LifeQuest water fight sharpens over risks to Loveland reservoir

A sharp dispute over drinking-water safety dominated Larimer County Planning Commission’s hearing on the proposed LifeQuest campus near Green Ridge Glade Reservoir, with county staff and Loveland utility officials warning the project could threaten a primary water source while the applicant argued engineered controls would improve conditions over what existing zoning allows.

The rezone request would cover about 235 acres north of the reservoir, changing the land from O-Open to Rural Planned Development for a large retreat center with housing, lodging, event space and other campus uses. County planner Justin Curry told commissioners staff recommends denial, saying the proposal is too intense for the mountain foothills setting, conflicts with the county’s comprehensive plan and raises compatibility concerns because of the reservoir immediately to the south.

Curry said Loveland Utilities had flagged several contamination pathways: wastewater leakage, residential runoff, road runoff, nutrient loading that could worsen algae blooms, and increased security and public-access risks near the reservoir. He also said water and sewer service are not currently available on or next to the site for the proposed density, with the applicant instead proposing to expand Sunrise Ranch’s private water and sewer systems.

Loveland officials reinforced those objections during public comment. Chad Bergenheyer, the city’s water utility division manager, said the rezoning would introduce “additional and unnecessary risk” to the city’s primary drinking water source for more than 80,000 residents. He said best management practices are “the last resort,” not the preferred first line of protection, and argued the safer approach is to avoid introducing the hazards in the first place.

Dan Hurley, chair of the Loveland Utilities Commission, said the land around the reservoir is a priority protection zone in the city’s source water protection plan and said the southern edge of the proposed development would sit about 275 feet from the shoreline. Hurley said Green Ridge Glade already requires active management for algae and taste-and-odor issues, and that more intense development nearby would create permanent, cumulative risk from stormwater, wastewater, roads and human activity.

The applicant’s team pushed back forcefully. Attorney Claire Havelda criticized the staff report as lacking factual support on water and infrastructure and said the only technical analysis in the record showed no negative impact to Loveland’s water supply. Havelda said the county was relying on Loveland’s objections without independent analysis and argued the project should be viewed as consistent with a rural-center pattern rather than the mountain foothills designation staff applied.

Presenting for the applicant, a project representative said the portion of the site draining toward the reservoir is a tiny share of the broader watershed and that modeled post-development runoff would equal only a fraction of the reservoir’s storage volume. The applicant also argued a centralized wastewater system would discharge north, away from the reservoir, and that detention, constructed wetlands, sediment forebays and other controls would make water quality better than under current conditions. Havelda told commissioners the applicant would accept a condition requiring future development to meet the standards in its TST technical report.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed both sides on how to weigh the competing claims. Chair Lisa Chollet said she was struggling with the project’s density and with how the proposal fit the county’s review criteria, especially in a wildfire-prone area and next to a sensitive reservoir. Commissioner Jon Slutsky asked whether a continuance might help the applicant and county staff, or the applicant and Loveland, work through remaining differences rather than force an immediate decision.