Colorado Springs Utilities outlines long‑range water planning, storage strategy and partnership options

Representatives from Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) briefed the board to begin a public conversation about long‑range supply planning and possible relationships with Chaffee County. CSU staff emphasized they are not seeking immediate projects in the county but want open dialogue about future options that could include storage, water sharing with agriculture and multiparty projects such as Clear Creek enlargement and the Continental–Hoosier (Blue River) system.

CSU described a balanced portfolio approach that includes: storage projects to manage interannual variability; Colorado River (transmountain) project permitting and operations (for example the Continental–Hoosier work between Breckenridge and Fairplay); and Arkansas River basin agricultural water‑sharing programs that combine on‑farm efficiency investments with water leasing or seasonal sharing arrangements. CSU said permitting and water court processes are lengthy, often taking several years to decades, and that mitigation and infrastructure costs are substantial.

On Clear Creek, CSU said an enlargement or storage option would be primarily an efficiency play — higher elevation storage reduces evaporation losses compared with lower‑elevation storage — and that any project would need detailed environmental and exchange analyses. CSU confirmed it stores water in Turquoise and Twin Lakes reservoir accounts (Twin Lakes described as the larger, more directly operated storage bucket) and maintains accounts in Pueblo, Henry and Meredith reservoirs; the utility also noted reuse programs increase the effective supply because transmountain water can be used more than once.

CSU outlined water‑sharing models used elsewhere in the Arkansas Valley: augmentation company share arrangements (multi‑year sharing schedules), on‑farm efficiency investments tied to municipal purchases, and structured partnerships where municipal and agricultural interests split ownership or use rights to balance reliability and farm economics. They said these structures can include contractual terms (e.g., 5‑of‑10 years usage) and storage purchases to buffer intermittent years.

CSU said storage and water‑sharing options could be structured to address climate variability and curtailment risks, and invited county staff to continue dialogue on county needs and potential cooperative storage or exchange arrangements. Commissioners thanked CSU for the presentation and asked for follow‑up conversations as concepts are refined.

This was a non‑binding outreach and informational briefing; CSU did not request county action during the meeting.