Twin Lakes residents ask Lake County to designate Markham Pond as fire‑suppression source; county weighs water‑rights reliability

Community members from Twin Lakes told the Lake County Board of County Commissioners that Markham Pond — a small pond in the village served by a dry hydrant — should be designated under Colorado’s fire‑suppression pond process so crews can use it and to improve local fire protection.

Kelly Sweeney (commenter) summarized the local request and the site’s context and said the pond “sits on [Larry] Markham’s property” and that there is “no cistern or water spot beyond that pond within a thousand feet that can be used for fire suppression.” Markham, who owns the property where the pond sits, described the village’s historic buildings as “one of Colorado’s rare treasures” and said quick access to water could materially reduce risk to residents and historic structures.

Multiple residents and representatives from Twin Lakes and local fire services described the village’s vulnerability. Kurt Schweigart said Twin Lakes has roughly 88 residential units and no public water system, and Jan (resident) said the village routinely hosts 100–150 visitors in summer, increasing exposure. Lake County Fire Chief Daley told commissioners that a local engine carries about 1,000 gallons and that a fully involved structural fire can use roughly 1,250 gallons per minute; he said, “If it’s there, we can use it,” arguing that any accessible source of water would materially improve the fire department’s ability to respond.

Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff cautioned that Markham Pond is currently a beaver‑formed pond — not a constructed, controlled reservoir — and that its supply is complicated by several ongoing water‑court cases and substitute water‑supply plans (SWSPs) in the reach. Division staff noted the pond’s inflow has been altered historically by ditches and diversions and that, under some adjudicated scenarios, downstream users could legally divert enough water to leave the pond low or dry at times. “The last thing you want is to designate a fire suppression pond, have that wet hydrant, and then, need it and there not be water in it,” Division staff said.

DWR and county staff discussed technical and legal remedies: improving or rebuilding the pond’s outlet structure and earthen dam so the pond can be controlled; using stored or augmented water from the county’s augmentation plan to top off the pond; or creating legal agreements among neighboring water users to assure supply. DWR staff said the county may also rely on other mechanisms — for example a SWSP, augmentation or a future water‑court change case — to make the site reliable but that those paths take time and negotiation.

Speakers urged a practical, phased approach. Several residents and local experts urged the board to give a statement of support while the legal and engineering work proceeds. Former Division engineer and area consultant Bill Tyner recommended patience and negotiation with neighbors but urged commissioners not to delay action “sooner rather than later” because the village has limited water infrastructure and growing recreational use.

County staff and commissioners agreed there was a need for more technical detail and legal clarity before a final designation. Commissioners asked staff to schedule a follow‑up work session; they asked county staff to gather these items for the next session: an engineering assessment of what minimal outlet/dam work would be required to make the pond operational as a fire source, an estimate of storage and usable gallons based on current pond dimensions, a summary of the current water‑court and SWSP status for the Bartlett/Barrier Creek reach, options for county augmentation or supplemental groundwater supply, and input from the fire department on minimum access and pipe/clearance requirements to safely draft water.

No final designation or vote occurred at the work session. Commissioners said they would review the technical and legal follow‑up before deciding whether to use one of the county’s 30 allowable-designation acres for Markham Pond and whether to pursue broader, county‑wide mapping of candidate suppression sites.