Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press for climate and aquifer protections during Grand County water‑use public hearing
Summary
At a lengthy public hearing on the county's water‑use and preservation element, residents urged the commission to include explicit climate projections and stronger protections for sole‑source aquifers; planning staff said the element focuses on demand and conservation and will be revised with public comments.
The Grand County Commission opened a public hearing July 7 on a required water‑use and preservation element of the county general plan and heard wide-ranging public comment on climate change, aquifer protection and funding priorities.
Planning director Andrew Jackson framed the element as a demand‑management and conservation document: "About three of every five gallons our valley uses goes not to our taps but to irrigation and landscaping," he said, adding that conservation and nonpotable sources are central to the county’s plan. Jackson noted the county’s per‑capita conservation is already below the state's 2030 target and that the plan is intended to keep discipline on water use going forward.
Numerous commenters asked that the plan explicitly include climate change and stronger language to protect the county’s sole‑source aquifers (Castle Valley and Glen Canyon aquifers). One resident cited independent studies and urged the commission to adopt proposed amendments linking land‑use decisions to climate science and aquifer recharge concerns. Another public commenter urged the county not to rely on Colorado River diversions as a realistic supply option.
Staff said the element will not duplicate water‑provider conservation plans (those remain the responsibility of water providers) but will request coordination and integrate findings from conservation plans. The planning director said changes to the draft will be posted and that written comments would be accepted through the posted deadline in mid‑July.
The commission did not vote on the element at the meeting but opened the comment period and asked staff to gather redline suggestions for review at a future meeting.
