Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graywater Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arapahoe County leans to opt out of broad graywater allowance; will draft resolution to prohibit systems
Summary
After a public-health briefing on House Bill 24-1362 and Regulation 86, Arapahoe County commissioners signaled support for an opt-out resolution to prohibit graywater systems in unincorporated county (four commissioners favored opt-out; one preferred a narrower prohibition). Staff said the resolution can include language to revisit the policy if demand or technology changes.
The Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday signaled support for a local opt-out that would prohibit graywater systems in unincorporated county areas, after staff presented regulatory options prompted by House Bill 24-1362.
Public Health and Public Works staff explained the state law shifts graywater from an opt-in to an opt-out default as of Jan. 1, 2026, and that local governments must act to prohibit specific system types if they do not want them to be automatically allowed. "With the passage of House Bill 24-1362, we have to decide whether we want to opt out of certain graywater system types before they become automatically allowed within the county as of 01/01/2026," staff said.
Staff presented three choices: take no action (which would allow indoor and outdoor systems and require the county to stand up a regulatory program under Regulation 86); adopt a resolution to prohibit all types of graywater reuse in unincorporated Arapahoe County (opt out); or follow the Board of Health recommendation to prohibit outdoor laundry-to-landscape systems while allowing limited indoor reuse (toilet/urinal flushing) under existing plumbing code. Staff said Option 3 balanced conservation and public-health concerns but would still require some administrative setup; Option 2 was operationally simplest.
Commissioners pressed staff on practical matters including water-rights constraints, cross-connection risks, code requirements, administrative burden, and costs. Staff noted that indoor systems (for flushing) are currently permitted by the county's adoption of the International Plumbing Code but have seen no local installations; laundry-to-landscape would require additional local code development and carries concerns about maintenance, chemical runoff, and winterization. Diana, presenting the technical overview, summarized the tradeoffs: "It is one way to help conserve water," she said, while also warning that laundry-to-landscape can introduce bacteria and nutrient concerns and entails long-term operation and maintenance.
After discussion, the chair conducted a nonbinding temperature read. Four commissioners indicated support for Option 2 (opt out/prohibit all graywater systems) and one commissioner indicated a preference for Option 3 (prohibit outdoor only). Staff said an opt-out resolution could be drafted quickly and would avoid immediate program costs and staffing needs; they also advised adding language to the resolution making clear the county could revisit the policy if demand or technology changed.
Next steps: staff will prepare a resolution and, if directed, bring it back for a formal action. The county will need to identify which local agency will administer any reporting obligations required by Regulation 86 if the board chose to allow systems in the future.
What was not decided: commissioners did not take a formal roll-call vote at the study session; they provided nonbinding direction to staff via a thumbs-up temperature read.
