Water Adequacy for Residential Development

On November 4, Bozeman voters will see a ballot question related to water and residential development on their ballot. The WARD citizen special interest group initiative would change the city of Bozeman’s development code, requiring developers of three or more residential units to pay cash-in-lieu of water rights to the city only if the development designates 33% or more of the units as affordable. If the developer does not include 33% affordable units, they are responsible for securing water rights, which, because of state water rights processes, could take 5-8 years. The WARD initiative also removes the ability for developers to meet the water demand of their development through off-site water efficiency or conservation measures. Check out the full description of the initiative. The Initiative was not developed by the City of Bozeman. The City is, however, providing educational information on the Initiative.

Get the Facts on Our Water and Housing:

Since 2022, we have 1777 affordable units built, under construction, or in the pipeline

Since 2022, $120M has been spent in subsidies on those projects

Vacancy rates have been quoted at 12%; rent increases have slowed

Bozeman residents continue to excel in water conservation, using 188 gallons of water per household per day compared to 314 GPHD in other arid Western states

Get the Facts on Our Water:

Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water. When new housing is proposed, the city ensures there is enough water to support it. Based on the 2024 water use numbers, in a normal water year, the city only uses about 43% of its available supply, and even in a drought year, that number rises to just 60%. Bozeman’s water comes from three main sources—Lyman Spring, Bozeman Creek, and Hyalite Creek, with the Hyalite Reservoir. 

To carefully manage demand, the city uses a Water Supply & Optimization Tool that monitors current usage, projects future needs, and tracks available resources. This tool is critical to ensure the city continues to develop new supplies to meet the needs of our growing community. New water supplies are being developed as prioritized in the City’s Integrated Water Resources Plan. In addition, Bozeman continues to strengthen its long-term water sustainability by developing new conservation measures and following its 2023 Water Conservation Plan.

Get the Facts on Affordable Housing:

Building affordable housing is costly because of rising land, labor, material, and lending expenses. A city study found that developers can typically only make about 5% of their units affordable, as higher percentages aren’t financially viable. 

To address this, the city is partnering with public, private, and nonprofit organizations and shaping policies based on local data and community input to balance affordability, growth, and neighborhood character.

Get the Facts on the Impacts of the WARD Initiative:

The WARD Initiative’s requirement that housing developments of three or more units ensure 33% of units in new developments are affordable in order to access the city’s cash-in-lieu of water rights could limit housing supply. 

Even in housing projects that receive significant government subsidies, developers depend on a balance of market-rate and affordable units to cover construction costs. The result is that WARD’s high affordability requirement (33%) could make it harder for a developer to secure financing, resulting in less interest in building housing in the city. If developers choose not to build in Bozeman, demand for housing in the city may rise without the housing supply to match, driving up prices. Some may instead build in surrounding areas like the County, which could increase commuting and harm the environment.

Additional Information:

This website and related City efforts to educate voters on this initiative are not intended to advocate for or against the initiative; rather, the educational effort is to bring to light how the initiative will affect city operations, including how the City works to accommodate the development of new housing in our community and the City’s effort to provide our community the water it relies on.

We invite all to use our Question-and-Answer feature on this page to learn more.

Get the Facts on Our Water and Housing:

Since 2022, we have 1777 affordable units built, under construction, or in the pipeline

Since 2022, $120M has been spent in subsidies on those projects

Vacancy rates have been quoted at 12%; rent increases have slowed

Bozeman residents continue to excel in water conservation, using 188 gallons of water per household per day compared to 314 GPHD in other arid Western states

Get the Facts on Our Water:

Get the Facts on Affordable Housing:

Get the Facts on the Impacts of the WARD Initiative:

Additional Information:

We invite all to use our Question-and-Answer feature on this page to learn more.

Q & A

Please use this part of the website to ask us any questions you have about WARD and its impacts!

Want to learn more before you ask a question? View our presentation here:

Share Could the city and county pinpoint areas in town and the county that might support affordable housing without sacrificing the environment including strict green space laws. In addition, could they partner with government organizations to assist developers with grant applications to make building affordable housing more desirable and affordable to developers on Facebook Share Could the city and county pinpoint areas in town and the county that might support affordable housing without sacrificing the environment including strict green space laws. In addition, could they partner with government organizations to assist developers with grant applications to make building affordable housing more desirable and affordable to developers on Twitter Share Could the city and county pinpoint areas in town and the county that might support affordable housing without sacrificing the environment including strict green space laws. In addition, could they partner with government organizations to assist developers with grant applications to make building affordable housing more desirable and affordable to developers on Linkedin Email Could the city and county pinpoint areas in town and the county that might support affordable housing without sacrificing the environment including strict green space laws. In addition, could they partner with government organizations to assist developers with grant applications to make building affordable housing more desirable and affordable to developers link

Could the city and county pinpoint areas in town and the county that might support affordable housing without sacrificing the environment including strict green space laws. In addition, could they partner with government organizations to assist developers with grant applications to make building affordable housing more desirable and affordable to developers

Sherry asked 7 days ago

Developing affordable housing in Gallatin County is challenging due to the lack of infrastructure. Much of the development that occurs in unincorporated Gallatin County occurs on septic systems and wells, and those systems cannot support higher densities, such as apartment buildings. Low-density homes are incredibly challenging to make affordable due to the high costs of land and materials. Outside of that reality, there are some places in the County close to city limits where connecting to city infrastructure may be easier.
The City and County do partner with developers on seeking affordable housing financial support through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. This is a federal program that developers can apply to in order to receive funding for affordable housing projects. We provide letters of support for projects and, over the past couple of years, have been awarded more LIHTC funds than any other city in Montana. We have also provided additional financial support to make these projects feasible when state and federal funding falls short.
The City and County have partnered on the Hidden Creek affordable housing project, a project that includes 182 LIHTC apartments, and we are working to create affordable housing on Fowler Ave (https://engage.bozeman.net/fowlerhousing). We both are members of the Regional Housing Coalition as well, a group of partners in the region working to address housing attainability and stability.
Share When were the ballots mailed out? on Facebook Share When were the ballots mailed out? on Twitter Share When were the ballots mailed out? on Linkedin Email When were the ballots mailed out? link

When were the ballots mailed out?

Gilbert Parker asked 2 days ago

Ballots were mailed on Oct. 17! If you have not received one and know you are in city limits, head to the Elections office at the Gallatin County Courthouse (311 W Main Street) or give them a call at 406-582-3060.
Share As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not? on Facebook Share As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not? on Twitter Share As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not? on Linkedin Email As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not? link

As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not?

Wtf asked 8 days ago

Thanks for the question! The inclusion of the word “amend” demonstrates the initiative will change the current municipal code provisions related to water adequacy. When legislation seeks to change existing statutes or codes, using the word “amend” is common language to show existing law is changing. The City does not take a position for or against WARD and is only seeking to provide information on water and housing ahead of the vote.
Share How much is our affordable housing? on Facebook Share How much is our affordable housing? on Twitter Share How much is our affordable housing? on Linkedin Email How much is our affordable housing? link

How much is our affordable housing?

max asked 24 days ago
We’re not 100% sure if this answers your question, but here are some facts that may be helpful:
- Since 2022, we have 1,777 affordable units built, under construction, or in the pipeline.
- Over $120M has been spent in subsidies on those projects.
- HUD sets Area Median Income limits, and housing is generally considered affordable when the cost of it is no more than 1/3^rd of the pre-tax AMI. A chart of AMI can be found on our website: https://www.bozeman.net/departments/economic-development/community-housing.
Share Hi - I am re-posting my Nextdoor comment to the CIty's original post that leads here. My comment includes questions about the language used in the City's efforts to educate about WARD. Thank you, in advance, for trying to answer them... According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (BDC)(January 25, 2024), City Staffer Shawn Kohtz stated during a commission meeting that Gallatin Valley’s water resources are limited. Another BDC article (March 22, 2025) continued to explore this topic (linked below). Thankfully, the extreme idea of a pipeline from Canyon Ferry to meet Bozeman’s housing demand has been tabled. However, the very fact that the water (and wastewater) feasibility study took place to begin with, and used up $300,000 taxpayer dollars in the process (Memorandum of Agreement regarding cost share linked below), contradicts a conspicuous statement in this educational piece entitled, “Get the facts about Bozeman’s water and housing challenges.” Tagline - “A Livable Bozeman for All. Smart Solutions, Sustainable Futures.” The time, money, and effort spent on the study concerning regional water and wastewater solutions for the Gallatin Valley was a clear signal that the City of Bozeman does believe it needs to worry about, and plan for, water into the future. So it really bothers me that the City would make a statement like, “Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water” in its self-described educational piece. I suppose it’s a temporal scale issue but such language seems pollyanna-ish, short-sighted, and misleading at best. Additionally, I find the use of the word “futures” in the tagline to be odd. Don’t we all share one common future? A quick Google search of the word “futures” yields (pun intended) only references to stocks and trading on the first two pages of results. I find myself wondering what drove the choice to use the word “futures” versus “future?” Was it intentionally designed to attract those who live and breathe the stock market? What about the rest of us who are plenty busy just trying to plan for a comfortable “future” in our own house in our own beloved neighborhood? I would like to see the City of Bozeman continue to promote water conservation WHILE actively reducing new development demands on finite and climate change-affected water sources in our closed basin. If the City is going to continue to promote rampant development anyway, then at least we, as a community, should receive something of great value in return, such as big A Affordable housing. I am not directly involved with the WARD initiative, however, I take issue with the descriptor “special interest group” to describe the citizens behind the WARD initiative. This label often carries with it a negative connotation. Indeed, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “special interest” as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Water availability is not a narrowly defined interest or problem. Oxford Languages defines “special interest group” as “a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.” Again, the WARD folks are not seeking any special advantages for themselves. They are working for the greater good. I, for one, am humbled my their great and unpaid efforts to find a creative solution to two problems (Water and Housing) facing us all. I am grateful the City is backpedaling on its advocacy stance against WARD despite its public staff statements, joint commissioner guest column, and the taxpayer dollars being used to influence the citizen vote. If the City believes there are flaws in the initiative, I believe the right course of action would be to extend a hand and channel its resources and counsel to work together to strengthen WARD for the greater good as it is intended. Thank you for listening to my concerns. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/carrying-capacity-as-the-gallatin-valley-grows-will-there-be-enough-water/article_88a9e1f0-e61f-11ee-9b71-8ff74043b69a.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawM2Xj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuVwD_bgxesphGA-2iItjS8aNN5gTTMUPRSUdiDtSg9rknnbL89eYJFljTv9_aem_aPSsB8IJzEAJLP5gR3MSvw https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239882&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&searchid=6c876785-e053-4a6e-b675-450f9de7b691&cr=1 on Facebook Share Hi - I am re-posting my Nextdoor comment to the CIty's original post that leads here. My comment includes questions about the language used in the City's efforts to educate about WARD. Thank you, in advance, for trying to answer them... According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (BDC)(January 25, 2024), City Staffer Shawn Kohtz stated during a commission meeting that Gallatin Valley’s water resources are limited. Another BDC article (March 22, 2025) continued to explore this topic (linked below). Thankfully, the extreme idea of a pipeline from Canyon Ferry to meet Bozeman’s housing demand has been tabled. However, the very fact that the water (and wastewater) feasibility study took place to begin with, and used up $300,000 taxpayer dollars in the process (Memorandum of Agreement regarding cost share linked below), contradicts a conspicuous statement in this educational piece entitled, “Get the facts about Bozeman’s water and housing challenges.” Tagline - “A Livable Bozeman for All. Smart Solutions, Sustainable Futures.” The time, money, and effort spent on the study concerning regional water and wastewater solutions for the Gallatin Valley was a clear signal that the City of Bozeman does believe it needs to worry about, and plan for, water into the future. So it really bothers me that the City would make a statement like, “Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water” in its self-described educational piece. I suppose it’s a temporal scale issue but such language seems pollyanna-ish, short-sighted, and misleading at best. Additionally, I find the use of the word “futures” in the tagline to be odd. Don’t we all share one common future? A quick Google search of the word “futures” yields (pun intended) only references to stocks and trading on the first two pages of results. I find myself wondering what drove the choice to use the word “futures” versus “future?” Was it intentionally designed to attract those who live and breathe the stock market? What about the rest of us who are plenty busy just trying to plan for a comfortable “future” in our own house in our own beloved neighborhood? I would like to see the City of Bozeman continue to promote water conservation WHILE actively reducing new development demands on finite and climate change-affected water sources in our closed basin. If the City is going to continue to promote rampant development anyway, then at least we, as a community, should receive something of great value in return, such as big A Affordable housing. I am not directly involved with the WARD initiative, however, I take issue with the descriptor “special interest group” to describe the citizens behind the WARD initiative. This label often carries with it a negative connotation. Indeed, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “special interest” as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Water availability is not a narrowly defined interest or problem. Oxford Languages defines “special interest group” as “a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.” Again, the WARD folks are not seeking any special advantages for themselves. They are working for the greater good. I, for one, am humbled my their great and unpaid efforts to find a creative solution to two problems (Water and Housing) facing us all. I am grateful the City is backpedaling on its advocacy stance against WARD despite its public staff statements, joint commissioner guest column, and the taxpayer dollars being used to influence the citizen vote. If the City believes there are flaws in the initiative, I believe the right course of action would be to extend a hand and channel its resources and counsel to work together to strengthen WARD for the greater good as it is intended. Thank you for listening to my concerns. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/carrying-capacity-as-the-gallatin-valley-grows-will-there-be-enough-water/article_88a9e1f0-e61f-11ee-9b71-8ff74043b69a.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawM2Xj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuVwD_bgxesphGA-2iItjS8aNN5gTTMUPRSUdiDtSg9rknnbL89eYJFljTv9_aem_aPSsB8IJzEAJLP5gR3MSvw https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239882&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&searchid=6c876785-e053-4a6e-b675-450f9de7b691&cr=1 on Twitter Share Hi - I am re-posting my Nextdoor comment to the CIty's original post that leads here. My comment includes questions about the language used in the City's efforts to educate about WARD. Thank you, in advance, for trying to answer them... According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (BDC)(January 25, 2024), City Staffer Shawn Kohtz stated during a commission meeting that Gallatin Valley’s water resources are limited. Another BDC article (March 22, 2025) continued to explore this topic (linked below). Thankfully, the extreme idea of a pipeline from Canyon Ferry to meet Bozeman’s housing demand has been tabled. However, the very fact that the water (and wastewater) feasibility study took place to begin with, and used up $300,000 taxpayer dollars in the process (Memorandum of Agreement regarding cost share linked below), contradicts a conspicuous statement in this educational piece entitled, “Get the facts about Bozeman’s water and housing challenges.” Tagline - “A Livable Bozeman for All. Smart Solutions, Sustainable Futures.” The time, money, and effort spent on the study concerning regional water and wastewater solutions for the Gallatin Valley was a clear signal that the City of Bozeman does believe it needs to worry about, and plan for, water into the future. So it really bothers me that the City would make a statement like, “Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water” in its self-described educational piece. I suppose it’s a temporal scale issue but such language seems pollyanna-ish, short-sighted, and misleading at best. Additionally, I find the use of the word “futures” in the tagline to be odd. Don’t we all share one common future? A quick Google search of the word “futures” yields (pun intended) only references to stocks and trading on the first two pages of results. I find myself wondering what drove the choice to use the word “futures” versus “future?” Was it intentionally designed to attract those who live and breathe the stock market? What about the rest of us who are plenty busy just trying to plan for a comfortable “future” in our own house in our own beloved neighborhood? I would like to see the City of Bozeman continue to promote water conservation WHILE actively reducing new development demands on finite and climate change-affected water sources in our closed basin. If the City is going to continue to promote rampant development anyway, then at least we, as a community, should receive something of great value in return, such as big A Affordable housing. I am not directly involved with the WARD initiative, however, I take issue with the descriptor “special interest group” to describe the citizens behind the WARD initiative. This label often carries with it a negative connotation. Indeed, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “special interest” as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Water availability is not a narrowly defined interest or problem. Oxford Languages defines “special interest group” as “a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.” Again, the WARD folks are not seeking any special advantages for themselves. They are working for the greater good. I, for one, am humbled my their great and unpaid efforts to find a creative solution to two problems (Water and Housing) facing us all. I am grateful the City is backpedaling on its advocacy stance against WARD despite its public staff statements, joint commissioner guest column, and the taxpayer dollars being used to influence the citizen vote. If the City believes there are flaws in the initiative, I believe the right course of action would be to extend a hand and channel its resources and counsel to work together to strengthen WARD for the greater good as it is intended. Thank you for listening to my concerns. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/carrying-capacity-as-the-gallatin-valley-grows-will-there-be-enough-water/article_88a9e1f0-e61f-11ee-9b71-8ff74043b69a.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawM2Xj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuVwD_bgxesphGA-2iItjS8aNN5gTTMUPRSUdiDtSg9rknnbL89eYJFljTv9_aem_aPSsB8IJzEAJLP5gR3MSvw https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239882&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&searchid=6c876785-e053-4a6e-b675-450f9de7b691&cr=1 on Linkedin Email Hi - I am re-posting my Nextdoor comment to the CIty's original post that leads here. My comment includes questions about the language used in the City's efforts to educate about WARD. Thank you, in advance, for trying to answer them... According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (BDC)(January 25, 2024), City Staffer Shawn Kohtz stated during a commission meeting that Gallatin Valley’s water resources are limited. Another BDC article (March 22, 2025) continued to explore this topic (linked below). Thankfully, the extreme idea of a pipeline from Canyon Ferry to meet Bozeman’s housing demand has been tabled. However, the very fact that the water (and wastewater) feasibility study took place to begin with, and used up $300,000 taxpayer dollars in the process (Memorandum of Agreement regarding cost share linked below), contradicts a conspicuous statement in this educational piece entitled, “Get the facts about Bozeman’s water and housing challenges.” Tagline - “A Livable Bozeman for All. Smart Solutions, Sustainable Futures.” The time, money, and effort spent on the study concerning regional water and wastewater solutions for the Gallatin Valley was a clear signal that the City of Bozeman does believe it needs to worry about, and plan for, water into the future. So it really bothers me that the City would make a statement like, “Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water” in its self-described educational piece. I suppose it’s a temporal scale issue but such language seems pollyanna-ish, short-sighted, and misleading at best. Additionally, I find the use of the word “futures” in the tagline to be odd. Don’t we all share one common future? A quick Google search of the word “futures” yields (pun intended) only references to stocks and trading on the first two pages of results. I find myself wondering what drove the choice to use the word “futures” versus “future?” Was it intentionally designed to attract those who live and breathe the stock market? What about the rest of us who are plenty busy just trying to plan for a comfortable “future” in our own house in our own beloved neighborhood? I would like to see the City of Bozeman continue to promote water conservation WHILE actively reducing new development demands on finite and climate change-affected water sources in our closed basin. If the City is going to continue to promote rampant development anyway, then at least we, as a community, should receive something of great value in return, such as big A Affordable housing. I am not directly involved with the WARD initiative, however, I take issue with the descriptor “special interest group” to describe the citizens behind the WARD initiative. This label often carries with it a negative connotation. Indeed, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “special interest” as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Water availability is not a narrowly defined interest or problem. Oxford Languages defines “special interest group” as “a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.” Again, the WARD folks are not seeking any special advantages for themselves. They are working for the greater good. I, for one, am humbled my their great and unpaid efforts to find a creative solution to two problems (Water and Housing) facing us all. I am grateful the City is backpedaling on its advocacy stance against WARD despite its public staff statements, joint commissioner guest column, and the taxpayer dollars being used to influence the citizen vote. If the City believes there are flaws in the initiative, I believe the right course of action would be to extend a hand and channel its resources and counsel to work together to strengthen WARD for the greater good as it is intended. Thank you for listening to my concerns. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/carrying-capacity-as-the-gallatin-valley-grows-will-there-be-enough-water/article_88a9e1f0-e61f-11ee-9b71-8ff74043b69a.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawM2Xj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuVwD_bgxesphGA-2iItjS8aNN5gTTMUPRSUdiDtSg9rknnbL89eYJFljTv9_aem_aPSsB8IJzEAJLP5gR3MSvw https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239882&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&searchid=6c876785-e053-4a6e-b675-450f9de7b691&cr=1 link

Hi - I am re-posting my Nextdoor comment to the CIty's original post that leads here. My comment includes questions about the language used in the City's efforts to educate about WARD. Thank you, in advance, for trying to answer them... According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (BDC)(January 25, 2024), City Staffer Shawn Kohtz stated during a commission meeting that Gallatin Valley’s water resources are limited. Another BDC article (March 22, 2025) continued to explore this topic (linked below). Thankfully, the extreme idea of a pipeline from Canyon Ferry to meet Bozeman’s housing demand has been tabled. However, the very fact that the water (and wastewater) feasibility study took place to begin with, and used up $300,000 taxpayer dollars in the process (Memorandum of Agreement regarding cost share linked below), contradicts a conspicuous statement in this educational piece entitled, “Get the facts about Bozeman’s water and housing challenges.” Tagline - “A Livable Bozeman for All. Smart Solutions, Sustainable Futures.” The time, money, and effort spent on the study concerning regional water and wastewater solutions for the Gallatin Valley was a clear signal that the City of Bozeman does believe it needs to worry about, and plan for, water into the future. So it really bothers me that the City would make a statement like, “Bozeman is not at risk of running out of water” in its self-described educational piece. I suppose it’s a temporal scale issue but such language seems pollyanna-ish, short-sighted, and misleading at best. Additionally, I find the use of the word “futures” in the tagline to be odd. Don’t we all share one common future? A quick Google search of the word “futures” yields (pun intended) only references to stocks and trading on the first two pages of results. I find myself wondering what drove the choice to use the word “futures” versus “future?” Was it intentionally designed to attract those who live and breathe the stock market? What about the rest of us who are plenty busy just trying to plan for a comfortable “future” in our own house in our own beloved neighborhood? I would like to see the City of Bozeman continue to promote water conservation WHILE actively reducing new development demands on finite and climate change-affected water sources in our closed basin. If the City is going to continue to promote rampant development anyway, then at least we, as a community, should receive something of great value in return, such as big A Affordable housing. I am not directly involved with the WARD initiative, however, I take issue with the descriptor “special interest group” to describe the citizens behind the WARD initiative. This label often carries with it a negative connotation. Indeed, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “special interest” as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.” Water availability is not a narrowly defined interest or problem. Oxford Languages defines “special interest group” as “a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying.” Again, the WARD folks are not seeking any special advantages for themselves. They are working for the greater good. I, for one, am humbled my their great and unpaid efforts to find a creative solution to two problems (Water and Housing) facing us all. I am grateful the City is backpedaling on its advocacy stance against WARD despite its public staff statements, joint commissioner guest column, and the taxpayer dollars being used to influence the citizen vote. If the City believes there are flaws in the initiative, I believe the right course of action would be to extend a hand and channel its resources and counsel to work together to strengthen WARD for the greater good as it is intended. Thank you for listening to my concerns. https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/carrying-capacity-as-the-gallatin-valley-grows-will-there-be-enough-water/article_88a9e1f0-e61f-11ee-9b71-8ff74043b69a.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawM2Xj1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuVwD_bgxesphGA-2iItjS8aNN5gTTMUPRSUdiDtSg9rknnbL89eYJFljTv9_aem_aPSsB8IJzEAJLP5gR3MSvw https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239882&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&searchid=6c876785-e053-4a6e-b675-450f9de7b691&cr=1

Angie Kociolek asked about 2 months ago

Thank you for sharing your concerns. The use of the term futures was not at all related to stocks or trading. We are referring to the plural noun definition: "the time or a period of time following the moment of speaking or writing; time regarded as still to come." The tag line refers to our work on creative housing and water solutions that create sustainable futures for everyone. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts and if you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out!
Share The language of the proposed ward initiative restricts the sale/rental to 60/120% of AMI for rental/sale but doesn’t explicitly say that the buyer/renter is low income. It appears that the language doesn’t restrict who this property is sold/rented to. Is this incorrect? Also, unclear who is doing the lottery-city, developer, whomever? Seems to be a massive missing part. on Facebook Share The language of the proposed ward initiative restricts the sale/rental to 60/120% of AMI for rental/sale but doesn’t explicitly say that the buyer/renter is low income. It appears that the language doesn’t restrict who this property is sold/rented to. Is this incorrect? Also, unclear who is doing the lottery-city, developer, whomever? Seems to be a massive missing part. on Twitter Share The language of the proposed ward initiative restricts the sale/rental to 60/120% of AMI for rental/sale but doesn’t explicitly say that the buyer/renter is low income. It appears that the language doesn’t restrict who this property is sold/rented to. Is this incorrect? Also, unclear who is doing the lottery-city, developer, whomever? Seems to be a massive missing part. on Linkedin Email The language of the proposed ward initiative restricts the sale/rental to 60/120% of AMI for rental/sale but doesn’t explicitly say that the buyer/renter is low income. It appears that the language doesn’t restrict who this property is sold/rented to. Is this incorrect? Also, unclear who is doing the lottery-city, developer, whomever? Seems to be a massive missing part. link

The language of the proposed ward initiative restricts the sale/rental to 60/120% of AMI for rental/sale but doesn’t explicitly say that the buyer/renter is low income. It appears that the language doesn’t restrict who this property is sold/rented to. Is this incorrect? Also, unclear who is doing the lottery-city, developer, whomever? Seems to be a massive missing part.

VLR asked 2 months ago

The WARD Initiative appears to place a restriction on the rental rate or sales price of homes, but does not speak to the income qualification of the buyers or renters. This is in contrast to the affordable housing ordinance, which provides options to establish income verification standards through rulemaking. The WARD initiative does not directly point to the affordable housing ordinance, and it is unclear how it would interact with other parts of the code. If the WARD initiative passes, the City will need to adopt procedures to implement it, including implementing the lottery system and mechanisms for screening applicants and ensuring that only those who meet the income levels are allowed to rent or buy the unit. It is not clear yet who may do all of these actions – it could be taken up by the City or the City could hire a third party to assist with certain parts of the initiative.
Share How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims. on Facebook Share How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims. on Twitter Share How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims. on Linkedin Email How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims. link

How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims.

Lorre Jay asked 3 months ago
It is difficult, if not impossible, for most individual development projects to secure useful water rights for a municipal, potable water supply. Further, water rights must be developed in conjunction with infrastructure. Combining this reality with the economic analysis provided by Root Research, the affordability targets in WARD of 33% may not be feasible without additional financial subsidies. Subsidies are difficult to obtain for even housing projects that are targeted to be 100% affordable, so it may be unlikely housing developers or the City will be able to obtain subsidies for all housing projects.
The City is required to provide potable water to residents and businesses. WARD will affect the City’s ability to provide water to development in several ways:
If each multi-household market-rate development must establish its own water supply, it takes a minimum of 3-5 years to develop the water rights and at least 2 years to build the water supply infrastructure for a total of 5-8 years to develop a new water supply. Further, given the uncertainty of projects going through the State water rights process, there is no certainty that those projects would obtain a water right at the end of that application process. Given the time and uncertainty of the water rights process and the subsequent risk associated with that process, new residential market-rate developers may choose to seek development opportunities outside city limits in the county or other nearby communities.
If a market-rate housing project were to attempt to bring usable water rights, those water rights must be developed in conjunction with infrastructure. The City develops municipal water rights and infrastructure projects for 1,000 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or more. A 1,000-gpm potable water supply is the equivalent of annual water use for approximately 6,500 single-family homes or 13,000 multi-family units. If a 5-acre development with 50 multi-family units did not use the cash-in-lieu of water rights option and sought to build a water supply well, water treatment system, pump station, and develop water rights, it could result in an increase in the amount of water infrastructure, operations, and maintenance for a relatively small amount of water supply. Currently, the City has two points of potable water supply (the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant and the Lyman Water Treatment system), and experienced licensed water operators maintain those systems and sample for water quality to ensure a safe and drinkable water supply (the City took over 5,000 water quality samples last year). If every multi-family market-rate development had to bring its own water rights and infrastructure, this would reduce the economies of scale associated with larger water supplies and may impact affordability within the City. The economy of scale of the larger infrastructure projects makes water supply development, operations, and maintenance much more cost-effective and economically feasible, which not only makes the affordability of potable water in the City better for new residents but also for existing residents.
If developers decide to pursue water rights development for market-rate housing in Bozeman, those developers would then be competing with the City for the same water in the Gallatin Valley. That competition may drive up prices for water rights acquisition, possibly making water rights development for use of the cash-in-lieu program more expensive and driving up housing costs for projects that attempt to meet the WARD thresholds. Currently, nearly every development pays the City cash-in-lieu of water rights. If that option goes away, the City will have more competitors for water rights acquisitions for the same water.
The City’s infrastructure systems benefit from additional customers in the system due to economies of scale which help keep costs down for existing customers. Without the benefits of increased economies of scale, affordability for existing customers may decrease. In turn, this will reduce the ability of the City to provide new water supply or conservation programs without further increasing water rates.
With regard to housing, when the City created the affordable housing ordinance (AHO), we hired a housing economics firm, Root Policy Research, to help us understand the amount of affordable housing that could feasibly be provided by a developer if they used the density bonuses in the AHO. Root analyzed four different development scenarios and then tested the financial feasibility of each scenario when the developer was provided with a density bonus. The four prototypes were small 800 square foot housing units in different forms: multiunit rentals, stacked flat condos, townhomes, and single unit detached homes. They found the maximum number of units a developer could designate as affordable (60% AMI for rentals and 120% AMI for sale), including the use of AHO density bonuses, was 5% for multi-unit rentals, stacked flat condos for sale, and townhomes for sale. No amount was feasible for single household dwellings for sale. Root’s analysis can be found in the documents section of this site. While WARD, like inclusionary zoning, requires affordability, it does not change the economic inputs that drive housing costs, including land, labor, lumber (construction materials), and the costs relate to financing a housing development. If, as has been pointed out, it may be difficult for individual projects to secure useful water rights for the city, we may expect that all multi-family housing projects would need to designate 33% of their units as affordable under WARD, since developers can no longer pay cash-in-lieu as 99% of housing projects do now. Since the proposed 33% target is higher than the maximum 5% Root found as feasible under the AHO, WARD could make market-rate, or unsubsidized housing infeasible without a dramatic change in the input costs for housing development.

Page last updated: 22 Oct 2025, 08:03 AM

Water Adequacy for Residential Development

Get the Facts on Our Water and Housing:

Get the Facts on Our Water:

Get the Facts on Affordable Housing:

Get the Facts on the Impacts of the WARD Initiative:

Additional Information:

Get the Facts on Our Water and Housing:

Get the Facts on Our Water:

Get the Facts on Affordable Housing:

Get the Facts on the Impacts of the WARD Initiative:

Additional Information:

Q & A

When were the ballots mailed out?

As written, the word "amend" seems to skew which way to vote. A vote " for" ward means you support housing prices increases or not?

How much is our affordable housing?

How will WARD affect the City’s ability to provide water? How will WARD lower the production of all housing types above and beyond what current policy has lowered? Please provide evidence for these claims.

Key Dates

Follow Project

Who's Listening

FAQs

Documents