Lake County outlines new water projects enterprise, aims to sell augmentation units for housing
Loading...
Summary
County water manager Bryce Ehrlich described a newly formed Water Projects Enterprise, based on a 2017 water‑court decree, that will sell permanent augmentation units intended primarily to enable rural residential and accessory‑dwelling development and to lease water to existing county assets such as Mount Massive Golf Course.
Lake County on Jan. 24 laid out the framework for a new Water Projects Enterprise that will administer a limited portfolio of water rights the county adjudicated in water court and make those rights available under permanent contracts and shorter-term leases.
The presentation, given by Bryce Ehrlich, Lake County water resource program manager, said the enterprise is built on the county’s 2017 water‑court decree (98CW173) and that the initial focus will be to support residential development where raw water access has blocked building. “By paying to become part of our plan, we essentially administer the water for you,” Ehrlich said, describing a one‑time inclusion fee and annual operations and maintenance charges for permanent contracts.
Why it matters: Lake County controls a small, legally defined bundle of water rights and is proposing to use them to lower a regulatory barrier to housing in hydrologically connected, rural parts of the county. County officials said the tool is narrowly targeted and will be phased in over three to four years to limit unanticipated growth.
Key details - Legal basis: Ehrlich repeatedly referenced the county’s water‑court decree, 98CW173, as defining how the county may use and administer its water rights. He described a “water marketing policy” as the operational rules for the enterprise. - Uses allowed: The county will prioritize domestic in‑house use for primary residences and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Commercial and industrial requests will be reviewed case‑by‑case by the enterprise board and require additional engineering review. Livestock use is technically allowed by the decree but is very small (the decree defines low per‑head livestock allotments), Ehrlich said. - Permanence and yield limits: Ehrlich said permanent contracts are “in perpetuity” and can be sold only up to the county’s dry‑year yield—the portion of water that can be guaranteed in drought years—and that the county will restrict permanent sales to the most secure supply. - Fees and timing: Ehrlich said the county plans to accept applications by the 2025 building season. He provided an example price of $9,000 for one augmentation unit as a one‑time inclusion fee and cited an example annual operations and maintenance charge of about $700. He said those figures are intended to be competitive with Parkville (the Parkville Water District) and to mirror market signals such as Twin Lakes share prices. - Existing lessees: Mount Massive Golf Course is written into the decree as an established diversion recipient; Ehrlich said the county is negotiating the golf course’s 2025 lease and plans a phased transition so the course contributes to the enterprise rather than receiving unconstrained transfers. - Intergovernmental partners: Ehrlich described continuing partnerships with Aurora and Pueblo as technical and financing partners in portions of the portfolio and said state review is required for diversion and transfer approvals. He emphasized the state division engineer and the state engineer are the ultimate administrators for final approvals.
Discussion and risk management Ehrlich told the board the enterprise is designed primarily for rural areas within the county’s hydrologic service area and will not serve areas that already have municipal water suppliers (he cited Parkville Water District and Mount Elbert Water Association as examples). To limit unintended consequences, the county will phase the amount of water made available annually and hold quarterly enterprise‑board reviews for applications. Ehrlich repeatedly emphasized the state’s oversight role and that county actions must follow water‑court and state approval processes.
Questions from commissioners focused on administrative procedure (public notice, whether the board will act in a quasi‑judicial role), demand projections, and long‑term revenue sustainability. Ehrlich said initial applications will be presented quarterly to the board for approval or denial and that a public notice process is built into the county’s decree and state process. He also said the enterprise is intended to be revenue positive but acknowledged long‑term sustainability depends on either expanding the portfolio or continued lease income once initial permanent unit sales are complete.
Next steps and outreach Ehrlich said the county is awaiting state approval of the enterprise rules, after which county staff will hold town halls in affected areas (north county and Twin Lakes were specifically mentioned) and begin accepting applications. He described planned town‑hall outreach in Q1 or Q2 and said the county will continue exploring storage, partnership, and acquisition opportunities to expand its available supply.
Ending County officials framed the enterprise as a narrowly tailored tool to reduce barriers to rural housing while preserving the county’s obligation to return water to the stream system and comply with statewide allocation rules. "We have very limited water," Ehrlich said; "the decisions you make with this water will shape the built environment in this county for the next decade."
