Water Commission - Regular Meeting

Here we are again with our special meeting, one purpose in mind. That's review plan chapter 10. What I think we had nine out of 10 water commissioners at the fire meeting. That's pretty cool. I thought that was I don't know how you all thought.

I thought that was pretty interesting and actually a pretty good time maybe to have a nexus between the two groups. We have not I can't think of when we've talked about wildfire issues in Water Commission stuff we've been doing. So for, we talked about it earlier on and we said, hey, there's this wildfire mitigation task force and we don't need to worry about it, think is what we said. So, I thought that's worthwhile. Thank you everybody for coming up.

I really appreciate that. We have nobody online, you said? So we did have a couple of commissioners. I guess James would have been the only one that was online before. We should do a roll call probably.

Okay. Tricia Bernhardt, present.

Sean Tanner, present.

Devin Ella, present. Clark Hammelman,

Don Langley, present. Jim Morris, present. Harold Smithles, present. Okay. So that's a quorum. We have no meeting notes to review. Correct? Okay. So we'll get started right, excuse me, started right away on this draft water plan chapter. So, comment I'd like to make or one, I'll call it a suggestion I'd like to make, is that we're getting kind of at a critical juncture here.

We're getting down to these last recommendations. We've got our big data packages sort of wrapped up with the provider summaries, with the groundwater study, and actually finding our way to what conclusions and I'll say recommendations or even findings is a term I like. So Forsgren is doing their job to try and we, you know, pull this together with implementation strategies, I'll call them. But at this point in time, also, I don't want to lose anything that you all have, you know, brought to the table before. And maybe if you don't see it there now, maybe we bring it back to the table again.

And at least try and, I'll say through this last meeting, is make sure we come out of this meeting with whatever's on your mind as far as what you think this water plan ought to say that the county should do. That we've at least got that recorded and we can, you know, use that with the county staff and the county commissioners to have them, you know, have the opportunity to say, that's a good idea or bad idea, we'll include it or not. So just want to make sure everybody's feeling like they're being heard. And if you got stuff that you want to get in, get in the table, get on the table, you can bring it out today in the conversations and discussions. Or you can always email it to Lauren too as a written document.

Okay. I'll turn it over to Will. James, are you online? Okay. Great. I mean, if if you were showing up for the earlier meeting and not this one, I was gonna be unhappy with you. Because there was chicken at the earlier meeting, right?

Something has to be on fire, I guess.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for attending. Okay.

This is Lauren Polvor with staff. Taking a look at the revised chapter 10 that is in front of you, staff attempted to listen to what you all said. I think you'll see there's some new recommendations that were not in the original draft version, specifically looking at reuse, of embedded some of the conservation measures, recommendations together under one one kind of area, and then I think beefed up a bit the new district and plan development requirements. So hopefully, you've all had a chance to look at them in advance. And James, I did receive your email.

James sent me some comments via email this afternoon that we will review as well. But I don't know, Don, where you wanna get started, if you wanna start at the top and work our way through.

Yeah. Alright.

Just one quick question. The draft that's on the table here is the same that same thing that you sent out three or four days ago. Yeah. Okay.

Don?

Sure. Tricia.

Tricia Bernhardt. Lauren, one quick question. What is title 32? Can you explain that a little bit to this group?

Yep. Title 32 is the Colorado revised statute section or article that establishes special districts. And so a title 32 district is a special district. So our many of our water providers are title 32 districts.

Time for comments, yes. So you have the draft in front of you. So the first one first item is increased utilization of reuse systems. So do we have comments to the text there? Evan?

Yeah. Mister chairman, I I have a comment on the paragraph above that.

The first paragraph.

Well, the second paragraph, but the second paragraph leads with the emphasis of the following recommendations is to reduce ground or countywide water consumption, which I don't think that makes any sense. It seems to me what we are encouraging is to reduce or stabilize groundwater withdrawals by the use of potable and non potable reuse systems, minimizing urban level development solely in groundwater, stuff like that. I don't think you're trying to minimize groundwater consumption, maybe through the conservation of landscaping, but it just didn't seem to quite compute for me. Go ahead.

I guess I disagree. I think we are trying to minimize and reduce at least consumption on an average consumer or average average basis at least. We we have we have lots of suggestions on Colorado scape and and minimizing sprinkling and irrigation. I, you know, I think we are trying to reduce that.

Well, maybe we reduce outside use.

I think we talked by increasing inside use too through low use, low flow appliances and I think we are.

Well, alright.

I I think we need to say that. I mean, that's what we're we're wanting people to to use less.

Well, I think we're encouraging a trend towards less use, but the numbers that we saw show that the usage by most of these big providers is they're pretty low values already.

Yeah.

Weren't they, like, point two or something? I don't acre feet per household?

Yeah. I mean, it ranged from like a midpoint two to I think as high as 0.4 acre feet per home or per SFE per year. I see this as just kind of a of a language issue here because it says reduce water consumption through increased reuse. Actually, what we are hoping to do is reduce the need to withdraw groundwater by increasing reuse or protect renewable resources by using more reuse. And broadly, globally, yeah, we'd like to see water consumption go down. So I think this is kind of a wording kind of thing.

Yeah. Maybe it needs to be broken into a couple different sentences or something because

I guess

didn't make sense to me how non potable reuse or even repotable reuse reduces consumption. It just makes your groundwater go farther. Right. Increases your efficiency of use. But whatever. We could work on some couple sentences there.

Yeah. I that's a kind of a long winding sentence. Maybe It

is a long winding sentence.

Yeah. Where in that same sentence where it says minimizing urban level development, I think we wanna be stronger that stronger than minimizing. I think we wanna say don't allow it without you know, based solely on nonrenewable groundwater.

I agree.

Isn't that really the elephant in the room? Is is the county policy to move towards more renewable water to relieve tension on the on the groundwater, and we don't say that in that first paragraph.

But I think we need to say that.

I think we gotta just flat out say it's the policy we want to move more to Right. Renewable water.

Let me make sure your mic's on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It's on maybe it's on you, just not close now.

I'm sorry. Do I did I say it? Do I need to re restate what because I don't remember what I said. But I I think Evan's right. I think you're both right. But the real elephant in the room is, is it the policy of the county to move towards renewable water to take pressure off the aquifer and preserve it? And all the rest of this makes sense as soon as you say Yeah.

So we don't allow development that's relies solely on gunpowder.

Mister chairman,

I'm sorry. Think we say that. I don't think we say that. Right? I don't think we say that anywhere in these implementations that we shouldn't have development that that you could not have development only on groundwater. You think we should say it? I think there's a consensus that that should be said. Okay.

Yeah. I wasn't sure what you

were saying there. Because Yeah. Harold. I

have a suggestion for that. But I put together some comments, but I'd in terms of new development, I would propose we add now this is not one of the things I I'm learning, this is not our report to the board. It's the consultant's report to the board, and we're adding counsel. And I'm prepared on some of these to just add a, what would you call it, a, descending opinion of things that need to be included because I think this what's been drafted is excellent consultancy, And I compliment staff for bringing concepts like reuse back in. But it's consultancy.

Think about it. Maybe you should. Let's consider what about most of us in business and and and commissions, this is what decide yes or no or modify, not consider, maybe think about. And so I I would have some proposed language on that, that any proposed urban level development, critical words, or expansion, which is willing to be served by an existing water district or municipality that has renewable water and a feasible plan to develop renewable water must connect to such a system in order to proceed with the water appeal using Mickey's concept or urban level density. So if you're next to or near or a one of the larger systems that has renewable water, you don't have a you've gotta connect to that if what you want is urban level density.

And I think that's that's a critical point because what we don't want is like we've seen, it's so unfair. Equity came out of some of the earlier discussions where it's so unfair to a municipal system that has spent the money for renewable water to have somebody right next to them come in on groundwater in urban density at lower cost, and that just postpones getting renewable water to the system, and it's unfair to those districts who spent the money to do it right. So it seems to me you've gotta have a willing district that can connect to you if you're near it and can connect. You have to if you're going to have urban level urban level density. I'm sorry.

So I would I would suggest we consider that to solve both of those issues. Yeah. Patricia?

Yeah. Was going to say, let's have the discussion of what is urban level density. So one of the things that I have noticed in Elbert County is a lot of somebody has 40 acres, they put 40 houses on there. It's not really urban level density. And is it a big deal that they're using groundwater in this 40 acres? Maybe not. But then there's 40 acres next to it, and then there's 40 acres next to it that in another development and another one. And before you know it, you've got a whole section that is using groundwater. And they're all saying, it's not really urban level density. We're not, you know.

So we can I would like to see language that says no new developments unless you're connecting to a municipal system? I I don't know how you stop what I've seen in Albert County. It's just it's not sustainable.

Didn't we learn that there's, like, four zone districts or something in the county? There are four or five, and and they they're defined. It seems like we could tie it into those zone districts.

Yeah. I mean, let me make a comment here that, you know, this excuse me. This requirement that they're that you tie into a water district, but we don't have water districts all over the county. Right. Right? I mean, we have water districts in the Northern Band, Northern Interior. We kinda got them down through the core. So there is a lot of the county that you say, you know, any if you have if you want to develop, then you're gonna have time to water district. They're gonna look at you and say there's none. You know?

So are you then saying, I can't develop anywhere except where there's a water district? And so, you know, I don't I don't know how that plays out with, like, planning commission kind of people or board kind of commissioners or how that plays out in in that world of, you know, how they're trying to manage development going forward.

Mister chairman, I thought about that issue. That's why I put in here that you have to have a water district willing to connect. And urban density to me would be like a water appeal where you're going off your point seven five to your point whatever to get that level of density. And so that's a a self correcting kind of a problem because if you're near, you have to connect if they can serve you. We can't force a district who doesn't have the water to serve somebody just so they can make money.

But if they're willing to serve you, you gotta connect there. You can't just go next to them and drill wells cheaper than the district that did it right. Just can't do that. And then then that's enabled to get urban density, which I would define like like your water appeal moving off your point seven five or whatever they have. So I I think that should correct that problem.

K. Is is urban density a planning term?

Well, they had it in their one of their reports. I saw that's

where I mean, it's, so many units per or something like that.

Somewhere. So I don't know where that came from. I just I made up own definitions of land.

Can't do that.

This is Lauren. It is, Don, a a term, I believe, in our comprehensive master plan, and it speaks to specific zone districts.

Don, Jim Morris, doesn't the county already have where if it's an acre or less, you have to have a municipal type water and sewer system?

I'm gonna let Steve Coster, answer that question.

It's Steve Coster for staff. So in our zone districts, the state residential zone district, which is the gross density of one per two and a half one unit per two and a half acres or anything more dense than that is required to be on central water.

Okay.

When you get down to the the even higher density, then you also have to have central sewer. In one for two and a half, you can have septic systems still. And that that one per two and a half, anything greater density than that is what our master plan considers urban, which is still fairly low density in the grand scheme of things at one per two. You know,

that's You said one dwelling per two and a half acres. Is that your one per two and a

half? Correct.

K. So anything that's one and less than two and a half would be considered urban. Correct. I'm just playing this back, I think. Yep. Right? What happens at one and a half acres?

You you start to

No septic.

In our higher density zone districts, you have to also have central sewer.

Okay. Thank you.

So when you say central water, exactly what do you mean by that?

Central water means connection to a it's it's gotta be connection to a, like, a municipal system or a a special district provided system.

That system can be anything. It can be groundwater. It could be a creek. It could be whatever.

Correct. It doesn't it it's not specific to the source of water. It's just about having a centralized system as opposed to being on individual wells.

So so by by what we're suggesting here, tying central's or a water provider to urban, we make that next step, which is not only do they have to be connected to some kind of system, but it's a system that doesn't rely on groundwater. It's what we're at basically adding to the the equation.

Yes. That sounds like what

that's what we wanted to do.

Yes. Yeah. That's and and Yeah. I I I would even start my my first bullet is to promote and support renewable water development. It's a county policy to promote and support renewable water development for use in Douglas County as a replacement for groundwater supplies. Like, that should be our policy. We talked about that earlier. We really wanna get to renewable water. Well, that takes money and that takes management. It takes thought, but that's where we wanna go to protect the aquifer.

And and I would even go further on urban level that if if you have an urban level development, you must have a plan for reuse. But we don't must have a plan for reuse of your water.

See, part of the problem with the whole county water situation is that we have 30 plus districts.

31.

Okay. That is that is part of what we're all grappling with. When you again look at the city and county of Denver, there's a consolidated effort for the entire area that they have planned water for all of their citizens. Okay? We don't have that in Douglas County.

If we continue to allow another 40 acre development in unincorporated Douglas County to put in a central water system and use groundwater, we have another groundwater district. We have another water district to add into the the pie, and this is part of the problem. So seems to me that we should be limiting these new growth or new developments that are planning to just put in a shallow well and hope for the best for their 40 new homes that they're putting on 40 acres.

But I well, the the check and balance to that is 18 a. Unless you get a water appeal, it's three quarters an acre foot per home under your supply. If you're on 40 acres, if that 40 acres has under 40 acre feet of water under our current AT and A, you could you could do that. Now I think the check and balance the county has is on the water appeal because, inevitably, if you've got 40 desirable acres, you don't want three quarters an acre foot home. You're gonna want higher density urban, what I call that's my definition of urban level, then then all these other things trigger in.

But if right now, if you have 40 acres with 40 acre feet of water underneath it, you have a right you have a right to put your homes in.

Oh, I'm just saying maybe we should rethink that.

Well, that's a different issue.

But I think the key term in your description, Tricia, is shallow aquifers. I think we should talk about restricting the shallow aquifers, but allowing deep aquifers. There is an appetite for large estate type housing in Douglas County. And if if you have a 100 acres and you wanna divide it into five acre parcels and everyone's gonna be on their own well, Conceivably, county could require that it be deep water, that it'd be Arapaho water, not the shallow aquifer, but it also, again, depends on where it is in relation to other existing shallow aquifer users. I mean, it just seems to me we have to talk about separating these aquifers for larger urban level scale development.

They should be in the deep aquifer and maybe a combination with renewable if possible, but it's just not that possible. Renewable is just not that possible.

Yeah. I mean, in a lot of cases, you're just doing a de facto ban. Yeah. Right? And I really think, excuse me, we should keep the requirement to be in a position to consider reuse off the table because reuse is an advanced technology. I mean, that is advanced treatment. That is not something I think you'd expect every little wastewater plant to try and, try and do. So I don't, I want to disconnect my thinking. We need to disconnect we're gonna if we're gonna have language that says we're gonna have requirements that are a lot tighter to have pathways to renewable water. That's one thing.

I don't want to tie a pathway to reuse on top of that in my thinking.

But I I I don't disagree with you in in this smaller examples, but in in these larger systems, if you have to connect if you have to connect a system with renewable water, you should also have to connect your sewer to it so we can get that water back. I I I really think that's a critical part of where we're headed. Now the smaller ones, the forty forty acres or the large lot, you know, there's no way you could do that. But but or want to do it, really. It's not fair.

But for some of these small some of these systems that are near renewable water systems, they should be if they're gonna get the water, should be the policy you have to connect, and we govern that through the zoning process and the appeal process. Makes it more expensive, but water is expensive. And, you know, one of the almost every Douglas County is the only county that I know about where all the major water providers either have or will be connected to to potable water reuse to extinction. We got it. We should support that.

I I think of the the example right next to a a big municipal system. They want service, but they don't wanna connect to a sewer because it's expensive. Wrong answer. If you want service, you should connect. And and it is expensive, but that's life.

Yeah. Okay. So exactly sure where we're at. Thank you very much.

Could I if I might I'm

kinda lost.

Sorry for the trial by ambush here, but we just got this. I just had a chance to work out. I came up with some recommendations. Could I share that with the committee? Is that fair?

Since this wasn't since they haven't been posted publicly, let me go ahead and put it

again. I understand what the issue is.

So we're considering I don't know talk here. We're considering some language that I would say the Commission would like to see the County Commissioners consider to be in the water plan that encourages or requires developers to use renewable water or have a clear pathway to renewable water or be in a position to hook up to a water provider that meets that criteria. So that's the language that's kind of being banged around here, that I'm going to say this would be a request to go in with the rest of the report for the county commissioners to say, can you consider this or not? And I think Harold has some language that he's spent some time writing, and he'd like us to look at it.

I don't see an issue with you looking at any language. That's what you're here to do. Ultimately, whether it will go forward into the recommendation to the board is a decision you as a body have to make. You can hear anyone's ideas for what to put in here, as long as whether it's going to be in here or not is a decision yet to be determined.

Yeah, sure. I mean, that says we have this opportunity to recommend it. But in my thinking, what's in the final water plan is ultimately in control of the Board of the County Commissioners. Correct. Okay.

What's in the recommendation is what you're deciding.

Right. We're saying you ought to think about this. Okay. Alright. So we're still on solid ground. Right? Do you have a document you want to pass out? Is that what you want to do? Yeah. We get do we get thrown out of here at 01:30? No.

No. Recommendations are all kind of tied together, and I'm very sorry for this being you know, we just got this. I a search for you.

I have one. Work on it.

There's eight recommendations.

Harold, if you could move that a little closer. Thank you.

Okay. There's eight recommendations. The first is what we just discussed. Let's promote the county's policy is to promote renewable water. Second, goes to what our colleagues, talking about earlier, to protect the Dawson for rural water users, water districts other than existing districts serving rural areas are to avoid binding water from the Dawson Aquifer. And the way that works when you go in, you include all the aquifers to come up with the percentage of water you have by striking this out. It gives you no incentive to get into that.

So maybe maybe there's some potential for that to be applicable to a new

New a new or If

you if you if you say you want to ask the water providers to no longer access the Dawson. I think a lot of them are not doing that already because productivities aren't good. But they're not going to give up those water rights. No. Right. And that's kind of what you're asking them to do. They're not going to give them up.

If it's existing, you can't do anything with it. But what you come in, like, say you want to develop some land, and you wanna include the Dawson in your water portfolio, it's just not it's just not included.

Okay. So no one's there to get it.

And the third is the any preferred that we talked about, any proposed urban level development, which is willing which a district is willing to serve or municipality that has renewable water and feasible plan to develop renewable water must connect so we get away from this development right next to a district or to a community. And fourth, to promote support multiple reuses of water to extinction, any urban level development application must include a plan for reuse beyond irrigation. I put that beyond irrigation because it's too easy to say, well, I'll take the effluent sprayed on the ground. Well, wrong. There's better definitions in that.

And the fifth, the county will work with and support existing districts to implement reuse strategy. How can you argue with that? And the county will support coordination. Then the next one I took right out of well, out of your report, coordination with water providers to pool. And then the next one, seven, the county will support and require where feasible existing water districts to connect.

It's just the county will support you to connect so we can somehow get that water back. And and that for example, an example of that right now is there's now a sewer line runs all the length of of Plum Creek. So all those communities, as they go forward, to the extent it can be done, need to connect into that so we can get the water back in the system. It's not lost. And then last, the, like, this came out of Will's recommendation, expand sustainable landscape plan, etcetera, which is very important.

So, anyway, these were eight that I think I'd love to have the county commissioner say yes or no. There may be good reason to say yes or no, but it frames the issue for a decision, not a consideration. Kind of kind of entrepreneurial style.

So I would you know, item four on your list is the one that I spoke to where I said I have a real I have a problem trying to make a small water provider, I'm going say less than, certainly less than 20,000 people have to deal with all the things you have to deal with to do potable water reuse, which is a lot of stuff. We can certainly promote, you know, that kind of stuff or reuse every opportunity we get, promote central treatment. I think it was the water provider focus group that brought up the point that, yeah, if you try to consolidate wastewater treatment so that you could, you know, bring water streams to one place, then you could afford to do AWT. Now you got to reuse stream that you can use. How do get that back to the people?

So it's not only do you end up with maybe consolidating, you know, wastewater streams, you have to have an avenue to push that treated water back to the other side. So the point being is it's a little more complicated than just saying, well, let's put in central wastewater treatment systems. Why don't, what I'd like to do at this point with Harold's recommendations, I want to defer this to staff. Actually actually, I'm not being facetious here. I I think what I want want you to try and do, I'll say that's Will and and Lauren and and maybe anybody else you want to lean on.

And maybe take a look at this and see if we could meld this language or develop these thoughts further or develop them in a more focused way, I'll say, that would integrate into the plan the way we had the plan sitting there today. And then we'll have an opportunity to look at that. We're going to meet again next Monday, right? So I mean, if you all would you all agree to that?

Sean Tanner. Harold, great great job. I think these are fantastic. I think if we can weave these in to some of the additional, you know, verbiage that staff has done such a great job of building out, I think these are concise and on point.

K. Good. Yeah. Clark.

Yeah. I agree with the over the concepts that are in here. I think some of the language is a little too strong in that the county will require, you know, some of that. That's just too that's just too much.

And we have we have experts in writing policy, so we'll kinda we'll kind of let them work on it if you're on it. If you agree to that. Evan, you're good with that?

Yeah. I mean, sure. But I think we need to still define urban level and what we think we're talking about. Whether that's the 2.5 acre or 1.5 acre right. Or something less. I don't know.

Why why can't we just use the existing counties for definition?

Well, but there's two or three tiers to it.

Right? Okay.

There's there's well with septic, then there's well with sewer.

Yeah. And and maybe we just need to reference it.

Yeah. I I

say what we wanna talk about. Like, say, in number four Right. If it's urban level, do we mean one and a

half acre? We're we're gonna go back to this. Yeah. I think that's fair. So, I mean, I I my feeling would be if it's at that one and a half breakpoint where you say no more septic, right, then then you're not rural. Right? You're rural if you can have a septic tank. If you can't have septic tank, you're not rural. That might be a place to break it. Although that's although that's a little less density than people are building right now. I mean, people are building, like, six per acre. Right? So

Does does Parker, for example, Parker Waterton have one and a half acre lots that they serve water and sewer too?

Probably. Yeah. You don't know for sure, There's big big lots. It's a real mixed bag. But anything new? You know, I mean, we talked about, we've had conversations about whether we should promote higher density and more density housing and that kind of stuff. The builders are already doing that. The builders are are I mean, lot sizes could drive through the canyons. That's a good example. I mean, lot sizes are already way, way smaller than they have been over here.

So there's a lot that they're doing just market wise that kind of heads our direction, I'll say. So that that's item one, increase reuse. So we can walk through the rest of these real quick. You think we should?

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem on four where it says must include a plan for change to should.

That's Sure.

Let me I mean, our purpose here and Will's purpose, I guess, is to have a report that recommends policy to the board of commissioners. So, I mean, we can say encourage, we can say all that kind of stuff, it seems to

me.

Should is a good word.

Yeah. And and and I mean, hopefully Well, hopefully, what comes across is, you know, it ought to be part and parcel with every decision they're making. Is there an opportunity to do reuse and use less groundwater? I mean, that ought to be the things they step through every time they get the chance. I think that's what I'd like to see them think about.

Comprehensive master plan policies would be the next one. I didn't see anything. Yeah.

Clark. On the increase. The first bullet point there where it says, encourage reuse of potable water. Why isn't that just encourage reuse of all water?

Well, it's very hard to reuse irrigation water. I mean, it's gone.

Storm water? Well Waste water?

Storm water is a different animal.

But waste water I mean, why are we limit I guess, my question, why are we limiting it there?

Why is that just water? Why yeah. I agree.

Oh, okay. Where feasible. Yeah. I agree. Strike as water. Potable.

Okay. Great.

I I have a comment on the second bullet, which is just a it's just English construction. But, encourage high water use commercial users to to connect to providers that utilize a reuse system or should insert the word to implement a closed loop system. So it's like two options available for a commercial user.

K.

Well, you could say require, but they have to choose from those two things. They either connect to a a provider or they have their own closed loop system, but the closed loop system might be based completely on groundwater. Yeah. Exactly. Fine with me. That's a good word.

Okay. One more time. Item two. Comprehensive master plan policies. Any comments on that one? Yeah, Trisha?

Yeah, I think we're kind of dipping into that's kind of an overall category. But one thing that I think is really missing in this whole piece, and we're trying to talk about conclusions, and you've heard me attack this before, but the average person, when you talk to them about water in Douglas County, is very concerned with growth and very concerned with the fact that we're in drought conditions, that they're being asked to conserve water, that they're being asked to use less water, and yet they continue to see growth. And I think if we don't address it at some level and at least discuss it, that the county is going to try to plan growth to be equal to the amount of water resources that are available or something, but growth needs to be discussed. And I know nobody wants to say limit growth, but it seems to me that you should limit growth to meet the amount of resources that you have. If you don't have the resources, you should not allow continued growth.

This is what people want to talk about. So I'm just bringing that up one more time. We need to put something in here.

Okay, thank you.

Such an unpopular topic.

That's really a hard one.

I know.

Yeah. It's really a hard one. So I I don't know if if if if there's a discussion of of how you match or manage growth to make sure that you're not outpacing resources of any resource, water, land or the like, is that, does that belong in the CMP? Is that the level where that should be? I don't think so.

I mean, if you're planning comprehensively for the future, seems that you should plan that out.

Yeah.

Growth in resources.

K.

Well, I mean, I think your point is good, Tricia. I think what you're trying to say maybe that growth be limited to the resources that are available to that development. I mean, that makes some sense. But, I mean, certainly, if I'm a guy with 400 acres out in the East Eastern part of Douglas County and I've got a water decree for my Arapahoe water, I should be able to develop that. Should you? Yeah.

Debatable in my mind. You have the right to use what's underneath you, but land use controls dictate what you can do with that. It is zoned a one or whatever that doesn't give you the right to extract as much water as you possibly can.

But you can extract what you need and if it's sufficient to grow that development that I have planned, I should be able to do that. For agriculture fits with what you said, that I can only grow to the extent my water can can supply it.

Well, again, it goes back to land use controls and zoning too because if that is an a one piece and you're allowed to use that water for agricultural purposes and you want to use it for something different, then you need to rezone it. You're back into a whole different ballgame.

Well, yeah. Zoning is whatever the county won't let you do, certainly.

And the county has control over zoning.

Yep.

And the county can restrict that development from happening because of the zoning that exists.

Yes, but if they want to encourage growth Why do

you want to encourage growth if you don't have the resources?

Well, you do have the resources if you have a degree for your Arapaho water that's adequate to supply it.

I'd like to break this conversation off.

It's a good

one, It's fair. No question about it. But to your point, it's, I don't think it's unfair at all to say matching, you know, the available resources to the development you want to do. And we can certainly encourage the Board of County commissioners to maybe bring that more forward in their thinking. It's kind of about what we can do with that today.

We can't hear you.

Particular matter. Two things. A lot of this comes in on the water appeal because people are going to want to appeal and that that is absolutely critical. 18 a says three quarters an acre foot, and what I've seen is immediately developers trying to appeal that, not for renewable water, but to just get more use of groundwater. So that's one I think we could correct.

But the second one down here, that next phrase, mister chairman, comprehends the master plan policies. The county should support CMP policies that encourage urban level development. I'd be inclined to say there is no urban level development on individual private wells. And that that flies in the face of current county policy. So I that's just wrong. There should be in the urban level development on individual wells.

That goes back to the idea that you if you're gonna have urban development, it's have to be required to be connected to

Yeah.

A water system. So on your acreage or acres, the county would say no. You have to be connected to a water system to develop that.

Well, depending on what the urban level is.

Yeah. Yeah. Again.

Again. Have the choice to say, well, if urban is defined as

One and a half per acre. One and a half,

then I can Right. If you wanna put it in five acre lots, that's a different issue. But if you wanna put it on, you know, two houses per every acre Right. Then you have to be connected to a provider.

Or you create your own, which I know is another tricky deal. But

yeah. Well, even if you create your own requirements of having not relying on Well, you have a community water system. Yeah.

You end up with a community

water system. Right. And and

So that means a service plan doesn't have

to have reuse. You have to have a

reuse plan. So if you wanna create if you wanna

create We're kind of relitigating Pine Canyon.

Yeah. Yeah. You sure are. You sure are, Evan. If you wanted to create a service district, wouldn't that not have require a service plan?

Oh, well, if you didn't

My point being is if it requires a service plan, who's gonna approve that would be the county. Oh, yeah.

Any of it has to get approved through

the county. So Whether it's the zoning I mean, all these all these controls are there. Yeah. It's a question of are we are we gonna try and, give give the commissioner some emphasis areas, things that we think they should look at and every time. Right?

But see, I like this generalized language in the master plan that says that that how it's written. It says, you're going to encourage urban level development in areas with central services in order to minimize the impact on the individual existing individual private wells. You're you're doing that.

Yeah. I mean, to me, you could fix this, let's say, you know, then encourage those who seek to do urban level development. I mean, there's some some words you could put in here to make that read the way you think it should. I mean, you read this to say that we're encouraging urban level development, the answer is no. That's not exactly what we're doing. What we're saying is we're encouraging that if you're going to do urban level development, then do it like a real a real, operation, we'll have a central system or a connected central system.

Except I wanna go farther than that. And I wanna say if you're going to do urban level development, you're required. You're not encouraged.

It's required.

I agree with that. It's the encourage word. Okay.

Three. And at least now we get to flip to page two. So this is a new title 32 special districts, and the policies that need to be considered if you wanna do that. So do we have comments to this?

I do think you need to add some definition of what does Title 32 mean here.

Yeah, because I was just, I was kind of noodling that myself. Mean, says Title 32 special districts. That could be metro districts, Right? And probably I don't know if that's what you were thinking was metro districts because it's certainly not title 32 water districts. I mean

Water risk, water districts, and metro districts.

Yeah. It it just feels to me like that metro districts and plan developments kinda go together. Right? And then you and then you turn around and say, so you need to obtain your service from existing water providers, which could be another special 32 water district. I'm just looking for a little clarity on how this is presenting the idea.

This is Lauren Pulver, Ristoff. I think intent is is for new title 32 special districts, which I think gets at maybe what you're saying, Don, that this could be a new water district. So a development be

read to be a water district. Right?

Well, that's the intent. Yeah. It could be a new title 32 water district.

But but it's a different area of the board of commissioners' regulatory power. They have the power to regulate title 32 district creations through the service plan, and they can put conditions on how they're made. And so I think this whole paragraph is about affecting the board of commissioners' policies as to service districts. I I think that's what you're intending. Right?

I agree.

And that's different than what they do under their planning and zoning, or it's different than they do

I I just yeah. I think if you if you let this be, you know, any kind of special district, which could be a water district, And then the first bullet says, you must obtain service from existing water providers. So it's like, I don't know. I mean, what's that mean? Right? Well, I I mean, I'm gonna start a water district, and you're telling me I gotta go get water from an existing water provider?

You can do that. Well I live in one, and it's completely a a contractual water supply from Denver Water.

So an option. It should not a requirement. Well, agreed.

Yeah. I agree.

I I I I'm just taking this as trying to direct people who wanted plan developments in particular. Right? And and plan developments may ultimately end up with a metro district. I think most of the time they do. Right? And here's the things that go go with that. So I'm just trying to make this read clearer.

Metropolitan districts are typically used to aid with the financing of the development cost. It may or may not include also a water district and a water and sand district. I mean, it could.

It could include an operating district that's taking care of amenities, roads, and anything. All of that stuff.

Right. So I agree with you. It's a little stricter to say you can only do a new metro district if you have a water you're connected to a water provider. But I can also understand why you wanna limit the proliferation of more water providers. We have 31 or whatever, and we don't want 68. Okay.

I think that's the intent of this, Evan, that it's limiting the increase of new districts exactly that aren't

That are independent water providing districts. Yes. I mean, you're gonna have metropolitan districts that are used regardless of the water source. So I don't know what you say there, first bullet.

Anything else about this one that bothers people?

Well, for me, when you go to the third bullet and then there's these sub bullets, and one of them is requiring separate meters for indoor and outdoor use, which I do not understand the purpose of that particular one. Mean, obviously, if you have a non potable system separate from your domestic potable system or you have a maybe a reuse system to do irrigation. That's that's fine if you can do that, but it's not typical, really. It's more unusual.

And this that particular bullet came from one of our focus groups with water providers and just a number of conservation measures. I think Dominion Sterling Ranch does indoor, outdoor water use, so that's why it was added to this list.

I think they're the only ones. Separate meters?

Yes. We have separate meter. I'll lead in at two meters out, and then the the outdoor use is about 30% higher than indoor because you don't get the return flows.

Oh, so you charge a separate rate?

Charge separate rate. Yes. And and frankly, it's worked really, really well for us because our residents know what their water bill is gonna be, and and they manage it pretty well. The other advantage we find with the separate meters is it helps people understand the cost of that bluegrass, And that we just don't have much, and it it's worked very well for us. The third thing that, you know, better lucky than smart, we found it's cheaper for the builder to put in two meters than to pit one meter on the outside. I think it's a great idea because it's cheaper to have one lead two meters than it is to pit an outdoor meter like we're used to. So

Oh, off a separate supply line.

Off a separate supply line. Yes, sir. It's worked well for us. It's right. Strongly recommended, but it's it's different. You've gotta have the computer systems to manage that as well. We do an instantaneous read, so it's pretty easy for us. And it also has the advantage that instantaneous read. We've had more than one homeowner had leak and didn't know it. They didn't go back to a swimming pool in their basement because our district called you and said, hey, you're using you're not use you you have a leak. Our algorithms figured that out.

Our our little water district has a single meter for every house, but we do have that capability, and I can track

when I have

a leak and all that. Yep. I mean, that technology, I think, is smart. So I don't know. I I guess I now understanding what that means, I'm not opposed to it. For new districts, I mean, new you can't retrofit it, but you can

Jim Morris, only experience I have with two meters, one for outside, one inside was when they base the sewer charge on Oh. Your water usage. And so then by taking that outside water off of your in house meter, you weren't billed for that water consumption via a sewer rate. So that would I mean, other than the stuff, I think, mentioned as far as leaks or whatever outside that that's, all good stuff. But I I you know, Perry Park, for example, just charges a flat sewer fee.

So, you know, does it's not tied to the water consumption at all. And so they're paying their water consumption. We don't have a you know, I guess if you're gonna implement a separate rate for outside water for irrigation, that would be another reason to do it. But, if you're not billing for wastewater services based on on water, it's, you have to find some other reason than to dictate two meters.

Do we know that if any of the other water providers in the county do this? I mean, Dominion.

I are there any other no other water providers in the county that do it. I mean, it's not to say that it's not a nice advanced concept and that, you know, it's yielding some pretty interesting results. And that, you know, we should promote that, you know, it should be considered. But I don't know that, you know, we'd want to require that. With, if you've got AMI, if you've got the automatic meter interface and you can see your water consumption by the, jeez, by the hour, people that, with a little bit of effort can really tease apart what's going on inside and outside.

And certainly they know generally they're outside they're inside use from the winter months too. So there's other tools besides having to go to two.

Mr. Chairman, I might suggest we just we don't tell for the most part, our water districts are pretty doggone responsible. I think they do a pretty good job. And I don't think we should be telling them how to do anything. I really don't. I think let's just drop the bullet points and require water providers to develop a water conservation plan and leave it up to them to do it and expect them to do it well.

I agree. I I agree completely. Let's just drop all four or five of the bullets. Yeah.

Well, some bullets. I mean, these things all fold into the more general water conservation recommendations that are later on. Right? I mean, it makes some sense.

I think it's fair. Yeah. Any my own objections to that? So now that we've successfully reordered the bullets, let's pitch them.

Progress.

Okay. And moving ahead, Enhanced landscape plan provisions. And I think this means to take some of the stuff we're seeing in municipalities and try and get that migrated over into the the county zoning resolutions. I think that's really what this is about. One thing that I thought was was interesting, I think, came out of the I think it was the I think it was the water providers' discussions, the focus group.

No. I'm sorry. It was the builders where they said they were looking for some sort of consistency across the county. You know, maybe a a view that the countywide do you remember that? It's the countywide conservation requirements? You know, what's Colorado scape? How much you're gonna need? Those kind of things. If it was consistent across the county, that would that would be more fair to them so that they're not, you know, one line one municipal line away from someone planting grass, and they're on the other side having to plant rocks. So I don't I don't know what that whether that's here or there. Harold?

Mister mister chairman, as someone who sells to builders. I I know they would like uniform standards across, but each water district is different. And they're negotiating individual contracts. They just crank that into the cost of contracts. I I think the more we try and tell our water districts and municipality how to do things, the worst results we're going to get because it'll probably default to the lowest level. And we want our water districts and municipalities to the highest level that their market will take. So I I I I would not worry too much about being consistent to the builders. The county needs to be consistent in how they zone things, of course. It's legal. But but water let the water providers do a good job. Let them do their thing.

K. Drop that idea.

Seems seems to me under this enhanced landscape plan provisions, though, we have those sub two sub bullets, the zone planning scheme and soil amendments. I would add in the separate meter as a consideration. I mean, this is still a recommendation, and maybe the separate meter for outside is it makes a lot of sense. And then second, the Coloradascape should show up somewhere in this paragraph.

No objection to that. Anybody? Any other comments on that one?

I mean, I suppose you could also add that South Metro model landscape in manual. I don't know if you wanna have that in there or not.

Yeah. You're talking about Conservation policies. So bullet two, to the extent that the county has resources, meaning funding available to do things, can certainly lead the way with conservation practices. They can demonstrate. They can show how things work, how they look, how they feel.

I don't think there's an expectation that there's, you know, a huge amount of water that they're going to conserve, because they're pretty limited on, you know, what they can do, both from a budget perspective and really what's installed. But it's nice that they can at least kind of lead the way. I think that's what this does. You reached and drew back.

Is Lauren Pulver with staff. If I could just provide some clarification on that second bullet. So this is the actual the new passed last year state statute that requires the county by 2028

Oh, it's the turf grass.

Regulate the installation of nonfunctional turf. So this bullet's really just saying the county will figure out how best to do that, essentially.

Yes. I stand corrected. That's twice in the last fifteen minutes. It must have been late.

We're on the You

can still lead the way.

If we're on the top two bullet points of page three, I just drop both of those. Again, we're telling the districts how to do it. I think there's there's some of the charm of our county is there is some flexibility to it. So I I would I would I would hold the county to account. I like that one before, but I dropped those other two. These districts do a good job of managing their their systems. Let them

do it. I I see these as generally pretty harmless. Yeah. I don't get that. Both of these, you know, turf replacement. I mean, it reduces water, no question about that. It's a whole lot more cost effective if you just don't put it in. Right? And try and pick it up. And I know South Metro's been a source of, you know, some land or lands or irrigation type services, landscaper certification programs.

I don't know, don't know that this needs to be in here to promote them. I I kind of I kind of feel like maybe there's a bigger role for them to be thinking about. Uh-huh. Of of more long consolidations and cooperation roles and things we talk about in that context. I see it harmless, I can see it being removed as well. Okay. No strong feelings. Let's move on. Education and social media. Is anybody opposed to education?

I mean, the converse, the conversations around this in the user groups was, again, trying to, you know, the counties, county staff or county government, you know, touches a lot of people. If they're, if they put kind of their, their shoulder to the wheel here to try and drive conservation and things like that, they could probably have a a good effect. So we encourage them to do that. Right? On a roll.

Participation in regional state form forms. Nothing wrong with that. Right? And they do that. So county partner county partnership with water providers.

Not exactly sure what this one means.

I think you're getting into some ideas here that we probably need to discuss in, you know, in addition to some of the issues about growth. But water storage is huge and does the county want to engage somehow in a county wide water storage facility, a reservoir of some type, or is every water provider expected to figure out how to get renewable water, how to store renewable water, etcetera, or does the county want to get into the game of helping and looking out for the county's interest? Big issues.

There's a a big a lot of middle ground between a countywide facility and everybody on their own. I mean, we already have providers working together. There's some joint ownership of, Rooter Hess. So I think we're already in that middle ground.

I see this I like this paragraph. I I see it as a, basically, verbalization of what the county did with the ARPA funds. Mhmm. And the county went out, met with the providers, identified needs, where they needed bridge capital, where they could be involved, whether it was on wastewater, whether it

was on

pipelines. So I I think this is just kind of common sense of where the county commissioners and the county can intersect with any of the districts that need support or, you know, rolling back the time back machine, when Wise happened. If not for the county stepping in, Wise would have never happened. And so I I I see this as just kinda common sense. One

one concept that's not in the paragraph. I mean, I agree with what Sean is saying, and one pair concept is something about emergency interconnections or interconnectedness between systems. Roxboro. When

I think of emergency, I think of Roxboro when it was getting redlined almost. Yeah. And the county stepped in, helped to negotiate with Aurora to get the will serve for Roxboro. So is that what you're thinking on emergency? Or

Well, I'm thinking just more of the physical interconnectedness of all the different providers so that water can go where it needs to go in emergencies or otherwise.

Your district has an emergency interconnect with Highlands Ranch.

Right. Exactly.

And Roxboro now has an emergency interconnect with Denver Water and

Right. So I'm just saying encourage that kind of interconnectedness is what I'm saying.

Yeah. I I would add I would add in here facilitating emergency interconnections. I think that is a great concept.

Yeah. It's timely.

Yep. Especially when the fire comes.

That's right. That's right. That's right.

K. We're good with that. This last one, I think this is the last one. Is it? Yes. It is. Support provider coordinate pardon me? Okay. Support provider coordination. This I I this one to me, I mean, it's like, why wouldn't you?

Kind of a kind of an item. I don't know why the county would wanna step step in and and not have water providers coordinate or cooperate or collaborate or all those kinds of things.

That's the plan?

Yeah. But I think what it stops short of saying, and I know there's conversations all the time about consolidation, And that's a, that's a lot bigger bear to try and bring home than, than speaking of coordination. I, I see consolidation, you know, it could be, it's like a spectrum, and it could be from people just simply talking and understanding each other to all the way to the other end of the scale where they actually combine operations and put them together. And what opportunities there are out in the county, I don't think we've seen yet. The engineering people would always point to and say, boy, you know, bigger is better, you know, go for scale, little things don't work as good as big things.

But it's going to be hard to figure that out. Maybe that's a maybe that's a reinvigorated role for South Metro, right, to try and understand how to things might connect better for across the entire county. I don't know.

Yeah. I see a lot of Sean Tanner. I see a lot of the consolidation probably happening at the district level, and it'll be district to district talking. And I'm just thinking talking out loud. I know it it hasn't come to fruition, but Castle Pines North and Parker. I see it starting there and where the county can intersect and add support resources, whatever it is to make consolidation happen where it makes sense is an appropriate role. But I see it more organic at the district, whether it's Dominion talking to one of smaller ones around them or yeah.

I I agree. I I think it it will happen district to district. But one of the problems that I'm seeing is some of the smallest districts with the least amount of capacity have the biggest need to merge with other districts, but it's expensive. And and having, adult supervision on some of those issues because boards get involved in that kind of thing at the county level with some with some study money behind it would be vitally important. I think it's really needed.

I'm just curious. Trisha Bernhardt, you talk about study money for a feasibility study or whatever, that's one thing that the county could provide. But then would the county get into actually paying for infrastructure to connect systems together.

They may have to. You never know. But but that's that's the next bridge.

Right. Right. They did with ARPA.

They did with ARPA. Yeah.

That wasn't necessarily their money to begin with. People's money. Great.

Everybody around this table has our money.

Yeah. These two last paragraphs almost seem like they're kinda saying the same thing. Exactly. And so I would either merge them or I would change the second one to say that the county should continue, to support the evaluation and potential benefits because they've been doing it already. Let's let's not create something new, and let's recognize that this has been I mean, we're here. It's ongoing.

I agree. I I think one thing, though, would be helpful for the for the county to have on staff some expertise, some water experts in how to facilitate these things physically, particularly the very small districts, or have a consultant on staff, something like that.

Okay. Any any more comments on that item?

Don, I think there's the last bullet on the last page that talks about the County basically bringing additional renewable water into the County. Again, that's kind of a question in my mind. Would the County get into participating in looking at large projects, looking at ways to bring renewable water into the County and helping to pay for those instead of just the districts paying for renewable water? Is that something the county wants to get into, and is that a discussion that should take place in this commission?

Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm thinking that's maybe a fair question to ask them, ask the commissioners if they're if they see a pathway forward with that. Is that something they'd be willing to do? Could they you know, fiscally, could they, you know, find a way to do that without maybe federal funds showing up? Or maybe they get federal funds. Maybe they could use them that way. So yeah. Conversation. Okay. Any hopefully, we've captured all this.

I have one further comment, though. And maybe, maybe when we see this rewrite, it'll be there. But it seems like we have never really strongly said protect the shallow aquifers for existing users. It just seems like that is a principle we've talked about a lot, but it doesn't really say that in here. I don't think.

This is Lauren Polar with staff. We did have Bill, with Spheros work on it's not in this in in front of you, but it will be in the draft that you see or the the revised draft. And it really speaks to having new districts perform analysis to regarding use of deeper wells versus shallow wells. So we're looking for, I think, for that exact reason, Kevin.

It just seems for us

So it's in the groundwater study

Yeah.

Area? Okay.

In chapter 10, though, or in some other Seven. That's what I'm saying. I get I think we've talked about this. This is something we wanna do, but we don't say in this 10, which are the chapter 10, which is the recommendations to the commissioners that we think they ought to have a policy or consideration of protecting the shallow aquifers for existing users.

Any other items that anyone would like to get on the table today? Otherwise, please feel free to send Lauren an email with ideas, and we'll see what we can do with it. So I think are we done?

That's all we have for today.

That's all we have for today. So not bad. I'm listening. Thank you.