Douglas County water commission narrows outreach approach for county water master plan; commissioners press for clearer data

Douglas County Water Commission members on March 24 reviewed a revised water-provider survey and public outreach materials for the county's water master plan, directing staff to prioritize clear definitions, zone-specific data and support for small providers.

Commissioners said the county should focus first on assembling reliable data about supply and demand, then address policy and financing questions. Staff described changes to the questionnaire — notably separating questions about reusable water, simplifying tables and keeping a public-facing one‑pager and QR code to route feedback to the project website.

The commission’s staff member Lauren Pulver introduced the packet and said the county and consultants had “been working with our water consultants to put together public outreach materials and kind of refine the strategy for public outreach.” Will (consultant) summarized edits to the provider survey and said section 4 now separates reusable water and reduces table complexity to improve clarity.

Commissioners pressed for standardized definitions and more granular data. Commissioner Trisha Bernhardt urged the county to watch cumulative groundwater impacts after noting the Antelope Crossing application proposes four lots and four new wells in the Lower Dawson area and said, “cumulatively, all of these start adding up.” James Eklund, Evan Hila and others asked that the questionnaire define terms such as “firm yield” and “reusable,” and request items that would make responses comparable across providers — for example, the basis used to calculate firm supply and 10‑year per‑capita use trends (winter and summer averages).

Several commissioners recommended breaking input by planning zones. Commissioner Clark Hamillman suggested including elected officials from municipalities and special districts in focus groups to capture constituency concerns. Commissioner Harold Smethals and others argued that the first round of focus groups should concentrate on getting the right technical data rather than debating policy, and that policy discussions should happen later once the data is compiled.

Consultants and staff agreed to consider zone-based delineation for focus groups and said they would request conservation plans from providers where available. Will also confirmed the survey asks providers to provide conservation plans and that staff will seek additional financial and project-planning details (debt, planned projects) because such information could influence future county participation in regional projects.

Commissioners and staff discussed how to help very small water districts complete the survey. Staff acknowledged many small districts are volunteer-run and said the county will try to assist smaller providers and accept reasonable assumptions where detailed data is unavailable.

The commission also agreed to fold some stakeholder outreach into topic-centered focus groups — for example, separate groups for retail water providers, individual well owners and developers — rather than creating a separate standing stakeholder committee. Commissioners emphasized keeping the outreach materials public-facing and easy to act on; James Eklund recommended a clear call to action on the one‑pager and suggested language such as: “We want to hear from you.”

The meeting opened with a routine roll call and concluded earlier formal business with approval of prior meeting minutes before the water plan discussion. A motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded and approved with two abstentions recorded (members who said they had not attended the prior meeting).