Douglas County groundwater model could cost $24,000 to $38,000, but funding remains unresolved
A Water Commission presentation highlighted limits in the county’s domestic-well monitoring network, while a proposed model remains exploratory with no approved scope, funder or lead agency.
A proposed Douglas County groundwater model could cost $24,000 to $38,000, but the Water Commission has not approved the work, identified a funder or assigned an agency to commission it, according to discussion at its July 27 meeting.
Steve Bowen, a county water advocate, presented data from U.S. Geological Survey wells and the Rural Water Authority’s monitoring program. In the meeting presentation, Bowen said the county has nearly 6,800 domestic and household-use wells, while the authority monitors 36. Fifteen are monitored continuously; the other 21 are checked periodically. The network therefore covers about one-half of 1% of the wells Bowen described, with continuous monitoring at less than one-quarter of 1%.
Bowen said the available data do not show widespread collapse in domestic wells. “Are we seeing massive declines in domestic wells? Not really,” he told commissioners. But individual wells can show subtle long-term declines, seasonal changes — including lower levels during summer irrigation and recovery in colder months — or gaps in the record that make trends difficult to interpret.
The data do not establish that groundwater conditions are uniform across the county. Bowen emphasized well-specific analysis rather than a single aquifer-wide measure, and the small monitoring sample limits what it can show about unmonitored properties.
The modeling proposal remains exploratory. Bowen said he had discussed hiring an outside modeler with managers from Highlands Ranch Water, Castle Rock Water and Parker Water and Sanitation District. He said the work needs more development before its deliverables can be defined, and described a broader county model as a tool for examining future scenarios and informing policymakers and the boards and city councils that govern water providers.
The meeting record shows no vote, contract, procurement action or budget appropriation. It also does not identify whether the county, the Rural Water Authority, participating water providers or another entity would hire and pay the modeler. The proposal’s usefulness would depend on its final scope, the wells and water systems included, and how its scenarios are used in water-plan and development discussions.