Water Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. We'll go ahead and we'll go ahead and get started. And apparently, Jack is not gonna be able to join us tonight or today. Jack is his grandkids keep bringing him illnesses home from school, so he's not available. So I'll go I'll sit in today. We'll go ahead and get started. And first thing to do, of course, is a roll call. We wanna start with Tricia.

Tricia Bernhardt, present.

Clark Hamilton here.

Sean Tanner, present.

Evan Ella, present. John Langley present. Mickey Conway present.

James Eklund present.

Harold Smithles present.

And we have Roger Hudson and Jim Morris are online. So we certainly have a quorum. First order first order business approval meetings from our minutes from the last meeting, December, which was December. So if anybody has any modifications or anything, you could let that be known. Otherwise, we'd look for a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

So moved.

Okay.

So that's changed from what my notes were.

You say that's in the minutes, Jim or Harold? You're referring to a comment in the minutes.

Evan, can we get him to use the mic so we can hear him online?

Was questioning the minutes as much as I am that the minutes and the meeting are different than what came out in the next steps memo dated 01/06/2025, which I'm quoting, in the 2026, Forsgren will begin public outreach to be incorporated in the water plan. At the meeting that we were at, we agreed that we would not go for public outreach until the Water Commission had had a chance to go through all of the aspects of the draft plan and we're comfortable with it before it goes out.

Yeah. I I would agree with your interpretation, what what you're saying, that we talked that it needs to be delayed until we're comfortable with that. And we were I thought we were targeting perhaps March, but maybe as late as April.

So Just just whatever. We the commission needs to be comfortable with what goes out before And it goes so I would I would so the minutes are fine. I just wanna make sure with staff that we correct that comment about, that steam driven in the first quarter that we're going out to public.

Okay. Are you with us on that? Okay. All right. So noted.

I think Mickey had or Commissioner Conway had moved acceptance of the minutes, and I had seconded that just for procedural.

Thank you. So all in favor, aye. Aye. K. There was one referral item on the portal this month for everybody to look at and decide if they wanted to make any comments on that. This is the 5054 Crowfoot Valley Road. So are there any comments people would like to post on that one, or are we good? Yes, Patricia.

I'm sorry, John. Were you talking about the Crowfoot Valley one?

Yes.

Okay. I'd like to make a comment. In the demand analysis, they're saying that they need 15.3 acre feet of water for mostly irrigation. I would strongly suggest that they scale back their irrigation plan. That's a lot of irrigation water. So I'm not sure why that would get approved with that much irrigation water.

That's like 5,000,000 gallons. Right? Yep. Okay. I

thought that was was referring to what is currently approved. You know, it was approved several years ago.

That may be.

But I also reacted the same way. I mean, it's like 15 times as much water is being used for irrigation as being is used for everything else at that facility, and that's that's just kinda crazy. It shows how much how much we we we use our water for irrigation. That may be an extreme example, but that's that's just crazy numbers.

Yep. Okay. Do you have that? Alright. So Lauren will pass those comments along to the go to the county commissioner, don't they?

It'll go through the planning. Yep.

Through the plan. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. So we get to the the fun part of the day. This is the draft water plan workshop. We have our workshop team here at the table with us. The far end is Claire Van Campen. She's a Forescreen employee. We all know Will already, and I think everybody knows Bill Fronczak as well.

So we have them here, and we'll start through this process. I'm actually gonna turn it over to to Will and let him start kinda guiding us through this. You know, this is the first first kind of interaction with us on the draft. You know, there's gonna be at least another one next month. We're thinking from what I've seen in the schedule and stuff that, you know, we start to get, I'll call it to, like, a really quality draft where where the, you know, language is good and all those kind of things. Maybe, you know, that's April, May time frame. So the point being is, today, we need to stay pretty directional. We need to make sure that, you know, they're they're heading down

the path. We want them

to head down. They're doing the things we we really want them to do, and not really get kinda hung up in the language. So if that's fair, that's a good kickoff, let you go.

Okay. Well, good afternoon, everybody. I'm glad to hear that this is the fun part of the meeting, so let's try to keep that in mind. Yeah. Make sure it's fun. Right? That'll be good. We're also gonna have a guy named Jason Broome joining us online, and, Jason is also with Forescreen. So, let me give you an overview of what we're trying to accomplish with our workshop today. We have, four chapters to discuss.

And, and with that, we've got some shown on the well, we've got some ideas in mind of about how much time each of these chapters should take for discussion. So we wanna try to, get through this, getting all your comments, certainly, but then also keeping in mind that we are trying to keep at a high level of discussion. So we are this what you have is a working draft. This was really kind of an interim step, and this is a good time for us to check-in with you all and make sure that we're heading the right direction so that at the end of this, we meet your expectations. Do we need to need to realign here and there to make sure we hit the target?

So that's really the the importance of this your review of this document for us is to there's gonna be some more drafts to follow, certainly. So, we will introduce each chapter and discuss, also let you know what changes we're already working on for those things. Was, as I said, a working draft. We're we have some things we're working on for the next draft already. And, so we'll we'll intro each of the chapters for you.

And then we would, would like to promote some open discussion about the big picture items. And, again, not getting getting bogged down with word choices or typos or things like that, but what are the major concepts that the water commission needs to to weigh in on resolve and make sure that we're going the right way. So we are, we would also ask for very clear direction from the group. And so as we have discussion on things, we have we everybody's got an opinion just like the belly button. Right?

So we wanna, everyone to maybe coalesce and and can we reach some general consensus on direction so that we have very clear marching instructions to for our next draft and that everyone is on the same page? So that's what we would request from you all. If there are some things that are for items that really need more discussion or you gotta think more about them or you gotta check on some more information that you'd like to have before deciding on things or getting direction on some things, we will put those in the parking lot. That's a list of things that the staff has already started preparing for the things that the commission has brought up before that we need to include in the plan. And so we will defer those things.

If something we just can't get there today, let's put it in the parking lot pick it up another time.

Yeah. Thanks thanks for that reminder. Lauren did go back and the rest of the staff and kinda looked through all the things we've talked about over the last couple years and has constructed a parking lot document that hopefully captures all that stuff, and then we can add to it too. So thanks for the reminder.

K. And then if there are detailed comments that follow this meeting, if you could return those to us by February 2, that would be, I think, that'd be ideal. So we request that. Okay. So you guys ready to have some fun? Dig into this?

Let's do it.

Okay. Alright. By the way, we've already received a lot of, good really good comments from commissioner Bernhardt, so we appreciate that. And, we will start with chapter one, and we have, four chapters to talk about today. The others will be bringing some more information to you on, for those other chapters for the next workshops workshop. K. So let's go to chapter one.

And the,

this really is just kind of setting the stage. Some good comments from commissioner Bernhard about let's make sure we're kind of setting the table with regard to water supply issues and the county overall. We will also have an executive summary at the end of this thing that ties different pieces of this together. So some of that information may be in the executive summary. But this one's a pretty straightforward couple of pages. We have a map of Douglas County, and so I'll open it up for any discussion on this this one. Answer?

Excuse me. Harold Smithles. I'm a little bit concerned as I look at the purpose. Second paragraph. Second line. The county is a position to promote land use decisions. I I think that understates the county's role. Words like regulate, control, approve, appropriate use of water. All of those things, I think, need to go in. The county has that authority.

18 a, for example, they're regulating development based upon estimates of the water table. So I think that needs to be much stronger as to and this is the kind of thing I think I saw one of the attorneys come in or you're an attorney. Just needs to more fully reflect. The county has ultimate jurisdiction on land use, and that includes water. And also, beyond that, they also have jurisdiction on policy.

For example, I'll I'll get ahead of myself a bit. We talk a lot about reuse in in your report. Well, the county can also regulate reuse. You know, as I see some of these, I read the comment that we didn't go with the restaurant that was crippling in size. They need a lot more water, but how we get that back? So I think that would be another role that the county has is to regulate and promote reuse. So I I think that needs to be strengthened dramatically. Happy to work with you on it. This is lawyers do a better job than I do with that.

This is Evan, Hila. The only thing that struck me in the first page was, in this line. I guess it's the last line of the of the last sentence in purpose where you refer to the county's most precious water resource. It really, I think, could be reworded to show that it's really the the the water does not belong to the county, belongs to all kinds of different entities in the in the county. But there's certainly a way to restate that to say that, you know, you're trying to find a sustainable future for the use of water throughout the county, something like that, rather than showing a possession.

It's Don Langley. So I I thought I was looking for more, I'll say, more of a description of what the plan is intended to be and what the document that follows. Perhaps, you know, what why why we came together, why we're trying to write this plan. And it and it I didn't see that here. I'm just this was just a kind of a little bit of

a generic

opening. So I thought maybe there's some some language around that that could be crafted. Is that fair?

So why the plan is drafted?

Yeah. I mean, while we're doing the plan and, you know, what the you use the water master plan term water master plan. We've never called it a master plan, by the way.

Can we change that?

But I I don't know if even even if a a touch of history is appropriate here that, you know, water commission came together. Water commission, you know, has a purpose to draft a water plan to help the the county commissioners and all the residents and all the local governments, you know, to map out and plan how we're gonna use how we use our resources in the future and, you know, how we can preserve them, those types of things. That's all I was thinking. That have to be long, but just kinda kinda key it up a little better, maybe.

Clark Hambleman. Yeah. Building on both what Don and and Evan have said, the sentence that says, yeah, the county is not a water provider kinda begs why the plan then, and that kinda goes to what I think you were saying, Don. But I think it ought to say in there that this plan wanna is one of its findings is that the county doesn't need to be a water provider. It kinda begs that by saying it's not a water provider, but the county is doing a a plan on on the provision of water in the county. So

K. Yeah. Mickey.

One thing I've I've had neighbors ask me kind of what we're doing, and it seems to me that one of the purposes of the plan at least is to inform residents as to what availability of resources are and just just bringing the concept of the residents into the the thinking the plan might be something that would be appropriate.

Yeah. I agree with that.

Do I know if you know how Okay. It sounds like pretty much good consensus so far. So how are you going, you guys?

James Echelon. So, yeah, on the purpose section, it struck me as you you point out how growth is a driver. It's in the first sentence. We don't really say, you know, what's the purpose of this effort to the comments that have already been made. Is it to constrain growth? I don't think so. Shape growth, accommodate growth. What are we what are we doing? We're gonna point out the growth, which is appropriate, and it's true. What what is this plan going to do?

Say, make information available about to address

that?

Harold Smithles again. And I'm sorry, I just thought of this as you mentioned it, James, because you're right. But we the county also has obligation is a wrong word. Responsibility is closer for those on existing wells planning for contingency and for thoughtful use of water resources affecting existing well users. I think that needs to be part of the deliberation of this plan.

I was struck by a comment on the western part where the comment was the shallow aquifers might be going dry, but there's plenty of water down in the Arapahoe well, Guanajuato well over, does that million dollars to drill that. I think the county has an obligation to look at some of those policies. I did say it very well because I just thought of it with James' comments. Thank you.

Anyone else?

This is Jim Morris. I would like, there was mention of, executive summary that

will

be in this document at some point. So I'm, in favor of that, and I'm, you know, I'm not sure how far the executive summary will go, if it's one pages or two pages or three pages, I guess. I think it's important, somewhere in the executive summary or here in this section, to talk about, where we are as a county in relation to what's going on around us. It talks about growth, up in the northern part of the county. There's a little bit of growth down in the southern part of the county.

I think it's important to recognize that the largest providers north and south of us both have significant water resources coming in from the Western. So, Douglas County currently has no viable significant surface water source, and and we don't have access to Western slope water. And I think it's important that that somehow get worked into here that the big lakers north and south of us have a lot of Western slope water. We don't have that. I think we all agree that the groundwater we have is in mind, and that will come out, I think, in the water availability section that we're gonna talk about.

But somehow, we need to, I think, project early on in this document that, we have the lack of something that the major growth is to the north and south of us have.

Yes, sir. And we do have I know there are some connectors that have a connection with Denver Water, and there's indirect use of flood slope water through the WISE project for South Metro. So there's a few connection points there. But yes, it's a good point. There's could be more.

Aurora Water is part of that wise, I believe. They have significant water from the Fry Arc project, which dumps down to Pueblo and in Colorado Springs, they get a significant amount of water from that. So, I think it's a you know, it's something that we need to lay out as part of, I think, why we're here and what we're trying to accomplish is, you we know, don't have that sort, and we need to talk about how that makes a difference in accounting.

Harold Smithles again. I was thinking of Evan's comment. He was right about the precious resource. Let me give a little bit of a wordsmith, take it or leave it. I think we should say that Douglas County views water as one of its key resources and focus of interest. It has taken upon itself to do this study to make sure we're providing a robust water system and supply into the future.

K. Anybody else on introduction, or should we move to chapter four? Oh, mister Eklund. Yes.

The voice just I'm gonna kill it. There

we go. Alright.

I don't wanna

hear this.

I know. We don't

wanna I got a button for that. Right?

So the, the map seems like a good place to situate. So that's the county, and you do have down in the very bottom left of this map where that county is in the state, kinda vis a vis other counties, I think. But I I think just situating it in maybe a maybe a bigger blow up of that would be helpful so that people know that we're not operating in a vacuum and that there's connectivity to a lot of different systems to the point that we just made, whether you're talking about Wise, Denver Water, you touch the Colorado. Aurora has part of its service territory in the county. There there's just a lot of connectivity to a lot of different parts of the state and kinda using a visual right out the gate to show that.

It I think would help inform commissioner Connolly's point, the the public about this isn't just one county of 64 counties in a state. This is a county that happens to be situated in the fastest growing part of the state with connectivity to a bunch of different hydrological resources.

Sean Tanner, kind of piggyback, and I believe there's a map. James, correct me if I'm wrong, in the statewide water plan where it shows some of the systems or the major systems, like Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Northern, and where they get their water, you know, whether it's off the Colorado Platte or the Arkansas. I think that might be interesting for the reader. One, see where Douglas County is, but then also see water has moved extreme distances when you're talking about, you know, the Twin Lakes project to Colorado Springs or to Aurora or what Denver water you know, there are tentacles all over the Western Slope. So it might be just a good visualization that we're kind of piggybacking on what you're saying that, you know, Douglas County is one of 64, but one of 10 along the front range and one of you know, we're we're bracketed by two and three major water systems that are grabbing from all over.

I mean, Aurora is, I think, outside the Rio Grande Basin, the Yampa and San Juan, I think they're in every single basin. Yeah.

They are. Right. Should we move on?

Sure. Sounds good. Okay. Good thoughts. Thank you. So let's now turn to

That's two pages down.

That's right. Two pages down. Many to get many more to go. But so public engagement is going to that's gonna fall follow, you know, as we talked about this down the road. And so after the public engagement, then we'll document that and include that as a chapter in in the plan. Then land use considerations, we'll talk about that in a in a later workshop. So chapter four is having to do with water providers, and, Claire is going to discuss that with you and intro that.

Yeah.

This is Claire Van Kempen. Good to meet y'all. I've been working on this project since the beginning. Just kind of in the background, so it's good to see you all.

Have to get closer to the mic, I think. Can

you all hear me?

Yes. Okay.

So I'm going to facilitate the discussion on chapter four, which is the water providers chapter. In this chapter, we present the information that was collected from the water provider survey, and we summarize that for each of the water providers. So this is kind of an introduction to the 31 water providers, and they are categorized into major, medium, and minor, water providers based on their annual demands. And so while we were putting this section together, we did notice some discrepancies, some odd things in the survey data that maybe didn't add up that we knew that we were gonna need to go back to some of these water providers to figure out the discrepancies. And we have started to do that.

We've reached out to a couple of the bigger ones, Parker and Highlands Ranch. And there's, you know, a couple more at least that we will need to reach out to to hopefully resolve any discrepancies. And so just as a general, this chapter is, you know, summarizing the information from the water provider survey. There's not much analysis in it. But yes, do you all have any comments or things you would like to

see? Tricia.

It's Tricia Bernhardt. And I don't want to repeat the questions or the responses that I've already provided, but I did think that this chapter didn't work without some introduction. There's no, you know, the reader, the average reader that's going through here doesn't understand what you're talking about by acre foot. What is surface water? What is renewable water? What is groundwater? It needs a basic water discussion before or at the beginning of this chapter so that the reader could follow what you're saying.

Absolutely. I agree.

Wonder if Water Education Colorado has a lot of really good information like that. I'm wondering if we could accomplish that with maybe a reference to that or another document that has that type of background in it.

Yeah, mean, could certainly add it as an appendix, but still for the average reader just going through it and looking at it, something up front that helps them understand what you're saying as you go into this chapter, I think, would be really helpful.

Yeah. Kind of something I noted on, maybe it's a similar similar line is, I don't know that we effectively define wholesale water. In wholesale water, certainly, the wise water coming coming through these systems is wholesale water. In the Parker water data, we ended up with being shown as a demand, which is actually the 3,800 acre feet of Wise Water that wheels through that system. And I think I think we've gotten corrected data off to you.

But wholesale water is needs to be reported if as a source of supply at the recipient, the last person that gets that water. And I think there's some inconsistency on how they reported that data or how the water providers might have reported that data to you, or how you saw that data. So that's that's the one thing. The other thing was reuse. I mean, there's a reuse discussion all the way at the end of the report, but there's nothing in the front.

I'm not sure clear how many how many people are doing either, you know, non potable or potable reuse, but that's something that we really wanna capture right in the front. And then finally, there's a I don't know if this got back to you or not, but there's no there's no groundwater basin. I'm looking for the right term. The

Designated designated

groundwater basin. There's there's none in Douglas County. So Right. Any place that's on the data sheets and on the summaries needs to just really go away. So those are three things I saw. So,

Jay, I'm gonna get no pressure, Claire, but when I saw this map that has the water providers on it, this this is why we exist as a commission. This is the whole point of the plan of why we meet because that 51 different I guess Aurora water's on there twice. Meridian's on there

six times. Yes.

Okay. Well, there's a lot. The the but nonetheless, there are many you know, more than two dozen of these, color coded patchwork quilt of water providers in the county. And I think this is a spot where to I think, commissioner Bernhardt's comment, it needs to say, you know, what we're what we're doing about that, if anything. If our if our point is just to inventory the water providers and tell a little bit about them, they'll that's one purpose.

But if we're trying to integrate from a county wide perspective, how they work together, or if they don't, how this plan will help them do so. That this is a spot where it needs to be pretty clear about what we're doing with this map, this patchwork quilt, if we're not just here to describe it.

Evan, Hila, I have a couple comments following up on that on the map. I think it might be useful to expand the color palette a little bit. It's it's pretty pretty much the same. And if we could get him some oranges and yellows and other things, maybe by size of provider or some of the things like that, that would help people see where things are. Because I think this will be a useful resource in the future to the commissioners, to anyone in the in the county because it's interesting to know where these boundaries are and how integrated it is in some areas and how it's quite wide open in other.

Anyway, that's one comment. Second is, one thing that I understand is these tables, for the most part, you're trying to standardize and capture the information that you got from the survey. But one factor that I think needs to be refined and worked on a little bit. You you have a few places where you have your SFE shown, and sometimes it's a planning number like under Hynes Rance. He issues one SFE across the board, and that's how they do all their numbers.

And then others, they may have a planning SFE, but then there's also a resulting SFE under some of these categories. And I think in the in the analytical part, you should work at trying to refine this information, see if you can get a resulting SFE from at least the major providers and maybe everyone, and make a table of that and maybe compare that to the planning SFE. And just so we get a a range across the across the county of what these things how they vary.

So so, Evan, are you talking about the acre feet per SFP number?

Per year per residence, for example, but then also for commercial and then for Yeah. Multifamily. Just for a comparative you know, when you get to chapter six, you go and develop a factor and then apply that for projecting into the future. And there's no real tie of the point one nine that you use per capita back to what we have seen in in these various providers. Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be an average, but I just think it would be useful to be able to see the range and to be able to compare some of that.

So they they do have, very different SFEs depending on, you know, their their service areas and and all. So what you're saying is let's put that on a common basis? Guess, some way

to analyze that. For every provider, you do have a single family residential line. Then you have a multifamily, and then you have a commercial, and then some others. It would be neat if we could at least have a table of all the residential SFEs that are either one column would be planning number that the utility uses, and then the other would be maybe a resulting, here's their here's how much water they use in a year or have for the last five years, and they've served x number of population, which results in an SFE of whatever it is, point one nine or point two six or whatever it is. And then you could see a range across the county because that could possibly inform some of the policy direction of the county in the future.

I know.

I had some comments following up on commissioner Eklund's comments that I agree with. And that is some of the qualitative information contained in the report. For example, I draw your attention to four-nine, first paragraph, last three lines, where here we have Pinery saying their wells are showing a decrease of three to seven feet. And I know factually in talking with some of the smaller providers in our area, I know two of them saying maybe ten years of water left. So my sense of it is that there wasn't that we need to be contacting these to get more qualitative report.

I And call your attention to the report we had from Highlands Ranch Water. I forget the numbers, but the number of their wells, I can't even use. And I think that needs to be in here. I think some of that qualitative gives gives a basis for some decisions we'll be making later on. Also, I I I do and, of course, we're all familiar with our own background, but at Dominion, you showed that our before and after reuse the same.

It's not at all. Our research reuse, excuse me, our recent reuse plan will be substantially higher. So I I quest since it it affects me and I know that number, I question because I see across almost all of them are the same reuse before and after reuse. And yet reuse is a critical part of what we're saying as part of this report. I think there needs to be we need to delve into some qualitative and contact these districts and also make sure that reuse plan number is correct.

Sean Tanner, piggyback a little bit on what Harold is saying, and I'll just call out if I'm reading this correctly. Meridian, we're going after their 2020. We're using their 2020 data, I think it was. Right. Because did they they just handed that over. They didn't wanna respond to the survey? Or

They are they're working on on, an update to that and didn't wanna release that just yet.

Okay. So and not to single out Meridian,

but I'll single out,

because they do have 4,000 to 5,000 acre feet of groundwater that they're projecting to be pumping. Now that we've kinda got it narrowed down, I think we got some great data from a lot of the providers, and we're starting to narrow down the ones that maybe aren't being quite as responsive or getting the data. Maybe between staff and the team, put a little more pressure on them to get that data in because it's great that we have data from most of the large providers. Meridian being a medium sized provider, I would have really hoped. Some of the two or three small ones that, you know, they're talking 50 or a 150 acre feet, you know, we can worry about that later today.

But I'd like to let's put a conscientious effort towards getting as much of that data in as possible because we're really gonna have one shot to get this report out with as much data in it as possible.

So This is Jim Morris.

Jim.

Yes. Thank you. So from a formatting issue, there's two table four point ones. And the first table 4.1 is a list of all the providers in the county, and I get that it's formatted similar to all the other tables where the first line is dark blue and it's in all the other tables, that dark blue line is a, like, a column header for the for the tables. In this first one, it doesn't make sense because it looks like the first two providers listed on there are some significant type of provider. Unnatural that

Yes, sir.

Dark blue line there that is not in all the other tables as far as the actual data.

That's very good.

Go ahead.

Oh, good comment. Thank you.

The the second comment I have is, in the description of Perry Park Water Sanitation District, which is paragraph four point four point one two. And, again, my knowledge here, like Harold's comment about Dominion because Perry Park is where I am and I serve on that board. So the paragraph there is a little misleading in that the district where it talks about meets demand through treatment from alluvial wells. It meets some of our need through alluvials, but the accurate part is in 2010, the district switched from Glen Grove Water Treatment plant, which is the alluvial well plant, to Sagewater water treatment plant, which is effort based groundwater plant. So we still use Glen Grove, from time to time, usually during the summer during high needs.

You know, it's like this time, for example, Glen Grove is is sitting there idling. But our we have a limited amount of that alluvial water we can use because of that treatment plant, but it still is in use in Sageport then, as it states here, is the majority provider for the district, and the water is conveyed to the West Side via East West Pipeline. So that's all accurate. It just I think it needs to be tweaked a little bit about the alluvial wells in Glen Grove is still in use, and that's our our primary source of use of our senior water rights that we have over there. So and, again, I'm going to help work rework that paragraph or you get in touch with the sanitation district.

I'm sure they can help as well, but I'll make myself available to help if needed. Okay.

Thank you. If you have specifics on that that you'd like to provide to us, that'd be great. You have a paragraph you wanna shoot to us.

I sure will. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

A couple additional thoughts. One is somewhere in here, we need to reflect the fact that those who participated in WISE agreed not to bring any water over from the Western Slope. That was a requirement, and that, the reuse water that that is being used from WISE is part of an exception from the Blue River Decrees. Sometimes that's going to be important to us. I think the other is, with all due respect to my fellow commissioner, some of these smaller districts need special attention because they may be the least capable of dealing with some of the water issues that are coming.

And so I do hope we take a look at some of these smaller providers. And and I think also one of the things that is in here is some of these smaller providers are going to need a may need a contingency plan.

What was that, sir?

They need a contingency plan. But I do think we need to go back, as I mentioned earlier, and take a look at qualitative of what's going on with some of these. That report from Highlands Ranch Water was quite impactful about the number of wells they can't even use, and I think that needs to be included. Thank you.

Yeah. So, Will, mean, this data is essentially what you got back from the water providers. Right?

Right.

So, you know, this this other stuff that we know or like the the Highlands Ranch presentation and stuff, you don't have particularly good access to that unless you just happen to have access to it, happen to be at the meeting that day, I suppose. So are you do you have intentions to maybe contact most of these water providers and also interview them maybe for, you know, thirty minutes or forty five minutes or so to, first of all, make sure the data is, you know, all lined up. Everybody's calling everything saying, I mean, I I I can't remember which water provider it was, but they said that that their Wisewater, they actually reported that as surface water because Wisewater's surface water when really it's wholesale water. Right? So, I mean, just kinda there's a little just little details to kinda iron out there.

So, I mean, is that in your plans? Or

It not in our scope to do that right now. We and and you're right. I mean, all of this review of, of the survey, we could spend a couple hours with each of the water providers and really hash it out and really understand the, specifics there. But, you know, there's there's time to set that up and do that and document it. It's a significant effort and, not in our plan right now. So

k.

But but there there are some gaps there and and we that we need to reconcile.

So I guess a logical question when dealing with consultants is what would it cost to do that?

Right?

Right.

If we think it's important, we can make an adult decision when we understand the cost.

Yeah. The other thing I was thinking is maybe another kind of an addendum to the to the survey that goes out to them all and says, you know, here's some clarifications on what we're looking for or some additional information. I noticed, you know, we we had in the scope that we wanted to see, you know, all the interconnections between the providers. And some of the providers did right and say, well, yeah, we've got six interconnections with other people, but no real detail. And I think I think a lot of those are really kind of small interconnections, sometimes just little emergency connections or water quality connections, you know, where you get some fresh water in the line and stuff.

So I think we'd still want to see that. So, I mean, that would maybe be something in this addendum to say, hey, we need more. Tell me you got six interconnections. Could you, like, maybe tell me with who? Right? Who they might be, that kind of a thing. So I don't know. Do we do do we collectively think we wanna see more information in this section, more data, more detail, more qualitative kind of kind of stuff?

Yeah. James. James, think so I think kinda tying into what you're saying, if I'm a water provider, I'm not clear on why you're asking me for this data. What are you gonna do with it? What is in it for me if you do this?

We're providing a coordinating mechanism as I see it, and you guys can all correct me if I'm wrong if you see it differently. But it's a coordinating mechanism so that every part of the county has the capability of talking to every other part of the county. And if there are reliability issues or water stress starts to show up in a certain way, if this coordinating effect that this plan will provide is mobilized in action and put into action, then there's something that can be done about that. So it's it's not every provider for themselves, and you just well, if you don't have it, you're out too bad for you. This would start to provide at least the basis for water providers working together.

And they may have ability to physically move water or they may not. But if they're at least knowing what each other's situation and data is, there's there's you know, they start from not a dead stop. And I think making sure that that's part of the cover letter or whatever it is that goes out to these folks as you have to try and prod them for a response to the survey is they need to know what's in it for them. And and I think there's great value in it for them, but I don't think we've articulated that yet or given you the language to articulate that value.

Just following up on that and Don's comment, I think it would be good information to have that.

We need the mic turned on.

To turn me off. Evan, Hila, again. I'm just following up on Don and and James' comments, but I think the interconnectivity should be included in some way, either with a map or with some kind of narrative description about it so that you can see where the large providers are actually connected to some of these at risk or smaller systems. And they may not rely on them every day, but at least we know there's a reserve backup or something there.

Yeah. That was that was in the RFP document. We're looking for that. The why stuff's kinda that's easy. Those are maps that you can find online, but this is other stuff we just don't really know about.

And we do have that was a question in the water provider survey. So we do have some of that data from the responding water providers. We are planning on doing some type of map to show that, I believe. Right?

Yes. Maybe just in general to show those water providers that are connected. We hadn't planned to show exactly where they're connected and, you know, if there's higher pressure on one side versus the other, whatever, you need to have a lot of detail about that. But maybe on the map, just show those that are connected.

Yeah. Or just mention, I guess. Because I I I know that our, you know, I'm I'm on the Chatfield South board, and we have connection with Highlands Ranch. And we have one with Denver, of course, which are our main supply, but then we also connect to the state park kind of as an emergency. So those are there. Those connections are there, but they aren't used other than the Denver source.

Okay.

Alright. You guys ready to move on to the next chapter then? Okay. Got everything on Chapter four that we need.

One more thing. Evan, if we want to send you specific comments, how's the best way to do that?

Do you want to come to you?

Yeah. This is Lauren Polvor with staff. You can send all comments to me. As Will said, trying to get them back to Forrest Gren by the I'll give them about a week. So is that the February 2? February 2. But send them to me, we'll get them to Forescreen. Okay.

So Chapter five will be projected demands, more to come on that. And then we come to Chapter six regarding water supplies. And Mr. Jason Broome is online with us. Jason, you want to go ahead and intro this for us?

You bet. Thank you, Commissioner. It's good to be here with you today. So Chapter six summarizes a lot of what we just talked about in Chapter four. I'll just kinda step you through the the sections here, as it covers current and future water supplies.

So part 6.1 reviews the types of supplies, and and this addresses some comments earlier about, hey. How about some some background on stuff? So this this currently resides in chapter six. We'll talk amongst our our team and see if maybe that should move somewhere else. But but in general, we'll reorganize this section for a comment that we've seen where it'd be nice to see it from what is the most common type of water supply and then go down through towards the least common, which in this case would be the designated basin groundwater of which there is none.

So we'll we'll reorganize this and also add some additional terms that that pop up in here, things like reuse, reusable supplies, renewable water, and just kinda cover that so that the reader has a good understanding of what those terms are referring to. And then, the the next part is 6.2, which is a recap and a summary of the current water supplies. And and, again, you've got a table there that that reproduces the information from chapter four. There are there are a few slight discrepancies here, so we'll get those corrected. And, again, we'll also reorganize the columns here to get you with what has the most supply, what has the least supply.

One of the the things that we noticed as we, created this summary is that we're not sure that we have a good handle from the suppliers' responses on reuse water. You can see only a couple of a couple of suppliers specifically describe their reuse water volumes. So that's one of the things we wanna go back and and get a better understanding as how much reuse water is really available that's not quite getting reported yet in this table and how that fits into the supplies. The next section, 6.3, the future water supply. So, again, there's a table here that summarizes the response as far as what each provider is projecting for future supply needs and what they're going to be pursuing.

Again, we'll reorganize this a little bit. Well, there's no reorganizing here. There's just a little bit of cleanup here mainly, but one of the things that we'll we've talked about is some mapping similar to the Arapahoe County report where we've got some maybe some zoom ins on different parts of the county, and we include some pie charts that show total supply versus how much they're using out of demand just to give you a good quick indication of how much of their supply they're they're projecting to use in future. And then finally, six point four is going to review some potential water supplies, and our focus here will be primarily on recommending a more balanced portfolio between groundwater versus renewable supplies. And we'll particularly touch on some of the projects that suppliers within the county are currently working on or currently a part of.

So Wise would be one of those. The South Platte Valley Water Partnership project with Parker, in there as well, and then the Vaux Elder Creek project that Castle Rock is looking at. As part of that, we'll talk about how much potential water, these regional projects can bring in, and then, again, review touching on the reuse situation and and confirming how much reuse may be available as part of that portfolio. So that's kind of my brief overview. Open it up to any questions and discussion.

A couple things, struck me. I thought, one of the districts did didn't they went to, oh, that, confined basin up north. I think they did. They bought some water up there. Don't if they're using them. That's something we might check. But beyond that Lost this chart. Pardon?

Lost Creek.

Lost Creek.

Yeah. Castle Rock.

Castle Rock went in there. Yeah. Yeah. I'm pretty sure. I I couldn't remember who I didn't wanna be wrong who did that, but that's a big water supply up there, but it's not mentioned here. It says that we're not using, and that that's an important water source. We actually optioned some of that years ago. It's good stuff. But the big one of the biggest things as I look at this and this pie chart on six dash four, my compliments to you, what it's saying when you consider reuse, since a lot of that reuse is coming out of groundwater, is over half percent half of all the water used in this county is groundwater. There's a philosophy question here.

Is that wise, no pun intended, use of a resource? That's I guess I asked the right question, didn't I? But I think that that is a shocking number. And as I look at surprising, though. Folks are getting water into the future, and I'm just spitballing it because I didn't take the time to compute it.

That's gonna increase. And and so I I really think there's a a fundamental question that this water supply commission water commission needs to ask. Is that wise policy that half our water comes from a nonrenewable source? I think the consultant should frame that question, but commissioners can answer that. But I think it needs to be answered.

Sean Tanner, I think also because there are some great projects being proposed by some of the major providers. I think back to the Lost Creek discussion with the closed basin or I mean Designated. Designated basin. Sorry. There's Black Squirrel Basin down in El Paso County, which has some acre feet there.

Obviously, there's Rio Grande Basin, which hasn't been tapped. I think adding in not necessarily where providers are going yet, but where potential even though we don't have studies on or anything, potential sources of water may be. Kind of to Harold's point, if we're 50% is a nonrenewable source, then and and then also with the projects that are being proposed by the major providers, what's the expected yield of renewable water from those sources? And then that I think that'll give us a delta. Are we actually making up against that 50% where we tread in water, no pun intended, because of our growth?

Evan, I'll add a follow on that. I think it's this pie chart. I think this gives a current situation. We also want to see one of those projected for 2050 with these other supplies built in to see if it compares.

Yeah, James.

James Eklund. So the ASR capability may show up in the next chapter seven on the groundwater analysis. But it seems like given the comments, you know, it it'd be important to at least reference that here. That's the obviously, the aquifer storage and recovery capability that typically has not penciled because water's value has not been high enough to for it to justify the expense, the capital expenditure. But as the price per acre foot has climbed, it it may change that analysis.

So that capability, I know many water providers, some in this county and outside the county of piloted projects that have looked at that or they're actively doing it. But talking about that with some level of detail would be good. You have to treat it to put it down. There there are some things that I think people that live in this county that may have familiarity with other parts of the country, Arizona, with the Central Arizona project, and several other places where they've been trying to do a banking of groundwater in their aquifer systems for decades. It'd be good for them to know that we have our eyes open and that that is part of the analysis here.

And Allen's Ranch has been doing that for many, many years and very successful at it. So, yeah.

That may actually get into your reuse. Yeah. It's really what what that may be. I I think the, I'm a little bit concerned. I know for the WISE participants, I think South Metro actually put the numbers together. And I'm I'm curious as to how much in-depth discussion we had with the individual water providers on their current and future plans. And if we didn't do that, which I understand that this is data gathering, then I think we need to have an understanding what the cost would be to do that and actually dig a little bit deeper. Otherwise, you're not going to get a good accurate look at what water is going to be in 2050 when you do that pie chart.

Yes. So Harold, I think I looked at the data that Parker Water submitted and it was a spreadsheet. It was a giant Excel spreadsheet. It's really fun to try and read through, but it was, you know, reported 2030, 2040, 2050. So all that all the data that we're seeing here, you know, wasn't I won't say they didn't actively mine it out of these water providers.

It's whatever they put in the spreadsheet incentives. Right? So I I think we're seeing tell me if I'm wrong, but I think we're seeing some difference on how people may have responded, you know, how much detail they put in. I was kinda I was having a hard time with all the detail we put in trying to figure out what that meant. So it's only as good as what they gave us. Right? And unless we go back and poke at them and question them and say it's inconsistent, then we have to live with what they said.

And even the surveys took several months to get those back.

So it's

you know, they they have they're in the business of riding water, and so it's a, you know, a different task for them for sure.

But, I mean, having said that, I mean, once we see the data, maybe that's an action that we take up, right, as a commission to say, we need to go we need to go look at this harder and initiate. I mean, we can kinda initiate more studies, if you will, or or push the study in different directions as we see the results. At least that's the way I would see it.

Don, real quickly. Tricia Bernhardt. Wasn't that one of the plans is to have the water providers come in for a workshop? If they all came in together, like, could they maybe be encouraged to share information That's Yeah.

I don't

think we've Pollyannish.

I don't think we've talked about that. Right? I mean, we've talked about bringing them in individually with individual presentations. I guess we've had three. Right? Just really

We had South Metro.

We had South Metro, and then we had

That's Ranch.

That's rock. That's that's

just And the wastewater.

In Dominion. In Dominion. Sorry.

In Dominion. Yeah. Yeah. We did. And the intent is that one of the focus groups would be water providers. And so that might be a good forum to talk about that for

little That's what I'm referring to.

That makes that focus group forum I mean, what I'm hearing today is that makes that one really important to us. You know, that's not just a show up, sit around the table and chitchat that we wanna really be prepared maybe with some questions and, you know, more detail on the data. That'd be the time to

do it. Right? I don't think it's a focus group. I think we need additional data, and I think you get that by going back to them because these water districts, they've got nothing to hide. Every every one water district of any size has got plans ten, twenty, thirty, forty years out. They have to. So I think it's a question. I'm not so sure we well, you admit it. You didn't really ask them. You just took the data that came in. And so I think going back and clarifying that data, particularly when you're building the longer term plan, would be very valuable. They'll tell you.

Jim Morris, table 6.2 on the summary of future water supplies, and I think it's in one of the other sections where talks about, that currently I think it's a 160,000 acre feet as it would have been appropriated in the Denver Basin. I think it's related to the Denver Basin. It's in one of

the other

sections, but it would seem that that data, regarding the current supply where it's showing, you know, about a 112,000 acre feet that there is a pretty significant additional appropriation that's been made by the state already to these existing providers in various forms, I would suspect, in the Denver Basin. But, that might be relevant here to somehow present that it's already been appropriated. Second item is, again, on the future water supply. So our water district obviously has mitigation plan, dealing, you know, with returning water to the flows in the stream. I know this issue has come up, in our district.

When we did our plan and went to water court, we did not consider the return flows from properties that are on septic tanks where that water is leaching back into the ground. That's my limited understanding of the state rules that that water that's leaching back into the ground from septic tanks can be somewhat accounted for as far as return flows. And so that, again, may be something we work towards, to ensuring that everybody that can account for that source of return flow accounts for it, you know, going into the future.

I have a little bit in the weeds comment on table six point six point one. And in the column that says surface water, I think in the case of Southgate and Meridian and Roxboro, that that actually is they they that's wholesale water that they're getting. Like, Roxboro is getting all their water wholesale from Aurora, but they went ahead and classified it as surface water. So I think it's more properly classified as wholesale water because we're trying to get it. Water providers within the district finding surface water sources, renewable water sources, and I just think that tends to cloud the data just a little bit.

So

So for Roxboro, what are the other ones you mentioned?

Southgate Southgate's all Denver water. Right? Meridian and Roxboro. I mean, they're buying surface water wholesale. So it's I guess you could say it's kind of both. But I think for our analysis, we wanna see that in a wholesale column, not a surface water column. Because we think we think when we're thinking surface water, we're thinking renewable. Right? We're trying to think it's not groundwater. It's something else.

You know, we don't we had a pre this is Clark Hamilton. We had a presentation from, South Metro, Water, and we don't have any reference in this plan that I've seen at all to them, that we talk talk about why's a little bit. Couple sentences is all. It's I mean, that's a fairly significant portion of the water plan in the county, and I think we need to beef that up. And it's it's just confusing here.

This one sentence says, Wisewater is available to nine, county water providers and makes up a portion of the water supply for Parker and Stonegate. But also others also get a portion of their water. I mean, it's a true statement, but it leaves a lot out.

Gotcha.

But I think we ought to say something about Wise and South Metro.

Yeah. James.

Because that's

exactly the collaborative effort that earlier is pointed out as one of the purposes of this report is to encourage that kind of activity, and that's already taking place.

Yeah. I'll just James Eklund. I'll tie onto what commissioner Hamlin just said. The wise Lisa Darling told me on multiple occasions that they're actively working on their future comprehensive plan kind of at the same time we're doing this. So having connectivity to what South Metro is doing would make a ton of sense.

She seems willing to share what they're up to. This seems like this chapter six is the place where your infrastructure, capital expenditure, outlay, forecast. In the state water plan, we had the benefit of having the statewide water supply initiative, the SWAZI exercise. We're kind of going to have to put all of that supply demand gap how we plan on addressing it. A bunch of that's gonna have to live in this chapter.

So there's there's reference to needing to map the providers with pie charts showing demand versus supply. If you I can see that map in the water plan. And having that for this county would be, I think, super helpful. So I'm I'm glad you referenced that at the bottom of six dash five. The pie chart the bar chart showing reusable versus nonreusable.

We need to talk about storage capacity and capability, both surface storage and groundwater alluvial storage or nontributory storage. Seems like, yeah, this one's this this one's gonna be a place where a lot of stuff lives, and making sure we get it all in there is gonna be pretty critical to the chapters that follow.

Clark Hamilton, I'm gonna add again on top of that. The pie chart, if it could somehow under the wholesale, and I think that's where it goes, somehow capture the idea of water that is from coming from within the county and water that's coming from with someplace else. Some of that I guess most of that wholesale water is coming from outside the county. And especially if we could get to the point of having the future pie chart, we'd see that piece of the pie grow substantially, I would think. So if it could somehow split the wholesale between inside and outside the county, that would be, I think, really interesting.

I can't think of any any inside county right off the bat. But Yeah. Yeah. I see.

It I there must be some, but

there's some sales from one to another within the county.

Yeah. I recall seeing somebody. It was, like, a 100 it was, like, a 100 and some acre feet or something like that. Yeah. It was inside.

That's probably the one. Yeah. So that that concept.

Harold, you got a comment?

Yes. Two, I really agree with what Clark was saying on the idea of including Wise because it also manages the the Sheffield Basin water supply down there. So I think that needs to be brought in, so maybe it's in the infrastructure. And then the second, please check one thing. Did did you this data from Roxboro shows no growth. I know that they have a number of taps that they include that they have not yet allocated and intend to do that. At least that's what I'm told. So I would just wonder if that's accurate. Did we check with Roxboro? Did we get a report back?

We haven't reached back out to them, but they did provide the survey response.

This is Sean Tanner. Harold, I think they have six taps left.

Last I heard, they had more than that.

Okay.

But I don't know. I just I just I'm just doing a a accuracy check because I know they have some to sell, so this number should have changed. That's all I'm doing. Thank you.

Would you like to move to groundwater?

Six steps, but they've committed. They've got

about a

100 out there. They haven't connected. So that should change.

Okay. Go ahead. Okay.

Good. Good information. Thanks for the feedback on Chapter six. And so we'll turn to Chapter seven. This is where the really fun part is, where you talk about groundwater. Bill?

Yes. Groundwater analysis has been provided to the commissioners a few times over the last couple of months, and this has been obviously included in the water master plan. Our intent on this analysis was to really look at those areas outside water providers on available groundwater analysis. We didn't get involved in the water providers, Denver Basin supplies as they typically have it on a decree or deemed consent. So we really want to take a look at when new development or other development is thought of in the county in the unincorporated, what policies or what groundwater may or may not be available.

Again, we focused on the in the basin. There is obviously fractured groundwater that's in the western part of the county. There is some alluvial water that's all subject augmentation. And so we're really focused on that Denver Basin. And tried to give a analysis based upon utilizing, you know, a larger dataset, more accurate dataset being geophysical logging and other logs that have been available throughout the county to give a better idea of what water may or may not be in that Denver Basin from the Dawson all the way down to the Fox Hills.

And our analysis based upon looking at those records indicated that the Dawson, you know, was pretty close to what the state is estimated as the legal water supply, and that's not unsurprising as that's been the most heavily developed aquifer in the county. And so we've seen a lot of geophysical logs in the Dawson that don't go down to the deeper rock first because it's just geophysical log where they're at. And if they're going to go to the Dawson, for example, geophysical log that aquifer. Same thing with the Fox Hills, but it's also on the opposite end of the spectrum. There hasn't been a lot of development in the Fox Hills.

So basically, our data that we've evaluated is fairly similar to what the state has evaluated when they did their analysis. But there's been quite a bit of development in the county since 1985 in the Denver, Arapahoe and Lower Dawson. So that's where we've gotten more robust data than what the count than what the state utilized in '85 for their legal analysis. They have updated, which they can do, with each decree, what site specific conditions may or may not be out there. We have looked at that with various projects we've worked on and worked with the state on petro analysis and others.

Now as we've done to indicate whether there may be more water underlying a piece of land or less water based upon the data that we've been able to provide and evaluate. So that's kind of how we looked at the groundwater analysis. We also then looked at water level data. That is a complicated matter, specifically the Denver Basin. The Denver Basin just doesn't recharge, not say recharge, but doesn't if you're pumping it, it does the water levels don't recover nearly as fast as what you'd see in an alluvial well.

So depending on when that well was pumping, when it was shut off, how long it was shut off, there's a lot of data to go through and think about how to figure out what is a reasonable water level that we've that was had been collected either by USGS or the state. So it was it's not just as simple of taking a graph and saying, oh, well, it's 20 feet below the surface. That doesn't work because because that well might have just been pumping and then just shut off and that water level is not indicative of what the aquifer is.

So we did a lot

of work on that one. And then water quality, it just hasn't there's really isn't not a lot of data out there on water quality besides what the water providers have. And that's, you know, public available information that they send out to the state. But we looked at that as best we could on data that we see that's

out there. And I know there

was a couple of comments on what reports we looked at in that. So we are cleaning that up as well. But I'll obviously open up to questions and thoughts and what we can do on the groundwater supply.

I'll start off. I was very concerned. I look at your 7.2% unincorporated areas, there's 484,000 acre feet unappropriated. 68%, that's paper water. We don't really know what's there.

And I think and I tear that on the 7.8 where the groundwater is volumetric by taking the parcel area multiplied by the net thickness, volume is then multiplied by specific yield. The Chairman of State vote, I think we're giving a false sense of how much water is there because this doesn't say how much the tightness of the sands and everything else you can actually get out. So I I I I really think, you know, some has been asking all along what is the proven reserves that you can get out economically and there's no way of computing that. Well, I think we need to back off. If that's true, then I think we need to put some very serious caveats in here about theoretically, we're still dealing with paper water.

You don't know until you drill it, which is what you're saying in here. And also another part of this section, you say that there should be a broader, which I really agree with, study to try and get into what is economically and realistically recoverable. But I think to say that to the unincorporated area, there's 484,000 acre feet there is misleading. It also depends on where you are in the county, and you you back kind of into that. But I think we need to be out front because what I don't wanna do is people looking at this and saying they have all this water because it depends on where you are and we still we really don't know what we can get out of that.

So I I I really think there needs to be some very serious, definitions with that and what really we can get. And I'd be the first one to say if there's a broader study that needs to get into what really is out there, I mean, real proven reserves like the oil patch deals with, then I think let's recommend that that be a follow on study. But in the meantime, we know what's really, I'm very cautious of these kinds of numbers.

Okay. Just real quick clarification. Harold, you mentioned I think you said 7.8 or 7.4. Were you talking page number? Table number? I just wanna get on the same Oh,

I'm sorry. This is page. I'm sorry. Page. I'm looking at page 7.2, which is the

Okay. I'm with you.

Unincorporated areas, grosses of $484,000. And then was comparing that to 7.8 where we we calculate what's there. But that has that may or may not be relevant to what's really recoverable. It depends on where you are, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Yeah. I I understand your point. I just wanna make sure I was on the same Yeah. Literally same page. Yeah. James?

Thanks. James Eklund. Chapter seven on my read is explicitly about physical groundwater volumes, not the legal abstractions. So if anything, it's a corrective to paper only accounting of the type that my profession loves to do. The Petra model is about physical reality.

It's not about paper water, Harold. So I don't I don't quite agree with that characterization of it. I have not a scintilla of the type of understanding of the science around this that mister Frontak does. But my understanding of what little I do understand is that the Petra model is really the state of the art and is focused on the physical availability and the reality about what you can actually rely on being in the aquifer. But correct me if I'm wrong on anything that I just said.

I mean, that that is correct. That's the best data we do have. I mean, you know, like, in the oil patch, billions of dollars are spent on seismic. I mean, obviously, we'd love to have the entire county, you know, have a seismic review so we could take a look at things. Best data we do have is the geophysical logs, which is the actual logs of what the aquifer is.

And we take a look at that to see, you know, based upon those logs, how much water is actually going to be released, for lack of a better word, from those from those sands. The state has also done that in 1985 when they looked at this. They actually looked at, you know, did some testing on various wells across Denver Basin to take a look at specific yield. That's, you know, the amount of water that's, you know, not held up by the by the the rock itself. So there also has been some analysis in the past by the state in Senate Bill 73, and I can't remember the date on that one.

It's it's been too many years. But, they did look at the specific yields and whether that needed to be readdressed. And it was something that the states that they really it would have been very it'd be very difficult. And that's why they basically put in site specific conditions. And as you're right, Harold, this is the best data we have to see what may or may not be in those aquifers to be able to physically pull it out.

There are a lot of factors that go into play with how much water that come out, where the water levels are. For an example, if a well is, has water levels halfway up the screen, they'll be half the screen is, you know, not having any water saturated thicknesses. It pretty much becomes uneconomical to pump. So there's a lot of different factors going on how the well was constructed. A lot of different things that go into play, but this gives us the best idea of what is physically there, you know, underlying the ground, how it comes out. I mean, it's just it's you know, geology is tough. I mean, as we know, and even the oil patch, it's very difficult. I mean, I've been working in in that area for a while as well.

And, you know,

tens of millions of dollars go into oil on a well, and they're thinking they're going to get, you know, 300 barrels a day and they get five. You know, it's it's it's complicated. And I agree with you, though. I don't know exactly how we need to it's very difficult from an engineering perspective to say, okay. Well, this is the amount of water that we're showing from science, but you're only gonna get 50%

of that water.

I don't have any support that, and that's towards I'm trying to figure out how and I agree with your analysis. I don't wanna give someone an overshot of, hey. You got we got 500,000 acre feet of water sitting underneath the ground. We can just go, you know, you know, hog wild. That's one of those challenges that I'm trying to figure out the best way

to do it.

And I I really think, you know, you'd use the best technology you have. I'm not debating that. In fact, James just made my point for me, and that is that it's only valid in the areas you drilled where you have wells, which is limited area. And and yet, we're the comment across the whole county in the unincorporated area that there's 484,000, that's we're making the same point. How do we describe that we really don't know except in very limited areas what we think is there?

And that could change depending on the well, etcetera, etcetera. So that's the concern I have is I don't want people to say, well, they've got a half, you know, 484,000 acre feet of water. Maybe somewhere we do, but it sure isn't out western part. No. Some other other areas like that. And that that is my point. It's the best technology we have and that that's it. I do do think eventually we do do need to do broader studies to understand particularly the size of the county because as we look where those wells were drilled, it's a pretty narrow area in there. And so anyway, that's my point.

One I wanna clarify something real quick here too that, you know, this is 484,000 acre feet per year.

Yeah.

Right? That that that that the availability is, and these numbers are in acre feet per year. So that that implies an enormous amount

of water. Right?

But we only need a 100.

Yeah. We only need a couple. Yeah. I think it's less than a 100 right now. But yeah. But let's we got let's let's do Tricia and then you okay. Her hand was up first.

Tricia Bernhardt. I think it it just needs to be explained better. The way it's presented right now is a little dangerous in my opinion. All those things that you just discussed, the variability in what you can actually withdraw, the locations of where you can withdraw things, all those things need to be discussed here so that the reader can formulate a little different analysis and a little different conclusion than what is in here right now. Right now, it looks like we have so much water, we ought to just build the whole county out.

And that is a dangerous thing to be putting in this document. So we need to temper this and have a little better discussion about actual use of groundwater, the finite the way groundwater is finite. You just said it in the Denver Basin. It doesn't recharge. Recharges a little bit, but not very much. These things need to be explained better. It's my opinion. Thank you.

Yeah. Fair enough. Yeah. Clark.

Clark Hamillman. I agree totally. I mean, two years ago when we first started this, we had a lot of discussion about it. Are the aquifer levels going up or down? And this just gives a number of what's there.

It doesn't it doesn't say what it was ten years ago. It doesn't say what it's gonna be ten years or twenty years in the future at 2050 where this plan is is targeted, and it doesn't at all answer the question about what's my well what's happening to my well. And, we have said all along for two years here that we were comfortable that the the major water providers were doing a good job and were had plans in place. The hole in this whole thing for the county was the 9,500 individual residential domestic wells out there that people don't know what's going on. And I don't see that this tells them anything.

If I wanna go buy a house in King Ranch that has a private well, reading this report isn't gonna tell me what my well situation is gonna be in 2050 when I go to sell that house. I it doesn't get us there. Maybe it can't, but it doesn't get us there.

Sean Tanner, I I think where we could give the reader and also the commissioners and future water commissions a job is we got ours right now. To your point of and and you said in the preamble, is, you know, more data needs to be derived, more analysis, whether it's seismic, you know, and I realize that's we're starting big numbers. But if we, you know, say, a study of seismic in these areas of the county so that we start to get more data about what we're standing on top of, And we're we're getting better with Petra than we were with the state. But then the next leap we need to take as a county, given that 50% of our water, in most cases, has come from below our feet, really understanding what's there and investing to understand what's there. So I think maybe if we at the beginning, we just kinda lay out and say, look.

This is the latest and greatest, but really to get a good deep dive of what we actually have, we need additional information.

Yeah. It's dark down there.

What's up, Eric?

Evan, Ilha, just to throw in on the same topic, I guess. It seems like mister Fronczak is exactly right. I mean, this number that's shown out here is what's down there. The economically recoverable portion is less, but we don't seem to have any good data on that unless there's something you guys can dig out. But it probably wouldn't hurt to have a statement or two in here that says, well, there is this limiting factor, and that's the economic recovery amount.

You may not have the answer to that, but at least it puts a little conditioning on it. But it's also true that all this the fact that Petro predicts more water than Senate Bill five did is because of more site specific data. I mean, there's the trend in the site specific data is that the specific yields are greater and that the sands are thicker or whatever it is that creates more water available. So given the state of the science, the trend is that that there is more water recoverable than current regulatory scheme. But you do need to moderate that with this language about what what the economic recovery is.

And we know it's nonrenewable water, so we're mining it over time. And cost of production are going to continue to increase for that water. So there's no free launch, right? It's even if there is a lot of water there, the cost to access is just going to continue to be a factor. And so the message, the upshot, I think, is so we need to use what we have very carefully, conserving, reuse, those types of things and and play up that part of the report.

Real quickly, Don. The other part of this message is the rural part of this county, mostly the Southern part and the Eastern part, we have no other water sources other than groundwater. You've heard me say that so many times. So if the groundwater is extracted to the point where rural Douglas County does not have any water for the well users, what is the county's obligation there? I mean, we don't have a water district that we can connect to.

Some of that is in the analysis. Right? I mean, the upper aquifers are being relied upon by the individual wells primarily. And so if you look at the macro scale, I mean, the real developable water is Arapahoe certainly and maybe in the Denver by the big suppliers. They can put in a million and a half dollar well, and they can extract at a high rate. And, you know, that makes a lot of sense, and there's a lot of resource there. And the other beauty about the nontributory water is it's completely reusable. It's a 100% reusable. So if you have a closed system, you can greatly increase the efficiency of your use of that withdrawal. So I just don't think you have to stay away from groundwater as being, you know, don't touch it.

It just needs to be described in the way that has its benefits as well in in ways that it can actually enhance efficient water use.

I think I think we're selling the rural area short with this whole report. I feel very strongly that's really what this report is for is for the 9,500 wells out there, that people are are self providing their water. They don't they don't show up in any of this data. And I at a at a minimum, there ought to be a separate section in this report that that goes to what is the status of the the 9,500 or 10 or 10,000 individual wells in the county. And what is the county's obligation?

What is what can the county do to help those people understand their situation better? And if the all we have is a bunch of questions that aren't answered, at least we get the questions in there and start to work on answering them.

You want let me make a comment real quick first. And maybe this is because we're so close to it. But if you look at, like, table two and appendix b, and it talks about water that's available and for appropriation in the Dawson Aquifer, it's like there's hardly any. Right? If I'm if I'm remembering that chart. So, I mean, some in the detail there, it it it highlights the difference between what is going on in the Dawson and probably the Denver and the Arapaho. And the Arapaho, is, I would say, generally only accessible for water providers and big high production wells. And there's a lot of water there. It's big. It's deep.

It's thick. That's good news. Right? But I I would agree that, you know, the Upper Dawson and what's I mean, there's there's issues probably with contamination too, the Upper Dawson from alluvials getting contaminated, from pesticides, that kind of stuff. I mean, there's a there's a lot more going on there that I just don't think we've we've really captured very well here. I would agree with that.

James was first. Thanks.

So the appendix that you referenced, appendix b, you know, you're right, isn't going to be able to specifically detail the situation for each well. But is it possible I guess this is the question. Is it possible to extrapolate when we're putting the map of the county together and forecasting the gap? Is it possible to lump the 10,000 wells into a risk profile that would add some sort of value to the well owner. And it's not saying they're gonna run dry in the next year or they're gonna, you know, be okay for a period of years, but it it's giving them some risk data that they can hopefully make some decisions with in terms of, you know, the viability of their situation.

Is that something that is that kind of extrapolation doable, makes sense, not makes sense?

Some of the thoughts

yes.

Some of the thoughts that I had about that was, is, we do have some heat maps that are in our GIS model that might be something that we can print out and reference. A bulk of this water that might be available in the Denver and the Arapahoe and the Lower Dawson is in the South and in the eastern part of the county, but it's very deep. It's not going to be economical for a private landowner to probably drill a 1,500 foot well. The Dawson, the challenges that we've seen there is we're seeing some water level declines in certain areas. Overall, you know, there's still water, what we call, artesian water.

There's still water in the wellbore. In other words, there's pressure that still is pushing water up above the top of the aquifer. The challenge we've seen is a lot of these water users or individual property owners have not completed the wells properly. And I have data on that. I can I the question is, is that something we wanna put out to the local individual property owners? Because there's nothing we can do.

I think you showed us that in the presentation.

I did. I did not put it in the report for a very because it is very controversial. It's basically saying, hey, you didn't drill your well properly. And a lot of the conversations I've had, not only in Elkhart County, but Arapahoe County elsewhere is like, well, what's the state gonna do? They're gonna come and redrill my well? No. Sorry. That's on the individual property owners.

They don't

let you buy. I mean, what we're trying to do with that geophysical or the GIS model is to be able to let people go out to their property. And I admit it's a little clunky right now. I have to work on that, that GIS mapping. Go out to your property. You can take a look at that wall. You can see how deep it is. Can You see how what the water levels are, and you can get an idea of what what where you're at and where and and make some decisions for yourself. But that's a lot of the challenges I've seen is the well is not completed properly.

You know, I look at this, I guess, from the perspective of the the the private provider and and the the buy and sell process. If I I'm gonna go look at a $2,000,000 home over here in Keene Ranch that's on 10 acres and has a has a private well. Do I wanna buy that property or not? And I'm if I'm gonna do my due diligence, one of the things I'm gonna do is go to the county's report on water and look at it and tell see what it says. And I guess what it's saying right now is, yeah, there's 484,000 acre feet of water there.

Buy the house. Don't worry about the water. And then after I'm there for a year, the well goes dry, and now I gotta spend $200 digging a 1,500 foot well. I'm gonna be irritated.

And that's one thing that I've thought about in the past. I mean, prior and this is in the real estate records is they're used to not have to report where your water was coming from. I remember when I was at the state, you know, early nineties, it was I'd get a phone call. I get a dozen phone calls a day. My water's out. Like, okay. Tell the utility to turn my water back on. I'm like, well, you have a well. I do have what? I said, you have a well that's providing your property. So a lot of property owners didn't even know they had a well back then. Now in your real estate records, you have to disclose. Are you on public water? Are you on public sewer? Are you having a well or or septic?

One thing that I've thought through, maybe this is something the state gets involved with or maybe this is something the county can request as they do real estate transfers because that is exactly the issue. I mean, I've I've been in water business for a long time. I wouldn't buy a house unless I knew exactly what that well was doing. Age of it, I'd have it I put it on a seller. I want a video log. I you tell me why. I'd I'd I'd make them do it. Lot of property owners don't know that. But is there something that you can take it another step further in those real estate records? When you have to do your due diligence disclosure of your of your house, like, well, I got a problem with my roof, whatever the issue is. Here's my well permit. I gotta provide that to the property owner. I don't know. Right now, it's not required. It says I'm on a well, I'll accept it.

And it's up to the property owner to go and take a look at what that may or may not be. I don't know if this report would be able to give them that specific of amount data besides getting to a GIS map where they can maybe look at that. And maybe there can be an explain explanation of that about what that GIS map might be able to point people to and give them a road map or a view about what data is potentially out there to get to right where you're saying is, hey. I'm buying a house at X Y Z. I've been disclosed by the realtor that it's on a freaking well.

I don't know anything about groundwater. I can go now to this report that says, oh, there's data that's out there. I can click on where that property is. You click on where that well is. It can pull up the state engineer's information, which is the only information a lot of what we have, and give someone an idea of what's going on.

I I really think we need to have a separate section in this report that is for those 10,000 individual wells. Because if if I live out if I have one of those wells, I read this report, I've learned nothing. I've I've learned absolutely nothing that's beneficial to me if I have one of those wells. Now if there's a separate section and even if it all it says is we don't know whether your well is gonna work next week or not. Depends upon how well it was put in, how deep it is, a whole bunch of factors.

And and here are some of those factors. We can't we can't answer the question about your individual well with a countywide report, but here are here's the ways you can answer that question for yourself. That would be tremendously helpful for some people. Maybe that's already out there in some documents. Maybe the states put that together. But, I I don't know. It ought to it ought to be there.

I think I really like your comment on page seven dash nine ultimate paragraph. It says it all. I think what it needs to do is permeate throughout the report so that we read this and people say there's 480,000 acre feet per year available. This this actually, I think, says it all. It's the best guess.

We think it's there, but it depends on where you are and how you drill your well and where it is and how long it lasts, etcetera. And one of the things I wanna be very careful of, we've had several reports. I I keep going back to Highland's Ranch that their wells are failing. And and so I think making sure everybody understands that that this is an estimate. We really don't know. The other thing I really hope we bring in from what I've seen in terms of quality. If you could please validate Laramie Fox Hills, some of the water coming out of there, you can't you know, it's called sulfur. You can't do a thing with it. I think that needs to be brought out. It's trick or treat what you're going to hit down there depending on where you are.

And to rely on that as a water supply solely, I think is a fool's errand. And so I I hope that you validate that, make sure people understand it because I could see someone being sold, well, there's all this water under here, well, in the Fox Hills.

Well,

there is, but you can't use it. I think the other thing that I I really you know, this county with this report, and it's realizing for a minute is it a bit of a crossroads. You know, we have this incredibly valuable asset. Our best guess is 408,000, a huge amount of water we think, how much we get out of it. We really don't know.

Depends on where you are, etcetera, etcetera. Or is that going to be a primary supply as it is now, which is 50% of the water or as a county, should the county be thinking of goals eventually we wanna replace that with renewable? And what does that mean? So that really becomes what it what I believe, it's an incredible backup source that we don't have to worry about drought. But it also you've mined it out and it's gone. So I I hope somehow in here and and I don't have a magic wand how you frame that issue, but that issue gets framed.

Is that a is that a matter of, economics that is gonna determine that balance, right, over time.

It's and reality. Economics as power becomes more expensive, etcetera, etcetera. But also, that's an incredible asset that you cannot be affected by a drought. Or one the few places in this part of the country, you have that. So the question is, we're to mine it out or not? That's the question. I don't know what the answer is. Well, I know what I would say the answer is. It costs money.

A little while ago, you referenced was it page seven nine? You

paragraph where it says physically available groundwater refers to petrol. This term only refers to calculation available. This estimate does not claim or guarantee calculated or fully available to a well owner. Well said. It needs to be emphasized. The SEC days, that would be in letters about that big.

They they say that multiple times. That yeah. This is an analysis and there's no way to really know without drilling a well. But that's kind of a given.

There seems to be another unwritten assumption in this report that the state of water quality that exists today is the state of water quality requirements in 2050. So if all of the treatment requirements if none of the treatment requirements change in the next twenty five years, then all of this that's the assumption that's in here. But if if treatment requirements change significantly between now and then, that may put a totally different look on this. From a couple perspective, what water is available, how much it costs, I guess. But also who, what's the optimal way to treat water with 27 or 30 individual providers in the county or with three or four large treatment facilities in the county.

So I think we need to I I think that if we're assuming no change in treatment, I think we at least need to say that. And that if there is a significant change in the required treatment processing that forces you to go to cost effective and large efficient operations that could change a lot of the assumptions.

Just one quick point of order before you go, Sean. We just stumbled into commissioner Conway's wheelhouse right here. I mean, Metro is the water treatment provider, bar none, in Colorado. And, I know their analysis and planning incorporates everything for the water quality side as we've been talking about for the water quantity side here for the last, you know, many years. So, I don't know if you wanna comment on that, where where we should head when talking about water quality and that challenge.

Yeah. Mickey Connelly. Well, I mean, Clark's right. I I I think it's not reasonable to assume that we won't have stricter quality of quality of of We will, for sure. How that affects quantity, that's a that's a good point as in terms of availability. But, yeah, I think noting that the trend has been, increasingly strict and increasingly more expensive to treat water, and that affects the ability to deliver it too. So for sure.

This is Evan. Hila, again, The water quality of the Arapaho Aquifer is clear. It's clean now and is much less likely to degrade with respect to what new treatment standards come out than surface water. All of the surface water, wherever it is in the state, is way more vulnerable to degradation than the water that's sitting in the Arapahoe Aquifer. So it's another benefit of the deep groundwater.

Okay. Are we oh, go ahead.

Sorry. Sean Tanner and yeah. Clark, thank you for bringing that up with them, Mickey. Is there a way I mean, looking at history over the last twenty five years since we're going to 2050, is there a best guess swag analysis of what we think the increased restrictions are gonna be on water, or is it just a wild ass guess? Can we use history as a guide at all?

Yeah. I actually, you can look at current activity by CDPHE in terms of regulatory work they're doing on feasibility because we're going to go to extremely low nutrient limits in the next ten years, and then they're going to add constituents like temperature. Then And you got your man made contaminant issues, which all the surface water is going to be affected by. So I don't know that you can the historical guide in terms of trend on cost will be applicable to this because we're going to see a really big ramp up. So it might be difficult to predict.

So in that, would it I think it would be beneficial in the report. I mean, knowing that we don't know what the future is completely, but maybe have an asterisk saying there are increased restrictions coming down the pike, which will then drive up availability and cost on whatever water source it is.

Think those are perfectly reasonable statements that are supportable.

I have something for the parking lot. This whole one of the beauties of the 50% of the water we're getting, which is groundwater, is a 100% renewable. Somebody mentioned that earlier. Thank you. That only does us any good if we get it back. And so I believe a section in this report should be on reuse. You know, we can talk about conservation. That's it's kinda common now, but the real issue is reuse and getting it all back.

And,

Jim just mentioned, you know, you could you could file on those septic returns. And I don't know. Rory used to file on those lawn return flows back to day. Don't if ever went anywhere or not.

Of course.

But but we should we we should really emphasize in the county reuse, and that can get into some policy issues that don't exist today. We talk about the water source, but where does it go? And I I think I think I'd like for you to consider a section on that. How do we do it? And and how important is it? What can the county do?

Okay.

Thank you for the feedback. That's I really appreciate it. A lot of good thoughts and good discussion today for sure. So appreciate that. I know we need to wrap up here in about five minutes. Maybe if

You can't adjourn the meeting. What's that? You can't adjourn the meeting. I'm sorry.

No, I was just going to touch on the engagement.

Yes, I think that'd be great.

Could pull that up.

Yes, go ahead.

Well, this is Evan Ehla again. I had one other follow-up question. On the I don't remember which table it's back in appendix b or or a or b where you break out the amount of groundwater that's been decreed, adjudicated as distinct from unappropriated or unadjudicated. Does the adjudicated part also include the pre two thirteen circle amounts, or does it not?

It's different. It's actual decreed water. Pre two thirteen is not decreed water. It's just water that's

I know that, but it's water that's already been

It's already been. Yeah. So we've we've taken we've taken the pre two thirteen out, but we've not taken out the decreed water. And And the reason is because the decreed water can be bought and sold. Just because you have a decree or you have a determination of the amount of water on line of your land, doesn't mean it's actually been put to use.

And

so like a lot of these properties have Dawson through Fox Hills determined. And we have a number about what that might be. That water can then be bought and sold. So we the pre 02/13 is tied to the well permit itself. So that's why we've carved that out.

Okay. So this table five in appendix, whatever it is, you have a percent of each aquifer that's been decreed. So that's strictly just adjudicated. Does not have the pre two thirteen allocations in it?

No. Pre-two 13 is

in No, no, do break it out elsewhere, but Because

it's quantification of I mean, basically, it's based upon state based upon beneficial use. Because prior to 1973, you got a well permit, you had to put in you had to drill it, and then you had to put it to beneficial use. And then the way the state has married that policy or that water right to the Denver Basin, which is 1973 and then further in 1985 was we got to calculate a cylinder of appropriation. We got a basic back calculated amount amount of land associated with that pre 02/13 well. So we can all be on the same page when we're looking at it.

How it comes into play is if I have an overlying land ownership and I have a pre-two 13 well next to it and that sale of appropriation impacts my overlying land, I reduced that acreage by that amount that pre-two 13 was computed.

I think you've actually explained that pretty good in the report. So you want to get to this?

Yes, sir. So are preliminary dates targeting for the focus groups would be February, March. Those are the three different focus groups that we are planning for. And then public engagement, the April July time frame, targeting that for the pinpoint social pinpoint and open house or or public workshops and engagement opportunities. So just overall, that's where we're heading with this after we've worked through the this with you all.

And focus groups will be looking for them to give us input on recommendations for policies. And then also, just, you know, as we talked about earlier, water providers information on their water supplies more so. So

when you when you say share work to date, does that mean we give the water providers the draft plan as we have it today? Or is this going to be some sort of a detailed presentation with a lot of data in it? How do you envision that?

We'll have to think more about that. I think the maybe we give them a chapter about water providers and have them comment on that or maybe more targeted probably with their input and feedback. We are, hoping to do it concurrently that that that would be okay. It's

gonna change. Yeah.

The the thought oh. We were looking to focus groups for feedback on policies and and then bring that back to the the water commission for discussion and then inclusion in this this next draft of the report.

Maybe everybody else can kind of weigh in here too, but feel like focus groups in February also feels premature, and we haven't got to the other chapters. The other chapters are like land use planning, right, which staff has been, you know, working on quite a bit. So, I mean, that's that's where this is all gonna end. Right? I mean, the land use policy is is what this is, among other things. But that's really core to this whole deal. So I feel like focus groups in February feels early too. I mean, anybody else wanna

would hope that we have a opportunity to look at the policy recommendations and the chapter 10 implementation document before it goes out public.

And and the focus groups, that's probably gonna be a couple of meetings with them. So maybe there's an intro meeting to talk talk through where they were going with that, and then a second meeting where you actually get the recommendations. And so, here, we're we're, you know, thinking about where we get that started. That process might start March. But but if you think that's pushing too much, then

I I sense a discomfort with that would be the term I would use. Yeah. James?

No. You're good. So so we really need to this has been a great conversation, and thanks for leading us through the draft and putting the draft together. But stepping back, I think that my view of what we've talked about today, the commission needs to agree on whether this plan is meant to document adequacy or drive resilience? Or is this supposed to be a plan that has a a contingency facet to it that is actionable, or are we just describing is it an atlas, or is it a a plan for action?

Those are two very different documents. Substitute I mean, sorry, the the SWASI, the statewide water supply initiative, was a water atlas. It did a great job of saying, here's where water is. Here's where demand is headed. Here's the gap.

But it did not make policy recommendations. It didn't make contingency plan suggestions. And when you sit up in front of any group in any capacity, it seems to me, having kind of been in that position, it would be a real disservice to you as the facilitator of that conversation to not be equipped with the basic answer from us about what the heck this thing does or doesn't do.

Mister chairman, I move that until we get feedback from what we discussed today and go through the other sections that we hold off on on focus groups and going public with the document. I really think that would be wise.

So I Yeah. Lauren, please.

This is Lauren Polver with staff. I I do wanna make it clear that the document is public. It was provided to the board of county commissioners in an agenda item. So it's it's out there. I know some of our water providers are already reviewing it and providing feedback. And just to, I think, add to Will's comment, the thought on the timing of the focus groups was to get some initial feedback on the Chapter 10 recommendations that you could all absorb from our experts, but certainly can be flexible as needed.

I think that's fine. I've maintained my motion. I think until we get the feedback from today's section and these others, we have some level of comfort before it goes out. I don't wanna waste everybody's time. If these water providers look at something we've just rewritten or changed, we're just wasting time. So I I don't I don't recognize it's legally public, but I I think until we have one more turn in the barrel of what we discussed today and the next one, I think we should we should keep it here before we go out public. I know. I I made that motion.

And I'll just say as the second, to the motion that that's exactly what we did with the water plan. It was public. Every draft was public. Every draft solicited input. If people wanted to opine or give suggestions or edits, they were more than welcome to do that. But we didn't put, like, our official stamp on it as this is our, you know, this is our product that we endorse and want feedback on until we had gone through the exercise that we're talking about. So I would I just second Harold's motion.

So it kinda feels like we have a motion on the floor and seconded. And the motion would be to request that that our contractor refrain from doing focus group work until after our meeting, after the water commission meeting in February. So I most of all in favor of that motion.

Aye. Aye.

No. I I think that's fair. No no time limit. I mean, we'll we'll know when it's right. Right. Yeah. James. Aye. Aye. Aye. See no nays, so that motion carries. So we can we can work that through with with. Yeah. Tricia?

Yeah. Quick question. Tricia Bernhardt. How will you choose the Well users that would participate in this focus group? Are you going to advertise to well users? Do you have a handpicked selection of people you know? How is that going to be done?

We have a preliminary list already, and I think that was drawn from the rural water users group.

Yeah. We did that as well as take

a look at what

we also took a look at who participated in the USGS water level studies. I got a list of those folks as well as the well permits and tried to look at data that would be representative of the entire county from north to south to east to west to kinda look at it. Didn't really focus in on the fractured granite, both mainly in the Denver Basin.

So we

tried to at least look to folks that have been engaged with at least some of the water level measurements, these type of things.

One last quick question because we are running out of time, and so I was gonna run-in here in a minute and throw us out. No data on nonexempt wells that I've seen in here. Is that correct? No. I'm sure. Do we do we know what non exempt well, users are using places like, you know, golf courses, things like that? I mean, we don't solicit data. We didn't solicit data from them. Like, we Alright. We'll talk about that some more then. Okay. Okay. I think we're ready to adjourn. I I would second

I think

it was Will's comment. I thought that was a great conversation. Really good. We covered a lot of ground, and I think this commission is just really comfortable with each other, and I think it's working well. So thank you for that. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Let's

let's adjourn. Thank you.