Fort Collins turns toward Glade—but its $300 million water bargain isn’t settled

$300 million over 40 years is what Fort Collins expects to invest in a reservoir project it opposed for more than two decades. That is a commitment stretching across generations of water customers—if the city completes the deal. What those customers would receive in dependable storage, river protection and financial certainty is not yet fully established. ¹

The reversal is real; the long-term bargain is unfinished. On October 20, 2026, City Council gave initial approval to pursuing the Northern Integrated Supply Project, or NISP, through a one-year interim agreement. The city’s October 22 announcement says another council consideration and vote are needed. It does not establish an executed, unconditional $300 million commitment. ³

Fort Collins wants to use part of the proposed Glade Reservoir northwest of town instead of enlarging Halligan Reservoir. This is chiefly a decision about where to bank water the city already owns rights to—not an announcement that new water has arrived. CBS Colorado reports that the intended share is about 6% of Glade’s future capacity, with the expected investment spread over four decades. The final financial and storage terms still matter more than either headline number. ¹

For years, Fort Collins pursued an enlargement of Halligan, on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River about 25 miles northwest of the city. The proposed expansion would add approximately 8,200 acre-feet of storage. A July 2024 city presentation described the purposes: serving current and future customers, improving reliability through prolonged drought, and preparing for climate uncertainty. By June 3, 2026, the city was publicly exploring NISP as an alternative. ^{4 10 6}

Nicole Poncelet-Johnson, Fort Collins’ One Water executive director, told CBS Colorado that permitting drove the change. Her assessment was much blunter than the usual language of a planning transition.

That is the city’s explanation of the obstacle, not a formal Corps denial. The Corps published Halligan’s final environmental impact statement on October 23, 2023. The Colorado Sun reported on October 14, 2026, that Fort Collins was pulling its permit application amid doubts about approval; KUNC described the move away from Halligan on October 20. The specific regulatory finding that made approval unlikely has not been established. ^{15 8 12}

A resolution authorizing withdrawal of the Halligan permit application appeared on the October 20 council agenda, but its final disposition has not been verified. Nor should the old project listing’s estimated 2026–2030 construction window be mistaken for a current construction plan after the city’s change of direction. ^{13 4}

This matters to the cost debate. Fort Collins is not simply choosing between two equally ready reservoirs with different price tags. Its officials say the option they had spent years pursuing was unlikely to secure permission to proceed.

“Overall, it’s a more affordable project,” Poncelet-Johnson told CBS Colorado. The October 23 report put the expected NISP investment at about $300 million over 40 years and the Halligan expansion at about $500 million. But the city’s Halligan project page lists a different figure: $308 million. The difference has not been reconciled. ^{1 4}

Those numbers do not demonstrate a $200 million saving. The published figures do not establish matching price years, inflation assumptions, financing interest or debt schedules. They also do not show whether both alternatives include the same operating, maintenance, replacement and water-delivery expenses. A 40-year investment expectation and a project-value estimate are not automatically comparable financial measures. ^{1 4}

The $308 million listing cannot simply be declared the complete current Halligan cost. Equally, the reported $500 million estimate cannot be assumed to replace it on an identical accounting basis. Ratepayers need a consistent comparison, not a choice of whichever figure makes one option look strongest.

The regional project has its own cost history. The Colorado Sun reported a $2.7 billion NISP estimate on August 27, 2025, alongside halted contract bids and efforts to scale back designs. That was a dated estimate for the wider system—not an October 2026 approved budget, a Glade-only price or Fort Collins’ eventual liability. Procurement continued into 2026, including a solicitation for Glade’s main embankment, but procurement alone does not establish that dam construction or reservoir excavation has begun. ^{29 19 24}

No verified project-specific household bill estimate translates the proposed Fort Collins investment into what a customer would pay. And “over 40 years” does not supply a fixed annual payment schedule. The actual financing agreement, infrastructure obligations and exposure to future costs are essential parts of the bargain.

Northern Water, which leads NISP’s permitting, design and construction for its participants, plans Glade with 170,000 acre-feet of capacity. Applying the approximate 6% share reported by CBS produces roughly 10,200 acre-feet for Fort Collins. That is arithmetic illustrating the proposal’s scale, not a verified contractual entitlement. ^{7 16 1}

An acre-foot covers an acre one foot deep. Reservoir capacity measures how much water can be held at once; dependable annual supply depends on available rights, refill opportunities and operating rules. Halligan’s proposed 8,200 acre-feet of additional storage therefore cannot be compared directly with its planning case for approximately 7,900 acre-feet a year of additional dependable supply to meet projected municipal and industrial demand in 2065. They measure different things. ^{4 30}

Fort Collins intends to store existing senior water rights—rights with earlier priority dates that give them an advantage when competing users draw from limited supplies. Poncelet-Johnson said storing those rights east of the Continental Divide would help prepare the city for climate change and uncertainty over Colorado River water. The reliability benefit will depend on the eventual storage, operating and delivery arrangements; a reservoir does not create precipitation. ¹

Glade would sit off the river, capturing Poudre water primarily during high-flow spring runoff. Water would travel roughly two miles from near the canyon mouth through an inlet canal, a forebay where water collects before pumping, and pumping infrastructure. NISP also includes Galeton Reservoir northeast of Greeley, planned at 45,600 acre-feet, plus other conveyance facilities. The entire system is intended to deliver up to 40,000 acre-feet of new water annually to Northern Front Range providers. That is not a promised Fort Collins allocation. ^{16 22 7}

Poncelet-Johnson said changes adding protections for the Poudre River’s viability helped change Fort Collins’ position. But the detailed, enforceable bargain has not been established here: minimum flows, diversion restrictions, habitat obligations, monitoring, mitigation funding and city-specific operating conditions all bear on whether participation delivers the protection officials describe. ¹

The legal history has moved beyond the original permit challenge. Northern Water announced a settlement with Save the Poudre over the federal NISP permit on February 28, 2025; the environmental group also referred to that settlement in its October 20, 2026 update. A court dismissal order and subsequent docket history have not been independently verified. The announced settlement is a substantive development, not proof that every environmental concern has disappeared. ^{20 14}

Northern Water describes more than 20 years of environmental review and permitting, examining 16 concepts and 215 configurations. That records the extent of the process. The river’s condition after diversions begin will be the test of its results. ¹⁸

The landscape would change, too. About seven miles of U.S. Highway 287 would move east as a two-lane arterial to make room for Glade. Northern Water says the replacement would be completed before the existing highway closes, preserving the Fort Collins–Laramie connection. Part of today’s route could eventually be underwater, but no traffic-switch date has been verified. ^{21 1}

Fort Collins has chosen a new direction for water security. Before it can claim a settled bargain, the city must turn expected spending and intended storage into binding terms. The question for customers is not merely whether Glade costs less than an increasingly doubtful Halligan expansion. It is how much dependable water—and enforceable river protection—their money actually buys.