Wellington trustees back strategy to diversify water supplies; consultants urge mix of VIDA purchase and North Poudre shares

Wellington Town staff and consultants on Sept. 23 presented a water source development plan that recommends the town pursue a mix of nontributary groundwater purchases from a private developer’s VIDA project (Front Range H2O/VIDA) and incremental purchases or dedications of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) shares to meet a projected long‑term supply gap.

Megan Smith, deputy director of Public Works, introduced the item and turned the presentation over to Adam Jokers, project manager with Westwater Research Inc., who said the firm modeled demand, affordability and alternatives over a 30‑year planning horizon. Jokers told the board the town’s most probable demand projection is about 26,200 acre‑feet by 2054 and that current supplies — modeled at roughly 1,875 acre‑feet (about 1,500 acre‑feet under the town’s historical North Poudre agreement plus ~375 acre‑feet from the Wilson wells) — leave a long‑term gap in the order of roughly 750 acre‑feet.

The draft plan evaluated a long list of options and narrowed them by cost, timing and risk. Jokers said the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) did not pass the affordability screen for Wellington given current cost estimates (Northern Water has cited roughly $2.7 billion and Westwater modeled higher costs if delayed). Buying ditch company shares — primarily NPIC or Colorado‑Big Thompson (CBT) units — and nontributary groundwater were the two alternatives the consultant kept on the short list.

The consultant described the VIDA nontributary groundwater option (developed by Front Range H2O in the Northern Weld County area) as higher‑quality groundwater that would be delivered via a developer‑owned system and would not require the same near‑term expansion of Wellington’s treatment plant. Westwater modeled a staged purchase (a down payment followed by a later delivery payment) and later onsite reverse‑osmosis and reuse as demand and finances allow. Jokers noted risks: VIDA is a private developer project, groundwater of that type is nonrenewable, and source water contains constituents (including uranium) that require treatment.

Smith summarized the plan’s recommended, “walk‑away” approach: pursue purchase of VIDA capacity (Westwater initially modeled roughly 750 acre‑feet of participation) and pursue incremental acquisition or acceptance by dedication of NPIC shares to meet the remainder of demand. During discussion staff also said recent updates led them to consider increasing the town’s VIDA target; staff later said they recommended raising the VIDA target to 1,200 acre‑feet (town staff said the payment schedule could be pushed out to align with bonding capacity).

Trustees welcomed diversification. Trustee Wiegand said, “I’m a fan of number 3, the mix and the vita,” and Trustee Daley praised the advisory committee’s approach as “forward thinking.” Trustee Teets supported continuing negotiations but pressed staff that any purchase decision on VIDA must be based on a contract review; Teets said, “Can I say jump in and purchase 750 acre feet? Well, no.” Several trustees asked staff to return with a formal policy proposal on raw‑water dedication and cash‑in‑lieu (CIL) methodology and to ensure the CIL amount covers acquisition and transaction costs.

Staff identified a proposed interim CIL rate for discussion during the presentation: one slide showed a recommended value of $101,400 per acre‑foot. In the discussion staff also referenced a different cash‑in‑lieu figure and the town staff later said the currently adopted CIL per‑acre‑foot figure on the books is $124,100; trustees asked staff to reconcile market transactions (staff reported recent NPIC shares had been transacting at roughly $245,000 per share in the market) and to return with clear methodology. Several trustees supported giving staff authority to update the CIL administratively more frequently (quarterly) so the town stays competitive with developers.

Board members also raised implementation questions about carriage/storage agreements and delivery. Trustee Teets asked what would happen if carriage and storage agreements with NPIC are not finalized; Smith said carriage and storage negotiations are part of ongoing NPIC negotiations and acknowledged they are not finalized. Trustee Teets also asked whether private developer‑owned infrastructure for VIDA would leave the town responsible for site infrastructure; Smith said any additional treatment or filtration facilities the town built (for example, membrane or RO units for local wells) would be sited on town‑owned parcels and operated by the town, not on developer land.

Several trustees and the mayor pro tem urged the board not to pause negotiations. Trustee Moyer and Mayor Pro Tem Mason expressed explicit support for VIDA plus NPIC shares and for staff moving negotiations forward, noting that staged payments and the town’s future bonding capacity could make VIDA feasible in the mid‑2030s to 2040s.

Next steps identified by staff: (1) continue negotiations with Front Range H2O/VIDA and with NPIC; (2) return with a formal recommendation and proposed code or policy amendments to govern dedication and cash‑in‑lieu (including a proposed administrative update schedule); and (3) revisit financial modeling and the implementation schedule as negotiated terms and market prices change. No formal board vote was taken on the plan; trustees provided direction to continue negotiating and to return with draft policy and contract terms.

Ending: Staff said the plan should be reviewed regularly and updated as negotiations, market conditions and growth projections evolve.