Aurora water planners warn of supply shortfalls, propose trimming planning boundary and costly capital programs

Aurora water staff told the Water Policy Committee on Oct. 15, 2025, that the city faces growing long‑term water supply deficits driven by climate impacts, expiring leases and increasing competition for lower‑quality sources. Staff asked the committee to advance policy recommendations including a targeted reduction of Aurora’s planning‑area boundary and restrictions on new extraterritorial service.

The presentation: Alex Davis, a city water planner, summarized the Integrated Water Master Plan (IWMP) and associated capital improvement plan. Staff said the IWMP assumes roughly 40% population growth in Aurora over 20 years and factors in aggressive conservation programs (including Aurora’s turf ordinance and nonfunctional turf ban), losses in the treatment and conveyance system, contractual commitments outside the city, and evaporation and stream losses that are increasing with warming climate patterns. Staff noted existing supplies are projected to decline and that supply gaps will require both demand reduction and major capital projects.

Scale and cost: Staff described a range of portfolios developed for the Lower South Platte Master Plan, with the most ambitious ("Portfolio E") intended to deliver the greatest supply but carrying very high costs. Staff provided order‑of‑magnitude estimates: $700 million for water rights acquisitions and roughly $1.22 billion for associated pumps, pipelines and augmentation infrastructure, producing a back‑of‑envelope total in the range of $1.5 billion to more than $3 billion to fully implement the largest portfolio. Staff emphasized uncertainty and that some modeled assumptions (for example yields from Colorado River projects) are optimistic.

Rates and fees: Staff said most large capital acquisition costs will be borne through connection fees rather than existing retail rates. Example given: Wildhorse Reservoir exceeded $1 billion; staff attributed roughly 15% of that project’s burden to rates and 85% to connection fees and developer contributions. Staff warned developers and applicants that connection fees are likely to rise substantially.

Conservation and reuse: The IWMP assumes continued aggressive conservation, expansion of the city’s Prairie Waters reuse system and further reuse/direct potable reuse (DPR) options. Staff said DPR and expanded reuse are included in the IWMP portfolios (the Prairie Waters expansion appears in scenario modeling) but that DPR is not counted as a fully reliable supply in most central scenarios.

Planning‑area boundary and extraterritorial service: To reduce long‑term obligations, staff recommended a strategic trimming of Aurora’s planning‑area boundary and a halt to new territorial agreements that commit city supply outside core service areas. Staff noted Aurora currently provides about 8,322 acre‑feet annually to entities outside the city and said adding new obligations raises risk as supplies tighten. The committee discussed tradeoffs: trimming the boundary could encourage new groundwater development (wells) in adjacent areas, potentially causing local impacts; staff said the high‑quality groundwater currently used will eventually be depleted and that lower‑quality groundwater would require treatment if used in future.

Process and schedule: Staff proposed taking a planning‑area boundary adjustment to Planning and Economic Development (PED) and the Planning Commission in November (PED scheduled for Nov. 12 in the materials) and then bringing the item to a council study session in December after new council members are seated. City attorney Rachel clarified the legal process: a planning‑area or comp‑plan amendment to the city’s boundary would be implemented via ordinance and would require two council readings and a two‑thirds council vote for the comp‑plan amendment/public hearing process.

Committee direction and related votes: The Water Policy Committee agreed to advance the staff’s policy recommendations for the planning area boundary adjustment and conservation strategy to PED and to proceed through the stated schedule. Committee members also approved several consent items and intergovernmental agreements at the meeting, which the committee moved forward without extended debate (see “Votes at a glance”).

Why this matters: Staff said the combination of shrinking available supply, competition within the South Platte and Colorado River basins, higher acquisition costs, and climate impacts means Aurora must both push aggressive conservation and be selective about where it commits new supply. The IWMP presents a set of portfolios and financial scenarios that will drive future fee and connection‑cost decisions and will affect development patterns at Aurora’s edges.

Votes at a glance (items forwarded or approved during the Oct. 15 committee meeting): - Minutes (approval): Approved as written. - Reappointment: Alex Davis reappointed to the Homestake partnership steering committees (reappointment approved). - Park County IGA (Wildhorse NEPA permit review): Initial payment $50,000 with up to $50,000 supplemental payments if needed (approved to move forward). - Colorado State Forest Service funding agreements: Three‑year agreement, $275,000 per year for forestry and fuels reduction work (approved to move forward). - Douglas County biochar facility IGA: One‑time contribution of $100,000 to support local biochar processing for forestry residues (approved to move forward). - Restaurant water service ordinance: Councilmember Anita Hancock’s proposed ordinance encouraging or requiring restaurants to serve water only on request (and requiring this in Stage 1 shortage) was approved to go to study session for presentation to council.

What’s next: Staff will present the planning‑area boundary adjustment to PED and Planning Commission per the schedule, draft code language related to extraterritorial service and bring those proposals back to the committee and to study sessions. Council action would require ordinance readings and, for comprehensive plan changes, a two‑thirds council vote as required by code.