FLOOD06042

• County: Denver
• Community: All
• Stream Name: All
• Basin: South Platte
• Title: Colorado Landslide Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Date: 1/1/1988
• Prepared For: State of Colorado
• Prepared By: CGS
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

Table 6. (Cont.)

waste-water facilities
. Model regulations

County and Municipal
. Zoning ordinances
. Slide-prone area ordinances
. Hillside development ordinances
- Density provisions
- Soil overlay provisions
- Guiding principles
- Grading regulations
. Abatement districts
. Subdivision regulations
. Building codes
. Grading codes
. Site investigation requirements
. Restrictive covenants
. Sanitary system codes
. Geological hazard overlay zones

LAND USE
. Appropriate agricultural practices
. vegetation requirements
. Public nuisance abatement ordinances
. Nonconforming-use regulations
. Acquisition of open space
. Design, location, and relocation of public facilities

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
. Planning and preparation
. Warning systems
. . Emergency response operations
. Rehabi1itation and recovery
. Post-hazard mitigation

OTHER METHODS
. Dissemination of public information
. Landslide mapping
. Recording and disclosing hazards
. Fmancing policies
. Higher homeowners insurance rates
. Conditions on federal disaster aid
. Landslide insurance
. Special assessment districts and tax adjustments
. Tort liability

The Effect of Supreme Court Decisions on
Land-Use Regulations
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases
(Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedicts
[Keystone]; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
[Nollan]; and FlTSt Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glen-

30

eles [Lutherglen]) in which land-use
alleged to be a taking of property. Two
of these d t with regulations regarding specific
hazards-s bsidence and flooding. These cases were
widely and neously perceived as significantly
limiting the ability of state and local governments to
regulate uses. In fact, however, they did not
reverse a I g trend of Supreme Court ru1ings that have
upheld' restrictive regulations where issues of
public heal and safety or prevention of nuisance were
involved sler and Thomas, 1987).
Kusler d Thomas have summarized the three cases
and cited e following as lessons to be learned from
these and er Supreme Court and lower court deci-
sions (KusI and Thomas, 1987, p. 3):

.

.on adopted for valid public purposes and with an
basis in fact may substantially reduce land values
effecting a ..taking:. lIazaId-reduclion regulations
. vexsaIIy been upheld as serving valid public
s.
of regulations lDIISI be evaluated for an entire
property (not just one portion) to detennine
wbeth a taking bas occurred. This means that hazanI.
setbacks which affect only portions of a property
clearly not a taking,
ty and prevention of nuisance is a paramount
of government and no landowner bas a property
threaten public safety or cause nuisances, Control
ment. of even existing uses has often been sustain-
bieve these objectives.
" ns are a taking only if they deny an use or an
. use of an entire property, including reasonable
I.backed expectations," Even then, regulations
valid under certain cin::umstances where the only
. uses are nuisance--like.

They co elude that most hazard-related regulations
will not be eld as a taking of property. When deciding
whether adopt performance-oriented hazard regula-
tions, su as building codes, floodway restrictions, and
grading c es, the alternative of nonregulation, with its
potential sulting damages, should be assessed and
compared. Governments are increasingly being held to
account to actions, or inactions, which increase
hazards.
Kusler d Thomas (1987, p. 3) recommend the
following p cautions when adopting regulations in order
to avoid a

1)

a variance, or "special permit" procedure in
, , since such pnwisions are very rarely held to be
, .. on their face, and they provide the regulatory
with the opportunity to deal with extreme

2)

ize health and safety considerations, and the
.OD of nuisances, in your regulations and in your
findings for indIvidual permil denials, Regulatory ac.
sely tied to these objectives are rarely held a ..tak.

regulations with nationaJ and state-wide programs
the Natioual F100d Insurance Program. Courts have
, y wi1Iin!\.to sustain such regulations,