Colorado Water Congress briefed Douglas County commission on bills affecting turf, taps, septic funding and special districts

Contract lobbyists for the Colorado Water Congress reviewed a package of water-related bills with the Douglas County Water Commission, highlighting likely effects on landscaping in new development, tap fees, septic-system replacement financing, permitting timelines and state trust lands review. Commissioners discussed local control, fiscal impacts, and asked staff to summarize commission comments for the County Commissioners.

Diana Orr, presenting on behalf of the Colorado Water Congress, summarized House Bill 113, a bill that would require local governments to adopt standards limiting “nonfunctional turf” in new developments and common-interest properties. Orr said the bill passed both chambers and allows substantial local flexibility, noting that on or before Jan. 1, 2028, “each local entity with land use planning and zoning authority shall enact or amend ordinances, resolutions, regulations or other laws regarding new developments.” Commissioners asked how homeowners associations (HOAs) would be affected; Orr said last year’s language already reached common‑interest communities and that the current bill targets new development, not retroactive changes to existing private yards.

The commission heard details on a proposed septic replacement enterprise (discussed as HB1120) intended to create a state-managed fund to provide financial assistance for replacing aging septic systems in mountain communities where replacement costs are prohibitive. Presenters said the enterprise would be funded by a fee on new septic installations; the bill has faced questions about scale and governance and was still in appropriations as the legislative session neared adjournment.

House Bill 1211 on tap fees (Title 32 water districts) was described as an incremental measure to allow districts to consider factors such as unit size, irrigation and infrastructure cost when establishing tap fees. The lobbyists said the bill does not impose a formula in statute; rather, it lists factors that districts may use to justify lower fees for higher‑density or more water‑efficient development. Commissioners raised concerns that any reduction in tap fees for new hookups effectively shifts costs to existing customers and asked whether a standard “nexus” formula would be required; lobbyists replied that no specific formula is written into the bill and that case law (Breckenridge v. Krups) underpins nexus requirements.

Commissioners also discussed House Bill 1334, which would have clarified special districts’ eminent‑domain authority. Presenters reported the bill was killed in committee within the hour and that stakeholders will continue interim discussions; Commissioner Harold described the measure as a “solution in search of a problem” and urged caution before changing condemnation rules.

Additional items noted included Senate Bill 305, a measure to accelerate permitting timelines at the state health department (including an option to use a contractor with permittee consent), and House Bill 1332, a study of state trust lands (sections 16 and 36) and potential expanded uses. Lobbyists ended by offering to answer follow-up questions and sent the commission links to bill tracking materials.

Commissioners asked staff to compile the commission’s comments from this meeting and forward them to the County Commissioners to inform any county-level positions; no formal county positions were adopted by the Water Commission at the meeting.