Erie leaders voted to contribute another $2.9 million to the Northern Integrated Supply Project, a decades-long water storage initiative that saw an exodus of other participating communities over the past year.\n<\/p>\n
Town officials say NISP could help meet water demands tied to Erie\u2019s continued growth, though questions remain about the project\u2019s ultimate cost and whether it could affect existing residents\u2019 water bills.<\/p>\n
Town Council members last month voted 4-2 to approve a $2.9 million interim agreement, adding to the $29.1 million Erie has already decided to invest in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District\u2019s project \u2014 an effort more than 20 years in the making<\/a> that could create a major new water source for communities along the northern Front Range.<\/p>\n Had the council declined to authorize the additional payment, Erie would have forfeited its interest in the project, according to Erie\u2019s special water counsel, Pete Johnson.<\/p>\n Johnson said \u201csome amount, if not the full amount\u201d of the town\u2019s planned share of NISP water will likely be necessary to support the long-term anticipated growth in Erie\u2019s population.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of that growth and development certainly will not be possible without NISP,\u201d Johnson told the Town Council during its May 26 meeting, adding: \u201cThere\u2019s no other silver-bullet alternative project out there that\u2019s a plug-and-play source of water of the same scope.\u201d\n<\/p>\n A smaller water project<\/p>\n Northern Water\u2018s project is in the design phase and could break ground on major infrastructure next year. But the project has faced setbacks on its path to construction.<\/p>\n The project has faced both legal action<\/a> filed in 2024 by the Save the Poudre environmental group \u2014 later settled for $100 million \u2014 and rising construction cost estimates.\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n In its early stages, 15 participants, including water districts and municipalities, had agreed to fund NISP: the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Erie, Fort Morgan, Left Hand Water District, Central Weld County Water District, Windsor, Frederick, Lafayette, Morgan County Quality Water District, Firestone, Dacono, Evans, Fort Lupton, Severance and Eaton.<\/p>\n Only nine participants, including Erie, signed on for the project\u2019s next phase after Fort Collins-Loveland, the Morgan district, Firestone, Evans, Severance and Eaton withdrew. More than one cited rising costs<\/a> as a factor in their decision, though Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla said cost was not the only reason.<\/p>\n \u201cThere were some communities expressing concern just about how their conditions had changed since when they first signed on with the project,\u201d Stahla told the Daily Camera. \u201cSo I don\u2019t think it\u2019s accurate to say that everybody had concern solely about the cost.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \u201cThose who are following construction costs, especially for water infrastructure, have been noting it has been going up faster than inflation for a while now. The estimates for NISP were also affected, but it was as much an industrywide issue as it was for this single project,\u201d he later added.<\/p>\n Restructured for less participants, the project has shrunk and would encompass less water.<\/p>\n NISP was originally envisioned with two new reservoirs as water sources. The planned Glade Reservoir, northwest of Fort Collins, would receive water from the Cache la Poudre River, while Galeton Reservoir, northeast of Greeley, would receive water from the South Platte River.\n<\/p>\n Whether Galeton Reservoir is ultimately built will depend on future interest in the project, according to Stahla.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have actually been in conversation with other potential participants,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s nothing that we can talk about publicly, but I\u2019m hopeful that by the time we get to the latter part of this year, that we\u2019ll certainly be talking about this as a project that other northern Colorado communities will be wanting to invest in.\u201d\n<\/p>\n For now, the project will move forward with only Glade Reservoir.<\/p>\n That reduces NISP from what was originally planned as \u201croughly a 40,000 acre-foot project\u201d down to \u201ca little shy of 20,000 acre-feet per year of firm annual yield,\u201d Brad Wind, Northern Water\u2019s general manager, told the Erie Town Council in May.\n<\/p>\n An acre-foot is enough to cover a football field in nearly one foot of water. One acre-foot roughly equals the annual water use of three households.<\/p>\n Looking at costs Todd Fessenden, director of Erie\u2019s utilities department, estimated the total cost of the project for the town at \u201cabout $85,000 to $95,000 per acre-foot,\u201d or roughly $400 million.\n<\/p>\n \u201cAnd once you add the financing to that, you roughly double that number,\u201d Fessenden added.<\/p>\n When the project still included both planned reservoirs and 15 participants, Erie was slated to receive 6,500 acre-feet of annual yield \u2014 about 16% of the total NISP supply. Under the revised plan, the town\u2019s allocation has fallen to 4,500 acre-feet annually, but Erie\u2019s share of the project\u2019s overall yield has actually increased \u2014 to about 23% \u2014 making the town the largest shareholder of NISP.\n<\/p>\n \u201cWe reduced participation from 6,500 acre-feet to 4,500 acre-feet in the last month or so, and Firestone stepped out of the project at that same time,\u201d Fessenden told the council in May. \u201cSo what happened was we reduced our participation, Firestone left and our cost went up, because our percentage of the project went up.\u201d<\/p>\n Total costs for Glade Reservoir are estimated at about $2 billion, Stahla said. The project would also include pipelines, pumping stations and the relocation of about seven miles of U.S. 287<\/a> north of Fort Collins, a road that currently runs through the future reservoir site.<\/p>\n To date, NISP participants have spent roughly $200 million on the project, much of it on land acquisition and on permitting costs, according to Stahla.<\/p>\n Interim agreements with Northern Water get Erie to certain NISP milestones. The town\u2019s most recent $2.9 million agreement<\/a> will cover \u201cactivities related to designing and permitting the project\u201d from May 1 to Dec. 31, but another budget request will likely come to the town\u2019s leadership early next year \u2014 and that round of payment could be even higher as the project heads into the construction phase.\n<\/p>\n Andrea Kehrl, another attorney advising Erie, said a draft 2027 NISP budget circulated by Northern Water totaled about $28 million. If that figure remains unchanged, Erie would be responsible for 23%, or about $6.44 million. Payments go toward debt service through Northern Water to fund the project.<\/p>\n Uncertainty for today\u2019s Erie residents<\/p>\n According to Erie\u2019s NISP information webpage, the town views the project as necessary to meet projected population growth and future development demands. What remains unclear is how the project could affect current residents\u2019 water bills.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no way we could sit here and say it\u2019s not going to go up or it\u2019s absolutely going to go up or by how much. That\u2019s the tough thing,\u201d Fessenden told the council.<\/p>\n Mayor Andrew Moore said council members had discussed NISP in executive session\u00a0\u2014 a closed-door meeting \u2014\u00a0before deciding to bring the issue into public discussion at the May meeting.<\/p>\n Moore and Councilmember John Mortarello ultimately voted against approving the latest interim agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell and Councilmembers Emily Baer, Dan Hoback and Anil Pesaramelli voted in favor. Councilmember Brian O\u2019Connor was absent.\n<\/p>\n Potential impacts on current Erie residents\u2019 water bills were a key concern for Mortarello, who said that after more than two decades of NISP planning, the town still doesn\u2019t \u201cknow how it\u2019s going to affect our rates.\u201d<\/p>\n That uncertainty also contributed to Moore\u2019s opposition.<\/p>\n \u201cIf this water is only for growth, why would we sign up for it if it\u2019s going to put the burden on those already here to pay for the growth?\u201d Moore said.<\/p>\n \u201cBig participants have left,\u201d he added. \u201cYou have to ask whether the project is still financially feasible and whether purchasing and storing that water is a good decision for Erie.\u201d<\/p>\n Sarah Hancock, the town\u2019s finance director, told the council that \u201cincomplete\u201d information is contributing to the uncertainty.<\/p>\n \u201cI have been running scenarios with the (town\u2019s) water fund, and we see it being quite sustainable with the payment structure that we\u2019ve been provided from Northern Water,\u201d Hancock said. \u201cBut those numbers are changing all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat is where we really do need some of this concrete cost information to answer that question fully,\u201d she added. \u201cBecause with that at play, depending on what that debt payment even is, that tells us whether or not it does raise rates or what the sustainability of it is for the town.\u201d<\/p>\n Stahla said the project is nearing a point where cost estimates will be stabilized by contractor bids.<\/p>\n \u201cWe won\u2019t be guessing about the cost anymore \u2014 we\u2019ll have bids in hand,\u201d he said, adding: \u201cThat\u2019s one way we\u2019ll get to a very much more firm number about what the cost will be.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \u2018A lot of money to walk away from\u2019<\/p>\n Fessenden, the Erie utilities director, said there are currently no alternative water sources capable of meeting Erie\u2019s projected long-term growth needs.<\/p>\n
\nOver the past year, the cost per acre-foot of NISP\u2019s\u00a0potential water storage has climbed roughly 38% as other participants have dropped out, Erie town spokesperson Gabi Rae told the Camera.<\/p>\n