Laserfiche WebLink
<br />regarding their own local and municipal matters is considered <br /> <br />absolute. In a case involving a state statute creating a special <br /> <br />procedure for the use of eminent domain authority by cities to <br /> <br />condemn water rights, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that <br /> <br />condemnation was a matter of local, not statewide, concern since <br /> <br />this authority was specifically granted in the Constitution and <br />that the statute was not permissible.l03 <br /> <br />Thus any statute purporting to affect home rule cities must <br /> <br />involve matters of statewide concern in which state legislative <br /> <br />authority is paramount. <br /> <br />The administration and management of <br /> <br />C 0 lor ado I s <br /> <br />water <br /> <br />resources are governed <br /> <br />by <br /> <br />legislatively-established statutes.l04 <br /> <br />These statutes conta in <br /> <br />conditions regulating the appropriation of water to which home <br /> <br />rule cities, like any other appropriator, must adhere. <br /> <br />Unless <br /> <br />the water right matter being legislated invades the zone of <br /> <br />authority reserved for home rule cities--such as condemnation of <br /> <br />water rights--it is likely to fall within the affairs governed by <br /> <br />the state legislature. <br /> <br />Nevertheless, since any legislative <br /> <br />scheme involving transbasin diversions is likely to affect the <br /> <br />interest home rule cities may have in obtaining water from <br /> <br />another river basin, a challenge based on the special status <br /> <br />accorded home rule cities is possible. <br /> <br />In summary, the present Colorado approach seems inadequate <br /> <br />103City of Thornton v. Farmers' Reservoir and Irrigation <br />Co., 575 P.2d 382 (1978). <br /> <br />104The major provisions are found at Colo. Rev. Stat. 8837- <br />82-101 et seq. <br /> <br />42 <br />