Water Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Seven out ten. Okay. Great. So we'll go ahead and get the meeting started. We got a got a lot of work here this afternoon. So the good news is I've been told that the planning commission isn't coming in behind us. So we can stay here till six, 07:00 tonight if we if we desire. So but that does give us a little elbow room, which which is good because there's a lot of material to cover. So we'll start with, roll call and start with, Tricia down there.

De Bernhardt present.

Clark Hamilton here. Don Langley here.

Jim Morris here.

James Echland here.

Harold Sputnik's here.

And Roger's online. Correct?

Roger Hudson here. Alright.

Great. Sean Connor here. Oh, there's Sean. Great. So Evan is the only missing person. And Nikki. Evan and Nikki. Okay. Can you nominate people when they're not here to do things?

We were in the agenda.

We'll see. Oh, okay. So first item of business is we have minutes to approve. We have minutes from we had two meetings since this one, so March 23, and then the meeting meeting minutes from March 30. So does anybody have any amendments or changes they'd like to make to either of those sets of minutes?

Harold. Mister chairman, have a suggested clarification to the March 30 minutes. At the second paragraph, we talk about some of the things we that we had discussed and asked the consultants to consider emphasis on reuse, but we also asked them to consider protection of the upper reservoirs, particularly the Denver Dawson. There was a discussion, should we should we have high production wells in those? Because it might be draining water away from the rural users.

It's not a request for decision as much as it was a consideration.

Okay. I'm not I'm not sure your microphone's on. Is it?

I'm sorry? Oh, yeah.

It is.

It was on.

I thought Okay. Alright. We'll just need you a little closer then. So do you have do you have text that you would like to put in there? Words you'd like to put in there? Or would like you'd like this amended to say?

I move the amended minutes.

Okay. And the amendment would say that we also discussed protection of aquifers. I'm not quite sure. Maybe you have to go through that quickly again. Tricia seems to understand.

Tricia Bernhardt, I believe what Harold is saying is that we had discussed protection of the upper aquifers being the Dawson and the Denver aquifers, and the issue related to rural water users and needing to make sure that they had continued access to the Dawson and the Denver Aquifers formations.

Those were both discussions that we had. Yeah. You got that? Yep. Okay. I'm good with that.

I'll second it.

Alright. So we have a second on the amendment. So we have a minute as amended. Any other comments on the minutes? We have a motion to approve the minutes. Second by James. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Good

put on the website for you all to take a look at. Are there any comments that anybody would like to make to one of any of these specific referral items? But they're all pretty straightforward. No comments? K. Let the record show we have no comments on that. Correct? So first action item is, officer election. So, should I turn that over to you to do that? Or

Sure. This is Lauren Polvor with staff. So as you all know, with Jack's departure, we do need to elect, a chair and vice chair. Don's been graciously serving, as interim. But so in the past, we've I guess last time, we kinda just said informal, if you have nominations, and then we can take a vote. If that all works for everyone, we can proceed with that process.

I think Don's done a great job filling in for Jack. I would nominate Don to be chair. Thank you.

Would second the

nomination for Don.

So nobody else wants it, do they? Nope.

Do you want it done?

You know, I'm fine with carrying on. I really am. So, I mean, we're at a really important juncture here, and we're really, you know, getting close to the end. So, yeah, I'm fine with pushing this thing along for a while. No problem here.

Yeah. I'd like to nominate Evan Ella as vice chair. Second. I I second that too.

Third time. Doesn't he have to make a stump speech?

Say something, though. I won't say anything.

He didn't run from the room.

So Evan's secret power, I don't know if you all know this, but, he's all besides being an attorney, he's also a geohydrologist. I hope you all knew that. But so he has a secret power that's really helpful. Okay.

You all couldn't hear that, but our legal advice was if no one has any opposition to that, we can nominate our chair and vice chair by consensus.

Acclamation?

Yeah. This is Chris Pratt. Just to be clear, so what we're saying is if there's no other candidates nominated for chair or vice chair, it's simply by consent they are so appointed.

Okay. Press ahead. Thank you for, your confidence. I'll try and try and do a good job. Now we move into the fun stuff. So, right, we're into, the water plan update. So this is another update. We've had a couple, focus group sessions with well owners and water providers. So, lots happened, and, we'll let we'll kinda walk us through this.

Good afternoon, everybody. So this afternoon, we will discuss the interim draft. I'll give you an overview of the things we wanted to discuss this afternoon. First, we had a second round of focus group meetings, and that occurred on Friday. So we have now gotten through two rounds of focus group meetings.

I want to bring back some of the feedback that we heard from those meetings. Very important feedback, so good stuff. And then I'll go over with you what the what we've done for the water provider surveys and discuss the process there. And then we'll dig into a review of the interim draft plan. And, there's some of the chapters you all have reviewed already, and so we've revised those and are now looking for some more feedback on those.

And then we'll end up with the next steps, from here on out. Okay. Okay. We had the, as I said, the second group meetings on Friday, and, Ted Hyde is going to walk us through that those, that that feedback that we received. Ted Hyde with Michael Baker International.

Will, thank you. Are the slides available?

I I got the first one up for you.

Okay. I'm not able to see that. Are you intending to share your screen? Are you able to share your screen?

Yeah. We're we're just checking on that. Working on it.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

Is it us or him? Is

Webex? Is it the Webex?

And Lauren and Will, as a backup, if that doesn't work, I if you give me a minute, I can pull up the deck that we sent to Lauren earlier today.

Okay.

Why don't you go ahead and work on pulling that up, and we'll see who gets it up first here.

Okay.

So are we making an adjustment here? Or okay.

Okay. I've got the deck here. If you want me to go off these or any success there?

Yeah. Why don't you go ahead, Ted? We've got growth management and long term supply as a topic.

Okay. Okay. Very good. Alright. And, Will, I'll just tell you when I'm moving on to the next slide so that you can, adjust accordingly on your end.

Okay.

Okay. Okay. So, yeah, as as was shared, so we had three focus groups just this past Friday. A lot of good conversations, a lot of good insights and input that I think will carry forward as we revise the draft plan for your review, later in May and then going out to the public in in June. So, just had a couple of days to kind of distill some of the main insights and thoughts that came through.

So we're still still refining this, but, this is a a snapshot of some of the things we heard. And, was talking to Lauren after the session and for you, the water commission members there, I think what was what was great for me anyway, I thought, was that a lot of what we heard, has been very affirming as it relates to, our conversations with you today and and what you've articulated or some of the key considerations and concerns for the county as it relates to the plan. So so I'll dive into it here. So growth management and long term supply, we had discussions about measures that the different focus groups felt might be important or perhaps most important to sustaining a long term water supply. And there was support for, you know, what we've identified as, and as the comprehensive plan speaks to, priority growth areas and really the idea that, you know, development continued development is coming to Adams County, and that guiding yeah.

Can you hold up for just a second? A question.

You start, could you give us a little summary of of the three groups that you met with? Who Yeah. Were on those groups? Okay. How many people were there until we get a a little sense of who you talked to before you start giving us what they said?

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So we met with three groups. We met with, started off with a developers group, and there were three individuals there from different developers throughout the county.

The second group we met with was, a series of private well owners, in the county, and I believe there were about half a dozen individuals there. And the third group we met with was and it was the most robust group in terms of attendance. It was the water providers, water suppliers in the county. And in each case, we did a very it was a very similar format where we provided them some information to relates to the plan and kind of where the plan currently is in its development. And then we ran them through a series of of questions related really focused on two things, the chapter 10 recommendations.

And in the case of the suppliers group specifically, we'll let a discussion around some of the water management strategies in in chapter nine. So

Okay. It's kind of

a Thank you. But There

were Yeah.

There were 26 water providers. 26? Yeah. Related turnout. Yeah. Yeah. For the water providers.

Yeah. So, yeah, so generally, a recognition that with priority growth areas in the in the county that, in in relation to long term water supply management, there are benefits and there's good logic in, if you will, steering the majority of future growth, to areas that can readily be served by existing providers, and notably, providers who are able to practice, and execute on reuse or using water to extinction, which is something I know we've talked about with you. And then really looking to groundwater as a finite resource, I think the thought came through that groundwater is there. Groundwater will continue to be used, but it should be treated and thought of as a as a limited reserve and not not as a primary up to 2015 and beyond, not as a primary long term water source that, should continue to be tapped with the majority of that future growth pressure. Demand reduction strategies, and this this really came through, and it's something we've talked about.

You think about the various different types of reduction strategies, whether they be indoor or outdoor, commercial, residential. It came through again and again that reducing demand via outdoor irrigation regardless of property type, and often through the application of landscaping is a more important strategy than, in this case, than than lot size reduction, which you know was an initial recommendation that we're we're steering away from. And then in terms of long term policies, there was discussion around it it's it is good. There is merit that we are thinking up to 2050. But in the final development of the plan, thought should be given to how these policies can extend beyond 2050, to really ensure long term resilience of the the water supply.

Okay. How should the next question was really related to just that and thinking about, what did we say, 150, 160,000 estimated new residents coming to Douglas County over the the build out horizon. How should that new development protect long term sustainability, regardless of whether that's occurring in the urban or more rural areas of the county? Now this this bullet point here, renewable water access, we we've talked a lot about this. It was a main topic of discussion at the last water commission meeting that those new developments, the certainly, the majority of them anyway should demonstrate renewable water supply or access to renewable water supply to reduce reliance, on that groundwater, on aquifers, and the, the creation of new new wells.

This next point, equity and hydrological risk. New development using wells, some, I think this was primarily coming from the well owners focus group, that may increase or carry certain risks for existing well owners, both financially and hydrologically. They may be as as more demand is potentially put on groundwater resources on aquifers for those already tapping into those sources, it potentially increases their risk in having to drill a new well, more so running out of the resource. Okay. And and in terms of thinking about future development that will be growing going in on the ground and staff's review of development applications as they come in, we asked for their requirements or recommendations that are really key to sustaining a long term water supply?

And it really came through from the developers, focus group. Even though there were only three there, they had a lot of good insights, and they were certainly, I think, of and accommodating of conservation based practices as part of of the development review process. But they said, you know, it it'll be, I think, most effective if a kind of more flexible menu based approach to conservation measures can be taken, versus over, versus, like, rigid mandates where you said, okay. You absolutely unequivocally have to meet these 12 conditions regardless of what your development is, where it is, what the indoor uses look like, what outdoor landscaping looks like. Much more in favor of that kind of flexible menu based approach.

Focusing on outdoor and recycled water, we we we I mentioned this in a previous slide, but a feeling that the biggest savings, is gonna come from the management of outdoor use or irrigation. And then, Harold, to your really good points at the last commission meeting, that capacity to use reuse water and using it to extinction. It's a lot of good discussion about how we just can't afford to be practicing single use, and, using it to extinction is is absolutely the way to go. Implementation challenges. Stormwater collection and graywater reuse concepts.

I think there's generally support among the focus groups for this, but, there were there were there was good discussion and and some concerns around both the regulatory hurdles associated with that, especially the gray water systems, and and what may be the maintenance issues, long term maintenance issues and constraints as it relates to that, equipment and infrastructure. Then cost and affordability, additional Water Smart requirements outdoor and indoor, could potentially increase housing costs. So, this came through the development group that, you know, if if there is if there are conditions or requirements placed on new development as it relates to water conservation, although that is good, we need to be mindful of the relationship between those requirements and how it could potentially increase costs on new housing units, which are already very expensive in Douglas County on median and not just Douglas County and other metro area counties counties only becoming more expensive. So how do we ensure that, Water Smart measures do not, make make housing stock, further out of reach for a lot of people? Okay.

Outdoor water use, landscaping and irrigation. A lot of good discussion around this. Which landscaping and irrigation measures are most important to sustaining the long term supply? We talk we've talked about this, and it it really came through. But limiting that high water turf, I don't think any of us would say it's it's going away in five years, and it's gonna stay away.

That's just not the reality. But I think as we, get closer to a final set of recommendations and think about execution of this water plan, reducing and minimizing that high water use turf, and expanding the application of drought tolerant plants is is the order of the day. And I know the county already has a lot of good things in practice, but continuing to do that and building on that. You know, as landscaping plans come through and as the county implements its own own projects, adhering to the principles of of hydrozoning, which supports more targeted efficient irrigation, that reduces runoff and evaporation so that you're grouping, types of plants requiring similar levels of irrigation together on properties so that you can be more efficient about your your watering. Enforceable standards for development.

Using water efficient equipment, and support from reviews by WaterSmart, certified landscaping professionals. So making sure that more often than not, when landscaping is going in, let's say, through a PUD and as part of a, a new development, a lot of the if not all of the equipment being used on-site is water smart. And as resources allow, incorporating certified landscape professionals into those processes so that a kind of peer review is taking place and they can say yes. In terms of water conservation, we are we are doing it right. Soil amendment like biochar to improving moisture retention, helping reduce irrigation demand effectively, encouraging use of those amendments in as part of irrigation recommendations or requirements, given that we live in such an arid climate that on average only seems to be getting hotter where evaporation is more rapid.

K. Six. Will, are you on slide six now? How can landscaping and irrigation practices?

Yes. That's it.

Thank you. So proactive design influence. Really, we we've talked about it, but locking in water wise landscaping is really kind of a standard operating procedures for new developments in Douglas County. So like I said, the county is to be recognized for a lot of the efforts it it has taken to date and things that continues to do, like conversion of previously grass fields to a synthetic turf. But but really making that ensuring that as part of this water plan, that really is a standard operating procedure as as resources allow.

Equity and consistency. There was a point that in conservation rules are are good, but they must be applied fairly by staff and be perceived as being applied fairly by staff in the county to avoid any perception that specific communities, are being targeted, or allowing for, evasion from the the rules and regulations. Affordability, that was discussed. You know, zero escaping, it's it's merits in terms of water conservation are known, but there's also recognition that for, a lot of people, there are significant upfront costs in comparison to their household income, and those can be substantial. But there is also recognition that, you know, in many cases, application of this type of landscaping from the beginning is more cost efficient than a redo later on and ripping out turf to be replaced without drought tolerant landscaping.

And education over punitive or punishment through the process as the county as as it already does. But in in meeting with developers and discussing applications with developers, making sure that county staff, Warren and her teams, are primed with information that they can give developers so that it's more effective from an educational standpoint than the application of after the fact punitive conservation members that that have to be implemented. Okay. Well, I moved on to slide eight here. So what Yep.

Thank you. What are the best ways that the the county as a major stakeholder within Douglas County and water providers, what are the best ways and water providers can promote water smart landscaping and irrigation practices? I know some of this is becoming repetitive, but want to be sure you saw what were the primary threats coming out of these questions. And, again, there was a focus on exterior irrigation. So that will really need to come through in the plan.

Exterior irrigation on county owned properties and public rights of way roadways that it owns and maintains is the largest controllable water use and the primary target of conservation efforts. And some good discussion around what the county is doing in terms of nonfunctional turf and what it will continue to do, in accordance with state statute. And then the outcome based landscape standards. Standards should prioritize water budgets and irrigated areas. I should say be mindful of water budgets and irrigated areas and properties that can really help guide the those issues of how much water should be applied and and where should it be applied.

And then public demonstration and education. I think this is a key spoke in the wheel, but the county being a partner in having and sharing, really clear, intuitive visual examples, of things like and these came up. A number of our our online participants were talking about working demonstration gardens, that provide real in person live examples and before and after case studies that can help overcome misunderstandings or maybe even in some cases negative perceptions of of water wise landscaping. K. Will I move on to the next slide?

Okay. So in thinking in thinking about increasing awareness and inspiring behavior change, we ask this question of how could the county more broadly reach residents and businesses on the importance of and methods for smart water use? First, I wanna recognize that there were several people who said, you know, the county already does does a very good job of keeping, Douglas County residents informed, and the communications team is already very strong. So I think it's building on the assets that are already in place. So, but but effective water use education, it was it was identified, really requires that.

That's much like marketing. It's really no different, but it requires repeated practical messages in multiple formats set in different ways and often repetitive messaging so that it gets through. And then tailored outreach strategies. Some outreach should be tailored reflecting local conditions and avoiding rigid messaging to ensure feasibility and relevance. So that is to say, an outreach event or an occasion in a much more urbanized part of the county may not be a fit and may need to be tailored and customized for, conversations and dialogues with, residents in the eastern portion of the county.

Transparency and cost communication. I the this came up toward the end of, I think it was the third session with the water providers that fair to say that the majority of Douglas County residents don't understand and not not disparagingly at all, but they they don't know what the true cost of water is. And if you were to say, you know, what are you paying for a gallon or what it's in what do you estimate the acre an acre foot to cost? They would not know. And us in addition to that communicating what the long term risks are to the county and counties throughout the front range in terms of water supply and the threat of significantly reduced supplies, ultimately, the worst case scenario of running out of certain portions of the water supply.

And trade offs to build trust and help residents understand that conservation, the importance of conservation to the quality of life in Douglas County, not just for them, but for future generations. And then experiential and partnership outreach using, again, using those demonstration gardens, real world examples to say, look at this installation, and here's how much water savings that can result in, leading tours of those things for people who are interested. And, as the county is good at doing, you know, really leveraging those local partnerships, whether it be with water providers, nonprofits in the county, some of the some of the subregional forums to make water conservation actions, tangible and, incredible. Okay. And, Will, I went went on to the next slide here.

K. So what what role should well monitoring and data, the collection of data play for both private well owners in the county. And there there was voice given to the importance of consistent monitoring so that continuous monitoring of wells helps those households that are on wells anticipate maintenance and potential replacement needs and reduces surprise cost. That is that is to say how they are do over doing overall in relation to accessibility and availability of supply so that they are not within a very short time frame surprised in the realization that they are gonna need to drill a new well, which as we all know is is very, very expensive. The countywide benefits of data.

So private well data indicator of of overall aquifer health, and it's it in for as we're thinking about this long term plan and the execution of it, this is the essence of it. It really supports that informed county water water management decisions, and is helpful to water providers as well. Data quality and management, Accurated accurate updated well records, are essential for effective planning in public trust, in water resource management. So that and that is really to say, whether you're tied into an existing system and provider, or you're on a private well or you're a, an independent district, full transparency so that all the stakeholders within the county have access to the same information, and can share information, as it relates to cumulative management. And then expanded coordination needs, integration and coordination of monitoring programs, improves data interpretation across varied hydrogeologic zones.

This is one I in putting these notes together, I wanted to go back and and relisten to the recording because I I wasn't quite tracking that. I I'm gonna need to get more information on that, but that was was one of the points that was made. Okay. Well, I moved on to my last slide for I think that's my last slide. Yes. No. This I transitioned over to you at this point, I believe.

Oh, actually, this is, data monitoring and county leadership. K?

Okay. So this is me. Yep. Yep. Okay.

How so how should, thank you. How should the county approach its own facilities and operations regarding water use? It it's doing it's doing it now in many good ways, but the continual assessment of parks and its own facilities that it owns and maintains to to really cut, what it deems to be unnecessary irrigation, to support efficient use, but without compromising the function of that facility to county residents, and the taxpayers taxpayers. Contact sensitive management. The issue of of reducing irrigation across county owned and maintained parks, those discussion around how the functionality and the use of parks varies greatly.

So water strategies as the county is is doing should really reflect that usage, safety, and the community needs. Then aligning with provider programs. Good partnerships are already exist between staff, and and providers and suppliers, but supporting existing providers' conservation efforts, many are in place, can increase the impact and, reduce the potential for initiatives that may be redundant or overlapping or, you know, I think in worse off, inconsistent messaging to residents and stakeholders and businesses that can that can sow confusion around what the county is trying to do in terms of conservation. K. So, Will, the next slide, please, if you could.

Okay. So what role should partnerships and providers provider coordination play going forward? The partnerships, really enhance that resilience by supporting smaller districts lacking technical and financial resources. So there was there was a really good discussion in the the final focus group with the providers about how, that that really is a cornerstone to, I think, achieving long term conservation is, at least making sure that those channels for communication and the opportunities for partnership between smaller districts or, between larger established districts and smaller districts exist so that, those partnerships can be formalized, when the benefits when the benefits are there for for parties involved. And coordination as a practical solution, I think it it the point was made that it offers a realistic alternative to Mhmm.

What can be sometimes unsustainable individual well creation and management because that coordination sets the stage for for resource sharing, in collaborative planning across different different parts of the county. And then the county continuing to to serve as a as a facilitator, you know, where where it can and where it makes sense within staffing capacity and resources to do so, that the county should facilitate dialogue, between providers in terms of consolidation, for example, and provide neutral information.

Let me go ahead. I'm finished.

Yeah. Certainly, instead of, instead of mandating consolidation, there was a there was a clear sentiment that came through that, you know, mandated consolidation is not the way we wanna go.

Ted, we've got a question here.

Yes.

Yeah. So maybe maybe it's a comment I just answered. I mean, I think this discussion, you know, and this was the water providers that were were having this discussion. They were all, I'll say, fairly active in it. And it was really, the question was around consolidation. Mhmm. You know, should small providers consolidate with bigger ones? What's that mean? How do you go about doing that? You know, who's you know, do people start to feel like they're targets if you try and do an analysis stuff? And I and it was rolled over into we'll use this term coordination to finding ways for water providers to, I'll say, to kind of join up, lock hands. Maybe that's shared. Maybe they end up sharing some assets. Maybe they don't. Maybe they, you know, lease some things.

But maybe kind of moving away from this consolidation term to a coordination collaboration Yes. And sharing kind of a kind of description. So that's kind of something else behind it. I thought that was interesting. I've always thought trying to say we, you know, we're gonna support or try and, you know, enable consolidation was always a bit tough. Yeah. You know, how how you do that, and how do you get the people that you're trying to get married? How do you make them understand they wanna do that? So I think this is a good step.

Yeah. That was a good clarification. Thank you, Don. Yeah.

Okay. Thanks, Ted.

You bet. Thank you,

Will. And

then for the water providers oh, go ahead.

No. Go ahead. I was gonna say the the next the next slide is you.

Right. Yep. So the for the water providers, they they are the water managers. So we discussed water management strategies with them. 's general agreement about inclining block rates and leak detection, those types of things that everybody is doing and wanting to do to save the water that they have.

But we made the we did a deeper dive on a few topics with regard to water management. And one of those was reuse. Reuse, we understand, is a core strategy. It's essential for the future of the county and should be expanded as an element of the countywide plans for water use. Infrastructure and land use is important as you think about centralized wastewater systems and sewer development to increase the water use potential so that you're capturing as much water back as you can to make use of it.

Storage limitations. There is some limited storage capacity, and that can restrain reuse reliability. Regional reservoirs are essential for seasonal water storage, water management. So there's so storage can be a factor to consider. System interconnections, this is maybe a lesser term for more of a term of let's work together and get some interconnections going versus one district taking over another district. So here, interconnected water systems can help increase the resilience of an area and allows for maximizing reuse. It can also allow for access to renewable supplies.

Yeah. I don't I don't know if you did this on purpose when but you said the interconnections, you use water systems, you didn't just use wastewater systems. Because part of the discussion was if you, know, you if you say, well, let's get some centralized water wastewater treatment plants, and that way we can really enable you know, we can they can be high efficiency, advanced water treatment kind of plants, really get some reuse water streams. But you also then gotta get that that stream that you just created back, you know, to where it came from. Right?

So there's it's it's it's kinda like that little recycling emblem, you know, that kinda goes in a circle. I mean, we just can't say, well, let's put in, you know, a major wastewater treatment plant. Everybody throws everything there. That's great. We'll enable reuse. We'll figure out how to get it back too. So it's it's it's complicated, but it's certainly worth being a big focus, I think.

Okay. We also discussed ASR, aquifer storage and recovery. That's where you take flood flows off a creek and when you've got them and treat that water to drinking water standards and then inject it into the aquifers. So that's a strategy that's been used for many, many years by some of the water providers. The applicability of that is it's a good water management tool, but it should be applied strategically across the region, and it's not universally applied in all areas.

Some of the constraints to think about there are you have to have surplus treated water in the first place, which in a dry year like this, there's not much of that around. It involves a lot of high cost to treat the water, inject it and then pump it back out. Operations can be pretty complex, and it depends on the suitability of the aquifer conditions right there where you're injecting. The benefits are it reduces evaporation losses, which is great, avoids well, it limits new reservoir construction. It can reduce the amount of new reservoir sizes, reduce the sizes of new reservoirs and enhances water storage resilience with our climate stresses.

The role of regional coordination with this is that it's need regional feasibility studies, partnerships, funding and integration into broader water plans. So what are the barriers and opportunities for consolidation? We touched on this a bit, and Don expanded on it some. Are barriers for perception. Consolidation can be perceived as a loss of local control.

So that could generate political resistance. Also, some of the small providers have financial and technical challenges that complicate discussions and potential infrastructure upgrades to be considered regionally. The county can have a facilitation role by commissioning studies, providing grants, sharing best practices and providing comparisons. And there are opportunities in collaboration that are short of consolidation. It could be that you have voluntary incremental cooperation like shared services, interconnections and joint capital planning.

And that improves resilience without an actual consolidation. Okay. We'll turn now to the water provider surveys and give you some background on what we've done with those. Okay. We coordinated survey responses directly with each of the water providers and sent the survey to the 31 registered water providers in the county.

24 of them responded to the survey, five were minor providers that did not respond, and then there were two minor providers that were found to be not applicable. One didn't have developable land in the county, and the other was included with a large district that they were neighboring to. We then followed up with providers to resolve inconsistencies and ensure alignment across responses and issued additional follow ups to clarify on regarding reuse data that had not been captured in the original survey. We had two minor providers that responded to the original survey but have not provided feedback from the follow-up questions.

We

prioritized confirming survey responses from the big three, Castle Rock, High lands Ranch, and Parker. All three were highly engaged and provided thorough and detailed feedback. And we also met with Highlands Ranch and Parker to address, clarifying the survey and some considerations for the report. Okay. So that's a quick summary of where we are with a few things there.

So now we'll turn to review of the interim draft plan. And with this, we are we'd like to focus discussion on what is needed here for this to be ready to issue to the public for review. You may have a lot of other comments, and we'd ask you to hold those or send those to us separately. We today, we wanna focus on what is the what's really needed here for this to be issued for public review given that we have just a few days to incorporate your changes for our next review our next draft. Okay.

Does that make sense? Okay. So Chapter one, Introduction. I've added I've shown on the agenda here some just some guidance on times for each of these. But we added information regarding regarding water in the county to give it some context and then also some background on the process, the Water Commission we mentioned and a few things like that. So any comments on chapter one? And, again, thinking about what do we really need in this to issue it to the public.

Yes, sir. Alright. Happy to give. This is James Eklund. Thanks.

Happy to give these to you in bullet point written format too, so don't feel compelled to scribble this all down. But measurable objectives are critical to any plan. Otherwise, it's just a glossy report that that will be really nice, and you've made it look really good, but it won't be actionable. So we need measurable objectives and then some sort of a scorecard or some sort of annual implementation mechanism that allows people to kinda keep score at home and, you know, make sense of what is going on in their community and, you know, where it relates to the rest of the plan. And I think that can be a good mechanism to get people to actually engage with it.

So Can

you give an example of what you're

Yeah. So the the state water plan had measurable objectives for supply, demand, you know, storage. And then on the demand side, conservation, we had a pretty healthy discussion about groundwater in this commission as we've been reviewing drafts that, you know, could could be in there using the tools that Forest Grins helped us and LRE have helped us understand the resource and, you know, make sure that we're all at least familiar with the same metrics that are being used across the county. Because right now, it it seems like and the reason we were formed was there's a lot of siloing that is occurring. And so metrics or measurable objectives around here's how many people we want to make sure are served by a resilient water supply.

So if you're on a if you're on a rural well, you're on your own well, and that dries up, what do you do? It it probably won't be super helpful if you call the county commissioners here, and people say, well, I guess you gotta dig a deeper well. That that's really your only option. So coordinating among all the water providers and making sure that they all no mandates. Nobody's saying you have to do anything.

But if if there are avenues of communication and links that are available to people, then I think that's at least somewhat comforting that they know their government's doing something that might be able to help them in their situation. But without a metric, without a a measurable objective, I just you know, I think that that we're not gonna produce something that's action or that can be engaged with. So I can go on and on about the ones in the water plan, but you can look at them. They're metrics for funding, water infrastructure, we can forecast the gap. You can back into Douglas County's gap using the state water plan economics and, you know, just helping people understand that if the state FISC is limited and there's no money coming from DC, and yet in order to make sure that you've got a resilient water supply and system, you know, here's the number that we need to be able to hit.

And that can lead to a conversation with the, you know, Douglas County EDC. It can lead to a conversation with the metros and the or the municipalities in inside the county. But, you know, coordinating and regionalizing some of this is, I think, really important. Sorry. I know you don't want in-depth long winded comments.

That's good feedback. So would that be something it seems like to develop those measurable objectives? It's going to take some time to coordinate that and bring that back to you all. Is that something that we can do the first draft for the public without? Or do you think we need to include that for this to be a good plan for worthy of public review?

I mean, understand the constraints that you're operating under. So I would say that, you know, don't let perfect be the enemy of good and get it out there and let people that have been engaged and want to engage do that. I think that if I were a member of the public here, I would want to see, you know, well, okay. You're you're giving me something you want me to look at, and it says a lot of, you know, interesting things, and it gives me a lot of data. What am I supposed to do with this? And I think that would help answer that question.

Can I add to that? Sure. I think James at least part that I understood.

You said my time, sir?

Yeah. It's on. Under the purpose in that first paragraph, one of the purposes is there, it says, is to educate the public. But we don't anywhere that I see what that means. What do we want how do we want what do we want the public to be smarter or better educated about?

It seems like most of the things that we went over earlier today here, if I'm the just the average residents out there, I think, oh my god. I have to get rid of my landscaping. I gotta do all these things to conserve water, so we must be in Deep Doo Doo as a county water wise. But I think we want the public also, in addition to understanding the conservation measures that they should implement, we want I think we want them to know if we do this and manage it well, we're in good shape, and we will have the water we need. And you should feel comfortable that it's being managed well.

So I think that's a key education point that we need to get across is that the sky isn't well, the sky could fall if we don't do anything, but we're doing the things to keep the sky from falling.

Yeah. Call the action

kind of thing.

And and that's gotta be part of the action. And that's a tough thing because the surveys the county has done, the surveys that Castle Rock has done, consistently, there's a lot of people that say, I'm worried about the future of water. I'm deeply worried about it. That was, I think, one of the impetus for even doing this plan. And so we better address that in some ways so that we achieve an objective of education so that people are at least feel better about where we're headed.

Uh-huh. Yeah. I that you're exact that's the exact process we went through when we're doing state water plan was that you could be a document that just scares the crap out of people. Yeah. And and there are parts of it that are it's it's unavoidably terrifying.

And then there but, ideally, you're turning it into a document that's empowering to people, and they can do something with. And if there is a a metric that that is aspirational that, you know, to get to a non nonfunctional turf or, you know, stuff that only gets touched by a lawnmower or whatever, If you wanna if you wanna put a number on that or whatever the aspirational goal is, there is something that the public can do to to look at and go, oh, yeah. Alright. We're making some progress in that area. Here's how much xeriscapes going in.

Here's here's what, you know, we're doing to you know, here's what I can do at my residence to make this work. And, you know, otherwise, it's like, oh, crap. We're we're out of water, and they're telling me that, you know, we're we're also out

of money.

K. Anything else on chapter one? Yes, sir.

It's five minutes up yet.

That's up.

I I I do like how this discussion this is Evan, Ella. I like how the discussion is going because I agree. It would be really nice if if we say in here, well, you know, here's the projection. We were saying this. Here's the projection of groundwater that's available, and there's some issues with it declining in certain areas, and there's issues with economic viability of getting every drop.

But conservation, we're encouraging. Reuse, we're encouraging. And we need some way to say in here that those measures, the conservation and the reuse, could produce or could reduce the future demand by some amount. I don't I you can't accurately predict it, but we could make a stab at it, it would seem, to try and say that, you know, these measures do matter, and they will extend the life of the aquifer a lot more years, or it'll, you know, reduce the timing needed for expensive reuse plans or something. I don't know. It just seems like you need to show some bang for the buck, guess. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Good. Then we'll move on to Chapter four. Chapter two is public engagement, and that's yet to come. And then we have a revised draft of land use considerations that's going to be added into this. That's from county staff. Okay. So for water providers yes, sir.

I'll go first. This is Evan. Ella again. So for Chapter four. So in light of our discussion that we've had a lot about reuse and the fact that reuse is best accomplished from centralized wastewater plants, I'm wondering if you're well, number one, chapter four maybe should be titled water and wastewater treatment providers or something to try to show that.

And I would suggest on this map that maybe you could identify where the major all the wastewater treatment plants are just so we can see a geographic location of them. And, you know, it helps kind of stimulate thinking about where collaboration, as we've called it, or, you know, cooperative work could create a reuse supply potentially one day.

What was that again?

Well, it could potentially create a a reuse supply one day if we see where these wastewater plants are located and close to what where the major population centers are, etcetera. So I would suggest adding that into the map at least.

Okay. And I would just note on chapter four, the changes that we made. We updated the numbers from the water provider follow ups, and we included the summary tables, and we left those in. And specific information on the top three water providers in the county, Castle Rock, Highlands, Ranch and Parker. And then for the medium and minor water providers, we put their information in the appendix so it should flow a little easier. So that's those are kind of summary of the major changes we made.

Yeah. I think there's I mean, a lot it looks a lot better. I think we're to scrub down a lot of the issues that we saw. There's still some kind of funny numbers, I'll say, in here, like the Pinery having reuse of, like, 15,000 acre feet. But their Denver Basin groundwater is, like, 13,000 acre feet. Yeah. So but I went I went and looked the pine we put together a master plan in 2022. So if if if somebody's really interested in in the water story of the pine tree, it's there. I mean, it's in a really nicely done. Hazen and Sawyer did a master plan.

And they're actually they're gonna be 70% renewable, 30% groundwater in perpetuity. I mean, they they they get a lot of stuff off the brain. So where where I kinda landed is is there's maybe still, you know, a little bit of of stuff that's not quite adding up. Maybe people have reported things differently. I know Parker Water people felt compelled to report that we have 1,500 acre feet of flush water and nonrevenue water, and they felt like it was really important to get that on the table.

I'm not exactly sure why, but that's in there. Nobody else did that. But my where I landed, and I'm guessing this is kind of a question. I think the data here, and particularly when we roll it up into the tables, the aggregate tables, you know, top to bottom, we got demands. We got demands in four different years after 2050. But those numbers are reasonably good enough for policy making for what we wanna do for policy decisions. But we're not trying to create the the water atlas. I think I think James called me at one point in time. And I I think we can stand pat with what we've got. I guess this is where I'm going unless unless people see something that really troubles them.

We have a water provider come forward and say, well, I wanna change my numbers, then we'll look at it then.

The primary is one of the two that we're looking into yet, you know, clear up some numbers there. That was they're one of the two that we're waiting here back from.

But yeah. Yeah. They got a great plan.

I I thought we had talked about somewhere we were gonna add something about the self providers, and I don't see that in here anywhere.

That's in chapter seven.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Mhmm.

Any other comments on Chapter four?

You do have a spot on your table for individual systems, but it's grayed out. Do you intend to populate it? Or do you want to leave it like that?

Would want it we would want it full. Yeah.

Yeah. It's I mean, something else that kinda shows out is, you know, the if you look at the changes in demand over time, you know, growth is gonna be really in in Parker, Castle Rock, Meridian, Stonegate, Cottonwood to some extent, Dominion, and Inverness. And it's so out all the the big roll up of all these water providers, it really shakes down to, like, I'm gonna say, like, a top six or seven, where all the growth is really gonna come from. So they're the ones that might wanna cooperate and coordinate and collaborate and all those kinds of things. And and certainly, those are the ones best positioned to do reuse. I mean, most of them do. So

it's good.

And just to clarify the the individual systems, it's not grayed out. That's actually a a heading for what's below it where we have exempt wells.

I see. Gotcha.

Thank you. Okay. Chapter five, projected water demands. This we added more explanation on how demands were determined and provided a range of plus or minus 5% instead of just the you know, here's the projection. We've got a a range now included.

Was anybody else troubled, I'll say, by the GPCD number that that came out of this calculation? It was a 152 gallons per capita per day. That's a big number.

Is that including irrigation?

That would be including irrigation. Yes. That would

be dash three.

I'm sorry. Five three. Current demand summary and table five three.

Mister chairman, I was very worried about that. But when I looked at it, I think that includes it's a per capita, but that would include commercial, industrial uses, and everything else rolled into it.

So I I I think, yes, that would be a total total delivered water divided by total population. So it's a it's that gross level Yeah. GPCD.

It's nothing anybody can do anything with because it's all mushed together to figure out to what is it about. If I run this outright, it's about a point four acre feet per household per year to 2.5 per home. Yeah. Just can't do anything with it because that includes commercial and municipal and all the uses around it.

So it's pretty we dare

to do with it? Do we dare think of that as a measurable number for, you know, as James says, something we can say we can look at. I mean, I'm a little bit nervous about that because it's there's a lot of moving parts in it. Right? I mean, we we do that at Parker. That's the number we're using. That's a that's very much our conservation goal, is to reduce that by 10.

We're I know it's true that we're running point one eight per household. But this number really, I think if we're planning, as long as it needs to be better defined, It's really including everything that you use for the the ball fields that you have for the kids and everything is in that to come back to that number. So it's probably not a bad number to use for planning because I don't what else you'd use. But I think somewhere I'd like to see it broken out for what is our goal per household because it is at basically almost a half acre foot per household is not is not a meaningful number that anything you can do with.

Thank you. Water provide correct me if I'm wrong, but our water providers have that, right, per residence?

Most of them do. The larger ones too.

Well, I mean, even if we can't get that from for every single, you know, person in the care residents in the county, That's the kind of thing that's actionable if I see that number and I go, oh, yeah. That checks out. They want me to get this down by ten percent or 10 gallon whatever. Ten Ten gallons per day. Gallons per Yeah.

Maybe that's something I can squint at and make happen.

But if every if everything

from the ball fields to, you know, whether or not I drink out of the water fountain at the county commissioner's office is is baked in there,

there's not much I load up your bottle.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Thanks. I wanna think about that more.

Maybe some more explanation is needed there. When you you have a a an equation that shows how you calculated the unit demand per capita, but then there's really no explanation beyond that. And maybe there's a sentence that needs to go in there about this includes all, you know, water on ball fields and parks and whatever else because there's no real explanation why that jumper number jumps from 60 to a 152. I mean, it seems like you could explain it fairly simply that way. Okay.

I I thought it was kinda interesting that the the demand is calculated, you know, based on the demographics office projection of population, lined up pretty nicely with what the providers told us. I thought, well, that's that's good. It's kind of cross checks.

Okay. Ready for chapter five?

Yes. Just a quick note. You know, we have a state demographer, and we've heard from someone from their office at a meeting before. I'm wondering if kicking they've got a staff. They're not huge, but they've got people that we that's what I did.

We we kicked our numbers like this over to them and said, does this square with what you're looking at? Because we've had rapid growth baked into our demographic projections for so long in the state that we think we're gonna be, you know, California and by 2050. And those numbers are are not not showing to be very accurate, you know, in in reality. This county is growing rapidly, but States plateau. The state is has really plateaued, some counties like the one I live in have actually lost people.

The projections we use for them from the state of market office were you know, those were quite a bit flatter than what they had been previously for Douglas County. So, yeah, I know that's that's we're leveling off, it seems like. And

so are those the ones that are using the demand projections? The five, -five.

Okay.

Okay. And then Chapter six is we've included information on some of the water supply projects in there, and there's more to add. The water providers that we had in the focus group have offered to give us some more identify some more projects to include here.

Chairman, I have some comments on six, if that's what you're looking for?

That's where

we're at. Take 6.1, 0.3. I first wish to compliment consultants for toning down more reality the water bringing in concepts. What I really liked was physically extractable. Thank you, because that's as close as we're going to get to reality, which is proven reserves.

So but I really think on when we get to 6.1.3, whenever we're talking about how much water we have and it appears on many places, we've got to include that it's that these numbers do not include economically feasible, do not include what is physically extractable and what is truly recoverable. I think all the way through this, we need to paint the picture not and I'm with Clark 100%, the sky isn't falling. But we also don't have 700,000 acre feet of water down there that's unallocated for somebody to use because it doesn't get into those issues. And also when we get into physically extractable, we have to put a time over it. I don't know how you do this in the oil patch we do.

What happens if you get a 20% or we've had in Colorado like a 30% or 40% increase in energy costs, suddenly physically extractable water goes way down. And that sensitivity becomes quite important. And the reason I bring this up is, you know, we have these big numbers, there's 700,000 acre feet or 400,000 acre feet unallocated, has nothing to do what you can really get and use the water. And it has I think that must flow all the way through. In other words, we need to tell the world that we've got water, it's working fine.

For the foreseeable future, we will, but we don't really we really don't know how much of that is economically viable and recoverable because we don't. So I think that needs to go through here. There's several other places we get into it.

And the term is physically extractable or economically

Yes. And over time, because a 20% increase in energy cost is going to make dramatic increases to residents water bills. And that must flow through. I pick it up again and yes, pick that up again in Chapter seven, seven point three all the way through. So since we have 700,000 acre feet is not relevant relevant and it goes back to the first paragraph that I wish I'd spoken up on.

But really a lot of the future of the county does rely on getting to renewable water. And we really don't emphasize that enough, major programs. What I don't want to do is here Castle Rock and Parker undertaking major investments in renewable water. We say we've got 700,000 acre feet of water here, and people and residents are going say, what are you doing? We have all this water.

Well, we don't know how much water is truly available and economically viable. That we've got to carry through and it needs to go back to the first paragraph. Long term, we wish to have a conjunctive use system with renewable and groundwater. That's where we're headed, and it's important we get there. So those those would be my main comments with that.

Oh, Tricia, go ahead.

Sure. Tricia Bernhardt. So there is a lot of new information in this chapter six from the December version, and I appreciate a lot of the detail. I think it's great. A couple of things that really struck me though as hot items.

I'm looking at 6.5.1, so on page 6.5. And I'm wondering where some of this language comes from because we're starting to touch on a hot subject to me. And the second sentence says satellite well fields could be constructed in less populated areas and the water conveyed to more populated areas, which is the whole concept behind the Greenland Ranch, which I'm sure most people here are familiar with that potential project. That does not serve the residents of Southern Douglas County. And I'm here to express my concern overseeing a couple of those statements in here about taking water from the southern part of the county and moving it to the northern part of the county groundwater because that leaves the people in Southern Douglas County in dire straits.

We don't have water districts. We don't have a way to obtain water other than groundwater. If you take it all from us and move it to the north, we're all in trouble. So I bring that up. I wonder where these comments came from. And if we're going to include comments like that, at least indicate that there are impacts then to the residents in Southern Douglas County. And that needs to be discussed. What's going to happen to them? So I just want to make that statement clear that I don't think that's a really great option, is to just move groundwater from one part of the county to the other.

Yeah. I I'll I'll I'll wanna I'll weigh in with you on that one and agree with that. I think this kind of just worked its way in with the notion of, you know, if we said, well, we don't think there should be new wells, you know, we just kinda need to stay on patent with where they are, then maybe you could, you know, go ahead and continue to enable growth by doing, a community well, satellite well, those kinds of things. I but I I agree with you. I don't think it's I don't think it's useful in this report at that point in time.

I do also, it's my I wanna push back a little bit on this notion that Denver Basin bedrock groundwater is is not imaginary. It's absolutely real. It's the the amount of water that we look at and say that can be allocated is is done with data. It's done with area thickness and specific volume of water. So, you know, in the in the spirit of not scaring people away, I don't I don't think it's correct to say that, you know, we just don't know how much is down there.

I mean, we know there's a lot down there. There are millions of acre feet down there. I think the harder question is it even if it's if it I mean, it is millions, and even though it's there, it is finite. And do you wanna continue to develop and develop areas and homes with with a finite life? Just say, well, there's a 150 worth of water down there. There's a hundred fifty minutes, two hundred years worth of water down there. How do you think about then saying, well, this house has an expiration date? Right? This community has an expiration date. You know, it's good for two hundred years, and then it's gone.

And I don't think I mean, that's really hard for me to think about how you how you do that, how you develop that way, and how you, you know, you push yourself forward and say, you know, something's something's gonna expire, you know, in time. So I'm not I'm not advocating that we just say, oh, it's, you know, it's great. There's no problem. We can use this forever and ever. But I also don't wanna turn our back on, you know, the resource that it is. So that's the opinion I have on that. I'll I'll

jump in on this discussion. I I think it's an actual fact, though, Tricia, that there's a tremendous resource of water in the aquifers, Denver Basin aquifers, the eastern and southern part of the county. And maybe the qualifier here should be which aquifers. I mean, I think we've talked in the past about how, most individual wells are gonna be in the Dawson or maybe the Denver as well, but most are not gonna be in the Arapahoe because it's so deep and it's so expensive to tap it. So it seems to me we could recognize that this is a possible, resource, but that we can make recommendations that it not be done without limitations on which aquifers are used for that.

You may disagree with that, but it just seems to me that is you're using a groundwater resource that's deep and really unacceptable by most individual exempt wells. I mean, I don't know many people who would drill an Arapahoe well. Do you? I mean, you know? Do you have neighbors that are in the Arapaho down there in the South?

No, they are not neighbors in the Arapaho. Most of the ranches down there are using Denver and Dawson.

I mean, I think it would be within our realm to make that kind of recommendation that it's kind of hands off those upper aquifers. But I don't know that we should say or should turn our back on the deeper, better producing aquifers.

I don't know that we get to control that if we don't own that water. That said, I don't know that it's a great recommendation to say that these things could be constructed in the future, that we can move water from lesser populated areas to more populated areas. I don't know that we should jump into that, or if we should, then we should start talking about the impacts and those measurable protections for the individuals down there in the South.

I don't I don't see in, at least the the draft version so far, the implementation chapter, you know, you get to chapter 10 where where you would say, gosh, we want water providers to stay out of the Denver and the Dawson and stick to the Arapaho and leave the Denver and the Dawson, you know, for individual well units. I mean, we wanna say that. I'm not sure how we craft that into policy and how well that stands. I just think it's a little I mean, we're down to one sentence here. I just think it's a little volatile to to say, you know, let's build wells here and pump it there.

It's like, well, that's just asking for a black eye. But Evan, to your point, I mean, I think you get to that that notion that, you know, how you manage these aquifers between those that want to use them. That's in the implementation stage down in chapter 10. So

Yeah. I mean, it may not be appropriate to put it in this location in the report, but it seems to me that I mean, no one's gonna go down and drill a ramp up well on someone's land without permission. And you're gonna, you know, if you're Parker Water and you wanna secure access to a bunch of Arapahoe aquifer under some big ranch, I mean, you're gonna compensate that person to lease the water from them. And so it's not like, you know, it's up to them. It's you can't force this, but it I think it's silly of us to recognize that there's no economic play there. I mean, there is a chance of that happening.

I'd I'd just say, James Echelon, I hear what Trish is saying, and I'll just say from a career in this business, be very careful about dividing yourself even more than you already are. This county is a county, one of 64 in the state, which is one of four states in the Upper Basin of the Colorado, which is in a country that shares a border with Mexico, and a a bunch of artificial lines have been drawn around the Lower Basin and the Upper Basin, the West Slope and the East Slope, the parts of the South Plat and you know, the upper and the lower and the middle. And it usually doesn't make for a lot of progress. It it usually slows things down quite a bit. So if as a county, you're I think that's our charge is to

wrap

our arms around what the resource is and how it's managed here. And, you know, we're not empowered to make to mandate anything. We we are not you know, the county is not a water provider. But it does seem to me that a a regional plan,

which

is what this is, has to talk about groundwater with a comprehensive countywide view. Otherwise, if you just say, okay. Well, we're not gonna consider this part of the county because there are people down there that have this kinda well set up, you you get into a pretty, you know, not in my backyard place real fast and nothing happens. Because then the people that run out of water down there, well, they're not part of the system either. And this resilience, redundant type of system that I hope we all would want to see isn't possible because they've been put on an island and told you're not part of the solution.

And so I just I I just throw that out to the commission that whenever we've drawn lines in the history of water in the West, it usually serves to, a, it's really hard to undraw those lines, and and, b, you pit people against each other. And I don't think that that's terribly helpful.

So, yeah, thanks everybody for the comments. I think that's a pretty interesting discussion we just had. But we need to move on.

Yes, sir. Ready for Chapter seven. Harold, one more I

draw your attention to 6.5.2. Use of return flows. Just eyeballing the numbers, 25% of our water supply right now is reuse. And I think to end that sentence by saying further reuse is recommended, I think it should be strengthened to say required to succeed.

How do we do how do we enforce that?

Oh, through zoning or through through grants, through funding, through planning. But we we need to mark out that that reuse is a critical part of the future of this county.

More reuse would certainly be valuable, wouldn't it?

That's right. And compared to renewable water, reuse is the cheapest water you're ever gonna

get.

Maybe instead of saying it's required, we say increased reuse will allow us to not rely on the groundwater.

Is correct. Thank you. And then you jump to the logical conclusion.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Have Goel Franzak with Spherus Environmental on with us to introduce Chapter seven.

Can you all hear me? I want to make sure. So Chapter seven, we did some rework based upon the commission's comments on the prior draft. And then we do have some comments, from the county staff, a lot of it's editorial that we can move things around and and, you know, make sure that we're consistent with terminology, so on and so forth. But what I want to walk through are the major changes we've made to chapter seven.

First and foremost, we improved the GIS mapping tool, tried to clean up that tool, remove some of the, nonessential items in the GIS tool. And then we put in the, in chapter seven towards the end, a guideline, if you will. And this is mainly for the rural or the individual well users to use. It's a tool for them to go out and folks to go out and take a look at where their well is, where it's completed, what recommendations were by the state engineer, you know, for example, you know, if you're in the Upper Dawson complete to a certain depth, was the well completed to that depth looking at at construction reports, those type things to give folks an idea of what their situation is out there, as well as it's a tool that can be used by the county as well as developers to kinda look at where, where groundwater might be, lack of a better word, more plentiful in certain areas than other areas. So we tried to really improve that GIS tool and provide it as a, as a method for individual property owners to take a look at what is what is what is going on essentially around their property.

The other major thing we put in there is to add heat maps for all the different aquifers. And the heat maps are for the net pay. And the net pay is, you know, again, it's assuming a fully saturated aquifer. It doesn't take into consideration, declines in aquifer due to due to pumping, these type of things. But we did try to put in heat maps to kind of show and demonstrate where most of the approximate 30%, additional water than what's from SB 5 that was computed vis a vis the physical water supply, where that's really located, and that is in the central, south, and eastern portion of the county.

In the north Northeast and western part of the county, that's where you have less net pay, and that's where we're seeing some issues in in the population centers with some of those water providers. So we tried to add some information there. We added definitions for net pay, augmentation, physically extractable groundwater, and then put in a pretty robust discussion on physically available groundwater, which is what's computed as well as by SB five.

There's a question here, Bill. Hang on just

Sorry. Mean, you're on you're on a roll there, Bill, but and it's all good stuff. But, you know, the net pay heat maps, which I think are look I

mean,

they look very interesting. There was no scale on them, you know, with the with the colors. So I don't I can't tell if red's bad or red's good or purple's bad or purple's good. But so just just briefly, can you tell me which color is the good ones? And then that that scale gets fixed and then it's usable, I think.

Yeah. We can fix that scale. The scale is on the map itself. You can see in the in the there is actually contours. So red is not good.

Red is low, lower net pay. So that's, is for example, if I'm looking on the undifferentiated dots and figure 7.4, you see a net pay of about 100 up in the Far North and then you get a 175, which is the blue and the purples down in the Far South. So it is there in with the, with the contours, but we can absolutely add that in, you know, some sort of guide where you can see the different colors, down there in the left hand part of that that diagram to kinda see what, you know, it could be as simple as, you know, low to high, red bad, you know, purple good type of thing. So we can definitely put that in there to make it clear.

Yeah. Thank you.

Absolutely. And so, yeah, the the last portion we had was just a discussion between physically available groundwater and physically extractable groundwater. And it's analogous to paper water versus wet water. I don't like using paper water versus wet water when it comes to Denver Basin. That's more of a term that is used with decrees associated with surface water and some other things where you may say, hey. I got a a surface water right of five CFS while the river doesn't flow more than two. Your paper water says five, but, you know, where you're gonna get you're gonna get more than two just based

on

physical. Denver Basin is different because you do you do make a quantification. You do calculate the amount of water underlying a piece of property versus you know, and that is a calculation, and it is best upon the best data that we have, which is, you know, putting together some of these geophysical logs and trying to figure out exactly what that net pay is, that thickness of of sands and sandstones that that really are water bearing and not the ship the shales or the silts and this type of thing. So, you know, that is really the physically available groundwater. Extractable is different.

Extractable, the rule of thumb is typically once you get down, the water level gets down to about the middle part of a screen, it becomes economically unsustainable. And, again, it also depends on the rate that you're pulling out. I mean, if you're pulling water out of an aquifer at one gallon a minute, pretty much, you know, I know it might go for a significant period of time, you're gonna get most of that water out of that aquifer. There'll still be some residual in there, but you're gonna get well above 90% coming out of that aquifer. You're pumping at 500 gallon a minute, Now you're gonna have different challenges.

So it's really hard to kind of put a number on, well, what's physically extractable versus physically available because it all depends upon rate. And as you hear, Harold, depends upon time, you know, how long, you know, we want this to last. All those factors come into play. So, again, what we can do is what we try to do is provide guidelines in the you know, kind of some guidance in there about what the difference is. And we all agree that, you know, if you're a municipality and you're pumping at a reasonable rate, so if you have to get water out to your constituents, you're you're gonna have some challenges with water levels and declines that you wouldn't typically see, you know, an offer pumping at, you know, five to 10 a while pumping at five to 10 gallons a minute.

So those are just some of the edits that we made to the to the chapter. And then the final one was there was suggestion that we soften, the language associated with, you know, where we said it's 36% more. Where we put in some language where we're saying that it's approximately, 37%, 30%, and we can get you the language out. And it takes into account, it's a countywide analysis that's greater than 36% or 36%. But again, that takes into account the lower net pay areas in the northern and eastern and western part of the northern, Northeast, and western part of the counties and then the deeper pay that's in the southern, central, and eastern part of the county.

So it's a countywide average, but that's what those heat maps are tried are trying to display is that there is water at least in the, Dawson Lower Dawson, excuse me, Lower Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe that is greater in certain areas of the county than others.

Okay. Thanks, Bill. Any comments on Chapter seven?

Harold Smith, a couple on seven-eleven, I think we introduced the concept of physically available water, which includes costs and that type of thing. One of the concepts that we may have 36% more water, but that may not get to the cost of recovering it. And that I think it's important we introduce over time the cost of power. What's economically viable and the cost to residents when they see big increases in their bills could well be because of power costs. When you're lifting, what, 700 to a thousand feet, seven pounds of water per gallon, that's a that's a huge cost, and I think that needs to be brought in here.

It goes to the concepts that a lot of us have had for years and that is the most valuable asset we have is that Denver Basin because it's drought proof. We can as we build these renewable systems that all of the districts are doing, we are drought susceptible except we've got the wells. And so if in case of a drought, you don't care what the electric cost is. Just don't you just do it. But I think the whole concept that that these are very sensitive to power costs and and and other costs that may or may not make them economically viable over time as a baseload.

We can add some language in that, Dwight.

Thought I was on. I thought the readability was was really improved in this chapter. It's real I think it's very strong now. Good story. Is is appendix f tied to this chapter, or we talk about that separately? Or I think there's references in chapter seven to level data. Correct?

The appendix f is part of this, and we have it. It's just voluminous. We can provide all that.

Yeah. So I I mean, I think yeah. So, like, somewhere around it's like page seven twenty four and then seven twenty five. You you you you talk, I'll say, to in in kind of some general terms about the and I just go on. And I think, you know, generally, you're saying, you know, there's there's some some decline in levels, but not really specifically a lot of specific data.

Then you go to you go to appendix f, and that's like a 100 pages of hydrographs. And and that's proceeded with with some just some well some well data. Hydrographs have level this is not this is I'm just cutting out. Yeah. Okay.

Have the well data in reference to, like, where the aquifer locations are, top and bottom of the aquifers. So that's showing that they're confined and unconfined. So I I my my point, I guess, is I I think it's all pretty fascinating data. You know, you could you could dwell on it for quite some time. So I'm not quite sure what to do with it. And I'm not quite sure if if residents of the county come and say, well, tell me about water level because that's something that's people really kinda understand easily, I think. I mean, they're like, well, level high or low. And some I'm just I'm just struggling with how to use that data. I think it's more on that.

Yeah. And that's, honestly a good point because it's it's difficult data to kind of digest and really get into a workable form. Main reason is because most of those wells that are being analyzed for water level are operational wells. And when that water level measurement was taken, it's very difficult to figure out, is that natural? Is that right after pumping? Has the well recharged? Where you know? So there's a lot of different synthesis, a lot of different analysis that has to go into that water level analysis. I can't it's not as simple as saying, well, water level's declining. I mean, because there's a lot of different things that go into that.

So that's what we that's where that appendix f comes into play is is all the work that was done to kinda really normalize, lack of a better word, analysis and being able to use those wells from USGS as well as what we have for the Division of Water Resources, is typically the water providers.

And maybe that shouldn't be part of the report. I mean, it could be that we just provide that information as background on the plan.

I think we had that conversation of do we, I'll say, divorce the appendix f from the main report body itself. You know, so that every time the report goes out, there's not this 140 some pages that that's a pinner on the back. God help somebody if they hit print. And somehow make it like a a second volume, you know, another piece of the of the water plan, but a piece that people can go to if they're interested in it. And not so much just trying to put it out there every each and every time and every time somebody sees it.

So that we've we had that conversation, I think, at one of those meetings. The the part, I guess, I would still like to see, maybe Bill, you're the guy to do this, is and this doesn't have to be like pages and pages, but a recommendation on how we should think about water level data. We get USGS reports, we get DWR reports. You've got data here that's from private sources. We know all the water providers have water data on every well probably by the hour.

How should we think about looking at water level well, water level data going forward? And should we rely on it more, rely on it less? Just maybe kind of give me a, you know, a direction that we wanna take with that. I mean, the rural water authority is dismantling. We the USGS came and talked to us, gosh, a year ago, some time ago. You know, they had, I don't know, 12 wells or something like that. And we all looked and said, what do you make of that? So I'm just kinda searching for something. Maybe you can think about that and dwell on that a little bit, Bill, and and maybe offer some guidance is where I'd leave that.

Absolutely. I guess the question would be is, would it be, some sort of guidance in this chapter? Do we want to put that in like a chapter 10 or know, for recommendations, those types of things, some guidance there? I'd we can talk about that. We're the best place to put that stuff the information.

Yeah. 10 may be the best place to put that. Yeah. So let's we can we can talk.

Yep. Perfect.

Yeah. James.

While we're giving Bill homework, Bill, it would be good to get your thoughts on updatability. Is this an annual function? Is maybe it's appendix f that gets updated periodically. I don't know what makes the most sense on updating this, but the usefulness of it will be based on the trend lines extending out like you've got in here. And anyway, give that some thought while chewing on it.

Absolutely.

Okay. Any other comments on Chapter seven? Okay. Chapter eight, demands versus supplies analysis. We added more explanation on the analysis and more on risks of different types of supply.

Yeah. Have one one comment there. On the eight point two point three, the risk level of supply types, I'd like to see that just expanded a little bit to catch the concept that because there are different risk levels of different supplies, the long term requires that we have a diversity of of supply types because just like your investment portfolio, when one goes up, another one tends to go down. And that's maybe a different, not a good analogy,

but but diversity

of supply types is a positive for the county.

Absolutely. And if I might add add on that, Clark, I think it goes back to what I was saying earlier. As a as a drought backup, there's no risk to groundwater. It's there. If you're not using it day to day and pumping, declining your wells, you have a drought, you've got that groundwater. And I think that's a concept I'd like to see introduced here because there's no risk to it. It actually takes risk away from more risky renewable water sources, particularly junior sources.

Yeah. And and the risk is just all types of things that you've pointed out. It's electricity costs. It's infrastructure costs. It's reg future

regulatory issues, etcetera. Contamination. Contamination. Contamination. Sure. Tricia.

Tricia Bernhardt. So in chapter eight, we're starting to dip into some discussions about kind of potential solutions. We can do conservation. We can consolidate water suppliers. And I was immediately struck with the fact that we have not in any way, shape or form discussed limiting growth.

And I know that that's not a popular topic, but that is what every person in this county talks about when they're told that they have to conserve water, that they can't have more landscaping, that we have drought restrictions, and they're like, why don't we limit growth? And I think that we have to address that somehow, somewhere to talk about limiting growth until and unless we have renewable water supplies that can sustain that type of growth. I know it's not popular. It's got to come out somewhere.

Jim Morrison. So I thought about this in Chapter six because it talks about it there where it talks about the potential for the Platte River Association group where they're going to grab water out of the Platte River way north of Denver and then pump it back down this way. And that and that's a project that's on the design phase, I guess, or they're thinking about it. But I guess that brings up the issue that you realize that all the other major providers close to us, Aurora, Denver, Colorado Springs, are all getting water from the Western Slope and that's not talked about here at all.

So you're saying just to flag that risk that

bring water? Any other major providers get water from out West, and we're not even going to talk about it in this report.

So you're suggesting we should include something on import? Well,

they're going to import water from March where up to the North possibly, under the report. Why can't we import it from the West? I think it needs to be brought up that it's a solution, maybe not a very popular one politically, but it's a solution.

I want to respond to your comment, Tricia, on limiting growth. When we went through zoning at Sterling Ranch, we had to have our own renewable water before we even got permitted or we got comprehensive master plan changed. We had to bring it to us. So you talk about equity, before we could grow, we had to prove we owned or had renewable water and we were held to a seventy thirty conjunctive use standpoint because using the groundwater for peaking and for emergency and for backup. So that that has been done in the county.

I don't know if that that's what you're recommending everybody go there from an equity standpoint. Of course, I would be in favor of that because that's what I had to do. But think that's a legitimate question to ask.

Evan, Ehla again. Yeah, I think we should have some mention in here. We've talked about quite a bit the managing of growth and trying to encourage growth to occur where the big water providers are. It seems like it would be appropriate to have another sub, whatever these are called, sub chapters, whatever, section on managing growth to where they can be supplied by the providers, the water providers, and also be more readily available for being supplied by reuse as well. I mean, I don't know that we should say stop growth, but certainly managing growth can help concentrate growth where the water is or where the infrastructure for water is, at least.

And isn't it an economic force as to where growth is going to occur? It's going be based on economics. If it's really high cost to get water in a certain area, that's gonna restrict growth, just by matter of the market. Right? So, is there you maybe introduce that as part of this?

Well, I agree with you that economics definitely play a part, but the county as a land planning agency can certainly also manage the growth somewhat. I mean, not at a micro level, but certainly on some kind of a grocer scale.

And this is Lauren Polvor with staff. I think you'll see when you see the chapter three rewrite, it's significantly more details how land use is managed in the county, really kind of reflecting the presentation you got from staff that I think speaks a bit more to this than you're seeing in the current draft of, you know, the county current policies drive growth where services are provided in the northern tier, that kind of thing.

So when when might we see chapter three?

You will see that all wrapped in with all of the revisions at the main meeting. So prior to the May meeting, prior to public release, you'll see So prior to full rewrite.

Okay. Great. Yeah. Harold?

You know, I do wanna come back to equity. We had an application recently with a community that was near a large system that was going to tie into renewable water. But they wanted to just use wells because it was less expensive, and they wound up going into the system. Should it be a policy, a recommendation of the county that for new development over a certain size that you must either have renewable water or connect to a system with a renewable water plan like Castle Rock or Parker or Highlands Ranch that does have a plan to get renewable water. That has the advantage of providing tax base and revenue to help build those systems which we need.

So I'm not sure, Trish is all wrong. As I say, we had to own renewable water before we got started. So I'm not so sure from an equity standpoint that's not a bad idea. There will be more applications of people wanting to be in the aquifer because it's cheaper even though they might be right next to a system that is building a renewable system. And so from a policy standpoint, I'm not so sure. Trish isn't exactly right. If you're not renewable or to have a plan to get to renewable or connect to a system that is going renewable with a realistic plan, that should not be approved.

I'll just channel my inner Clark and and say, there's a way to say what you just said, Harold, in a positive way so that you're not saying, you know, no. You're saying, here's how you get to yes.

There you go. That's much work. Thank you. You should've been at government.

Okay. Wow. We're climbing up on 05:30, so we should have started at three. But I think we're there. Right?

We are. Yeah. Chapter nine is water management strategies. We'll draft that based on redraft that based on the feedback we got from water providers. And then chapter 10 implementation will be rolled in. That's the policy recommendations. So that's where

we to have an earlier meeting to because ten is really where the rubber meets the road. Do we want to have a special meeting just on ten as soon as you're ready to discuss it?

So we have our meeting date moves up a week because of Memorial Day, right?

Yeah. So the next meeting is May 18. At that meeting, you will get a full again full rewrite of the entire draft, which will include revisions to chapter 10 based on your comments at the last, meeting as well as focus group comments. That intent is for that draft to be provided for public viewing and public release. It will also have to kind of go through and be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And assuming they're okay with public release of that draft as well, we'll begin looking at scheduling meetings.

So we'll have that draft sometime before the meeting on the eighteenth?

Exactly. Yeah. I think Forest Green's working over this week to wrap in.

So we still have an opportunity to comment?

You have opportunity to comment until the draft or until the plan is finalized by the Board of County Commissioners.

Okay. But probably not after them. Mr.

Chairman, I would recommend Chapter 10 is where the rubber meets the road. And I I would like to have what I'm worried about, we're going to get 340 pages when really the guts of it might be the 20 pages of recommendations. I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a special session on 10, And then look at the whole thing going forward. I mean, look at the discussion we just had in renewable water, for example. That that's the guts of this thing. So I'd I'd I'd I'd don't know how the rest of you feel. I'd I would I'd like to have a special session on ten on the recommendation because that's really the heart and soul. In

addition to our normal 18?

Yes, sir.

We got to see it though a little while ahead of time.

Don't wanna do trial by ambush, but I'd like I'd like to see it. I'd like to that's really so important. And then then we get the 400 pages to go through it.

I mean, if we did if we did that, it looks to me like, you know, if we stick to a Monday kind of theme, then that would be the eleventh, May 11. So, I mean, can we

I I already got I only have meeting on the eleventh.

Yeah. There's that fire meeting on the eleventh.

That's correct. That's That's it.

12:00.

12:00 noon. We could

just roll on to that. And and where is here anyway. Where is that meeting? Here. Is it here?

I think

so, Clark. You'll get more details, I imagine. I think it's finalized. Yeah.

I mean, it's a joint joint meeting. It's gonna be a big big group. Yeah. You know, if we could we could arrange to, like, maybe It it says it's gonna be in the County Commissioner Conference Room A And B. That's right here. Right? Yeah. Okay. Gosh. You all wanna go for that? Like, that's a new meeting and say, 01:30, you know, we'll all get together for maybe an hour, hour and a

half? Find a space. Yeah.

I'm sure we could. Lauren could find us a space. If it was later in the day, we'd try and find a tavern, but that's a

little early.

One one that's yeah. Yeah. That's too early. Yeah. Well, for some people. Yeah. Can we that sound okay?

Yeah.

Alright. So we'll we'll press ahead with that, and Lauren will follow-up with with It's a good thought. Thank you. Yeah. That's a good deal because it is a big chapter. So what else you got?

That's it. Thank you. Thank you for your input. Appreciate it. Yeah. We just made more work for you. Yeah.

So Lauren wanted to announce that we have a meeting, a joint meeting with the wildfire task force on the eleventh. So I think I think we're good then. Right? Am I good? Alright. Yeah. Thanks a lot. We'll call it adjourned.

And thank you. This is

gonna be