Douglas water commission backs ‘prohibit’ language for groundwater-only development

The Douglas County Water Commission forwarded its draft water plan Monday and backed changing proposed language from “discourage” to “prohibit” for new urban-level development relying solely on groundwater. The phrase “or subject to heightened review” would remain, the commission’s Aug. 24 meeting record shows.

The plan was not adopted. Staff still must incorporate the edits, correct formatting and figure-numbering errors, and clarify how the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners will review it.

Commission forwards plan with stronger groundwater language

The commission forwarded the draft as a policy recommendation in a voice vote. The chair called for opposition, and none was stated; the record does not provide a numerical tally.

In a separate close vote, commissioners chose “prohibit” over “discourage” in the executive-summary recommendation concerning new urban-level development that relies only on groundwater. Staff said the corresponding language in Chapter 10 also would need to change. The record contains conflicting informal counts, so the exact tally is unclear.

The language applies to a proposed policy, not to a particular development application. County Attorney Chris Pratt cautioned that the recommendation would not create a blanket legal prohibition. Even if county commissioners adopt the language, implementation through zoning, subdivision rules or other land-use authorities would require separate review for property-rights, constitutional and other legal requirements.

Commissioners also discussed reducing reliance on shallow aquifers and encouraging centralized systems, deeper aquifers, water reuse and renewable supplies. The record does not clearly establish final action on those additional wording changes.

Adoption process remains unsettled

Staff said a new Colorado law requires comprehensive master plans to include a water-supply element and that the county is evaluating whether the water plan meets that requirement. Staff indicated that Planning Commission adoption is required for that purpose, but the final sequence involving the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners remained unsettled.

The commission also asked staff to determine whether the plan defines “urban-level development.” The record does not establish a final definition or confirm that one appears in the draft.

The plan was described as the product of about 18 months of work and as nearing completion. The next steps discussed were to make it public and have the Board of County Commissioners review it. No county body had adopted the plan as of Aug. 24.

Proposed language and water-supply concerns

At the commission’s Aug. 17 meeting, members favored stronger language discouraging higher-density approvals for developments relying only on groundwater and sought information about a proposed Parker-area data center’s water demand. The earlier meeting recording shows that discussion.

The draft supports water reuse, renewable water and connections to existing systems. It says a new development that can connect to an existing renewable- or reusable-water system should do so rather than rely solely on groundwater.

If no such system is available, the earlier draft said an appeal for increased density under Regulation 18A “should not be approved.” Commissioners had supported removing “generally” from an earlier version saying the appeal “generally should not be approved.” The final language remains subject to staff edits and county review.

Commissioners and staff said the plan should clarify “new development,” including how the policy would apply to changes in the number of homes or density on an existing parcel. They also discussed clarifying that “appeal” refers to a request for higher density under Regulation 18A, not a court challenge or another development appeal.

Members questioned whether the plan presents future water supplies too confidently, citing drought, climate change, changing hydrology and limits on renewable and surface water. They discussed clearer explanations and disclaimers that supply data came from providers and had not been independently verified. Longer-term scenario analysis, monitoring and a public dashboard were discussed as possible follow-up work, not immediate commitments.

The plan retains a 2050 planning horizon. The commission also discussed reuse, storage, rainwater harvesting and drought-tolerant landscaping to address future demand.

Data center demand remains unknown

During member comments Aug. 17, staff said the proposed data center had gone through Parker’s land-use process and is in incorporated Parker, not unincorporated Douglas County. Staff said Stonegate Village would serve it through Compark, whose system relies entirely on groundwater.

Commissioners requested more information, but the discussion produced no facility-specific demand estimate, annual-use projection or peak-demand figure. Comments about closed-loop systems and potentially higher water use by data centers with gas-turbine power plants were general observations, not findings about this facility. The commission took no formal action on the data center.

Earlier development referrals remain unresolved

The commission also took no formal action July 27 on the Antelope Crossing and Bobcat of the Rockies development referrals, the meeting recording shows.

Antelope Crossing would divide a 100-acre property into 10 10-acre lots served by wells. Participants questioned whether the property’s adjudicated water rights match the water-court decree, whether future owners could obtain well permits after a post-1972 rezoning, and whether augmentation might be needed. Jim Morris said the proposed allocation would provide just under 1,800 gallons a day per residential lot and urged conservation and leak-detection plans if the subdivision is approved.

For Bobcat of the Rockies, commissioners discussed a letter of service from Roxborough providing a two-inch commercial connection and a six-inch fire connection. They questioned whether the project would use septic systems and said it should connect to sewer when capacity becomes available so water could be recovered for reuse. No formal condition or recommendation was adopted on the rezone.