Elbert County staff outline plan to add 11 groundwater monitoring wells; no decisions taken

Elbert County staff presented a plan on April 22 to expand the county’s groundwater monitoring network by adding roughly 11 monitoring wells and recruiting volunteer private‑well owners, but the Board of County Commissioners took no votes or formal actions at the work session.

Aaron Walker, identified in the meeting as Elbert County’s water planner, told commissioners the monitoring network dates to a 2015 partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey and that well counts have shifted over time; staff plan to add 11 wells in 2026 to strengthen coverage across the Denver Basin aquifers and to capture baseline conditions in northeast and southeast portions of the county. Walker said maps in the presentation show existing monitoring sites color‑coded by aquifer, and he recommended placing new sites outside centralized water systems and in growth corridors to detect well‑to‑well interference and long‑term trends.

The presentation described aquifer representation in the county (Upper Dawson, Lower Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe and Laramie‑Fox Hills), noted that some monitoring wells were lost over time for reasons such as ownership changes or access, and reported a trend in recent 'redrills' toward deeper aquifers. Walker said redrills are useful as supporting indicators when combined with other data but do not by themselves establish cause.

Staff identified specific areas for proposed wells, including a site the transcript called 'Allora' (also later referred to as 'Elora' in the presentation), two wells for the Independence area (about 1,400 planned or existing lots), and single wells recommended for Spring Valley, Sun Country, Cimarron, Saddlewood and Kiowa. Walker said the planning intent is to monitor outside centralized systems, place wells near growth corridors and capture baseline data in less developed northeast and southeast areas of the county.

Walker estimated roughly $2,500 in field equipment per monitoring setup and said mileage and outreach expenses would apply. He described a recruitment approach that would create a county webpage, share specific recommended sites, and invite volunteer private‑well owners to participate. In exchange for allowing county measurements, participants would receive a water analysis and well‑specific data; sampling would occur every two months (February, April, June, August, October and December) to align with USGS timing.

Commissioners asked several operational questions. One asked whether the county should 'over‑monitor' (add extra wells) to allow for expected attrition; Walker agreed that additional data points would be valuable and suggested placing added wells near aquifer boundaries and county borders. Several commissioners proposed outreach to homeowners who previously left the USGS program to request at least one remeasurement. Commissioners also asked for a spreadsheet documenting redrill history and productivity; staff said they would provide that record for review.

A recurring concern was data access from metro districts and municipalities. Commissioners noted that metro districts must file groundwater logs with the state but that the county cannot automatically retrieve those logs; staff said the county must request permission from individual districts or municipalities and that attempts to obtain such logs had largely been unsuccessful to date.

Walker said the county would initially coordinate with USGS and that any migration from USGS monitoring to county monitoring is undetermined. He confirmed the county will supply monitoring reports to the board on the bimonthly schedule. The work session closed with staff agreeing to deliver the redrill spreadsheet, finalize program details (participant eligibility and private‑well suitability), create a webpage and continue outreach; no formal actions or votes were taken.

The county’s next procedural steps are staff follow‑ups and information sharing with the commissioners (redrill spreadsheet and program details).