Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State water regulators brief Elbert County on Denver Basin groundwater, subdivision risks
Summary
Division of Water Resources staff told the Elbert County Planning Commission that Denver Basin aquifers underlie most of the county and require special review for subdivision referrals; they urged counties to consider renewable sources and offered a hydrogeology follow‑up presentation.
Mike Mottz and Ariel Hacker of the Colorado Division of Water Resources spoke to the Elbert County Planning Commission about how Denver Basin groundwater is treated under state law and what staff look for in land‑development referrals.
The presenters said most referrals come from counties and that their review focuses on three things: water‑supply demand, the water‑supply source and the proposed project layout. They described statutory categories—tributary versus non‑tributary groundwater—and explained that the Denver Basin contains confined aquifers (upper and lower Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe/Arapjo, Laramie‑Fox Hills) that often do not recharge on human time scales.
Mottz said that in the Denver Basin the state calculates a finite volume and administers uses based on a 100‑year statutory aquifer life; several counties, including Elbert County, apply a local 300‑year planning standard. The presenters cautioned that the common referral language stating an aquifer’s “economic life” may be less than the allocation is intended to encourage counties to consider supplemental or renewable sources rather than rely solely on Denver Basin groundwater.
The division detailed the difference between exempt (small‑capacity/domestic) and non‑exempt (large‑capacity/commercial) wells, the need for augmentation plans (water court) or replacement plans (Groundwater Commission) in many subdivision scenarios, and the limited 2020 carve‑out for some post‑1972 exempt wells under Senate Bill 155. They also urged referral packages to identify the specific Denver Basin aquifer for any proposed on‑lot well, to include will‑serve letters and updated supplier reports for public water providers, and to provide plat maps so staff can map affected parcels.
In response to commissioners’ questions about local water availability, Mottz said the DWR’s hydrogeology team measures groundwater levels annually across the Denver Basin and that trends vary locally—some aquifers are declining steadily while others show stability or modest increases depending on recharge and location. He offered to arrange a dedicated presentation by the division’s hydrogeology chief for a future meeting to provide county‑specific trend data.
The presenters also described alternative approaches counties and developers use to reduce reliance on non‑renewable Denver Basin groundwater: purchases of surface‑water rights, augmentation plans using treated effluent or water‑rights exchanges, graywater systems to reduce irrigation demand, and multi‑party projects that pool resources to acquire renewable supplies.
Next steps: the commission thanked the presenters and asked staff to coordinate with DWR to schedule a hydrogeology presentation; no formal county decisions were taken at the presentation.
