Longmont Braces - Top Longmont Orthodontist

Longmont Water Advisory Board: October 2026 Water Rates, Button Rock Fire Response and Infrastructure Plans

ByLedger Community News, Weather Reading Time: 17 minutes
video thumbnail for 'Water Advisory Board - October 2026'

Reliable water service depends on more than having enough water in storage. It also means being able to respond to a wildfire, keep a treatment plant running through a power outage, replace aging pipelines and pay for that work without placing every expense on customers at once.

Those themes shaped the October 2026 Longmont Water Advisory Board meeting. The board received a detailed account of the Dry Creek Fire response near Button Rock, supported water service requests for the Hygiene Fire Protection District and examined the utility’s finances, upcoming rates and major construction projects.

The central question was practical: how quickly can Longmont renew its water infrastructure, at what cost, and with how much risk while older facilities remain in service?

Table of Contents

Water Supply Update: Reservoir Storage and Better River Measurements

The monthly water administration report covered active calls on the South Platte main stem and local tributaries, reservoir storage and several projects intended to improve flow measurements.

Local calls included the Rough and Ready Ditch on the St. Vrain, Lake Ditch on Left Hand Creek and Nelson Ditch on Lykins Gulch. No call was reported on Dry Creek. Staff also anticipated a transition from the Rough and Ready call to a direct Pleasant Valley call and discussed coordinating that change with the staff member covering water administration duties.

Reservoir levels

  • Union Reservoir: Storage increased from 52.26% full at the end of September to 53.15%, representing approximately 6,786.6 acre-feet.
  • Button Rock: Storage declined from 96.33% full at the end of September to 94.61%, representing approximately 15,429.9 acre-feet.

The report also outlined work to expand telemetry, which allows flow information to be collected and transmitted remotely. The equipment matters, but reliable measurements still depend on having a suitable physical structure in the water.

At two ditch locations, installation of poles for telemetry equipment had begun. One location still needed a stilling well and a contractor to install it. Another ditch required more substantial rehabilitation because its existing flume was not performing well.

Other proposed improvements included:

  • A radar-based measurement near the downstream end of the river to help determine whether an additional call is needed.
  • Telemetry on the North Branch, after designing and installing a flume at the diversion point. Boulder County had approved property access for that work, with winter identified as a possible construction window.
  • Additional telemetry near the downstream end of the South Branch, around the concrete crossing at Green Hollow, to provide a clearer picture of water reaching that location.

The goal is straightforward: better information about what is actually in the river and its branches makes day-to-day administration more useful.

Dry Creek Fire: A Fast Response Near Button Rock

The Dry Creek Fire was reported October 6, southwest of the reservoir and southeast of Sheep Mountain. It ultimately burned approximately six acres.

Rangers believed it may have started the night before. An escaped campfire was discussed as a possible cause, particularly because there had not been recent lightning, but no confirmed cause was presented.

Why the acreage reports changed so quickly

Early reports placed the fire at roughly half an acre to an acre and a half. Subsequent updates showed six acres, including a rapid change in the Watch Duty app.

That was understandably alarming. During the response, staff treated the larger estimate seriously and prepared for a potentially escalating incident. In reviewing the event afterward, rangers explained that limited visibility had also affected the initial estimates. A larger reported acreage did not necessarily mean the entire difference represented new fire growth.

How the fire was spotted

The two on-duty rangers smelled smoke while entering the area and then heard a smoke report over county dispatch. They collected their protective equipment, fire radios, regular radios and Starlink equipment before moving toward the west side of the preserve.

They immediately divided the work. One ranger drove and assessed the fire. The other handled communications with supervisors, city leadership and residents.

Early resident notification was especially important. People living at Button Rock may need time to prepare dogs, horses and other animals for a possible evacuation. Waiting until a closure or evacuation becomes urgent leaves less room to act.

Once the rangers reached a location with a clearer view, they could assess the smoke plume and distinguish preserve boundaries from adjoining national forest land. They also monitored the dedicated county tactical radio channel established for the incident.

Closing the preserve and supporting aircraft

As reports raised concern about the fire’s size, senior staff initiated a full preserve closure. Additional ranger assistance was requested, including a fire-certified ranger based in town who could prepare equipment and make the approximately 45-minute trip to Button Rock.

The closure moved from west to east. By about 11:10 a.m., the western gates were closed and posted. Rangers then continued through the eastern portion, using vehicle public-address announcements to tell people to leave on foot.

Clearing a preserve is not as simple as closing a gate. Staff had to locate people throughout the property, including fishing spots that were not immediately obvious. One fisherman initially refused to leave, but rangers ultimately obtained compliance.

At the same time, staff coordinated gate access and approved helicopter water collection from the reservoir. The fire location lacked engine access, making aircraft particularly important during the initial suppression effort.

The aircraft response included two single-engine air tankers and a large air tanker dropping retardant, followed by helicopters performing more targeted water drops along the fire’s edges. The helicopters operated out of Longmont airport. Rangers did not confirm the origin of all fixed-wing aircraft.

  • Shortly after 1 p.m.: Helitack personnel arrived.
  • Around 3 p.m.: Forward progress was reported stopped.
  • Around 6 p.m.: The preserve reopened after the county’s all-clear.
  • Two days after the report: The fire was reported fully contained.

Rangers credited the speed of the crews and aircraft response. They also noted that an October incident benefited from conditions that could have been very different during July or August.

Starlink changed how the team could work

The rangers’ strongest operational takeaway was the value of mobile communications.

Previously, a two-person response often meant leaving one ranger in the office to relay information while the other assessed conditions in the field. Sending an email could require a 20- to 25-minute drive back to the station.

Radio coverage is also uneven. The canyon near the entrance creates a substantial communications gap, and even the more open western portion of the preserve has terrain-related dead zones.

With Starlink, both rangers could remain mobile. A work laptop in the truck allowed resident notifications to be drafted while traveling. Calls to leadership, requests for backup and updates about closure issues could happen from the field rather than after a return trip.

That did not eliminate the need for radios or tactical-channel monitoring. It provided another working communications option at a time when two people were managing a great deal at once.

Training paid off before the emergency began

Repeated spring helicopter bucket-drop training had already built relationships with the Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control. Responders knew where to enter, where to stage and how to work around the reservoir.

Local terrain knowledge helped rangers identify landmarks and direct activity. Familiarity with the site, established agency relationships and reliable communications all contributed to a quicker response.

The lesson was not that one piece of equipment solved everything. It was that preparation allowed people and equipment to work together when time mattered.

Hygiene Fire Station: Two Water Service Recommendations

The board considered two outside water tap requests for the Hygiene Fire Protection District. They served the same station project but had different purposes, so each required a separate recommendation to City Council.

Why an outside water tap requires an exceptional benefit

Longmont does not routinely add customer connections to its transmission lines outside the city. An applicant must demonstrate an exceptional benefit to Longmont’s inhabitants.

Staff explained that the review process had changed years earlier following legal guidance. City Council first identifies the exceptional benefit. Staff then processes the request for Water Advisory Board review and a recommendation back to council.

For the fire district’s request, council had identified benefits on September 22. The district serves as a first responder to the Nelson-Flanders and Wade Gaddis water treatment facilities, as well as St. Vrain Valley School District facilities serving Longmont residents.

Board members also pointed to protection of city natural areas and nearby neighborhoods. One example was Hygiene’s response to a significant July 4, 2004, fire at the Lake McIntosh nature area, near residential development.

The broader point was that fire protection is a regional team effort. Supporting a neighboring district’s operational success can directly benefit Longmont.

Request one: larger service for the station and filling station

The district proposed a new fire station to improve staffing and emergency response times. The larger facility would need more domestic water than the existing service could supply.

The requested changes were:

  • Increase a 5/8-inch tap to a 1-inch tap for building service.
  • Increase a 3/4-inch tap to a 1 1/2-inch tap for a filling station.

Because the service connects to a transmission line, the city cannot guarantee water pressure. The district acknowledged that limitation, as it had with its original service.

The board passed a motion finding an exceptional benefit based on the reasons previously identified by council and described in the district’s supporting memorandum.

Discussion also clarified that Hygiene does not have a single water provider serving every property. Some properties have Longmont outside taps, others receive water from another district and some may use wells. A new individual connection to Longmont would still have to satisfy the exceptional-benefit requirement.

Request two: a dedicated fire suppression connection

The second request was for a separate connection serving only the new building’s automatic sprinkler system. After correcting an earlier reference to a smaller size, staff identified it as a 6-inch fire suppression line.

This connection would not supply domestic plumbing, irrigation, routine operations or other regular uses. Under normal conditions, it would remain pressurized but static.

Water would flow only when the sprinkler system activated or during required testing, inspection, flushing and maintenance.

Engineering staff found sufficient system capacity for those uses, while again noting that pressure could not be guaranteed. The board passed the second motion supporting the additional fire suppression connection.

These were board recommendations within the outside-tap review process, not a substitute for City Council’s final action.

Guiding Water Principles Carried Forward

With the 2027 legislative session approaching, staff returned the city’s guiding water principles to the board for its annual review.

The principles help staff evaluate proposed state legislation and consider how it could affect or benefit Longmont. Members described the existing language as broad and inclusive and offered no revisions.

The board approved carrying the principles forward as presented.

How Longmont Pays for Water Service

The financial presentation responded in part to board questions about cash received in lieu of water rights. Understanding where that money goes requires separating three utility funds.

Operating enterprise fund

The operating fund is supported primarily by customer rates. Other revenues include interest, service-related charges and oil and gas royalties.

It pays operating costs, debt service and capital improvements serving the existing utility. Operating functions include water treatment, distribution, engineering, water quality testing, environmental affairs and source-water work.

Administrative costs also sit here, including support from finance, human resources, legal services and customer service.

Staff noted that oil and gas revenues have declined significantly over the past five years and are difficult to predict. They are not a dependable foundation for the utility’s financial planning.

Construction fund

The construction fund is supported by system development fees. It can contribute to projects that add capacity for new development.

The key distinction is whether a project serves existing customers, adds capacity for future customers or does both. A construction project does not automatically qualify for construction-fund money simply because something is being built.

Water acquisition fund

The water acquisition fund receives cash-in-lieu payments associated with water rights requirements. Its uses are tied to acquiring raw-water supply, such as water rights, reservoirs and related water-resource property.

A useful general test is whether the expenditure increases the city’s raw-water supply. Replacing an existing treated-water pipeline is a different purpose from acquiring additional water rights or storage.

Staff emphasized that growth is expected to pay its way, but infrastructure sometimes must be built before the development generating fee revenue arrives. That creates timing and financing challenges.

The Proposed 2027 Budget and Water Rates

The city manager’s recommended 2027 water operating budget totaled approximately $51 million, including a planned $9 million draw from reserves. Budget adoption was expected in November, subject to any modifications.

Monthly customer charges represented roughly three-quarters of the presented funding mix. Reserves help balance years when the timing of expenses, particularly capital work, does not match annual revenue.

Approximately $19 million was identified for capital improvements. Major items discussed included:

  • Transmission rehabilitation near Button Rock: About $3.5 million.
  • Distribution main replacements: Approximately $8 million, with the discussion also referencing an $8.3 million annual allocation.
  • SCADA monitoring and control improvements: About $4 million.

What customers can expect in 2027

In 2024, City Council adopted a three-year water rate schedule covering 2025, 2026 and 2027, rather than the five-year option also considered.

The presentation described annual increases of roughly $4 to $5 in the average monthly single-family water bill. Under that adopted schedule, the average single-family monthly water bill in 2027 would be just under $60.

Figures beyond 2027 shown in the earlier five-year proposal had not been adopted. Staff expected to return to council in 2027 to review revenue, expenses and the next rate decisions.

Development fees and cash in lieu

The board had recommended increasing the cash-in-lieu rate to $63,000 effective January 1.

Staff also reviewed system development fees and the Windy Gap surcharge. As an example, the system development fee for a 5/8-inch meter serving a single-family home on a 6,000-square-foot lot was approximately $8,100. That example was not presented as the total of every applicable development-related charge.

A broader review of utility development fees remained ahead, following other rate-study work planned for 2027.

Water acquisition fund balances

The 2025 year-end financial information showed approximately:

  • $5.2 million in beginning working capital.
  • $5.75 million in year-end reserves.
  • $824,000 already appropriated.
  • $4.9 million available for additional appropriation.

Staff discussed cash-in-lieu receipts, interest earnings, water assessments and money appropriated for a potential land acquisition that did not occur that year. As of the October report, no cash-in-lieu revenue had been received in 2026, and no additional water-right acquisition expenses had yet been incurred.

Why finishing construction does not end every cost

A question about Chimney Hollow highlighted the difference between completing a project and paying it off.

Some construction costs were financed with debt. Those payments remain embedded in rates after construction ends. Staff indicated that the relevant debt appeared to extend to around 2040, while treating the exact repayment timeline as something to verify.

The board also requested a presentation on the upcoming water cost-of-service study. Staff expected to update that study in 2027, with council discussion targeted for the first half of the year.

Members wanted an opportunity to examine how capital needs and rates fit together, ask questions and help council understand the tradeoffs.

The Water Master Plan: Reliability, Not Just More Capacity

Much of the infrastructure discussion came back to one distinction: having enough capacity when everything works is not the same as having enough capacity when something fails.

The master plan update was examining treatment, transmission, storage and source-water reliability. Staff expected it to return to the board in the first quarter of 2027, potentially around February if milestones held.

Nelson-Flanders and the loss of Wade Gaddis

Nelson-Flanders is rated at 40 million gallons per day, or MGD. It has two treatment trains, each rated at 20 MGD.

Recent peak demand was approximately 28 MGD, with summer peaks discussed in the range of 28 to 30 MGD. On paper, 40 MGD is enough. But if one train is unavailable, the plant has only 20 MGD remaining.

The older Wade Gaddis facility historically provided approximately 15 MGD of summer peaking capacity. It has not operated since 2011 and has reached the end of its useful life.

Staff described structural deterioration, aging controls and filter systems, regulatory concerns and limitations on excavation near the building. Although it had been prepared for possible emergency use in the past, staff no longer considered it a dependable operating option.

Interconnections with Left Hand Water District provide approximately 8 MGD, roughly matching current indoor demand. They are an important backup, but staff still must consider the nature and location of any failure before assuming those connections can solve it.

Why expand at Nelson-Flanders?

The recommended direction was to add another 20 MGD treatment train, bringing Nelson-Flanders to 60 MGD.

The purpose is substantially about restoring redundancy. With three trains, operators could take one offline and retain two operating units.

The site was planned for expansion, including existing infrastructure that can be used in the project. Rebuilding a separate plant at the Wade Gaddis site was described as roughly twice as expensive as expanding at Nelson-Flanders, while also requiring operation and maintenance at two locations.

There is a tradeoff. Two sites provide geographic redundancy. Expanding one site requires making that location as robust and operationally independent as practical.

Smaller reliability improvements are already helping

Staff have advanced affordable pieces of the larger expansion plan rather than waiting to do everything at once.

  • A second electrical feed has been installed.
  • Generator power provides another backup.
  • Chemical-system improvements are being made.
  • The Montgomery tank project includes another pipeline connection downstream of the plant.

The second electrical feed had already proved useful during December windstorms, when the main feed was lost and the plant continued operating from the alternate supply. Staff noted that past plant shutdowns had been caused by electrical problems, making that work particularly valuable.

Cost escalation is forcing another close look

The treatment expansion’s original estimate was approximately $46 million to $50 million in 2019 dollars. Pricing increased during design, first to around $60 million and then to approximately $95 million as costs rose sharply in 2022 and 2023.

That escalation prevented the city from proceeding with the treatment expansion and Montgomery tank replacement together as originally intended. Montgomery moved forward first.

Staff described an $80 million bond authorization, with $50 million issued and approximately $30 million remaining unissued.

Board members asked whether the treatment expansion could be resized. Could a 10 MGD addition provide enough backup at a lower cost? What do recent peak-demand trends suggest? Could multifamily development, with less landscape irrigation, add more year-round demand without the same summer peak?

Staff reported that peak demand had been steady or declining, while noting that forecasts must still account for development and possible industrial users. They also cautioned that a smaller train would not necessarily cost proportionally less. Excavation, site work and shared facilities can remain substantial regardless of final treatment capacity.

The board’s request was to keep testing the project’s size and timing against current demand and customer affordability.

A forebay repair provided useful operating experience

Repairs to the existing forebay required operating through a bypass for approximately nine months. That experience demonstrated that the bypass could function longer than staff had previously understood.

As a result, a proposed second forebay became a lower immediate priority. The existing forebay holds approximately 30 million gallons; the proposed smaller facility would hold about 7.5 million gallons.

The smaller, concrete-lined forebay could still offer benefits after a wildfire, including chemical treatment of incoming sediment and easier cleaning. It remains a possible project, but new operating knowledge helped staff reconsider where it belongs on the priority list.

Getting Water Into Town Is Another Reliability Challenge

Treatment is only one part of the system. Treated water still has to reach Longmont.

The main route, known as Line C, is a 54-inch steel pipeline along Highway 66. A smaller Price Park transmission line provides another route, but increasing that alternate route’s capacity is a major future project.

A break in Line C, including accidental damage from construction, is one of the scenarios staff must plan around. Depending on where damage occurs, interconnections and alternate routing would become critical.

Source-water diversity is a relative strength. During the Button Rock fire, staff immediately considered the option of relying on a separate watershed, including Colorado-Big Thompson supplies, if necessary.

The master plan is examining how much water can be obtained from each watershed if another becomes unavailable. Across the system, the emphasis is on resiliency and workable alternatives, not simply building for more demand.

Capital Projects Underway

Montgomery tank replacement

The existing Montgomery tank, near North 53rd Street and Highway 66, dates to the 1960s. Its steel construction has required major coating work, and some internal structural areas cannot be adequately recoated without extensive disassembly.

Replacement was determined to be the better approach.

The project includes:

  • A new tank on adjacent city-owned property, moved away from the road corner.
  • An increase in usable storage from approximately 4.6 million gallons to 6.4 million gallons.
  • A redundant pipeline from Nelson-Flanders so the existing line can eventually be taken out of service for repairs.
  • A sampling building, service access from North 53rd Street and security fencing.
  • Demolition of the old tank after the new facility is operating.

The tank and pipeline project totals approximately $46 million. About 15 feet of the tank will be below ground and 10 feet above ground, with a flat roof intended to reduce its visibility.

Design and Boulder County permitting took about two years and included historic preservation, planning and county commissioner review.

At the October meeting, construction was approximately one month ahead of schedule. Excavation had gone better than anticipated, and dewatering was working well. Substantial completion was expected around September 2028.

Upper North St. Vrain pipeline rehabilitation

This raw-water pipeline carries water from Longmont Reservoir toward the treatment facility through difficult mountainous terrain.

Staff were evaluating a combination of lining technology, excavation and replacement, retaining walls and improved access to the existing alignment.

An alternate route in the road had been considered, but it brought substantial costs, easement needs, rock boring and exposure to flood-related road washouts.

The existing pipeline’s size is sufficient for the intended deliveries. The current direction was therefore to rehabilitate it and improve access where practical, rather than commit to an expensive new alignment. The approach had not yet been finalized.

Button Rock dam hydraulic controls

Construction was beginning on replacement of the hydraulic power unit controlling the dam’s regulating and emergency outlet gates.

The existing equipment dates to the 1960s and leaks. The replacement was described as approximately $500,000.

It is a small project in physical footprint, but the equipment performs an important dam-operating function. Staff also emphasized that project prices come through competitive purchasing, proposals and bids.

Annual waterline rehabilitation

Longmont has approximately 60 miles of cast-iron water main remaining. Staff plan to replace roughly 2 to 3 miles each year, a program expected to take 20 to 30 years.

Annual rehabilitation spending generally ranges from $6 million to $8 million, depending on the projects and costs in a given year.

That is an annual expense, not the total cost of replacing all 60 miles.

Cast iron can corrode from both sides. Inside the pipe, mineral and corrosion deposits can build up. Outside, soil and groundwater conditions can contribute to corrosion and pinhole leaks.

Much of this pipe was installed during the city’s development in the 1960s. It is scattered around Longmont, particularly in neighborhoods built during that period. PVC is the replacement material now being installed.

The replacement pace reflects staff workload, contractor capacity, infrastructure condition and the desire to avoid placing the entire cost on customers at once. Rehabilitation will not end when the last cast-iron main is removed. Other materials and assets will also age and need attention.

Staff described the city’s water-loss performance as comparatively good, while not offering an exact percentage during the discussion.

Lead service line work

In response to a question, staff said no lead service lines had been identified through the work completed so far. They also noted that additional requirements could involve more testing and excavation.

The distinction matters: current findings are encouraging, while verification work can continue.

What Comes Next

Several follow-up items will bring these discussions back to the board:

  • Water master plan: Expected in the first quarter of 2027, with timing dependent on project milestones.
  • Cost-of-service study: Planned for 2027, with a board presentation requested to connect rate decisions with capital needs.
  • Future rates: Council review will be needed beyond the already adopted 2027 schedule.
  • Cash-in-lieu review: The board intended to preserve its quarterly review in December.

Staff also proposed canceling the November 16 meeting if no action items emerged and combining the remaining year-end business into a December 14 meeting, rather than meeting during Christmas week. That was a proposed scheduling change, with confirmation and public notice to follow.

The October discussion left a clear picture of the work ahead. Longmont has important strengths: multiple water sources, capable emergency partners and reliability improvements already proving their value. It also has aging infrastructure and major projects whose costs have risen sharply.

The task is to keep testing the options, make the most useful improvements first and pace the larger investments without losing sight of either reliability or the people paying the bills.

Similar Posts