Douglas County staff outlines how Section 18A governs water adequacy for new development

Douglas County planning staff briefed the county Water Commission on how Section 18A of the zoning resolution is used to judge whether proposed development has an adequate water supply.

Katie Carter, a county planning staff member, told the commission that "The county is a statutory county, so all the land use powers are dictated to us from title 30 of the Colorado revised statutes." She and Steve Koster, assistant director for planning services, outlined the county's approach: a single formal determination of water adequacy is normally made at the preliminary-plan stage, the county divides the unincorporated area into four water-supply zones with different crediting rules for Denver Basin groundwater, and applicants may propose alternate demand standards through an appeal process.

Staff said the four supply zones are (from west to east) the Pike (granite/fracture supplies, not typically reliable for intensive development), Margin A (declining yields; renewable or off-site supplies typically required), Margin B (half-credit for Denver Basin groundwater), and the Central Basin (full credit for Denver Basin aquifers). Steve Koster said staff created presumptive demand standards so reviews are consistent, and that "Section 18a is, like I said, where we've brought all those things together." The county's presumptive residential standard that commission members discussed is 0.75 acre-foot per unit; staff said agricultural and large-lot residential standards differ and that applicants may present different, project-specific demand analyses.

Both Title 29 and Title 30 of the Colorado Revised Statutes were cited by staff as the legal basis for local review. Staff explained that Title 30 requires a referral of preliminary plans to the State Engineer's Office, and that the State Engineer must provide an opinion on sufficiency and potential injury to other water-right holders. Staff said the county typically uses an outside water consultant and incorporates the State Engineer's referral into its staff report; several commissioners noted that a State Engineer opinion that raises questions commonly triggers requests for additional data.

Staff also described two administrative tracks for review: the traditional subdivision track (preliminary plan, final plat) — where the county makes its water adequacy finding at preliminary plan — and a minor-development/site-improvement track for smaller projects or for developments that do not subdivide lots. Staff said minor developments (for example, up to 10 new residential lots) receive an adequacy determination in that separate process.

The presentation reviewed two procedures added in recent years. A 2022 "established district" determination process allows districts formed after 1998 to request recognition as established (and thereby be reviewed under their own demand standards); staff said Dominion Water and Sanitation has submitted an established-district application and that the Water Commission's recommendation will go to the Board of County Commissioners in January. Staff also described an appeals process that allows applicants to propose alternate demand standards or other site-specific approaches; the record shows the Board has on occasion approved such appeals, while later land-use decisions may still prevent a project from proceeding on other grounds.

Commission members asked how the county verifies dependability and whether developers must purchase water up front. Staff said purchase is not always required; in many cases the developer contracts with a special district and builds service through development-fee mechanisms, and the county requires documentation of the conditions precedent to service. In non-district areas staff said the county would require additional safeguards and would evaluate the proposal closely.

Commissioners raised questions about whether the 0.75-acre-foot residential figure remains appropriate. Staff said many established districts use lower per-unit demand assumptions (commonly 0.4–0.6 acre-foot per year for single-family residential) but cautioned that county standards must be read together with local district rules and any crediting limits (for example, Margin B's 50% credit) when comparing jurisdictions.

Staff reviewed programs the county has used to help communities without reliable local water service. Katie Carter outlined the county's water-alternatives work — studies funded by the county that examine feasibility of connecting small communities to renewable supplies — citing Plum Valley Heights, Roxborough and other areas as past examples where county-funded feasibility work supported extension of renewable service.

Staff closed by asking commissioners to forward comment on referral items when they arise and reminded them that referral materials generally include the applicant's narrative and the same technical materials sent to other referral agencies. The presentation prompted additional technical questions from commission members about cistern/trucked-water approaches and about follow-up monitoring; staff said monitoring and long-term reliability are generally managed by the service provider or district.

Dominion's established-district application and staff's recommendation on consultant selection are pending next steps: staff said the Dominion matter will go to the county commissioners in January and that a work-session item on consultant selection would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners the following day.

In a separate, brief appearance before the commission, the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners joined the meeting to thank the Water Commission for its work and to introduce Commissioner-elect Kevin Van Winkle. Van Winkle said, "The plan is to be sworn in tomorrow morning at 10 AM."