FLOOD09315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- -- e 1-15-80 Because of the underlined language above, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District has proceeded on the basis that if local governments within the District fail to adopt flood plain regulations, then the District would administer its regulation within that local jurisdiction. Further, since the District's regulation prohibits residential development within the floodway (the most hazardous portion of the floodplain), any local governmrnt failing to prohibit residential developmert within the floodway would be governed by the District's regulation inasmuch as the District's regulation would be "more restrict.Lve" and, thus, controlling under the statute. 3. Court Review of Flood Plain Regulations. The leading Colorado case is Famularo v. Adams County, 180 Colo. 333, 505 P.2d 958 (1973), in which the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the District Court's findings that (1) the Adams County Commissioners had authority to regulate, by resolution, the uses of lan1 in unincorporated areas for "trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes, ann for flood control"; ann (2) the regulation in question did not so limit the uses of plaintiff's land so as to violate the Colorado Constitution, Article II, ~25 or the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV. In Colorado, the legislature has taken the lead in granting local governments power to regulate flood hazard areas. Usually, courts interpret such regulation that follows on a case by case basis, depending on what is "reasonable" under the circumstances. Some guidelines that have emerged in anticipating "reasonableness" are: a) Restriction of Uses. The restriction of uses on property which would prevent a public harm, as opposed to the creation of a public be~efit, removes the requirement of compensation to property owners who are restricted from the full use of their property. Dunham, A Legal and Economic Basis for City Planning, 58 Colum. L. Rev. 650 (1958). The restrictions on the uses must not be so severe as to deny the owners a constitutional right to make "bene- ficial use" of their land, as such restrictions would be cor.fiscatory and void. Francis v. City and County of Denver, 160 Colo. 440, 418 P.2d 45 (1966). However, a zoning ordinance is proper which may prohibit the landowner from using or developing his land in the "most profitable" manner. Baum v. City and County of Denver, 147 Colo. 104, 363 p.2d 688 (1961). (19)