Citizen's Guide to Colorado's Environmental Era

Home Browse Search

Use Commission with certain limited pow- ers. The LUC was funded by the legis- lature to provide financial assistance to needy local governments seeking to imple- ment land use planning and environmental impact analyses. Although the commis- sion's funding was largely gone by 1980, during the 1970s the commission assisted many local governments. One of the statutes which the LUC was authorized to implement and enforce was the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act, commonly known as House Bill 1041, the Eagle River in Eagle County to the Homestake II Reservoir. The 1041 statute required Aurora and Colorado Springs to obtain a permit from Eagle County to build their diversion structures in that county. That request was denied, and subsequently went to court. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that "...the cities' entitlement to take water from the Eagle River basin, while a valid property right, should not be understood to carry with it absolute rights to build and operate any particular water diversion Often, these regulations emphasize reveg- etation and wildlife mitigation plans as key permit conditions. Environmental Law: the Federal Government Leads the Way In the late 1960s, grassroots citizens' movements nationwide began to demand a cleaner environment, especially in regard to air and water pollution. Various organiza- tions began national advertising campaigns to dramatize the plight of the air and water, motivated in many ways by the popularity of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, first published in 1962. Others were moved to action by the sight of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland which was literally on fire in the summer of 1969. In response, in 1972 Congress expand- ed its previously limited federal role in protection of water quality by adopting the Clean Water Act, and later the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. These acts set goals and minimum requirements, as well as establishing incentives for states to create their own clean air and water laws and to take over the enforcement of the federal laws. Although Colorado adopted a Water Pollution Control Act in 1966, it was not broadly expanded until 1972 when it agreed to a comprehensive Water Quality Control Act, requiring a new Water Quality Control Commission to adopt standards and to enforce them. The process of adopting new regula- tions to improve or monitor water quality is still ongoing. For example, for many years stormwater systems were designed primarily to reduce flooding. They gener- ally bypass the city's wastewater treatment plant and simply discharge runoff from the streets and adjacent properties into the nearest stream. Not until 2004 did the federal government begin to require municipal stormwater runoff systems to reduce their pollutant load to the streams and rivers, and enforcement will not start until 2006. Most municipalities have responded by adopting codes prohibiting the introduc- tion of the pollutants into the stormwater sewer system. These codes typically limit the use of petrochemicals and pesticides in areas where they are likely to run off into the gutter and, ultimately, through the stormwater sewer into the stream. How effective these regulations will be depends on how actively the municipalities can educate their populace about the problem Eagle County's 1049 powers stopped Aurora and Colorado Spnngs trom aiverring wales ui use Holy Cross Wilderness Area (above) to help fill Homestake ll Reservoir. The cities are now working to redesign the project to locate it outside the wilderness area and to reduce its environmental impacts. To date they have not reapplied for a 1041 permit from Eagle County. adopted in 1974. This statute authorizes local governments to regulate the develop- ment of "areas and activities of state inter- est" within their jurisdictions such as: • Major domestic water and sewage treatment systems • Municipal and industrial water projects • New communities • Natural hazard areas, including floodplains • Areas containing or having a significant impact upon, historical, natural, or archaeological resources of state- wide importance. These 1041 powers have far - reaching implications for water development. For example, consider what happened when Aurora and Colorado Springs planned to exert their right to divert water from project." Sent back to the drawing board, Aurora and Colorado Springs are now working to redesign the project to locate it outside the Holy Cross Wilderness Area and to reduce its environmental impacts, but to date they have not reapplied for a 1041 permit from Eagle County. Early use of 1041 powers in the con- text of water projects often focused on trans -basin diversion proposals. Recently, however, counties on the Eastern Plains have started to take an interest in this unique land use authority. Counties along the Lower Arkansas River have adopted 1041 regulations requiring a permit for, among other things, the removal of irriga- tion water from land which has historically been irrigated. These regulations are meant to address the environmental impacts of agricultural dry -up: topsoil loss, noxious weed invasion, and loss of wildlife habitat. 26 1 COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR WATER EDUCATION