Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-26 Public Comment - M. Egge - memo on long-distance water supply infrastructure with response From: Emma Bode To: Mark Eaae Cc: Jessica Ahlstrom; Bozeman Public Comment Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]memo on long-distance water supply infrastructure Date: Thursday,March 12,2026 4:21:30 PM Thanks for this summary Mark. It's helpful to see what other communities are up to! I've also been appreciating listening into the podcast summary's you've developed. I agree with the need to be planning several decades into the future and still have a hard time imagining this community supporting an inter-watershed pipeline tactic before lower hanging fruit has been utilized. Thanks again, Emma On Mar 12, 2026, at 12:57 PM, Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> wrote: CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Commissioner Bode, You mentioned at the Sustainability Board hearing some ongoing skepticism regarding building a pipeline to Canyon Ferry Lake to shore up Bozeman's future water supply. Having lived on the Colorado Front Range and in Phoenix for several years, my impression has always been that long-range water transportation is the norm among growing cities in the Rocky Mountain West—with infrastructure bridging the gap between where people want to live and where water is available. With some assistance from Claude, I put together (and attached) a short memo on overall trends regarding how growing western cities are meeting their water needs. The high level takeaway is that major infrastructure projects are a viable strategy (Colorado Springs just completed a major new pipeline a few years ago; St. George has a 120-mile pipeline in the works) but reductions in federal funding and increasing construction and environmental permitting costs have made other strategies far more cost-effective. My personal takeaway is that Bozeman seems to be on the right track with its portfolio of strategies and long-distance transmission should be an alternative of last resort. That said, the other takeaway is that the planning, permitting, and construction timelines for major infrastructure can extend 20+ years—so 25 years before we run out of water is probably the right timeframe to start planning a pipeline if we foresee an eventual need. Mark Egge (406) 548-4488 he / him <Western Water Infrastructure Memo.docx> Long-Distance Water Supply Infrastructure in the Arid West How Fast-Growing Western Communities Have Met—and Are Rethinking—Their Water Needs March 2026 Key Takeaway Long-distance water transmission infrastructure has enabled transformative growth across the arid West for over a century. Today, however, the cost, legal complexity, and lead time of new large-scale pipeline projects are driving most fast-growing communities—including those most comparable to Bozeman in size and setting—toward portfolio strategies emphasizing conservation, water reuse, aquifer storage, and strategic use of existing rights. The Legacy: How the West Was Watered The American West's largest cities exist because of long-distance water infrastructure, and these systems remain the backbone of regional supply. Arizona's Central Arizona Project (CAP) is a 336-mile open canal from Lake Havasu to Tucson, constructed between 1973 and 1993 at a cost of approximately $4.4 billion ($10-15 billion inflation-adjusted). CAP lifts water 2,900 feet through 14 pumping plants, consuming 2.5 million MWh annually, and delivers up to 1.5 million acre-feet per year. Municipal users currently pay about $304 per acre-foot for raw untreated water. Colorado's Front Range cities depend on transmountain diversions that tunnel beneath the Continental Divide. The Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project moves over 200,000 acre- feet per year through the 13.1-mile Adams Tunnel, built for $164 million (1956 dollars). Denver Water's system spans 4,000 square miles of collection area, anchored by the 23.3-mile Roberts Tunnel. Colorado Springs built its 50-mile Southern Delivery System in 2016 for$460 million, pumping water 1,500 feet from Pueblo Reservoir. Las Vegas draws 90% of its water from Lake Mead, just 30 miles away. The Southern Nevada Water Authority's Intake No. 3—a 3-mile tunnel bored beneath the lake—cost $817 million, and a companion Low Lake Level Pumping Station completed in 2022 added another $522 million. Combined resilience investment: $1.5 billion, entirely ratepayer-funded. SNWA's wholesale delivery cost runs approximately $313 per acre-foot. Peer Communities: What Comparable Cities Are Doing Now Several fast-growing western cities in the 50,000-250,000 population range are actively grappling with the same supply-versus-growth tension. Flagstaff, Arizona (pop. —78,000) Flagstaff sits in a high-desert setting with roughly 20 inches of annual precipitation—similar to Bozeman's semi-arid 16 inches—and faces wildfire vulnerability to its mountain watershed supply. In 2005, voters approved (with 71% support) the $7.9 million purchase of Red Gap Ranch, an 8,500-acre property 35-40 miles east of the city with substantial groundwater resources. The city has since drilled 11 wells at the ranch and is pursuing a 35-mile pipeline to connect those wells to the city system. Cost estimates for the pipeline have been in the $250 million range. In March 2025, the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to begin an appraisal-level study of the pipeline's feasibility—the first formal federal step—with potential regional partners including the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Flagstaff's water manager has framed the approach as a long-term insurance policy: the city currently has sufficient supply for 100 years and up to 106,000 residents, but would need the pipeline if growth exceeds that threshold. St. George, Utah (pop. —105,000) St. George has been one of the fastest-growing metros in the nation for several years running. Washington County leaders proposed a 140-mile pipeline from Lake Powell at an estimated cost of$1.3-2.2 billion to deliver up to 86,000 acre-feet per year. The project has been in planning for nearly two decades and has faced intense opposition: water officials from six other Colorado River Basin states jointly warned of likely multi-year litigation, and environmental groups argue that conservation alone could meet the county's needs. St. George residents currently use roughly 304 gallons per person per day—twice the national average and three times the rate of comparable desert cities. More recently, Washington County has pivoted to a 20-Year Plan emphasizing water reuse (projected to supply 50% of new demand), groundwater optimization (10%), and new local reservoir construction, including a $94 million Ash Creek Project that received federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The Lake Powell Pipeline remains in the county's long-term plans but is no longer the primary near-term strategy. Eastern New Mexico / Ute Pipeline (serving —75,000 people) The Ute Pipeline Project is the most directly analogous active pipeline construction project in the West. It will deliver water approximately 120-130 miles from Ute Reservoir to Clovis, Portales, Elida, Texico, and Cannon Air Force Base—communities totaling about 75,000 people whose sole water source, the Ogallala Aquifer, is in irreversible decline. Authorized by Congress in 2009, the project includes 120+ miles of pipeline, three pump stations, and a water treatment plant. Total cost estimates have risen from an initial $370 million to approximately $800 million— $1 billion, with the water treatment facility alone expected to cost around $400 million due to deteriorating source water quality. Federal funding covers 75% of capital costs, the state of New Mexico 15%, and local communities 10%. As of 2025, three pipeline phases are complete, four are under construction, and the project targets completion by approximately 2031. The critical distinction: this project was driven by existential supply failure (wells literally going dry), not growth accommodation. Bend, Oregon (pop. —105,000) Bend has roughly doubled its population since 2000 and faces water supply challenges familiar to Bozeman: dependence on mountain surface water, aging infrastructure, and wildfire vulnerability. Rather than pursuing a new long-distance source, Bend invested in rebuilding its existing 11-mile Bridge Creek pipeline (replaced in 2014-16 for roughly $30 million, funded through state revolving loans and rate increases) and added membrane filtration to meet federal treatment requirements. The city's Integrated Water System Master Plan identifies its dual- source system (surface water and groundwater) as adequate through 2040, with conservation efforts delaying the need for three new wells and a large reservoir by an estimated $10 million. Bend's conservation results are notable: despite its population doubling since 2000, peak-day water demand is lower than it was in 2008. Boise, Idaho (pop. -247,000) Boise, the largest city in a fast-growing semi-arid region, chose water recycling over long- distance infrastructure. In 2021, voters approved a $570 million bond with 81% support to fund water renewal infrastructure, including the city's first recycled water facility. The approximately $550 million Recycled Water Program will purify 6 million gallons per day of industrial wastewater for groundwater recharge and industrial reuse. Construction is expected to break ground in 2027 with operations beginning by 2031. The city described the approach as creating a "drought-proof' water supply. The bond is being repaid through water renewal fees rather than property taxes. Boise draws 70% of its water from aquifers and 30% from the Boise River, both under growing stress from rising demand, shrinking snowpack, and increasing drought frequency. Legal and Institutional Context The Bureau of Reclamation built most legacy western water systems under a model where Congress authorized, BOR designed and constructed, and a local entity repaid costs over time. Historically, the federal government funded nearly 100% of construction. That era has ended. Modern federal cost-sharing typically covers 25-50% of project costs, with local entities bearing the majority. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $8.3 billion for Reclamation programs, but spread across rural water, dam safety, storage, reuse, and desalination in 17 states. WaterSMART grants offer 50/50 cost-share at up to $5 million per project. Environmental compliance routinely adds years and cost. NEPA review for major water projects typically requires 3-7+ years. The Flagstaff Red Gap pipeline, for example, was first envisioned when the city purchased the ranch in 2005; twenty years later, the project is still at the appraisal study stage. The Lake Powell Pipeline has been in active planning since the mid-2000s and has yet to clear its environmental review. Tribal water rights—senior to state-law rights by decades or centuries—represent roughly 22-26% of Colorado River basin supply and remain largely unsettled, adding further complexity to any project touching compact waters. The Emerging Consensus: Portfolio Strategies The dominant investment trend across the West has shifted decisively toward demand management and supply diversification. U.S. water reuse infrastructure spending is projected at $47.1 billion through 2035, with potable reuse accounting for 37% of new capacity. Colorado became the first state to adopt direct potable reuse regulations in 2023; California followed in 2024. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) costs a median of roughly $390 per acre-foot—well below most pipeline-delivered water. Conservation remains the cheapest supply tool, and has proven remarkably effective in peer communities: Las Vegas cut per-capita use 55% while adding 829,000 residents; Bend doubled its population while reducing peak-day demand below 2008 levels. Among the peer communities surveyed, the pattern is consistent. Boise chose a $570 million water recycling bond over long-distance supply. St. George is pivoting from its proposed Lake Powell Pipeline toward local reuse and reservoir projects. Bend invested in rebuilding and modernizing existing infrastructure rather than pursuing new distant sources. Flagstaff is pursuing a pipeline, but framed as a last-resort insurance policy backed by 20 years of groundwater development and conservation. Eastern New Mexico's Ute Pipeline is the exception—and it was motivated by aquifer depletion, not growth, with 75% federal funding that would be exceptionally difficult to replicate elsewhere. Aurora, Colorado's Prairie Waters Project offers a particularly instructive example. This 34- mile indirect potable reuse system cost $638 million for 10 MGD initial capacity expandable to 50 MGD, required no new transmountain diversions, and was built in five years with no federal permits—a timeline virtually unheard of for a major new supply project in the West. Implications for Growing Montana Communities The western experience offers several clear lessons for fast-growing Montana communities evaluating long-distance supply options: Long-distance infrastructure is proven but increasingly expensive and slow. Legacy systems built between the 1910s and 1990s continue to deliver water at relatively low marginal cost—gravity-fed systems and tunnels especially so. But replicating those projects today at comparable real cost is essentially impossible. Construction costs have increased severalfold, federal cost-sharing has declined from near-100% to 25-50%, permitting timelines have extended to decades, and legal opposition from environmental, tribal, and basin-of-origin interests is far more formidable than during the Bureau of Reclamation's construction era. The most successful recent strategies are portfolio approaches. Rather than relying on a single large-scale transmission project, peer communities are combining aggressive conservation, water reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and strategic use of existing rights and storage. This approach distributes risk, scales incrementally, and aligns with the direction of federal investment. Cost, timeline, and political risk are the key variables. New long-distance pipelines routinely exceed $2,000 per acre-foot when capital costs are amortized over project life. Projects take decades from conception to operation. And as both the Lake Powell Pipeline and SNWA's shelved groundwater pipeline demonstrate, community and regional opposition can stall or kill projects entirely—after hundreds of millions in sunk planning costs. This memo surveys publicly available information about western water infrastructure to provide context for local planning discussions. It does not constitute engineering, legal, or financial advice. Project costs and status are based on the most recent publicly available data as of March 2026.