Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />a number of statutes, but there is no reference for example to House <br />Bill 1034, which was passed at this last session of the legislature, <br />which also authorizes counties and cities to adopt regulations dealing <br />with hazards. <br /> <br />One of the technical problems, practical problems, that I have noted <br />in 1041 is that if a county chooses to use it and mind you, there is <br />no requirement for any county or anf city to adopt any of these regu- <br />lations such as you are proposing, but if a local government moves under <br />1041 and designates an area then a permit procedure is required and in <br />connection with that there must be a newspaper publication in connection <br />with every single permit. And it may well be that the local government <br />decides that is not worthwhile for a tool shed in a low hazard zone <br />and so they pull their hair and they do nothing or they won I t designate <br />the low hazard zone. But if they proceed under 1034, which does not <br />require that publication and does not require telling the Land Use <br />Commission there is going to be a tool shed in a low hazard zone, they <br />can adopt their regulation, they can designate the area and handle it <br />under sort of a low pressure procedure, you might say. And then save <br />the more complex proceedings, the newspaper publication and the notice <br />to the Land Use Commission for the high hazard area. So that is just <br />one little change that I would make and I am sure that as many people <br />go through these regulations they will make suggestions like that. <br />And to have a drafting committee that can be meeting on a fairly regular <br />basis during the next few months I think then by the time December 4 <br />comes around these regulations can all jell together with the other <br />agencies and you will have these problems fairly well solved. <br /> <br />A problem was mentioned about ditches. I donlt have 1034 iQ front of <br />. me, but that might be a good example where a local government can <br />proceed under 1034 and achieve identical results that would be autho- <br />rized under 1041 which is restricted to streams. <br /> <br />So those are the comments I have and I throw them out for what they are <br />worth and I will be happy to get together with Mr. Sparks at any time <br />and try to get liaison between your. agency and the others in working <br />on these regulations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Thank you, Mr. Bermingham. Would you explain to me the <br />situation as regards the three agencies involved in this. You mentioned <br />the Forest Service, Colorado Geological Survey and Colorado Water Con- <br />servation Board. I am not clear on the relationship. <br /> <br />Senator Berminfham: The only relationship is that the statute, House <br />Bill 1041 sing ed those out. Those three agencies and said that each <br />of them should promulgate model regulations by September 30 of this <br />year. So those three agencies are under a statutory gun, and just <br />\J~cause they are all under that deadline, all right now are working on <br />these things, these regulations, and others they are going to be taking <br />up before the Land Use Commission tomorrow and considered there. <br /> <br />Mr. KroeRer: We are all creating our own set of regulations? <br /> <br />-13- <br />