Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Presenters tell lawmakers conservation‑oriented tap fees can drive water‑smart growth and influence housing development costs
Loading...
Summary
Consultants and advocacy groups briefed the committee on how tap fees are structured, how water values vary across Colorado, and case studies (Aurora, Little Thompson) showing conservation‑oriented fees can reduce outdoor water use and encourage infill development.
Three presenters told the committee tap fees (also called system development charges or connection charges) combine water‑resource acquisition costs, plant investment fees and new‑infrastructure costs, and that structuring those fees to reflect projected site‑level water use can both encourage water‑efficient development and reduce long‑term supply needs.
Jayla Popleton, executive director of Water Education Colorado, opened with WECO’s role in water education and noted recurring legislative support for their work. She introduced the two technical presenters.
Cassidy White of WestWater Research emphasized that "water values are inherently local," driven by municipal demand and portfolio characteristics. White showed that Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) units have driven front‑range water values and at peak have been priced as high as $100,000 per acre‑foot in recent years (used in her example to illustrate how dedication requirements translate to per‑home costs). She outlined developer options to meet municipal dedication requirements (dedicate raw water, purchase farmland and dedicate associated water rights, or pay cash in lieu).
Lindsay Rogers, policy manager for municipal conservation at Western Resource Advocates, described conservation‑oriented fee structures that split indoor and outdoor demand metrics and charge fees that better reflect expected use (house size, bedrooms, irrigable area, plant type). Rogers cited research showing conservation‑oriented fees are associated with reductions in irrigated area (25–50%), reduced lot sizes (15–23%), and increased infill probability (35–60%), based on a study of front‑range utilities.
Rogers presented two Colorado cases: Aurora’s program, which offers a "z‑zone" incentive (free dedicated irrigation taps for landscapes that require no supplemental water post‑establishment) and has produced 123 developments with 511 acres of non‑supplemented landscape; and Little Thompson Water District, which introduced an "urban tap" and updated its 2024 schedule to refine allotments (allotments now range roughly 0.18 to 1.1 acre‑feet depending on tap type and lot size) and reported higher density outcomes after the 2016 urban tap adoption.
Committee members asked about data sources for water‑transaction pricing (White described a mix of public municipal transactions and voluntary private disclosures), whether fee savings are passed to buyers (presenters said savings rarely flow directly to purchase price but can reduce monthly bills), and how fees might support affordability (members noted opportunities for tiny homes and ADUs). Presenters suggested state support via grants and inclusion of conservation‑oriented fee evaluations in water‑efficiency planning.
Presenters referenced recent legislation in the transcripted remarks (a cited prohibition on nonfunctional turf referred to as "HB 24 5" in testimony and a transparency requirement for special districts' fee schedules), and recommended technical assistance for small providers to design conservation‑oriented structures.
