Douglas County Water Commission advances draft water plan outreach and unveils interactive groundwater mapping tool

The Douglas County Water Commission reviewed a near-final draft of its county water plan on a routine meeting and set a timeline for public outreach, including two in-person workshops aimed for late July and a final plan targeted for August. Commissioners also saw a live demonstration of an interactive ArcGIS groundwater map staff say the county owns and can update.

Ann Kenmeister, who said she has been running public engagement for the project, summarized outreach goals: “we want to make sure that we're sharing the overview of existing conditions and work done to date with the public and the community,” and to gather feedback that will add “nuance and guidance” to recommendations rather than act as a prioritization exercise. Kenmeister said two rounds of focus groups are complete, the plan and a project flyer are posted online, and staff will coordinate newsletters and social media to boost awareness before the workshops.

Staff and the commission discussed how the plan will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Lauren Pulver, county staff, said the draft will be provided to the BOCC through a work session in May so the board can review and decide how to proceed with public meeting formats and dates. Commissioners said they expect the water commission to reconvene after public comment for a final review before BOCC adoption.

The meeting included a detailed demonstration of the report’s GIS mapping tool by Bill Fronzac, who walked commissioners through layered data showing well locations, decreed water rights, aquifer units and production wells. “This map is designed to be used not only by individual well owners but by the county as well as by water providers,” Fronzac said, showing how users can click a well to pull permit numbers, well construction logs, pump intake depths and links to state Engineer’s Office documents.

Fronzac flagged a usability fix — structure-top values currently display as an elevation that requires users to subtract surface elevation to get depth — and recommended changing the display to show depth below ground. He also showed Petra cross-sections, net-pay (water-bearing sand) maps and SP5/SB5 grid comparisons and said the map’s underlying data came from county sources and the State Engineer’s Office. Staff confirmed the live ArcGIS link is embedded in the draft plan (page 7-2).

Commissioners pressed several technical and policy issues. Sean Toner and others asked whether maps can be sorted to highlight large commercial or irrigation wells; Fronzac said those data exist and can be color-coded. Harold Smith urged the commission to track productivity of large-capacity wells as an early-warning signal for aquifer health, but Fronzac and others noted production readings are not consistently filed with the state and that local water providers or owners would need to supply meter data if the county wants time-series productivity records.

Commissioners debated language in Chapter 10 and the land-use chapter linking the water plan to the county comprehensive master plan. Trisha Burnernhard and others recommended stronger integration so the master plan “incorporate the recommendations of this water plan.” Clark Hamilton proposed changing a policy phrase from “minimizing urban level development solely on groundwater” to “prohibiting,” and staff cautioned that the legal enforceability of absolute prohibitions could face appeals; commissioners discussed tying density or appeals to water-appeal requirements to strengthen enforceability.

A recurring concern centered on graphs and figures quantifying “physically extractable groundwater.” Harold Smith warned the presentation of large groundwater volumes could create public misconceptions about economic or geographic viability: “I don't want to give false expectations,” he said, urging the report to emphasize that technically present groundwater is not always economically recoverable or reliably available. Commissioners asked staff to add clarifying language throughout the report and to consider relocating or annotating large figures to avoid misleading readers.

On monitoring and data collection, commissioners discussed test bore holes (new drilled holes that can be logged and later converted to monitoring wells) and existing monitoring networks. Staff estimated a full logged bore hole for deep Denver-basin data could cost on the order of $60,000 each, and said they will weigh targeted bore holes in neighborhoods reporting well problems against using existing monitoring wells and provider-supplied data. Fronzac recommended annual updates to the GIS layers (wells and subdivisions) as a practical cadence for maintaining the tool; he said county GIS staff could be trained to perform the updates or the county could continue a small contract.

Next steps: staff will finalize language for the draft, schedule public workshops for late July, compile public comments for the commission’s review and present a recommended final plan to the BOCC for adoption at public hearing. Commissioners requested that staff return edits and public engagement materials to the commission and that colleagues email further comments to Lauren Pulver.

The commission approved the April 27 meeting minutes by voice consent before moving on to the water plan item and adjourned after the discussion.