A proposed 577-unit development at Spring Valley Ranch in Garfield County hit a snag with a county-ordered report that called into question many of the water-related plans.
Developers of a proposed 577-unit development in Spring Valley canceled a public meeting after a water study conducted by Garfield County raised questions about water sustainability for the project.
Georgia-based Stored Development is the applicant for a planned subdivision development amendment for Spring Valley Ranch, a 6,000-acre property located north of the intersection of County Road 114 (Spring Valley Road) and County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road).
The company is seeking approval to develop a 577-acre gated community with a 100-acre golf course and a private ski area with snowmaking.
The PUD changes also doubled the amount of open space to more than 3,000 acres, set aside 450 acres for public access with amenities like trails and restrooms, and reserved 58 units for “affordable urban housing” and 17 units for ranch workers.
The Garfield County Planning Commission was scheduled to hear from the applicants at a Sept. 25 meeting, but a report from Denver-based water engineering firm Matrix Design Inc. highlighted serious concerns about water availability for the proposed use.
She asked the applicant to send a letter through the county requesting that the meeting be canceled until they “put together a comprehensive response” to the report, after which they would contact the county to reschedule the meeting. This timeline is unclear.
“These comments are important and the applicant will need some time to review and address them in consultation with its advisors,” said the letter, written by Stored Development’s attorney, J. Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLC, and filed and written by Bart Johnson of Waas Company in Denver and Aspen.
Matrix Design evaluated water-related issues in the proposal, including water rights, water supply and aquifer recharge. Its letter to the county highlighted concerns about limited groundwater supplies, overstating the sustainability of well capacity, irrigation and water rights.
“Although absorption suggests that less water is applied to the land as precipitation, water can be trapped and left in the soil,” the letter states. “Relatively shallow groundwater wells cannot recover 100% of the water that enters the soil.”
The letter also questions whether the actual water supply can meet legal development rights and questions the level of irrigation expected, particularly for the golf course. The letter expressed concern about the “sustainable capacity of the wells.”
The applicant submitted a study of the stability of its Water Valley Spring conducted by Rifle Engineering in Colorado as part of its application. The report estimates that groundwater can be recharged at three times the rate of depletion.
“The average annual recovery of 3,942 acre-feet is three times the estimated reduction of 1,263 acre-feet for all SVA users,” the study said. “Under the revised PUD plan, groundwater withdrawals for irrigation would be less than the use of Landis Creek surface water rights historically used to irrigate the property and only the use of groundwater for supplemental irrigation.”
In response to the petition, Spring Valley Ranch residents formed an opposition group, the Spring Valley Coalition. Members of the coalition said that while the delay is a small victory, they are committed to fighting the request.
“The goal is to get rid of this,” said Miriam Muniz Fennell, who lives in Homestead Ranch. “Anyone who redevelops that land has to start over and can’t just give up what they did in previous years.”
The Elk Springs Homeowners Association submitted a water report to SGM in Glenwood Springs that also criticized the water plans for the development, but did not say it would be possible without drastic mitigation efforts. The report was submitted for public comment.
Spring Valley Ranch was approved by Garfield County in 2007 and recently received an amendment in 2017. It calls for 577 residential units by 2032 in a plan that would cover more land and reduce open space than any developer could implement.
Michael Sullivan lives across the street from the proposed development.
“We have won a small battle here, but certainly not a war,” he said. “I think they will come back and I think we have to be prepared when they come back.”
Stored Development said property taxes generated by the development will benefit the county and local taxing districts, such as the Roaring Fork School and Fire District.
They estimate the county will receive more than $4 million annually after the project is completed, about $11 million for Roaring Fork schools and more than $3 million for the fire district.
They also plan to raise the real estate transfer tax to 2%, which they say will generate $75.8 million in community benefits over 15 years and $8 million annually thereafter.
However, the coalition says the risks from water, wildfires and traffic are too great, even with the potential benefits to the community.
Stored Development is under contract with the Spring Valley Ranch owner. Stored Development will close on the property once the PUD amendment is approved, according to Kathleen Vanatovich, a public relations representative for the applicant.
