960s under USDA's Farmers Home Administration. The provision of secondary water through private water companies is clearly another option for an overall secondary water supply policy for the state. In fact, this is already being tried in northeast Colorado. Recently, the research team visited a system that is currently providing secondary water to a newly constructed affordable housing subdivision near the City of Fort Collins. The residential lots are quite small, although the subdivision has been designed with considerable open space for recreational use. The secondary system is served by wells and a pumping system that distributes water through a well- designed pipeline network serving the entire subdivision. The secondary water service is on demand, although homeowners are encouraged to water lawns and gardens between the hours of6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., particularly in prolonged dry spells. Despite these well-designed features, the water rates for secondary supply appear unusually high, particularly for low-income housing. This raises the issue of how local government addresses equity in the provision of water. Some Equity and Sustainability Concerns Municipal systems in Colorado, and throughout the Rocky Mountain region, are routinely operated as not-for-profit enterprises rather than as tax districts. That is to say, the cost of water to the consumer is a reflection of the actual cost of providing the service, whether for potable or non-potable (secondary) use, and no more. Conservation is often achieved through metering rather than through imposing water rates that penalize excessive use, except perhaps in the case of drought. Under rural domestic water systems that provide potable water to residential and commercial users in unincorporated areas, water is also provided at cost, while conservation is more frequently met through variable water rates for different size lots rather than through metering.6 These observations suggest that the privatization of water service, such as in the low income housing subdivision mentioned earlier, raises considerations of public policy. Although interest has been growing in the region, as well as in other parts of the world, for the privatization of water service, it is likely that some form of public utility oversight will ultimately be needed to ensure that public policy goals are met. These may include quality of service, the cost of water relative to differential income in the community, safety issues, and sustainability of these systems. The presence of the private sector in the provision of water service will be a function of profit rather than public policy. Although service may be measurably improved through privatization, public policy objectives may be compromised. Are there yet other options available to the community? We will continue to point out in this study that the entry of traditional agricultural water suppliers into pressurized secondary water service is not only a viable option, it is a proven one, and furthermore, an option that is likely to have a positive impact on agricultural water use and water conservation. In other words, although pressurized secondary water supply does not in itself create more water for the community, it may very well indirectly help conserve water by way of being a mechanism that leads agricultural water users to improve irrigation water management. Meanwhile it ensures that water remains in the agricultural system to meet future needs, as well as mitigating drought conditions when they arise. This is a policy issue for the state that is central to the study and this report, and will be addressed in the next chapter. 21