Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High Ridge Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbon County approves High Ridge Subdivision but bans wells, requires cisterns for potable water
Summary
After public concern about groundwater and stream impacts, commissioners amended findings to prohibit wells and require cisterns as the only potable water source and approved the High Ridge Subdivision on Oct. 21, 2025; the board cited Geosyntec analysis projecting aquifer drawdown and potential impacts to senior water rights.
Carbon County commissioners voted Oct. 21 to approve the preliminary plat for the High Ridge Subdivision near Red Lodge after amending the Planning Board findings to prohibit new wells and require cisterns as the only allowable source of potable water.
The decision followed a Planning Board recommendation for approval under 20 conditions and a detailed presentation that included a Technical Memorandum from Geosyntec Consultants (dated Aug. 19, 2025) citing an anticipated consumptive use of about one acre-foot of water and an estimated 0.1-foot drawdown to the local aquifer. Commissioner Scott Blain moved to amend the findings to note the subdivision “may have significant unmitigated adverse impacts on the aquifer,” a motion the board approved.
In public comment, Dave Arthun of Joliet told commissioners he believed the subdivision would worsen water-quality problems, saying Rock Creek shows “five times the nitrate levels” between Red Lodge and Roberts and estimating the 15-lot project could generate “over a million gallons of raw sewage per year.” Developers and consultants disputed some modeling approaches: developer Nate Pirtz said subdivisions using less than 10 acre-feet per year historically do not require an aquifer study and asserted roughly "90% of the water would be going back into the aquifer," while consultant Kolten Knatterud said the two engineering assessments used different methodologies — Engineering West taking a more conservative approach and Geosyntec modeling a more realistic scenario.
The commissioners debated options that would avoid groundwater use, including cisterns and hauled water. After procedural exchanges over earlier motions, the board amended conditions 2a, 2b, 8, and 15 to add the following verbiage: “Wells are prohibited in the subdivision, and cisterns are the only allowable source of potable water.” The board then approved the subdivision as amended; minutes report the motion carried.
The record notes continued uncertainty about downstream impacts and senior water rights. Susann Beug urged state review, saying the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation should take a more active role in assessing local water issues. The county staff and applicant discussed alternative designs and the possibility of returning with revised plans if the applicant elects to resubmit.
Next steps identified by staff included publishing amended findings as part of the public record and updating the subdivision file with the new conditions. The county did not record a numerical roll-call vote in the minutes, only that the motions carried.
