Effective Planning Requires Critical Thinking and Complete Information

Much has been said and done in recent months concerning the perceived quality of life in Elbert Co. According to some very vocal individuals, we must act immediately and decisively if we are to have any hope of preserving our rural community. It reminds one of the Climate change crisis argument. At the center of this concern are two items that have been inextricably linked together in the matter of development (described as overdevelopment), and the inevitable shortage of water we are apparently facing. According to these individuals, the solution is simple, although not very elegant, and that is for the government (as in Commissioners) to take over the responsibility of deciding what we should do with our property and our right to decide for ourselves. It is framed as a decision that must be made "to be on the safe side" for the good of all the citizens of Elbert Co. to preserve our current quality of life, because we don't really know the answer to the questions "When will we run out of water?" and "Why are all these people moving to Elbert Co.?” It is an answer that would seem to align with the interests of small property owners (6-acre lots or less) who have moved here within the last decade. In reality, it conflicts with everyone who believes in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and especially the property owners who helped build Elbert Co. from the turn of the previous century, who focused on raising cattle or farming instead of their 401(k)s or other retirement funds. Sometimes it's difficult to find a good solution when presented with a potential problem, but it makes it almost impossible when those responsible for building the solution are fixated on the simplest answer that fits their agenda. Invariably, they will resort to emotional arguments to defend their answer rather than find the better solution for the whole problem. When important issues are framed in an emotional argument, it is difficult for the average person to recognize the real argument and the critical facts pertaining to that argument.

What does it mean to be on the safe side of the water conservation argument? Water is an important component in the formula that determines our quality of life. It is a driving force for the things we, in Elbert Co., enjoy on a daily basis, obviously, besides individual consumption. It keeps our crops alive, which in turn allows at least some of us to make a living, and it sustains herds of cattle for the serious Rancher and the hobby Ranchers alike. For some of us who have moved into the rural part of Colorado, from the city, having plentiful unmetered water is essential for the quality of life we would like to enjoy, and more importantly, that we can afford to enjoy. For the rest of us, it may just be enjoying a little grass to go along with a little bit of separation from our neighbors and the reduced "hustle and bustle" from the city. On the surface, it would appear we had a small, limited-size containment formation of which the edges were yet to be discovered, and since it is underground, it is a closed system where very little, if any, precipitation could enter the rock formation. Since we are talking about sandstone, how much water movement within the rock is even possible? The answer to these questions and more are found in the 4 USGS reports published since 2005, with the most recent report in January 2026. Going through the reports, there are a number of takeaways such as the size of the upper Dawson at 600 sq miles is dwarfed by the lower Dawson at 1,400 sq miles, which in turn is dwarfed by the Arapahoe at 4,700 sq miles in areal extent. Another key component that presents itself is the average water-yielding thickness of the Dawson alone ranges from an average minimum of 100-400 feet. Coming from the Oil and Gas industry, this is an impressive size, so when a report suggests there is a minimum of 40 MAF of water present in the Dawson formation, it's easy to accept that this is a minimum estimate. My previous articles in the Ranchland News Letters to the Editor put this in perspective. We definitely want to be smart about our water usage, but when any of our leaders and leader wannabes start the legislative year out with a warning that we're in danger of running out of water, be very aware, because no good planning will ever come out of any emotional argument, ever. Make no mistake, water is a very important commodity, and we cannot afford to waste it, but we can't afford to have emotionally charged, misleading information drive our future planning. As important as the water is for our personal quality of life and the county-wide quality, it is not the only component. Which means Commissioners who fail to take into account the proper needs of all the citizens, which is what makes Elbert the great county it currently is, do a disservice to us all.

Regardless of what others would have you believe, our property rights and the freedom to make personal choices concerning those rights are critical to our quality of life as well. In the last decade, there have been many new residents to Elbert Co. who have spent much of their adult life living in decidedly non-rural environments. They've become accustomed to the local organization telling them what they can and can't do on their property, what color their house can be, how many cars you can have on their lot, whether or not you can put a dumpster in your front yard, and sometimes whether or not you can even have a pickup parked out front. Whether it's from an HOA, County government, or State government, it becomes part of our mindset that makes us believe our experiences and ideas are representative of everyone else around us. When you move into a rural setting, there is a responsibility to all your "neighbors" in the county, not just those who live in the rural "burbs" (1-6 acre homes). Many residents in Elbert Co. have poured their heart and soul into their ranches or their farms in order to provide a good living for their family, with an expectation that their land had always been theirs to decide how to best utilize its value to the benefit of their family. That value is the result of a material investment of blood, sweat, and tears that has, over the years, increased the value of their farms/ranches. But until that value can be monetized, there is no liquid asset to be used for retirement trips or even basic necessities of life that arise from time to time. Many of the more recent residents of Elbert and those who've been here for a while, who don't make their living from the land, have other retirement investments like "401(k)s", equity funds, and the like, so we may not think about retirement in the same way the Rancher and the Farmer might. These freedoms to make decisions that benefit your family are the very bedrock foundation of this nation, and which are being undermined by those who would claim the society as a whole must have a say in the matter as well. After all, they would claim, you can't selfishly monetize your land to a developer who will wreck the rural feel of the county by subdividing your land into ½-acre or 1-acre lots, not to mention all the additional water that will be consumed, leaving less for the rest of us. It is important for the health of this Republic that all the citizens be engaged with the discussions and the decisions being made by our representatives that impact all of us. Whenever Representative Wannabes, whether at the state level, federal level, or local level, start claiming facts without discussion or dismiss proponents of alternative interpretations of facts out of hand, then it's time to start asking questions, especially when those proponents have the credibility of experience or education. Without clear discussion and a full vetting of the available information, it's nearly impossible for those in charge of imposing rules and regulations on the citizens to make good decisions and healthy planning that will maintain our quality of life in Elbert Co.

Back to the original question, shouldn't we err on the safe side and stop development in the county to prevent excessive development, thereby preventing a water shortage disaster or lost rural "feel" of the county? The USGS reports already published show a large aquifer underneath us. Annual reports show tremendous water conductivity by the enormity of water table recovery in every well monitored every year and during periods of high annual precipitation. Erring on the safe side means taking an honest look at the facts and data already published. The amazing water conductivity doesn't need additional wells to be added to the study to confirm the results; they've already been confirmed. The town of Parker didn't grow because someone built more homes and businesses; it grew because higher-capacity roads were installed, allowing for shorter commute times to and from high-paying jobs. These are issues that can be properly planned for only when the high-octane emotional arguments are discarded for thoughtful discussions and consideration for all the residents, not just the small property owners in the NW quadrant of the county. Elbert Co has had some experience with poor planning in the "not-too-distant" past, and the solution, at least for one of the Commissioners at the time, was to just raise taxes. Every time our government imposes new regulations, adds new programs for a few residents that want more "stuff", new taxes are imposed to cover these regulations and programs. When this occurs, we lose a little more of our freedom and a little more of our affordability. As we begin the new tenure with untested, poorly informed commissioners, it's important we actively participate in our governing. If the Commissioners restrict development, as Mike and Ken want, it is not difficult to see that taxes will need to increase in order to fund the basic needs of the county, thereby negatively impacting the affordability of the county. It takes a minimal growth of roughly 3% to cover our county expenses. In the past, we were fortunate that individuals stepped up with a better plan than just raising taxes, one that helped put the county back on a stable footing with reserve funds to handle emergencies as they arose and keep our roads and buildings in a state of repair for all to enjoy. For that to happen again, we need people as interested in the governance as they were in the campaign to show up at the BOCC each month or at least watch the recordings of the meetings and contact the commissioners directly to discuss their actions. We have a great county and the best people in the state, let's keep it that way.