Parker Water & Sanitation District 2025 Community Survey

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the topline results of an online survey of 787 adult residents within the Parker Water and Sanitation District. The interviews were conducted from January 22nd – February 5th , 2025.

Residents rated Parker Water and Sanitation District’s service and reliability favorably, with 85% rating it excellent or good (46% excellent, 39% good) and only 10% rating it fair or poor. Ratings dropped when residents evaluated the value of services for the cost, with 53% rating value excellent or good and 40% rating it fair or poor. Water quality ratings fell between these two measures, with 64% rating quality excellent or good and 34% rating it fair or poor.

Thirty-eight% of residents reported experiencing water quality issues such as discoloration or taste problems in the past year, while 62% had not. Confidence in the District’s long-term water planning was generally positive, with 70% agreeing the District would be able to provide long-term water solutions for their community (28% strongly, 42% somewhat), 16% disagreeing, and 14% unsure.

Familiarity with District initiatives varied widely. Only 27% of residents were familiar with the Platte Valley Water Partnership, while 68% were not familiar at all. Familiarity with summer watering restrictions was much higher at 77%, including 34% who were very familiar. Most residents had not used any of the District’s water efficiency programs, with 67% selecting none of the options. The AquaHawk Customer Portal was the most-used program at 24%, followed by Slow the Flow at 8% and Garden in a Box at 5%.

Most residents knew their average summer monthly water bill: 41% reported between $151 and $300, 35% reported $150 or less, and 10% reported more than $300, while 14% did not know the amount. When asked what they considered a reasonable monthly summer water bill, 69% said less than $150 and 21% said between $151 and $300. When comparing District rates to neighboring communities, 32% believed rates were higher than neighbors, 5% believed they were lower, and 63% were unsure.

Awareness of specific information about the District’s operations and water supply was generally low. 28% of residents were aware the District had four major water supply sources, 21% were aware the population was projected to double by 2040 with a goal of building a 75% renewable portfolio, and 19% were aware of the 2021 launch of the Platte Valley Water Partnership. 30% were aware of the 2025 rate increases. 49% were aware the District tested water for more than 130 substances under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and just 13% were aware of recent well-house filtration installations.

After learning the supporting information, 83% of residents supported the District’s goal of building a water portfolio that was at least 75% renewable, including 51% who strongly supported it, while only 6% opposed it. Support narrowed when residents learned the cost details of the Platte Valley Water Partnership, with 53% supporting (21% strongly, 32% somewhat) and 38% opposing (16% strongly, 22% somewhat). 9% were unsure.

After seeing the 2025 rate and fee schedule, 68% of residents supported the use of a tiered rate system (28% strongly, 40% somewhat) and 20% opposed it. Adopting monthly water budgets for commercial properties, streetscapes, HOAs, and other non-residential properties drew 71% support and 16% opposition. Support dropped for applying water budgets to residential properties, with 49% supporting and 37% opposing, including 20% who strongly opposed.

Residents broadly accepted shared responsibility for the water supply. 89% agreed that every resident needed to play their part in maintaining the water supply, including 58% who strongly agreed. Only 23% agreed the District had enough water and did not need efficiency plans, while 64% disagreed. 21% agreed they would no longer be in the District by the time a water issue arose, and 55% disagreed. Open-ended comments centered on six themes: concerns about overdevelopment and growth outpacing infrastructure; dissatisfaction with rising costs and fees, particularly among seniors and fixed-income residents; complaints about water quality including discoloration, odors, and concerns about chlorine, fluoride, and PFAS; calls for stronger enforcement of conservation rules against HOAs and commercial users; requests for more proactive long-term supply planning and reservoir expansion; and demands for clearer communication about how costs were set, where funds went, and how decisions were made.