Mixed reactions to plan for Colorado's Sweetwater Lake

As a public comment period draws to a close regarding a plan for a scenic lake in western Colorado, land managers continue to face strong opposition.

That opposition — largely from people living nearby — quickly followed Gov. Jared Polis announcing Sweetwater Lake as Colorado's next state park in 2021. The announcement came after the lake and land long held in private hands entered the U.S. Forest Service's trust thanks to a grassroots fundraising effort and federal money ensuring a future of preservation.

But critics saw that future clouded by the ensuing arrangement: Citing a lack of resources to properly manage the site for recreation, the Forest Service would count on Colorado Parks and Wildlife through a special-use permit.

A 20-year permit is the start of a proposed plan that has been presented this spring and summer at meetings in Gypsum and Glenwood Springs. The plan also calls for "creating several new access points to the lake;" establishing a new campground with 15 to 20 sites; constructing up to 12 new cabins "to retain the historic opportunity that existed at the ranch for many decades;" and building a new visitor center-type lodge.

Some critics see the proposed lodge contrasting the rustic one overseen by a beloved outfitter for decades — what has long been like a community gathering place. Others see plans as too vague.

They are complaints among more than 80 letters submitted so far during the comment period, which ends Aug. 5.

Read one letter succinctly summarizing many others: "LEAVE IT ALONE."

That would be irresponsible, officials have said.

At an April meeting in Gypsum, White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams emphasized his message to opponents of Sweetwater Lake being called a state park: "I don't care what you call it, people are coming."

Even if the state park designation did not stick — that was a welcome suggestion of CPW at the meeting — Fitzwilliams reaffirmed his support for the state agency serving people drawn by the lake's beauty and accessibility.

Planners have said proposed infrastructure and management could handle up to 250 visitors a day.

"This is way too big and will cause many new problems relating to environmental decline, road degradation, water and lake quality issues, negative community impact, as well as increased safety issues for all," reads a letter from Matt Lou, representing a group of locals called the Sweetwater Lake Action Team.

The team includes people who have lived around the lake for generations, including the family of William and Annalies Stephens.

Reads their letter: "The proposed development risks erasing these cherished aspects of our heritage in favor of commercial interests."

But supporters have countered with the idea of development and commercialism that could have prevailed at a private Sweetwater Lake if not for the Forest Service-CPW arrangement.

"There is a very loud minority of locals that are trying to fight any progress, but this all would have ended much worse if not for the state's involvement," read a letter from Charlie Cherrington.

Another letter called the proposed plan "a welcome change" and spoke to tourism benefits: "As a local resident, I welcome additional revenue to help offset the cost of services to our community."

Other comments praised public access and pled for minimal development. A "minimalist design" is the wish of the Sweetwater Lake Action Team, which has offered a plan favoring nature restoration over construction.

At a previous meeting, Fitzwilliams said planners were thinking small. "How can we make this different and unique?" he said. "Hopefully we can capture that throughout the rest of the process."

Following public comments, the Forest Service is expected to publish a draft environmental impact statement — possibly in December, an estimated project timeline shows.

The timeline shows an objection period before a final decision in 2026.