Colorado § 24-65.1-203 - Activities of state interest as determined by local governments.

§ 24-65.1-203. Activities of state interest as determined by local governments.

(1) Subject to the procedures set forth in part 4 of this article, a local government may designate certain activities of state interest from among the following:

(a) Site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems;

(b) Site selection and development of solid waste disposal sites except those sites specified in section 25-11-203 (1), C.R.S., sites designated pursuant to part 3 of article 11 of title 25, C.R.S., and hazardous waste disposal sites, as defined in section 25-15-200.3, C.R.S.;

(c) Site selection of airports;

(d) Site selection of rapid or mass transit terminals, stations, and fixed guideways;

(e) Site selection of arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways;

(f) Site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility;

(g) Site selection and development of new communities;

(h) Efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects;

(i) Conduct of nuclear detonations; and

(j) The use of geothermal resources for the commercial production of electricity.

Source: L. 74: Entire article added, p. 344, § 1, effective May 17. L. 79: (1)(b) amended, p. 1067, § 9, effective June 15; (1)(b) amended, p. 1070, § 2, effective January 1, 1980. L. 83: (1)(b) amended, p. 1105, § 26, effective June 3. L. 2010: (1)(j) added, (SB 10-174), ch. 189, p. 810, § 2, effective August 11.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (1)(b) by Senate Bill 79-335 and House Bill 79-1156 were harmonized, effective January 1, 1980.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Synthetic Fuels — Policy and Regulation", see 51 U. Colo. L. Rev. 465 (1980). For article, "The Emerging Relationship Between Environmental Regulations and Colorado Water Law", see 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 597 (1982). For article, "Quality Versus Quantity: The Continued Right to Appropriate — Part I", see 15 Colo. Law. 1035 (1986).

The designations of activities of state interest made pursuant to this section do not amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to local government. The act provides adequate protection against the uncontrolled exercise of power by local governments. Denver v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 782 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1989).

County may not require developer to obtain a permit to pursue its annexation to municipality pursuant to the provisions of the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act. General assembly did not expressly list annexation as an activity of state interest that counties are authorized to regulate under the act. General assembly provided for comprehensive regulation of annexation by municipalities through statutory provisions governing municipal annexation. Although county may regulate new communities insofar as they concern urbanized growth centers in its unincorporated areas, here developer has proposed to develop its property only in the event it becomes annexed to municipality. Because county's regulations concerning annexation exceed the scope of the statutory provisions of the act, such regulation may not stand. Developer may proceed to have its property annexed to municipality without obtaining a permit under the act from the county. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Gartrell Inv. Co., LLC, 33 P.3d 1244 (Colo. App. 2001).

No manifest or irreconcilable conflict between this article and the statutes that govern the transportation planning process, §§ 43-1-1101 to 43-1-1105. Although title 43 vests the Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) with broad authority over the planning and construction of highways, the exercise of this authority does not require that CDOT be free of every conceivable regulation under this article. Indeed, this article and title 43 are easily reconciled because the schemes advance compatible goals. Although CDOT has the final word over the state's transportation plan, under § 43-1-1103 (5)(b), it must consider local concerns "including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors". Similarly, consistent with § 24-65.1-204 (5)(c), local governments must exercise their regulatory powers under the article in a manner that does not conflict with state transportation plans. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).

No express or implied preemption by state of city's ability to regulate transportation planning or construction under this section. With respect to express preemption argument, contrary to CDOT's argument, § 43-1-1101 does not express an unequivocal intent to preempt all local regulation of transportation issues. The statute does not foreclose all regulation; it remains open to the possibility that the statewide planning process will leave some questions unresolved and that local governments may decide those matters by regulation. With respect to implied preemption, the court cannot conclude that CDOT was meant to occupy the entire field of transportation planning when the legislature has indicated that local governments may regulate the site selection of airports, transit terminals, and highways. CDOT's role in transportation planning does not necessarily conflict with, or dominate, the city's interest in preserving the use and value of land. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).