1 day Ago By Josie Taris, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
A proposed 577-unit development at Spring Valley Ranch in Garfield County hit a roadblock with a county-commissioned report that questioned many of the water-related plans for the development. Developers of a proposed 577-unit subdivision in Spring Valley postponed a public meeting after a Garfield County-commissioned water study cast doubt on water sustainability for the project. Georgia-based firm Storied Development is the applicant on a Planned Unit Development amendment for Spring Valley Ranch, a 6,000-acre property centered north of the intersection of County Road 114 (Spring Valley Road) and County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road).
The firm is seeking approval to develop a private 577-unit neighborhood with a 100-acre golf course and private skiing area with snowmaking. The PUD amendment also includes doubling the open space to over 3,000 acres, reserving 450 acres for public access with amenities like trails and restrooms, and alloting 58 units to “affordable housing units for county residents” and 17 units for ranch employees. Garfield County Planning Commission was scheduled to hear from the applicants at a Sept.
25 meeting, but a report from the Denver-based water engineering firm Matrix Design Inc. highlighted serious concerns about water availability for the proposed uses. It prompted the applicant to submit a letter through the county requesting a cancellation of the meeting until they could “assemble a thorough response” to the report, after which they will contact the county to reschedule the meeting.
That timeline is unclear. “These comments are significant and will take the applicant some time to analyze and address in consultation with its own consultants,” the letter said, written and submitted by Storied Development’s attorney, J. Bart Johnson of the Denver- and Aspen-based firm Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP.
Matrix Design evaluated water-related issues in the proposal, including water rights, water supply and aquifer recharge. Their letter to the county highlighted concerns over a limited groundwater supply, overstating the sustainability of well capacity, irrigation and the water rights. “Even though the development proposes to use less water than falls on the land as precipitation, the water may be tied up and trapped in the soil,” the letter said.
“Relatively shallow groundwater wells cannot recover 100% of the water that infiltrates into the ground.” The letter also questions if actual water supply can meet the legal rights for the development and doubts the purported irrigation levels, particularly for the golf course. The letter expresses concern over overstated “sustainable well capacity.
” The applicant provided their own Spring Valley Aquifer sustainability study by Rifle-based Colorado River Engineering as part of their application. That report estimates that the groundwater can recharge at a rate three times more than depletion. “Estimated average annual recharge of 3,942 acre-feet is more than three times the estimated depletion of 1,263 acre-feet for all users of the SVA,” the study said.
“Under the proposed amended PUD plan, groundwater withdrawals for irrigation will be less than calculated due to utilization of Landis Creek surface water rights, which have historically been used to irrigate the property, and only using groundwater for supplemental irrigation supplies.” In response to the application, Spring Valley Ranch neighbors formed an opposition group, the Spring Valley Coalition. Members of the coalition said that while the delay is a small victory, they are still committed to fighting the application.
“The goal of this is to ultimately have this completely go away,” said Miriam Muñiz Fennel, who lives in Homestead Ranch. “Anyone else who comes back in to try to develop that land has to start all over again, and they can't piggyback on what’s existing from previous years. The Elk Springs homeowners association commissioned a water report of their own on the proposal from Glenwood Springs-based SGM, which also critiqued the water plans for the development — but did not say it was impossible without some intensity of use mitigation work.
The report was submitted through public comment. Spring Valley Ranch was approved by Garfield County in 2007 and received amendments as recently as 2017. It has vested rights until 2032 for 577 residences in a layout that covers more of the land and reduces the open space, which any developer could pursue.
Michael Sullivan lives across the street from the proposed development. “We won a small battle here, but definitely not the war,” he said. “I think they will be back, and I think we have to be prepared when they do return.
” Storied Development has said the property taxes generated from the development will be a boon to the county and local taxing districts, like Roaring Fork School District and the fire district. They estimated that the county will receive more than $4 million annually upon completion of the project, nearly $11 million to Roaring Fork Schools and over $3 million to the fire district. They also plan to increase the real estate transfer tax to 2%, which they say will bring $75.
8 million to benefit the community over the 15-year buildout and $8 million annually after that. Still, the coalition says the water, wildfire and traffic risks are too great — even with the purported community benefits. Storied Development is under contract with the owner of Spring Valley Ranch.
When the PUD amendment is approved, Storied Development will close on the property, according to Kathleen Wanatowicz, a public relations representative for the applicant..
