Boulder has sold nearly half a million gallons of water to a contractor in recent weeks and, after switching to a new well in response to state concerns, plans more sales to finance water system upgrades.
“These bulk water sales bring more revenue into our water fund, which goes toward improvements and infrastructure,” City Administrator Brian Bullock told The Monitor, adding that water rates are likely to increase in the coming years to cover those projects. [Read the City’s letter here] “If we can sell some water, it’s going to save residents money.”
The City is selling water to Boulder-based Bullock Contracting, which is delivering it to the Crazy Mountain Ranch (CMR) in the Shields River Valley. The ranch-resort is owned by the same parent company as the Yellowstone Club and faced a Department of Natural Resources and Conservation lawsuit last month for alleged illegal water use on its new golf course.
The DNRC last week informed Boulder officials that, due to a decades-old paperwork error, the City lacked water rights to the irrigation well it had been using to source bulk water. The City soon shifted to a DNRC-approved well on Jefferson High School property that had been shut down as a potable water source years ago after the discovery of a surface pollutant.
That issue has not been addressed, according to Bullock, but the pollutant poses no risk to a golf course. “Our thought was, this is a great opportunity to use it as a non-potable water source for bulk sales,” he explained.
Some residents take a different view. “Selling our precious water to a billionaires’ golf course 150 miles away is a really bad idea,” said Brady Smith, whose family has ranched in the Boulder Valley for generations.
Smith pointed out that Boulder has restricted residents’ water use through September (Ordinance #2009-02) and that, due to low water levels, the state has banned fishing on the Jefferson River, which the Boulder River flows into.
Bullock said the water-use restriction reflected not a concern for the town’s water supply, but an effort to avoid overtaxing its two main wells, which hold treated water for drinking and watering. Smith wondered if over-use of the new well might impact the area water table.
“How will sucking thousands and thousands of gallons of water out of our aquifers affect our water?” she asked. “And for what? More rich people from out of state flying into Montana for the weekend? I’m not alone in thinking the City Council made a big mistake.”
Smith urged the Council to reconsider the matter, but after selling nearly 480,000 gallons from Aug. 12 through Sept. 2, Bullock expected the City to make further sales. Still, the issue may soon return to the Council agenda for another reason.
Boulder has been selling bulk water at $10 for 1,000 gallons. But the city of Big Timber, which sold 1.6m gallons to Crazy Mountain Ranch until residents learned of the sales and expressed outrage, recently adopted a tiered pricing structure.
Big Timber is now offering 1000 gallons of water at $14 for city-based customers, $15 for county-based customers, and $20 for customers outside the county. “I did see that, and I think it’s a good idea,” Bullock told The Monitor. “That’s something our City Council could look into.”
Higher rates would provide more funding to offset three ongoing projects: a new well recently drilled near Big Boulder apartments, which lacks a pump; a planned well to be drilled on the Montana Highway Patrol campus; and a new storage tank on Capital Hill.
Grants are expected to cover some of the costs, said Bullock, but the rest will require loans. “The proceeds from selling bulk water can go into our Water Enterprise Fund and help offset that burden and repay those loans,” he said.
Bullock also hopes to use the revenues to help replace residents’ aging water meters. “That’s a pretty tough burden for a property owner to bear, to get stuck with that $400 bill,” said Bullock, referring to a water meter replacement policy confirmed at the Aug. 18 City Council meeting.
Bullock said Mayor Rusty Giulio told him he may want to reassess the policy. “I think the Council wants to reevaluate that decision,” he said. “It should be brought back up very soon.”
