Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a property right, right holders should be subject to the same permit review process as other <br />property right holders proposing a development (local land use regulations were in place <br />prior to the Homestake n application). Green concludes that Colorado's 10ca1land use <br />regulation statute "allows the unit of government traditionally responsible for land use <br />planning, economic and environmental impact assessment and development review to <br />evaluate and regulate impacts not properly before the water court [emphasis added].'.66 (As <br />in the New Mexico case study, the issue of appropriate forum is raised.) <br /> <br />The public interest criteria reflected in the county commisioners' permit decision <br />include: <br /> <br />(1) Applicant has failed to show that the proposed development will not <br />significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats. <br />(2) There will be significant deterioration in public outdoor recreational <br />areas because of loss in the quality and quantity of the river rafting <br />experience and construction disturbances in a wilderness area. <br />(3) Reduction in stream flows and construction activities in a wilderness <br />area will result in significant degradation of natural scenic <br />characteristics. <br /> <br />(4) The benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the losses <br />of natural resources. <br /> <br />(5) There will be an adverse effect on water rights because water quality <br />is a protected element of a water right and there will be a reduction in <br />downstream water quality.67 <br /> <br />Mark Pifber, an attorney representing Aurora and Colorado Springs, questions the <br /> <br /> <br />wisdom of allowing local governments to determine what constitutes a state interest. He <br /> <br /> <br />argues that the statute is open to inconsistencies between counties regulating the same or <br /> <br />32 <br />