Water Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good afternoon. 03:30. We'll go ahead and get started on the March 30, Douglas County Water Commission meeting. We'll do a roll call. We start with Tricia.

Present.

Evan Ella, present. Clark Hammelman here.

Don Langley here.

Mickey Conway here. Harold Smithel's present.

Jim Morris is online.

Sean Connor online.

James Echland online.

And I saw Roger for briefly. Roger. Yeah. Okay. That's everybody in

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Well, great. Glad to hear it. Thanks for joining online. If we couldn't be here in person, that's always appreciated that you take the time to get online. This one this meeting is going to be pretty straightforward. We don't have any items that were sent to us for review. So we don't have that process to go through. We approved the meetings at the last or the minutes at the last meeting, I think.

So we don't have that. So we can get straight to work here. And the topic today is a discussion of the action items or implementation chapter and chapter 10. And we want to work through what's been put into the draft. Certainly at a point we're looking for, I'll say all the comments that people want to make.

It's a good chance to do that, a chance to weigh in. I think if you're reading like mine, there's implementation items here or task here that I'll say have a lot more weight or potentially more value than others. So we'll try and focus on the, I'll say the good ones and maybe chat, call out some of the ones that aren't so meaningful. So I'm going turn it over to Lauren, right? Or am I turning it over to somebody else to walk through this?

Yes, happy to start. Lauren Pulver with staff. So you should have all received and have printouts of the draft plan Chapter 10, which has all of the draft recommendations along with a spreadsheet that outlines comments from subject matter experts. So several of our departments reviewed kind of applicable comments and then we've received some comments from water providers as well. And then separately, we did get comments from Tricia that we've provided to everyone as well.

I think plans for this meeting are really to just walk through each of the recommendations one by one and get comments from you all. So we have a presentation, but it's really just slides that will help kind of frame the conversation. So DJ, if you want to pull those up. So you'll see recommendations one, two, and three. The proposed follow-up in the spreadsheets really kind of can be wrapped into one discussion, I think.

Recommendation is that maybe this be revised to support current comprehensive master plan policies. You all heard the discussion at the last meeting that county policies really drive urban growth to the northern tier of the county. So any comments or questions?

So if I'm reading this correctly and reading the staff comments correctly, these the recommendation is that this kind of rolls up into one implementation point that I'll say makes a point that the county is already doing a lot of these things that are recommended. And also, you know, that I don't yeah, and that there's consistency with the policies and it would be the county master plan, right? Am I thinking correctly?

That's the intent of staff's proposed follow-up, yes.

Harold.

Agree

with Castle Rock's comments on that. But the one thing density does do is reduce infrastructure costs. That's really the most important part of density because the cost of sprawling communities just running the pipes back and forth and collecting it is prohibitive. So I think the one thing I would suggest on

this

one, I don't know the county needs to be setting lot sizes, but I do believe the county should be emphasizing clustered everywhere as a method of of efficiency and raising capital to build better water systems.

It struck me in reading this is Evan Ella. That in that first recommendation, I believe the report is suggesting that the lots served by individual wells be a minimum of two acres, but I think they should be five. And I believe that's the current policy, isn't it? That they are five. So I don't like the recommendation of making it two.

I think it should stay at five for the large rural residential district. And then the estate residential district should stay at two acres or move up to five if you're going to have an individual septic. Otherwise, you're going to get more of this sprawl that's dependent on individual wells and individual septics, which I think you want to avoid. So those are my comments on those two.

Thank you. Tricia?

Just a comment about zoning. I mean, there really aren't that many areas in Unincorporated Douglas County that are zoned such that you could reduce the lot size to two acres anyway. Am I incorrect? I just can't even think of any place where there would be. They would have to have been subdivided before like 1972 in order to get a well permit.

That I think is right, Tricia. I'm going to look at Kurt or Steve to help confirm.

This is Clark Hamilton.

I just thought I'd answer that. Get get on get to that a little bit. So the way the county zoning regime works is there's gross density, which is the maximum amount of density that you can have. So that would be like rural residential one unit per five acres. But then on the actual subdivision, you can cluster and you can have smaller lots, and we do see that in subdivisions where they may only have two acre, two and a half acre, three acre lots, but they don't exceed that density of one per five total.

So let's say they had a 100 acres, they would have 20 units. But the 20 units might only be on fifty, sixty of the acres, and then they put the rest of it into open space. And so the the minimum lot size for us is really about making sure there's enough land available to have the well and the septic system kind of keep some separation between them and that there would be room to you know, if if the absorption field needs to be adjusted at some point or moved or, you know, if it fails, there's some room on the on the lot for that. And so when you have central water, which we do have in some instances, central water, but still septic systems, then it drops down to one acre minimum. But that's a function of making sure there's room for the well and the septic system to fit.

We keep the gross density at that maximum, though. So you could have I mean, hypothetically, if you could get central water in the rural residential zone district, you could have lots that were three quarters of an acre because you're on central water and sewer, but you'd only get 20. Does that kinda help with the difference between the lot size and the actual density of the subdivision.

Yes. That does help. I think we're talking about the actual number of individual wells though. The division of water resources, state level would not permit wells for one acre lots in that situation. As you're saying, centralized water, yes. So if the developer came in and said, I'm gonna put in, you know, an Arapahoe well or something and distribute it to those 20 lots, that's a different story than saying each lot is going to get an individual well.

Clerk Hamillman. Well, it's an interesting discussion whether two acres or five acres and what the impact of that is. The impact is how much of that land is going going to be irrigated. Doesn't matter whether it's five acres or two acres. If you're only irrigating a very small percentage of it, that's that's what's significant.

I mean, I don't think there are too many five acre lots out there or certainly 10 acre or 35 acre lots unless they're ranches that are doing landscape irrigation, you know, on all five acres. So this discussion sort of misses the point. The point is how much are you going to allow them to landscape with high usage water or high high water usage landscaping. And and the whole direction that this plan calls for is to conserve that amount of water that's being irrigated. So that needs to be addressed here.

It's it's it's in a it's more important than the lot size.

Right. I think Tricia is right on point. I mean, what the idea here is to limit the number of individual wells. Yes. We should have no business in recommending a reduction in the size of a lot that can have a well.

We should keep it we should recommend it to stay as it is, five in the one zone district and two in the other. And if the planning department finds a way to cluster development and do something different, I I mean, I I think we should encourage that if a cluster happens, it should be by a water provider rather than by well or by one central, you know, developer well, community well, but You're not even but not a house not a household well for every well or for every house. Excuse me. This is Jim Martin. My recommendation is that we strike number one.

Jim, go ahead.

Alright. Thanks. You know, I would add that, this is not an untypical untypical problem that counties similar to Douglas faced across the country. The the county here has an opportunity to minimize private wells out in the unincorporated area by establishing a rural water system where those rural homeowners would be provided potable water, and, you know, limited amount of water for irrigation, but essentially to get potable water, get water, safe water into their homes. And I've seen this occur in in other states where, initially, the county has to step up and, obviously, drill a well and and build a treatment plant and then, you know, convert this into a countywide, rural water system.

And you need to, first of all, establish, you know, the boundaries for the current existing water system so you don't run into territorial disputes later. And that those territorial, you know, disputes could change over time. The point here, to minimize wells, you're gonna have to have some sort of cluster centralized rural water system that that's not providing fire protection. That means you're running, you know, three, four inch water lines, through the county and serving these rural households. And you do that by requiring people to, get on the system, when they build, and then you offer, you know, the opportunity for existing homes.

Obviously, nobody's in favor of, you know, being forced to join a real water system when the well's working. But we all know that that well working is a short time, situation. There's never been a well that lasts forever, and the county needs to step up here in this. If we're gonna truly minimize private wells and get down into that rathole aquifer where all this water seems to be hiding, the county's gonna need to step up to make this happen.

So, yeah, who wants to summarize that, right?

Well, I think Evan made the suggestion we strike it all together, right?

Yeah, I guess.

I second that, and I agree with what council wrote.

You're saying strike the whole recommendation number one?

Yes.

Recommendation number four, minimize private wells and the language with that seems to cover the subject. That's what we've been talking about here.

So staff good with that, do you think?

Following your lead on comments. Just to be specific, is that just one? Or are we talking about one, two and three altogether?

I'm just talking about one so far, but I'm sure I have comments on the others. Mean

the staff recommendation was to blend two and three into one. So if we cancel one, there's nothing to blend into. So

Yeah. Although, this is always awkward, this group editing we're doing because, like, the next little paragraph, future development patterns. I just think that statement is erroneous where their second sentence says, namely, less concentrated and more diverse dispersed development patterns generally result in greater water use, where and it really should be greater water use per household, maybe. Yeah. I don't know. Whereas increased density reduces demand per household. But I think it's in house I I I just don't think it's a correct statement the way it's written, frankly.

Yeah. Okay.

I I agree with agree with Evan. I mean, again, it's talking about historical thoughts around usage, which ignores the whole idea that we've been talking about of trying to conserve individual household usage.

K. So we'll let that stand as a recommendation then to go ahead and eliminate RECC one in total. Yeah. Tricia?

I I really have an objection with number four, the whole idea of minimizing private wealth. It it's it's complicated because, of course, Jim's discussion about having a rural water district or whatever, it is a huge area. That is a very futuristic idea to serve the rural areas of Douglas County with a central water system. I don't see it ever happening in my lifetime. It is just a vast area that is unserved by districts.

So if anybody lived down there, they'd know that. But you can't really do that economically in any way, shape or form. You can add some of these smaller subdivisions like Keene Ranch, maybe add that into Castle Rock, a study has been done, it would be very expensive. But as you keep going further east and further south, there's no way that's ever going to happen. At any rate, also the county can't decide who gets a well permit if they already have 40 acres.

They go to the state, they apply for a well permit, they get a well permit. So even if the county says we want to minimize those kind of additional well permits, that's not going to happen. Those people are going to get a well permit from the state. So the the paragraph, the way it reads, I think, doesn't make sense to me. I understand the concept of grouping and putting housing together, but not restricting any additional well permits that might be applied for in the county. They have no other water resource in the southern and eastern part of the county. There's no other water way that they can get water other than a well permit from the state.

Thank you. I wondered how you would do that too, how you would minimize people having private wells in the county. If they're an unincorporated area, they got water under the property. They've got the right to go get it, I think. So I'm not sure how the county would would get in the way of that. I mean, they have to go through a state state process. Right?

I mean, the problem is the title of recommendations for it should be minimized private well to be maybe promote

Turn your mic on, please.

Cluster development.

Mic's off.

Gotta push the wrong way. Alright. I just think the title of rec four is wrong. It should be directed more at what the county should promote, and that is less dependent, certainly, of developments, you know, planned developments should not be put in on, individual household wells unless they're very large lots. Otherwise, it should be clustered or it should be on a public water supplier.

K. Anybody else? So we moved

to Mister chairman, this is oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Yeah. Thanks, chairman. So I agree with Evan. And my thought on the RECCs one through four was to collapse them all into one principle, and that was more positive about what we want to see as opposed to what we don't want to see. And, you know, kinda I think from the discussion, it sounds like we would all agree that we're trying to minimize private wells for urban level development, but it doesn't say that in RECC four.

And so changing it to an affirmative statement, collapsing one through four into one principle, And then my overall overarching comment on this chapter, and I'll just say it once here so you don't hear me as a broken record over and over again on this in this meeting is that these need to be implementable. That's the whole point of the chapter, and we wanna make sure that we've got something that we can specifically measure as we're moving forward. The the metrics, you know, I think will be something we can all talk about. But right now, the chapter doesn't, to me, read as implementable yet. So I'll just I'll stop there, but I I think the comments that I've heard are right on and think resolvable if we move as even as as Evan suggested in, you know, putting it positively as opposed to what we don't wanna see.

Yeah. Thank you. That was good. So, I mean, four had several pieces to it. Right? Landscape provisions.

Yeah. I was just gonna point that out. I think we wanna keep the part about water wise and landscaping. Although, I think Castle Rock suggested it'd be called Colorado scaping.

Yeah. They're they're very intent about that. Yeah. Okay. So I'll ask I'll ask staff and and Will, I guess, or if you're prepared to kind of take those four.

I think that was a great recommendation to say, can we can we roll this over to what we wanna see rather than what we don't wanna see? That makes good sense. I don't know what the metrics in here might be. You know, it's not if you're talking about development, I mean, GPCD is like, you know, the number. And some people arm wrestle.

Some people make faces when you bring it up. But we should really get some thought to that too. Particularly, you're talking conservation, if you just say, well, I want to use less and we're going to use less irrigation on turf and stuff. I mean, if if you can't if you can't track it, then it then it doesn't build momentum. It doesn't start to feel like people can look at it and say, okay, we're doing some good here and I'll do some more. It just kind of feels like, well, why am I doing it when nobody else is doing it? So, some thought to some metrics as we go here would be very worthwhile. I agree. Tricia? You're good.

Oh, I thought you were ready to say something. Okay. So should we move to number five? Are we in that? Everybody good with that?

Well, we should point out there are two recommendation fours. And so Yeah. Are we are we all gonna now just follow

the Four a.

Erroneous numbering system, which is fine with me. I just wanna make sure we all recognize that.

And this is Lauren Pulver with staff. I think it might be helpful to follow the spreadsheet that has four a, four b. So four b is the landscape plan provisions because there are errors in the numbering.

Are there two fours? Is that what you're saying? There's two fours. Okay. Did we can yeah. Alright.

That's 3 or $400,000 we'll get you. Yeah.

Okay. We're good to five? Move to five? Yes, Harold?

I suggest we this needs to be left to the water providers. One size doesn't fit all different watering times and requirements. It depends. And the water providers, I think, as Castle Rock brights up, I think they do a very good job of managing that. And the county, I can have a policy.

We wanna see responsible use and expect water providers to do something along that line, trying to get into time of day and all these other kinds of things, I think it's inappropriate because each district is different. And so I I think what we we should have, however, for new development that they that they adopt certain requirement for in their water plan, have a water sustainability plan be reviewed by the county staff. But the rest of it, I I think one size doesn't fit all. So I would strike it.

I would agree with Harold a 100%. My comments were the same on the bullets under rec five is, leave it to the water providers. Those details are not something that county policy would really dictate, but I agree with you that the county should have a policy to have some kind of water conservation planning associated with any approved development. Yes.

But are these ordinances aimed at the self providers in the county? My question. I mean or is this a countywide ordinance? Or is this just a ordinance that would apply to those people that are using Wells?

Do you have a sense of that?

I I don't. This is Lauren Polvorstaff. It it's written as it would apply countywide.

Yeah. Well, that's not I agree. That's not necessary at all.

Yeah. I mean, the the only way I I can make that connection to more in the county than what the water providers are already doing or what the municipalities are doing. Because those are the two places where irrigation ordinances show up. They either show up as an ordinance in a municipal code or it shows up in the rules and regulations of a special district. So those are the two avenues to do that.

My question was, does this seem to say, if you have multiple water providers, particularly, I'll say the three larger ones that have well developed ordinances and, you know, recommendation rules and regulations, how you go about doing this, do you push that toward water providers in the district, in the county that do not have any ordinances. And maybe you kind of find a common denominator, I mean, kind of the straightforward stuff and push that at least into that environment. And then that would also, if their new district would form, they would have a requirement to maybe integrate that in their service plan. But pushing an ordinance out into individual unincorporated home development, that looks I don't know if there's an appetite for the county to do that.

No. Well, I agree with you 100%. I think these recommendations that we've come up with. Yeah. Is. I'm just talking softly.

Okay. Okay. I'm just checking.

These recommendations that this commission comes up with should be to the county commission, and it should be really directed towards their planning efforts. What the what they have control over. I agree with you. We cannot dictate that Parker Water and Sanitation District adopt these time of day restrictions or whatever. I mean, it has no there's no authority to do that.

But what we can try to do is make recommendations that the county policy reflect when, deliberating on, new developments, and usually these are planned developments that they incorporate Colorado scape into the as a requirement for approving that development. Or like you say, as a service plan, if they're approving a new service plan, and it's gonna be and that district is gonna be providing water and sewer or whatever, that they would make that a requirement that the these kinds of conserve conservation measures are a condition of the approval. Those are the things the county has under its control.

Just one additional comment, Don. Individual well owners do have irrigation limits on their well permits themselves. So there's several different types of well permits, and there are restrictions on how much you can irrigate depending on the permit that you have from the state.

I was thinking if it was an exempt well that irrigation wasn't permitted. Is that correct?

Irrigation is permitted for a garden. So there's certain sizes of a garden, but you can't go flood irrigating your pasture, for instance, in an exempt well.

Yeah. Okay.

If you're a larger lot, like 35 acres or more, you can get a well permit that is exempt, but allows you to irrigate up to an acre. Okay. Most people do.

So so I mean, the the point is is that's that's already kinda self regulated in the state process. Yeah. Right? Yeah. Okay. Which is good. Alright. So six irrigation plan reviews. I'm sure this is gonna be as warmly adopted as the others. I I guess, you know, kinda in the theme of this, I mean, I'd ask I'd ask staff then is, following up on Evan's suggestion. I mean, how does some does this fit into the county's process for, managing, development, Or is this something that would have to be wedged in there? Is that a fair question?

Yeah. This is Lauren Pulver with staff.

I think you'll see there's a further recommendation about PD conservation requirements. And so that's certainly one area where these could be wrapped in or these requirements could be wrapped in. Service plans, the county doesn't currently have any requirements really on top of statutory requirements for a new service plan. So assuming it aligns with what the county is able to do per state statute, that's an area as well.

I would just suggest that number six flows into number five, back to what Harold was talking about, basically encouraging a review of irrigation in these new developments. Those two go together.

Okay. You good? So we're on seven now? Yeah, Harold.

I think this strikes home to something, I feel very strongly about. And I hope everyone agrees that this report misses the most important part of water sustainability in Douglas County, and that is reuse. It talks about reuse in the prior section, but when it gets to policy, it never mentions it. And and I look at most of our large water providers, Castle Rock, Parker, Highlands Ranch, we're building one, are getting into indirect or direct potable reuse. And it absolutely should be a driver for Douglas County on everything we do is the water we use to use to extinction and to have a system for recapturing it and supporting that.

And I start with with, number seven. The important things about water intensive land uses is not that they use a lot of water, it's how much do they consume. For example, an easy one is a car wash. A car wash that doesn't recycle its water is a bad thing for water. But one that does recapture the water and reuse it, get it back into the system and get it reused, that's a really good thing.

There are data centers I've been told. I haven't seen one yet, but I'm told there's data centers that need a lot of water coming through but give it all back. And, hospitals are classic with that. Classic hospitals are massive water users. They give it all back to the system after they do their washing and cleaning So therefore, I start with seven.

It goes all the way through that we want these water any water user, needs to be determined by how much they consume, and they must be connected to a reuse system. So a classic example, let let's say a hospital shouldn't be out somewhere where they we can't get the water back and reuse it. Classic. Because they'll be so all the way through, I would like that to be included that reuse is the key. Those of us that signed on to Wise agreed to use some of that water to extinction.

And, I look at the I look at the different systems that are being built. They're based on it. So I start with seven that it should be not by how much is required, but how much is consumed and not given back into the system. And those users must be able to connect and return.

Yeah. Ted, go ahead.

No. Thank you. I had a comment or observation on the prior discussion and the prior recommendation, but it was addressed. So thank you.

Okay. We we did see your hand, though. So

Yes. Thank you for

that. Yeah. So, I mean, I'll I'll I'll Harold, I'd I'd ask that, what I what I think I heard is you're trying to trying to set a context for, how do we integrate reuse into these development reviews and special uses. So not specifically, I mean, in recommendation seven, classifying water intensive land uses, I'm not sure that it wedges in there. And what I read from staff was, you know, there's already requires the staff the county zoning resolution already requires, certain commercial uses obtained service from a water provider.

So it's like it's covered. So am I missing the point? Harold? So, I mean, your conversation about, or comments about reuse, and I agree, right? I mean, it's just, it's hugely important. It's only mentioned in, I think, Chapter nine describes reuse. But it's really important to the water providers. We're all banking on that. Yes. So does that implement, do you think we should be putting that into recommendation seven, eight, nine? Or do you think we ought to wedge this into the conversation?

Well, I would include it seven, eight, 911, 1321, all the way through. Reuse is this is will be we have this wonderful groundwater that we're gonna be using it that we could use to extinction. By golly, let's use it to extinction, And that should just follow all the way through. We should have a policy statement upfront, and then as we go through, just weave it in. And and like like on seven, the definition is it what you don't even need to say reuse. It's just how much did they consume.

Yeah. So, I mean, recommendation seven, I mean, the county the county, if I understand correctly, zoning resolution would require those entities that are gonna have this special water use, like a greenhouse, nursery, car, washer, data center, to connect to a water provider, right? They're not allowed to own wells. So you want to extend that to say a water provider that is committed to developing and executing potable water reuse.

Thank you. Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Okay. We got there.

But but are there circumstances where

It takes size.

Well, I mean, where the county might permit a big data center out in the hinterland somewhere where it would be funded by maybe a deep well, a deep, Denver Basin well, but the county should have the authority to require that it be in closed loop system you know, consumes a minimum amount, you know, and recycles its water. So I I mean, there's probably some room for the county to have a policy here if that kind of thing would get permitted outside of the water providers' territories.

So kinda like we talked last time, we don't want policy that's too constraining. We want a policy that has some elbow room in it. Right?

Well, I'm always in favor of that, frankly. Well, yeah. I think we have to look at this from what the county can do and what they probably won't do. I mean, I agree with you. If the data center is proposed for within the Parker town limits and it's gonna be served by Parker Water, I mean, then it's up to Parker Water to make those requirements, it seems to me. But the county wouldn't have any role in Yeah.

I mean, that'd an inclusion agreement. Yeah. Yeah. So So back to the language, I mean, would say we would encourage people that are going to use these special uses to both find a water provider to support them. And that water provider preferably would be committed to developing total water reuse.

Don, I'd even be stronger.

Yes, I would say I agree.

Yeah. We probably we probably shouldn't be we probably shouldn't be

water user, you will connect to reuse.

Oh, okay.

Or you have a self sustaining reuse component.

Yeah.

I mean, recently, I've heard these proponents of the data centers give their case for current pending legislation. They just got killed, I think, in the last week. But, they claim that many of their facilities do have a completely closed loop water system and, really consumes very little. And I think the county would have the authority in issuing a permit for something like that to require it. And so I think our recommendation would be that they have a policy requiring that.

K.

But it could also say

You absorb it.

If it's done within a water provider territory, then it's up to the water provider to do that, I guess. And and maybe there, the the county does have a role to encourage Highlands Ranch and Parker And Castle Rock to do that. I think that you all probably would.

Yeah. Okay.

I guess an example would be a data center comes that is closed loop and it's water. We don't care where it goes. It's got some water and use it. However, if it you have one that consumes a lot of water, or needs water through it, then that would have to connect gotta be to connect to somebody with a renewable, you know, with a reclaiming system. Simple. We're not gonna have somebody draining our aquifer to evaporate water or use it. We're not gonna do that.

Yeah. I think I think I'd agree with that. The notion of, pulling water out of the aquifer for an evaporative cooling system doesn't feel too good at all. Okay. So I think, by my counting, are on to eight. And the comments I read from staff is this one probably just doesn't really we could eliminate that one. I'm just kinda saying no. You okay with that? Okay. Noni?

I I would come back on eight the same thing, that a mitigation section should specifically require use of infrastructure that provides either direct or indirect portable reuse. And a policy should be in place that does not allow development without a plan or ability significant development encourage without a plan or ability to connect to either portable or direct reuse. Don't that's gonna happen. Our commercial activity, which may require a lot of water but consume very little, can connect to a system for reuse is highly desirable for our county. So I I I think we can put that in there just very clearly. The minor this other mitigation is important, but it's minor. Reuse is major.

The thing that troubles me about recommendation eight is how it centers on this natural recharge, whatever that is, and whether it exceeds it or not. And that's not a known quantity in any development I've ever heard of. So and it's a big guess on how much natural precipitation recharges deep aquifers, for example.

Yeah.

So it just seems to make sense to remove recommendation eight completely.

Yeah. I I mean, I couldn't follow it. I You couldn't see how you apply that going forward to anything we do. I mean, I'm not calculating recharge on a regular basis. I don't know anybody that is, but maybe it's the folks that are consuming water from the confined aqua not confined. The I'm trying to think of, like, upper upper black squirrel designated rugby designated aqua person. Light light of that.

It it strikes me as probably something, and this is a big firm doing this report for us. They probably pulled this in from the Edwards Aquifer in Texas or the LA return to the sea program or whatever it is, but it doesn't seem to have any place in this in this Douglas County policy.

Yeah. I mean, staff noted it came from the integrating water use, water efficiency, and land use planning in the Interior West, which is a publication. I can't remember who does. Western Resources. Western Resources. Right. Yeah. Okay. So let's let's press ahead. Gray water program permanent.

Gray water is really reuse. So if you're doing a new development, all of your water should be collected and reused through your piping system. The only place it would apply is if somebody builds a, you know, an area where you're not in a water district in unincorporated Douglas County. And that would be really something that's tied into a building permit. Currently, you cannot put in a gray water system, at least that's my understanding, through your building permit, which seems kind of silly. Should be able to build a house and drain your washing machine out so you can water your garden.

Yeah. And I thought there was just a new state law that came into effect that as long as municipalities opt in, you know, that allows gray water reuse and new construction. And I think if you're not in a municipality, that same law would say you can use it if you're out wherever you are in county. So, I mean, it's there. Don't know if that's something we want to say or if it's something that's like we're not going to oppose or just.

Yeah, would recommend that Douglas County change their building permit so that a person could do a gray use system. That's what I would recommend.

We'll change that. We'll check that out.

It's very simple.

Okay.

And this is Lauren Polvor with staff referencing what Don was talking about. The state law did kind of flip to require opt out if you don't want to allow gray water and the county has not passed an ordinance to opt out. Therefore, we kind of are in that state of allowing gray water systems.

So we the water commission would recommend to the board of county commissioners to not opt out. Would it be fair? Stay Stay opted in. Yeah. Okay. That works?

Okay. I rewrite the whole section. We want reuse, including Greywater reuse. But I would start with the policy of the county that whatever that it's a requirement to connect to a close to what I call a closed loop system, an indirect or direct portable reuse system, if at all feasible. I never plan to get there.

In addition, you have the gray water, which is valuable. But think this number nine should be the more broad statement that it's the overall policy of Douglas County that if you're in any development, in any way possible, you connect to a system that has access to reuse. I think that's it's vital to our future.

K.

Yeah. I think that we had an application not long ago where they wanted to mine water out of the aquifer and then land apply it to to get through some type of CDPHE requirement. No. You can mine the aquifer and you can connect to a reuse system, you've got to do it.

K. We'll make sure that gets woven into the results, the recommendations. So we'll move on to 10, stormwater collection requirements. When I read the comments on staff from staff, it was essentially current statutory limitations for utilizing stormwater for beneficial use without state approval. There, there, it's not, it's not available at the moment.

But I don't know that there's, and people are encouraged that it's going to be available. So what I wrote was, we ought to ask Dominion what they're doing and what's going on, and if this is something that, you know, should go in the report or not.

Well done. Yeah. This is Evan Ella again. On that one, I mean, my my notes only show I would insert after that part where they say can be used for irrigation. Enable storm water collection that can be used for irrigation consistent with state law. I mean, they just have to be consistent with state law, and I think we'd be fine there.

K. I'm good with that.

One of the things that's a little off track, but it it well, it's consistent. Wet meadows work, you know, routing your storm water into wet meadows. I don't know how you put that in there, but that those are effective. The county should be in favor of helping people do that on their stormwater to run it through, irrigation, turn it into irrigation, but I don't know how you say that. You're

talking about, like, through a wetland to to, clean it quality wise before it gets discharged to the to the streams?

That's legal. Can route it across your land and irrigate before it goes into the river, and and that's okay. And I think we should encourage that to the extent we can.

But I again, I don't know how you say that.

Yeah. As long as it's consistent with state law. There's a whole statute.

And a lot of rights.

Well, yeah, that but it the state law has set out the conditions that you can do this. Yeah. And that's all you need, is it? Sure. We could encourage it or recommend that the board encourage it, but it has to be subject to the state law.

That developers be thoughtful about it and see if there's any opportunity that they can glean from that. Right? I mean, how you direct it, where it goes in the metals. I know I know the town of Aurora or city of Aurora was very cognizant of that on, how to get some value out of the out of the swarm water on its way out. Right? So

Yeah. And you're right. The Dominion is doing that. They have a current case to allow them to do more of it, I think. So, to the extent you can do it, consistent with the law, you know, it's it's should be encouraged.

Move to 12, bonus density zoning. We're on 11. I'm sorry. Okay. So I'll back up to 11.

So this one on our comment spreadsheet, we got comments from public works, about, Douglas County building, division. And I assume that they're the ones that manage building codes, Right? Saying that they follow International Plumbing Code. And, so what more needs to be said at this point in time? I mean, do we, want to tell the building building department that they need to be more aggressive with codes that conserve water?

Or are we comfortable that they're, they say they're probably thinking that way anyway, but they also think in terms of return on investment and value and so maybe not an appetite to really squeeze people to put in really high efficiency things if they can't see the value. I don't know, kind of how I saw it. Harold?

I I come back to reuse. In in my mind, from a water conservation standpoint, which you use in the in your toilets and facilities, we get back at the reuse anyway. So being too hard on these, I I I would leave it. If you're in a district with a water provider, let them decide, but, you know, within code. But it you know, what you use in the house or in the toilets and that kind of stuff comes right back into your sewer plant, back in the river, and we get it back. So it's a minor thing as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. Other comments? You good?

I don't know. I'm debating. I I'm really of the opinion that in a person's house, if they're willing to pay for extra water because they want a nice showerhead, they should be able to do that. So I would not tinker with this if it were me.

So they are replaceable, you know. Easy. Yeah.

That is what you use in the house is not a loss to the system. The enemy are things that remove things from the system. The fact you take your restrictor out of your shower so you can have a bigger shower, you're paying for it. You don't care. Exactly. But it's not a loss to the system. And our head, I think, needs to be around losses to the system.

I mean, I agree that Harold is right that if if you are in a if you're being provided water from a water provider and they are accomplishing a a reuse plan, it really doesn't matter how much water flushes through your particular house because other than you're gonna be paying for it. So there's an economic, you know, governor on the whole thing right there. But if the county is wanting to adopt a more strict code for, you know, the rest of the world, the rest of the county that's not being provide supplied by water providers, I don't know. I mean, if they're on a well, the amount of water you're talking about here as as compared to what is in the aquifer and is available to that well is just infinitesimal. I mean, it's just not much.

So I don't know. I I would I would take a hands off approach on this, but I'll defer to the rest of y'all on on this one. I don't care.

Yeah. I I would hands off is maybe kind of a a pretty good term because, I mean, what what we have to do is recommend that the Board of County Commissioners go to the building, the Public Works, and say, we think you should tighten up on your billing codes to be more conservation oriented. And I'm not sure everybody knows what that means. And to your point, is it is it in the in the bigger picture? Is that really where we wanna put emphasis? I I kind of I'm kind of for washing this one out myself.

Well, yeah, I I think it's just a matter of context. I mean, the these kinds of codes are important in a Denver water system where you've got, whatever it is, a million households. And if you conserve 2%, that's pretty big amount of water across the whole system. But if we're, you know, thinking of regulating this more dispersed dispersed development in Douglas County where people are individual are on individual wells, the amount it's just immaterial amount of water that this kind of a improvement makes. The outside irrigation improvements make a whole lot greater impact.

Yes. So outside municipalities, I'll say, where there's a development lot going on. Mean, Water, saw the indoor use numbers We're starting to see from last year, the average dropped below $4,000 into the $3,000 number. So that's that winter quarter average. And we look at that number and say, what's driving that?

It's the new homes, right? It's the new homes that are going in with low use toilets and nozzles and at least showerheads until it's quickly replaced. So it matters in an aggregate environment. But outside those big, I mean, that's 80% of waters in like those three municipalities. Anyway, you got enough to work on?

Are we striking? Or

Well

Yeah. The only the only issue with it being infinitesimal is that it's contrary to what we're saying, though. That we want people to be to conserve their water, to to to then tell them, well, you could take as long a shower as you want. We don't care how much water you use. That's just contrary. You know? We want people to be thinking about how they use their water all the time.

That's a good point.

So I think we ought to recommend it. If the board wants to take it out, take

it out.

I think we ought to recommend it.

I think several of these could be combined together just to have a recommendation on conservation in general. So several of these things could be combined, like 13 below, etcetera, etcetera.

And I mean, the recommendation would be to

ask Encourage.

Encourage and take a hard look. How was the last time they've been updated? What do we know today that we didn't know then? Can they be improved? And if so, we would encourage that. Right? We have evidence from Parker, from Castle Rock that

new development, the new installations that use the high efficiency, appliances, toilets, etcetera, conserve water.

Yeah. It

matters. Why would we not recommend that for new development?

Yeah. Well, I got that's the question. Does Parker Water require that? Have you adopted a national code, or do you have your own code that requires these things, or do you know?

I think so.

Yeah. Castle Rock has its own code that is a requirement above and beyond the national.

Beyond the national. Yes.

Yeah. And I'm not so sure developers aren't required to do that, in support of financing and loans and things. So

Well, and then there's probably not a lot of appliances available out there who that haven't already adopted a lot of these things.

Yeah. I think that's true.

So no matter what you wanna put in, you're gonna be you're gonna be putting this stuff in. But I I mean, I comments are right. I mean, we should be a little more consistent in encouraging water conservation. We should probably request that the county consider adoption or updating their plumbing code if they see room for improvement.

I think Trish's recommendation that we try and aggregate that stuff maybe into a conservation recommendation, if possible, if that will make it clearer and easier to understand and put it kind of all in one place. And the Commission's committed to it. I mean, we're clear about that. So, okay. I think we're on bonus density, right?

Which is Rec 12. And the comment from staff was this policy is no longer supported by the Board of County Commissioners. So that kind of I thought that one was easy to think about. That's like.

Can you repeat that? That

this this notion or policy concerning bonus density zoning is not something that the Board of County Commissioners, I'm not putting words in their mouth, is not interested in considering. So move on, right? 13.

Think 13 mister chairman, I think 13 is a is a critical one. I think it should be the overall policy for new PUD's If it is feasible, to connect to an existing system that can provide reuse, you have to connect either for the water or for the reuse. It's possible you could have a water system that doesn't have enough water to extend water service but could pick up your reuse for if you're going to be using wells, then it should be the policy that we foster both of those. It has to be written in such a way that it has to be feasible for the serving district to be able to take it on and, practical for the PUD to connect It meets those two standards. What we want to get away from is the circumstance where you have someone next to a developer next to a existing district that wants to use well water and land a plant, the example I just used.

That's just a waste of water. I understand as a developer, I can tell you it's much more profitable to do that than to connect to a big system. But our job is not to strictly look after the profit of of the developer. We're looking at water sustainability. So I think the policy on this should be if you apply for a PUD and you are near an existing water district, that also can take your return flows. If it's feasible to the district to serve you and practical to connect, you should be required to do it. And I think that should just be our policy.

Other comments?

Agree.

Yeah. To to me, this one fits under the promote. You know? We wanna promote, I think the county, what should promote new PUD's to connect where feasible, where possible. I mean, I think that's a given.

We'd rather have these new developments hooked into providers who have, you know, a nice portfolio of water. Presumably, if a PUD does connect to the new provider, they'll be donating water to the provider as well. So anyway, a piped system is preferred to unpiped, I guess. I did take a session to this item one though that says individual rainwater harvesting systems. I mean, they could be allowed, but I don't think they should be required. Right.

It's not allowed.

What?

You can't have an individual rain you can have a rain barrel, that's it.

Well, you can have a rain barrel.

You can a

rain barrel.

But and so I I I figured that's what they were meaning here with this language. But, well, again, the underlying thing is consistent with state law. But that kind of thing, you can't really require it's a very limited usefulness anyway. So

Yeah. I mean, if I'm thinking conservation requirements, I'm not thinking a rain barrel. I'm not thinking gray water. I'm not thinking open space to capture water that's gonna go down the river somewhere else. I mean, we're talking about landscape. We're talking about irrigation. We're talking about fixtures inside the house, low flow toilets, all that kind of stuff. I mean, it's I think there is a better list of things that we would think would be valuable and would want to see in a conservation plan for a planned unit development. I think it's safe to say. Agreed. K.

So maybe our approach should be to somehow rewrite, I don't know, a recommendation that would apply to PEDs. It would have all of those conservation approaches that we think are smart and recommended.

Yeah. I mean, this is this is just pretty casual bulleted list where if you go to a water provider, I mean, got a 108 page manual on water efficiency, right? So I think we would see a stronger promotion here of things that look like they'd really add value. Okay. 14.

So the comments back on this one from Parks and Building Grounds, that's a department, Parks and Building Grounds. You know, maybe you all had a chance to read this. My read was they were concerned about if you're going to try and regulate through tiers you can have irrigation and where you can't, that that can maybe be problematic. I am I thinking I'm reading that correctly?

Yeah. That's correct. Lauren Pilver with staff. Parks, I think to your point, Don, is concerned that who determines high value, and that might differ across the county in different communities.

Yeah. Because this recommendation was pointed directly at public parks, right?

Right.

And half lake fields and things like that. It felt to me like this one maybe should go away.

Evan, Ella again. I guess I would think I mean, it's not against principles to just recommend that the county departments follow whatever recommendations are adopted by the water commission I mean, by the, account commission the county commissioners. So I think that's gonna follow, but we certainly would want that. We wouldn't want the parks to be believing they have their own rules and they don't have to follow what the county policies are generally. So I

guess That would be policies that, direct water conservation. Well yeah. Right. So we we Water use, I should say.

So we should encourage that that or or maybe require that the county does follow suit with their own parks at some point. But I don't know. I just don't know how to say it. It's kinda odd the way they have it written here. And if you go to recommendation 15, for example, I mean, I think that's way too specific. I mean, it varies by location and the type of soil and everything. It's kind of up to the

Is it three cubic yards or five? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, it would be better to just say, yes. Soil amendments to improve soil water retention and, you know, that kind of thing is great. But to actually specify this standard, it seems a little odd to me. But

So I'm I'm I'm just kinda guessing, but if I if I'm in a parks and building grounds department And you start talking to me about, well, you know, are you doing everything you can to, like, pick up nonfunctional turf, make sure water is perfectly utilized, you know, all the ball fields are just green enough. My guess is they would, they would probably think in terms of like, yeah, we'd like to, you know, but we need to be enabled to do that. Right? I mean, you don't just go out and pick up perf. You know, you know, I mean, they need funds.

They need, they need money to, and resources to be able to do conservation things if it's going to be something different than what's there today. If they're building something new, you know, that's, we all like to build new because then we can do all all this stuff right from the very beginning, day one. But if it's something to modify, they probably need enabling to do that. So maybe this is a message to the county commissioners to say, think about these things too. Think about parks and recreation.

And, you know, they might need funding or technical support or things like that to do that. And we'd encourage you to think in those terms. I would say it's, you know, if you're promoting conservation, it's good to see it done. Right? It's good to see examples. It's good to see, you know, that's helpful when people can see the government and everybody else is already doing it.

It seems to me what we're what we should be what we are requesting, I guess, is that the county adopt this corporate culture. You know, that water conservation is what is done in the county, and that the county staff and the parks people are gonna do it the same way. I guess, as Clark, I mean, in Castle Rock, that's kinda how it goes. Right? The the city culture is water conservation.

Yeah. And and Castle Rock Water has offered to work with the county, you know, for all of its facilities and that are served by Castle Rock Water to help them figure out the conservation plan. This this particular one, though, by putting some specificity to it, it's one of those things that, again, tells the public that we're serious about this. We're not just tossing it out there and wanting you guys to do it and leave it up to the developers. We're going to require some of our own departments to step up here and and come and come with some specific plans.

I think I think that's a good message to have. If it's no more than a message from this body to that body.

Oh, I think that's a good idea.

K.

That's why I wouldn't recommend we strike it if we need to just

work it don't know that we need to rework it a whole lot.

Let them rework it. K. Any more comments on that one? Soil amendment, number 15. This one kinda felt odd to me to rise to the level of a county water plan, but, I mean, anybody that's doing landscaping these days know amendment's good, lack of amendment's bad.

And if you're in a municipality, there might be somebody looking over your shoulder. So I just didn't think this added much to the report myself. K. Well, that one was easy.

You talk about the soil amendment.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I certainly need you know, where individual water providers, I. E, Casserock already have their own, I think they need to be allowed to keep their own.

Yeah. Yeah. I think so too. Oh, Ted has his hand up. Okay, Ted.

Hey. Thanks very much. Yeah. Just a minor clarification on that. Staff did clarify in their responses that that is a standard operating procedure. So I know it was going to be omitted anyway, but, it is an SOP by staff. So it's it's already covered.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure.

Rain barrels, number 16. So kinda old news. Right? People that people wanna do it. I mean, it's it's available to them. I don't know anybody that's banking on rain barrels really doing a lot to conserve water, but it helps. I suppose every little bit helps.

I don't know. I think what the recommendation says is that you have some kind of a county sponsored program to enable people to get these things. I mean, does do our water providers do this? Does Castle Rock do this? Does

We don't. Parker do this?

No. Islands Ranch, we don't know.

Don't like the idea of being involved with stagnant water.

They are mosquito breeders.

It's not much better. You know? It's kinda like gray water. Right? So I I I don't know. I'd vote to kinda deemphasize this as to, yeah. Sure. For it. But

I think I gotta take this out.

Just take it out?

I think, I I tend to agree. Emphasizing the rain barrels is not as important, but I do think the county should have a strategy, particularly those in the rural areas and individual wells, for educating and supporting appropriate use of stormwater, runoff water, and rainwater to the extent they can legally on their property. I think the county can do that. But I I'm I'm with Castle Rock. Rain barrels doesn't amount to much unless it's part of an overall plan for use.

Some of these rural rural homes can do it. You can get a couple rain barrels. Can actually, when when we went through and got the law changed to allow for pilot programs, I think there are some things that that people and individual wells can do. I think the county can promote that.

Just just a comment, Harold. If you have 35 acres or more, you can collect all the water off your primary residence.

I thought I knew there was some I've forgotten what it was.

It's legal now. It's senate bill. Yeah.

It's

got a 19 in it.

When we went through the rainwater harvesting, which is what we're relying on, they did allow for raw water users on a permit to do some things. I think the county could really help some folks with that.

Well, so the question is, do we have this as a recommendation that the county uses some of its resources to provide a discount, or do we include this into our overall education of on conservation options?

I would I would rather see I would rather see county resources go to turf removal than rain barrels.

I I I tend to agree. Not the rain barrels, but I do think county resources should focus on those on rural water, the rights they can use for rainwater, those to to

to use the Oh, speaking of turf, right turf replacement program is next. So apparently, the county is donating $25,000 to South Metro Water Supply Authority. South Metro Water Supply Authority is kind of that central unit that is managing turf water turf replacement rebates within those member utilities. I don't know that it's a big number. I know Castle Rock just came out, and they said they're going to do $750,000, in turf removal rebates at three fifteen square foot.

Three and a quarter.

Three and a quarter. Okay. That's a that's a pretty good number. So, I mean, this is this is one that that's very tangible. I mean, it's it's better if you don't put the turf in in the first place. But if it's there, this is certainly a way to try and, you know, manage and pull water consumption back. So how do we how do we couch this in the in the program?

Unless the county's gonna put some money behind it, do you need to?

I I'm sorry.

Unless the county is gonna actually put some money behind replacing it. I don't know how it's up to each individual provider, I think, and community.

And it it also seems if the I mean, it's one thing to have a program, but then you gotta manage it, and you gotta have people go out and do things and, you know, go out and measure and and take pictures and all that. I think it would be better for the county to to, if you will, subsidize the existing water providers that have such programs. Because whether it comes out of, you know, from a well, a person that's using well water to irrigate their lawn or whether it's coming from, an existing provider, still water that's or it's still sod that's getting removed overall in the county. And and, so why not just subsidize the existing programs that are already in place up and running? So I don't think the county ought to develop its own program.

Yeah. I'd agree with that.

But the county probably should look at if it has its own parks where turf replacement makes sense that may not be provided water through a water supplier. I don't know if there are. Are there any parks that are more rural on wells?

What about what about schools?

Or schools. Yeah.

Are schools county buildings? No. No. No. They're their own building. Yeah.

Certainly, you have county open space, but nobody irrigates the open space. And I don't know many rural owners with turf either. It's not a thing.

Not a thing. Yeah. So, I mean, we would tell the county commissioners then, if there's a way that you see or a way that's brought forward for you to help, other entities that are promoting and working on turf replacement, please do so. And money helps. I mean, it's expensive to do this.

And it's hard. You know, you gotta spend between $5 and $10 a square foot to get, a good turf removal project underway and move to more Colorado scapers, air escape, and you can easily spend twice that. So it's a lot of money. So every bit helps, I think. So we leave it at that.

Does that sound good? Maybe a tax deduction off your property tax. Pick up your turf and get a thousand dollar credit, then that would be nice. Nineteen oh, 18. I'm sorry.

County buildings. We kinda talked about this before with building parks and building grounds. So this is county buildings per se, and discussing, you know, like, lead kind of, protocols, things like that. So any comments people would like to make on this? Oh, Mickey?

Just that from my own experience, complete compliance with lead is super can be super, super expensive. So Yes. Just in maybe just the concept of looking for conservation and sustainability as opposed to direct requirement and compliance.

And if I can add this

is Lauren Polvor with staff.

I think this relates to the parks discussion as well. The county is working through implementing regulations that comply with state statute to limit nonfunctional turf. So that will apply to installation across our county owned facilities. So that might speak to some of

your thoughts here as well.

Yeah. I don't know why you couldn't combine this with the parks one. So we're talking about county facilities.

Yeah. The the language used, though, I mean, new construction of new buildings, fine. Maybe pursue that lead, but to upgrade existing buildings to Massly, that's hugely expensive. I mean, my god. I don't know that we should recommend that.

That's too strong. I I think it they just need to comply with all of these water rec recommendations.

Yeah. Just

want to work.

So And focus on water recommendation. I I really don't wanna lead's expensive to get certified. We don't wanna push the county into doing that at all. So I would take that whole lead thing out, you know, the best practices, best commercial practices, I think, is better language.

Yeah. And we could combine that into parks, building grounds, and buildings. Right. Okay?

Can I add a point here? Yes, Thank you. So, yeah, just an earlier point about six recommendations back that the the county that staff is in the process of updating the code to account for the 2024 international plumbing code provisions. So, a lot of the use and conservation measures that this recommendation strives to achieve would be achieved through the adoption of the IPC. It's really kind of the best practice. So

Okay. Do you again understand that? Yep. Okay. Alright. So we're good. 19, County grounds and infrastructure. This has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I think there was a comment from the was it the parks? Parks people.

There's no county golf courses. But as a sidebar conversation, did ask, way back when on, asked Bill from LRE about, we have the water consumption for all the water providers. We have a calculation to come up with all the individual wells, but we do not have a consumption number for exempt well or nonexempt wells in the county. And that's still kind of a number, I think, I'd like to see because I think that would be golf courses and other types of things. And that's a fairly big number.

I'd like to see that. But county, I mean, how do you all feel about this one? It's just kind of a list of bullets of of certain things. Are these worthwhile to kind of flesh out and and recommend to the county commissioners? Or what do we how do we feel about this one? Yeah. Harold?

Mister chairman, I think it's great to be mentioned, but it's too specific. I I we can't be telling the county they get water twice a you know, the the county is in a water district, that's the water district responsibility to work with the county. And so I I think that the words are good, the concepts are good, but I I don't think I'd get down to this level of detail. You know, if, you know, if the county has assets in our water district, we tell them when they water if they need to, and and Castle Rock does the same. So I think, I I think we just trust the county to do the right thing with their assets.

Trust the county. Yeah.

Again, this ought to be combined with those those others.

Yeah. The conservation. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I would I you know, expanding Purple Pipe infrastructure, promoting that, I mean, don't agree with that. Maybe there's some situations that it makes sense, but for the most part, to Harold's theme today, we'd rather do portable water reuse and reuse it multiple times. So, wash vehicles at facilities with recirculator.

I mean, you're right. This is just way down in the weeds compared to all the other things we're trying to get get across to the county commissioner. So so that one can use some work. Right? Using education and social media, I'm not sure who would be against that. That's always a question of what resources do you wanna use, how much do you wanna put in it, and can we can we improve what's going on now? I guess that's the question. Harold?

Excuse me. Has the megaphone. It has a microphone. They're great at promoting new water sustainable ideas and what the county is doing. This too much might go to how great the county is rather than what how we need to educate our people. And so I would focus a little bit more on a really good end of social media. They've got some good PR folks at the county. Yeah. Work on educating people how you use water better. And trust the people do the right thing if you give the right information. I think it's great great to be in there. The county has an affirmative duty to help its residents understand water sustainability and how to live in a more sustainable manner.

So I would I would translate that to the water commission's all in on this one. And you do have an opportunity. I mean, 400 and some thousand residents in the county. So, I mean, you can maybe have a chance to do some good with that. So any other comments?

Probably one bullet that should go here is what we talked about earlier, which is providing educational information to rural water users in the county about what their opportunities are to reuse their precipitation and so forth.

Don, this is James.

I'd just add. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead, James.

Go ahead,

James. I was just gonna say I I just, add that the specific forums and the intended purpose, whether it's legislation or funding or regional supply coordination or whatever it is, you know, be spelled out here so that it's not just a generic, hey, everybody about water. It it's like, here here are the places we're gonna identify we've identified for that to occur.

K. Thank you. 20? Right. 20 B. Oh, yeah, 20 B. Okay. Participation in regional and state forums. Staff said they recommend that we keep this one. I mean, it specifically talked about Water Congress and CWCB Metro Roundtable.

Those are things staff's doing already. So I guess we'd want maybe to affirm with the county commissioners that we think that's valuable. Right? We can do that. Right? So okay. That was easy. '21, update twenty twenty twenty forty comprehensive plan. That seemed like a kind of a, you know, okay, commissioner, you need to update your plan. I'm not quite sure how that how that would go to them. Harold?

Harold Smith, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that the focus, large focus of the 2040 land use plan be to connect to reuse systems, start that as an overall. Further, it should discourage planned development using strictly non tributary water with systems that cannot connect to a larger program for renewable water. Further planned development based on non tributary water should not be allowed to use the Denver or the Dawson water supplies. New development should be in the Arapaho or Roomy Fox Hills, but not in the Denver or the Dawson.

We've got to protect that for the rural users. Getting earlier that put in a commercial plant with a 1,000 horsepower drive on the motor, you know, on the well versus five horsepower that the resident has, you know, where the water is going. So we should think any planned development should be out of those two aquifers. Anyway, those are my recommendations to be included.

Harold, I want to agree with those recommendations, but not just here, okay? So not just in this Recommend 21, encouraging this in the comprehensive plan. I think those points are the salient points that need to be brought forward as the primary recommendations. We have a lot of recommendations in here that are good and interesting, but those are the key points you just made. Yeah,

I would agree that it seemed, it feels to me like they should be

Up in the front.

In the

Discussed first.

Up and discussed first and telling them that, I guess we could say we feel strong enough about these recommendations and we think you ought to give consideration to implementing these the master plan, not just in zoning resolutions or other ordinances or things like that. But get to the top and get to the big plan. Because I think I heard in the last presentation that they've got kind of a duty to follow that comprehensive master plan. Right? Is that correct? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So we almost need, like you're saying, an executive summary to chapter 10 that says, this is what's most important right off the bat.

And then you can additional recommendations.

Fall into these other specific ones. Yes. Yeah.

We're down to I think we're down to twenty two and twenty three. We're only about four minutes over so far, so we've actually done pretty good today. Give ourselves a little pat on the back for that. I think these kind of go together. I mean, supporting consolidation, partnering with providers.

I mean, this is intimating that there's some kind of relationship between the County Commissioners and the water providers. And we happen to know that the County Commissioners met with the water, with the three, Highlands Ranch, Parker and Castle Rock, I don't know, weeks ago or so, maybe four weeks ago. Yeah, about a month or so ago, specifically to talk about consolidation to kind of get the county commissioners wanted to get the view of those water managers on what how do they think about it and what can be done. So I think the notion of consolidation, I mean, the engineering people would say, well, you know, economy of scale, of course it makes sense. I sent a note to staff, it was academic work that said that there's kind of a break point at 20000 users.

We're below that costs and compliance and all kinds of things really tail off. Get to 20,000 is kind of, I won't say a minimum, but is an ideal number, 20,000 or more. Everything starts to really kind of line out. So from an engineering my point is from an engineering perspective, of course, I mean, it's scale, it's more pipes serving a pipe serving more people, those kinds of things. From a business perspective, it's really hard.

You know, how do you consolidate these individual entities? They already have their own asset bases. There's a, you know, a connection to the community. Is the community so many have a voice after that? Can consolidations can you really articulate, you know, the the the vision, the value add, how that's going to work?

So, I'm I'm not sure. I mean, other than supporting and encouraging if, what would, what we would want in the plan. I mean, I don't know that we want to tell the commissioners that we think it's really important that they go out and figure out how to consolidate all these, these water providers. I don't know that that's something we wanna do. So that's my thinking anyway.

This meeting, this discussion of consolidation, was that to consider consolidating the three big suppliers? Or is this to consider consolidating some of the little districts into one or more one of the or other of the three

I mean, the the thinking is that the that there are quite a bit smaller water providers that just simply don't have the assets. Okay. I would say, generally think of ones that are on aquifers and have a wastewater treatment plant, a little water treatment plant. So what are they going to do for renewable water? I think that's the big, that's the elephant, right?

Is, you know, would consolidation enable getting renewable water supplies, which I think we generally say something we'd really like to see us be able to do as a county, is that gonna enable that, in a in a in a more value added way. So Tricia.

The recommendation would be to consolidate smaller districts into the big the big existing districts.

I I think the recommendation is to is to evaluate it.

Well, okay. Yeah. Right.

Right? Yeah. It's not to do But

we're not evaluating the merger of Parker and Highlands Ranch? No.

No. I don't think so.

Okay. That's why I didn't understand. Which one are we talking about?

I think this concern came from I mean, when we first went out with the the survey data to all the providers, some of the really small providers aren't even in a position where they can even respond at all. And there's concern

about what

their what the future holds for them.

Tricia? So related to that same comment is discouraging developments in new districts. Because I personally know of one that is not public yet, a developer that wants to do a water district because he doesn't want to connect to a municipal system. So those kinds of small water districts need to be discouraged and not allowed. And the county has that ability to say, no.

You know, you can't develop here in this situation unless you're connecting back into a municipal system. Yeah. The use of groundwater and creation of more small districts should be discouraged.

So do we do we have that in here? Do you think? I don't think we ever really say that in the no. We don't say that in here. Okay. So

Some of that also, mister chairman, falls into the 2040 plan. If we're saying you must connect, that also would go directly at that issue. The others there's two points to consolidation, think. I agree with what they're saying. We need to consolidate.

But there's relationship with the residents, the distribution, and there's the water supply. I don't know how you separate those two thought trains, but we've got to consolidate the water supply. Giving up local control of your residents and fees, that's a tougher issue. But we need bigger districts to bring in bigger projects to get more water, renewable water into this county, and that's a problem. And I don't know we I'm not sure how we get there, but I think in my mind, if we can separate the water supply from the distribution, that may be one way of looking at it. Just a thought.

Yeah. I mean, this overarching vision, I I, did a little research on a on consolidation in Des Moines, Iowa, where they had a central central part of Des Moines, they had all these, districts built up around them. I think there's like eight different ones around in the county. And they went through a consolidation process and consolidated all of them. It took two years.

They didn't do the distribution. All that stuff kind of all that bolts and stuff on the ground. It was all about being able to manage capacity in a much more efficient way. Rather than everybody having excess capacity, you had excess capacity within the consolidated entity. Right? And so it was much more efficient. So they could see that. I mean, the point was you, you get, you get to, you got to have the, the, the entities that you're talking about maybe consolidate. I mean, they got to see way a forward that's going to make sense and it's going to be technological possible. I mean, it's going to bend, benefit everybody.

So it's hard. From an engineering perspective, one would be better. Right? One big entity would be be like Douglas County Water, like Denver Water, but, you know, we're a long ways away from that. So I have I have some more information I'll bring to the council on consolidation. It's something I've been trying to look at pretty hard. As far as what's in the report, are we okay with what's there? I mean, there's a there's a can it feels like a consensus to me that we think they the county commissioners ought to be thinking about this and looking at it and finding ways forward and shouldn't surprise them.

This is Lauren Pulver with staff. We have also asked the consultants to focus a robust conversation with our focus groups, particularly our water provider focus group on consolidation as well. So that might further build out that recommendation.

So Don, I assume there'll be a rewrite of this chapter, and we'll be able to take a look at the rewrite.

Lauren Polvor with Staff Again.

Because the next question is when?

We are so as I mentioned, we're bringing the recommendations also to our focus groups. So throughout April, they'll be reviewed by focus groups. So we'll be also incorporating some feedback we get through that process. And ultimately, the recommendations will be brought to the board to kind of make a final decision

on what they want to include in the plan.

Would be in May.

That's May, right?

So the plan is to bring back revisions to the chapters you all have seen so far in April. And Will will be here to lead that conversation. And then in May, we should have a full rewrite of the plan that will go to you and to the Board of County Commissioners before we start broader public outreach.

Carol?

Mr. Chairman and Lauren, I think you're all doing a good job. But the one area I for one am very uncomfortable with is that section is at seven with the water supplies where they talk about all this excess water. We gave them good advice, I think, about toning that down, trying to put it in perspective that it's overstating. That's the only one I'm feeling uncomfortable with. I'd love to see a rewrite or at least a draft rewrite or something like that before it gets too published because I for one think it missed the mark quite a ways.

I think there'll be further discussions on the groundwater study and the water provider users group as well, if that makes you feel a little better. Okay. I think we're done. Anybody else got any more comments or, good session? I think we ground through it.

Good job, mister chairman.

Oh, Will. Yes.

For it, but not encourage it. Because when you take your effluent and put it on something, you get one use. You put it in a system like Castle Rock, they're probably getting two, three, and four uses out of it as it recovers. So I for one would say, yeah, that's okay, but we'd really rather get it into a municipal system that reuses it to extinction.

Yeah. I think that's fair. I don't know. My opinion is I would always opt for potable water reuse. But that does take resources, right? So those resources aren't going be available everywhere. They're not going to have people aren't going to have the capital for those kind of resources. So certainly, potable reuse as an option where potable is not possible is yes, we'd like to see that. That's better than no reuse, right? It's absolutely better than no reuse.

Yeah.

Where we are with those golf courses. But if a golf course came in today, to my belief, and we want to take your effluent, put it on a golf course, I'd say no, Not if we have an option. And so I think that to my that that that I think that is important if you have no other use for it, but I certainly wouldn't encourage it. Yeah.

Is that clear? Does that work? Yep. Yep. Okay. Alright. Do we need a motion to adjourn? I don't think we do, do we? Just move. We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody.