Drought & Water Management - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flows ever recorded. On August 21 Denver Water staff projected that even with the desired 30% demand reduction, reservoirs would be at only 40% of capacity on April 1, 2003 due to lower than expected inflows. They also reported that the mandatory restrictions adopted by the board on June 26 had not resulted in the desired 30% savings. In response to these concerns, Denver adopted additional restrictions on outdoor water use and rate surcharges to encourage indoor use reductions through the winter. C. Drought Response of Other Municipal Users While 2002 has been by far the worst drought year on record in terms of streamflow, most municipal providers generally had sufficient supplies to manage with little disruption to unrestrained demand. Most providers that invoked water restrictions did so as a precautionary response in recognition that the current drought might not be over, not because they would otherwise run out of water in the next 12 months. Providers' real concern is that their storage reserves would not last through another year or two like 2002. Most water providers focused on implementing drought response measures to reduce demands as well as to increase supplies. The City of Louisville appears to have been the first major water provider to implement mandatory restrictions on May 1. Aurora implemented mandatory restrictions and rate surcharges to encourage conservation on May 15 and Lafayette and Boulder adopted mandatory restrictions in early June. Most other water providers adopted mandatory restrictions, but generally not until mid -July or early August. Unprecedented low streamflows and rapidly diminishing water levels in storage reservoirs triggered these drought- response measures. During the last major drought in 1977, the extremely low snowpack that was evident from mid - winter onward alerted water users and providers alike to the impending drought. By contrast, in 2002 the snowpack on April 1 St in the basins which supply most Front Range and many other Colorado municipalities was about 60% of average, which was not considered to be worse than that of 2000 or 2001. No one anticipated that the cumulative effects of virtually no precipitation in April and May, coupled with unusually warm and windy conditions during those months, would result in the lowest streamflows in recorded history. Unlike Denver Water, most municipal water providers did not have formally developed drought response plans. Few had procedures in place to closely monitor rapidly evolving drought conditions. When snowpack and streamflow conditions rapidly deteriorated in May and June, most water providers found themselves having to move quickly. Initial efforts consisted of education programs to encourage efficiency and voluntary conservation programs, followed by mandatory restrictions on outdoor water usage. Only Aurora, Berthoud and Denver adopted pricing surcharges. Very few water providers placed any restrictions on the issuance of new taps. Groundwater - dependent providers in Douglas County were generally unaffected by the drought, although at least one provider enacted watering restrictions in support of metro- 23