Residents urge Chaffee County leaders to oppose state geothermal lease at Maxwell Park

Residents pressed Chaffee County officials Wednesday to oppose a proposed geothermal lease renewal at Maxwell Park and asked the board to seek stronger local review and protections.

Speakers told the Board of County Commissioners that Mount Princeton Geothermal (also referenced as Mount Princeton Hot Springs/Mount Preston in public comments) is pursuing an extension of a State Land Board lease that would allow drilling of test wells in Maxwell Park. "Deep drilling will do irreparable harm and blemish these Maxwell Park lands," one resident said, adding that drilling would be "24 by 7 raucous noise by pounding and diesel machinery for a month or longer for each well." (Resident)

The requests came during the public-comment period ahead of a June 12 State Land Board meeting where the lease extension will be considered. Commenters asked the county to require a local 1041-style analysis for deep wells on recreationally zoned lands, to retain Maxwell Park's conservation/recreation designation, and to consider a five- to ten-year moratorium on geothermal-electricity investigations and development.

Why it matters: speakers said the proposed activity could affect private wells, wildlife, tourism and nearby hot springs. One commenter said the county contains "1,900 private wells within a 5 mile radius" of the proposed site and recommended a moratorium because, she said, deep geothermal development would risk the local hot-springs industry. Beth Mason, who spoke during public comment, said the economics and grid constraints mean electricity from a small project likely would not stay in-county and would not deliver the local benefits promoters have described.

Details and supporting points: Commenters cited several specifics from presentations and public meetings: proposed test well depths of about 2,000–2,500 feet; estimates of up to 30 days of continuous drilling per well; an illustrative project scale of roughly 2–10 megawatts in early proposals; and an asserted lease payment to the State Land Board of "$3 an acre." Speakers also pointed to a recent state-level House measure (referred to as HB 1332 in comments) intended to review or change the State Land Board's mission and to the county's land use code, which currently designates the area as open-space/recreation and, commenters said, does not allow industrial utility plants in that zone without additional review.

County response and next steps: Commissioners acknowledged the upcoming State Land Board hearing and told residents it would be inappropriate for the county to formally comment at that state hearing because of legal constraints tied to how the county interacts with state-managed lands. Commissioners encouraged residents to attend and comment at the June 12 State Land Board meeting. Planning staff and county leaders noted that some grants and land-management processes are controlled at the state level and that a formal local 1041 review or moratorium would be a separate county action requiring formal agenda consideration.

No formal action: The commissioners did not vote on a county position during the meeting. Staff and commissioners said they would continue monitoring the State Land Board process and reiterated that public input to the state hearing is important.

Ending: Residents who spoke urged the county to pursue policy changes and citizen engagement at the State Land Board hearing on June 12; several suggested the Board consider county-level protections in future meetings if statutory or procedural options exist. Attendees were encouraged to submit comments directly to the State Land Board and to follow county land-use procedures for any local actions.