State, government , and various agencies have raised significant concerns about the Nutrient Farm PUD, highlighting critical gaps in planning, infrastructure, and environmental protections:

• Matrix Design Group: The concern is water quality for a public water supply serving the proposed commercial development. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) does not regulate the water quality for private water wells (they are not included in the Safe Drinking Water Act). Only those that meet the definition of a Public Water System are regulated. The wells along the Colorado River bank are susceptible to surface water contamination. Wells that are too shallow, too close to the river or proposed for too high production can easily be connected to surface water. Wells less than 100-feet deep are flagged and can be a concern for possible contamination from a surface water connection.
• Colorado Division of Water Resources: Noted that the proposed exempt well for Area 5 does not meet state requirements, as such permits are issued for lots over 35 acres and are limited to residential use only. The PUD proposes commercial uses, which would require additional approvals​.
• Colorado River Fire Rescue (CRFR): Raised concerns about inadequate fire suppression measures, requiring more fire hydrants, better road access, and clearer evacuation plans. The department noted that additional fire mitigation strategies need to be reviewed before approval. Requested more review will be needed for Adventure Park area. We will need more information to adequately review adventure park, water park, RV camping, cabins, stage, and campgrounds.
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW): Warned that the PUD poses risks to protected wildlife, including bald eagles, and that mitigation measures remain vague or undefined​.  Noted that significant loss of mule deer and elk habitat. Area is used by mule deer all year round while elk use is during winter and early spring. Habitats would be affected by the proposed areas of a large agricultural field (Area 6), Outdoor Adventure Park (Area 8), residential subdivision (Area 2), and working farm east (Area 5) including the solar farm on a portion of that area. Potential conflict with wildlife so mitigation suggestions are offered such as wildlife friendly exclusionary fencing and bear-proof trash receptacles. Concerned with conflict with humans in the Outdoor Adventure Park area, recommends working with CPW to further mitigate safety measures during recreational activities. This can include seasonal closures, employing predatory mitigation such as foxlights, guard dogs, permanent ranch employees and educating guests on site to minimize mountain lion and black bear conflicts.Concerned for wildlife habitat impacts in the Colorado River with more construction and development.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Indicated that a permit would be required for any discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters and recommended a wetland delineation study.
• Middle Colorado Watershed Council (MCWC): Expressed concerns over the proposed water diversion and its impact on Canyon Creek’s ecosystem. Suggests an alternative solution instead of rebuilding the Vulcan Ditch at its current historic location. Would like to see detail plans of construction and permitting the ditch as it crosses the highway, river, and railroad tracks
• Garfield County Public Health: Campground must adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Recommends control measures are implemented for fugitive dust. Also recommends that use-specific noise study be conducted as each development area is proposed with specific times and noise limits during construction. Recommends radon-resistant new construction and can provide free-radon kits.
• Town of New Castle: The Town remains concerned that spikes in traffic flow during Nutrient Farms events may cause congestion at the I-70 interchange area. The town is also concerned that heavy use of County Rd. 335 will increase maintenance costs to the town and county. The Town would request that a full traffic impact study be conducted that accounts for traffic loads at full buildout and full capacity of the project.
• Mountain Cross Engineering: The development will essentially be on a dead-end road with only one access for emergencies. The Applicant should evaluate interior roadways circulation to allow for alternative routes in cases of emergency. 2. The Applicant proposes 12% maximum grade however this is generally too steep for fire and emergency vehicles. Maximum grade should be limited to 10% especially considering that most of the roads are proposed to be gravel. Roadway construction plans and profiles should be submitted to Garfield County for review to obtain grading permits for road construction. 3. The Applicant should provide the required CDOT Access permit for increased traffic.
• Aspen Valley Land Trust: Noted the PUD application incomplete and lacking critical information regarding the project’s extent and impacts in Canyon Creek. Concerned about development in the delicate riparian ecosystem in Canyon Creek and the Vulcan Ditch Pipeline Easement Agreements/engineering documents. Require Applicant to present an adequate analysis of environmental impacts to Canyon Creek to AVLT.
• Colorado Trout Unlimited: Been working with agricultural irrigation diverters in Elk and Canyon Creek to upgrade infrastructure to improve diversion efficiency and to ensure dams are fish friendly. Concerned with flow rates during low flow periods from October to December since brown trout uses the area to spawn fish and diversion would be devastating to the trout. • If Vulcan Ditch structure is built, the design may not be sufficient consider fish passage at all flows. The ditch structure should be designed by an engineer and fish biologist experience in fish passage design and reviewed by CPW.
• Chris Hale, Consulting Engineer: Should discuss winter provision of water when Vulcan Ditch isn’t in use. Provide water quality analysis and verify that the applicant is in good standing with Riverbend Water and Sewer Company. Will serve letter should be reviewed by County Legal Staff to determine the legal water supply and demonstrate with pump and water quality tests — Must address how the fire flow storage from the storage tanks is inadequate from the RWSC standards.

Nutrient Farm isn’t just requesting a farm expansion—they’re proposing a private aircraft/helicopter landing pad, large-scale events, motorized recreation, meat processing plant, campgrounds, RV parks, music venues, and industrial development, which we believe is under the guise of agriculture. While these alone raise serious concerns, the bigger issue is the ambiguity built into their zoning requests.

Instead of clear intentions, we believe that they are seeking vague, sweeping approvals that give them unchecked control over this development. If approved, they could expand operations, intensify commercial activity, and alter our community—with no way to stop it.

We believe that his isn’t just a zoning request—it’s a blank check with lasting consequences for our town. We encourage you to read through the documentation.

At the January 29 Public Hearing, the commission acknowledged missing information and unresolved concerns in Nutrient Farm’s proposal, leading to a critical continuance hearing on March 12, 2025, at 6 PM.

Before they decide the fate of the Nutrient Farm PUD, we must show up, speak out, and demand accountability. Attend the hearing—our voices matter. The last meeting ran late, so plan accordingly, bring a snack and something to drink. This is our chance to take action—there are no second chances.

Initially, yes. We would have been thrilled to have had a healthy, thriving farm and a farm-to-table restaurant—something that truly aligns with agricultural and community values.

But water parks, adventure parks, paid-access hiking trails, RV parks, and large-scale tourism and industrial uses for the land? Absolutely not.

At this point, Nutrient Farm has failed to engage the community or operate with transparency. Their unwillingness to provide clear answers or address concerns has eroded any trust. We do not support any aspect of this PUD as it stands now.

Yes. We understand that while it would be ideal for things to always stay the same, growth is inevitable with population increases and changing demands. However, we believe that development should be responsible, sustainable, and aligned with the character of our community, while respecting our natural resources.

We do not believe that Nutrient Farm’s PUD aligns with that and that the Nutrient Farm PUD prioritizes commercial tourism, unchecked expansion, and vague zoning allowances over thoughtful, community-driven growth. We support development that enhances New Castle—not one that could potentially threaten its safety, environment, and quality of life.