My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
East Fork and West Fork Issue Paper
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
East Fork and West Fork Issue Paper
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2016 2:43:08 PM
Creation date
10/12/2016 2:40:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Document related to the RPW's San Juan River Stakeholders Group
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
9/23/2010
Author
River Protection Workgroup
Title
East Fork and West Fork Issue Paper
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
There are a number of different approaches that might be used to provide local <br /> protection for the land. Counties have broad authority to zone and regulate <br /> private land as they deem appropriate. Both Counties currently have adopted <br /> fairly restrictive zoning for the affected lands. Individually or jointly through an <br /> Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) the Counties could adopt additional overlay <br /> zones if deemed appropriate. <br /> Regulating Federal land at the local level is more difficult and will not likely be <br /> successful without the voluntary cooperation of the Forest Service. Although <br /> many communities including Archuleta County have chosen to apply their zoning <br /> powers to public land, few if any have been successful in asserting their authority <br /> over federal land decisions. <br /> The Boulder County Attorney offers the following advice for public lands: <br /> "For these public lands, an IGA is likely the better approach, where of <br /> course the parties would be governments, not private landowners. <br /> Believe this would be an IGA under CRS 29-1-203 (the general IGA <br /> enabling act, contemplating all levels of government), not 29-20-105 (the <br /> land use IGA enabling act, for inter-local- government agreements only). <br /> Note that CRS 29-1-203 limits IGA authority to "provid[ing] any function, <br /> service, or facility lawfully authorized to each of the cooperating or <br /> contracting units," unless other provisions of law provide requirements for <br /> special types of intergovernmental contracting or cooperation, in which <br /> case those special provisions control. <br /> If you decide a CRS 29-1-203 IGA won't work, perhaps an MOU with the <br /> state and the feds would." (Ben Doyle via email 10/20/2010) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.