Douglas County Water Commission removes draft change to well lot-size, presses for stronger reuse policies

The Douglas County Water Commission on March 30 reviewed the draft implementation chapter (Chapter 10) of the county water plan and agreed to remove a consultant recommendation that would have lowered the minimum lot size allowed for individual wells from five acres to two in certain rural districts. Commissioners instead prioritized clearer, implementable policies encouraging clustering, connection to public water providers where feasible, and broad adoption of water‑reuse practices.

Commissioners opened the session with staff presenting the draft recommendations and a spreadsheet of comments from county departments and local water providers, Lauren Pulver said. "You should have all received the draft plan chapter 10," Pulver told the commission, and staff framed the meeting as an opportunity to walk through each recommendation and collect commission input.

One of the earliest debates focused on the draft language in Recommendation 1 that the consultant report characterized as allowing lots served by individual wells to be as small as two acres. "I believe the report is suggesting that the lot served by individual wells be a minimum of 2 acres, but I think they should be 5," Commissioner Evan Hila said, urging retention of the existing five‑acre minimum in the rural residential district and two acres in estate residential areas. Hila argued the change could encourage more individual wells and sprawl rather than clustering and municipal connections.

Several commissioners agreed. After discussion, members indicated they wanted Recommendation 1 removed from the chapter. Staff said they would follow the commission's lead on comments and proceed with revisions.

Commissioners also spent substantial time pressing staff to make reuse—both potable reuse and gray‑water reuse—central to the county's implementation approach. "This report misses the most important part of water sustainability in Douglas County, and that is reuse," Harold Smethals said, arguing that reuse should be woven into many recommendations and that water‑intensive land uses (for example, hospitals or data centers) should be required to connect to reuse systems or demonstrate closed‑loop systems where feasible.

The commission discussed the limits of county authority. Several members noted that when a development is inside a municipal water provider's territory, that provider typically sets connection and reuse requirements; when a development is outside provider territory, the county may have more leverage through service‑plan or permit conditions. Lauren Pulver summarized the state‑level legal backdrop for some items: "The state law did kind of flip to require opt out if you don't wanna allow gray water," she said, and staff recommended the commission advise the Board of County Commissioners not to opt out of the state default that permits gray‑water systems.

Commissioners also debated other topics in Chapter 10: irrigation plan reviews and whether the county should prescribe time‑of‑day watering rules (several commissioners said those details belong with water providers); the appropriateness of including a recommendation tied to an unclear notion of "natural recharge" (several commissioners suggested removing or rewording that section); and conservation measures for county parks and facilities (members recommended the county lead by example but avoid overly prescriptive technical standards unless funding is identified).

On programmatic measures, commissioners discussed a proposed $25,000 county contribution to the South Metro Water Supply Authority's turf‑replacement rebate program and compared it to Castle Rock's larger local commitment. Members suggested the county could subsidize or coordinate with existing provider programs rather than build a separate county program.

Staff described the next steps: focus‑group reviews of the revised recommendations through April, incorporation of that feedback, and a full rewrite of the plan to the Board of County Commissioners in May before broader public outreach. The chair adjourned the meeting after the commission completed its review.

The commission's discussion produced several clear directions for staff: eliminate or rewrite Recommendation 1 to avoid lowering well‑lot minimums; rework several recommendations into affirmative, implementable principles that prioritize clustering and connections to providers; and elevate reuse (potable and graywater) as a guiding policy thread through Chapter 10 and the 2040 comprehensive‑plan update. Staff will return with revised language and consultant input in the coming weeks.