Douglas County Water Commission narrows outreach, shifts to topic-focused groups for county water plan

At the Douglas County Water Commission meeting on March 24, staff described changes to the county's draft water plan outreach and a revised water-provider survey, and commissioners recommended narrowing the public engagement approach and tightening the data requested from providers.

Lauren Pulver, water resources staff, told the commission that the provider survey was edited to clarify section 4 on water supply and to separate questions about reusable water. "We're now looking to move away from having a completely separate, stakeholder group and then instead focusing our time and effort more on the focus groups," Pulver said, describing a shift toward several topic-centered focus groups (for example: water providers, individual well owners) rather than a single broad stakeholder body.

The change matters because the county intends the outreach to inform an 18-month comprehensive water plan that will feed land-use and policy recommendations across Douglas County. Commissioners said outreach design should prioritize getting consistent, usable data from providers first, and reserve policy debates for later in the process.

Commissioner Trisha Bern Hart raised a caution about cumulative groundwater impacts, citing a pending referral for Antelope Crossing (SB2024606). "So while I don't have an opposing view to the Antelope Crossing... I do think that cumulatively at some point all of these projects we need to look at together; this is 4 lots and 4 separate wells in the Lower Dawson using ground water," she said, noting that an engineer's review of legal water rights did not verify physical availability of groundwater. Commissioners agreed that the survey and outreach should capture geographic detail so the county can track where specific concerns originate.

Several commissioners suggested specific additions and clarifications for the provider survey. Commissioner Evan Hila recommended asking providers to state the basis for their "firm" supply calculations and to provide a recent 10-year trend of per-capita water use (winter and summer) so trends are comparable across providers. Commissioner James Ecklund urged staff to request the same conservation plans and state reports that utilities already file with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to improve consistency. Commissioner Jim Morris asked that the survey request data on unaccounted-for water (losses and leakage), which could be a conservation target.

Commissioner Harold Smethals emphasized process discipline: collect and validate the technical data first before soliciting policy preferences. "The focus of these focus groups should be... are we asking the right questions to get a comprehensive picture of what our water supply truly is and what the issues are?" he said, urging that policy discussions come later so the process does not become "trial by advocacy." Other suggestions included organizing focus groups by county zones so input reflects different aquifer impacts, and convening a separate group of elected officials to capture constituent concerns.

Staff acknowledged smaller providers may lack capacity to produce detailed technical reports and said the survey can be tailored: larger providers would be asked for detailed datasets, while staff would make reasonable assumptions or follow up with smaller districts where information is missing. Pulver also said the outreach materials were revised to simplify table formatting and make the reusable-water questions clearer.

Next steps include further edits to the provider survey to add the suggested items (definitions of firm yield, request for conservation plans and unaccounted-for water, 10-year per-capita trends, and clearer reuse definitions), mapping focus-group recruitment to county zones, and scheduling public meetings and focus-group sessions as part of the 18-month plan. Staff also said the commission will receive presentations from regional providers (Parker and Castle Rock water directors) and other partners in upcoming meetings.

The commission did not take any formal policy votes on the outreach approach at this meeting; the discussion concluded with staff direction to revise the survey and outreach materials per the commissioners' suggestions and return with updates.