(1) (a) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities.
(b) Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development.
(2) Major solid waste disposal sites shall be developed in accordance with sound conservation practices and shall emphasize, where feasible, the recycling of waste materials. Consideration shall be given to longevity and subsequent use of waste disposal sites, soil and wind conditions, the potential problems of pollution inherent in the proposed site, and the impact on adjacent property owners, compared with alternate locations.
(3) Airports shall be located or expanded in a manner which will minimize disruption to the environment of existing communities, minimize the impact on existing community services, and complement the economic and transportation needs of the state and the area.
(4) (a) Rapid or mass transit terminals, stations, or guideways shall be located in conformance with the applicable municipal master plan adopted pursuant to section 31-23-206, C.R.S., or any applicable master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-108, C.R.S. If no such master plan has been adopted, such areas shall be developed in a manner designed to minimize congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, floodwaters, and other dangers; to promote health and general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. Activities shall be conducted with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the area and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdiction of the applicable local government.
(b) Proposed locations of rapid or mass transit terminals, stations, and fixed guideways which will not require the demolition of residences or businesses shall be given preferred consideration over competing alternatives.
(c) A proposed location of a rapid or mass transit terminal, station, or fixed guideway that imposes a burden or deprivation on a local government cannot be justified on the basis of local benefit alone, nor shall a permit for such a location be denied solely because the location places a burden or deprivation on one local government.
(5) Arterial highways and interchanges and collector highways shall be located so that:
(a) Community traffic needs are met;
(b) Desirable community patterns are not disrupted; and
(c) Direct conflicts with adopted local government, regional, and state master plans are avoided.
(6) Where feasible, major facilities of public utilities shall be located so as to avoid direct conflict with adopted local government, regional, and state master plans.
(7) When applicable, or as may otherwise be provided by law, a new community design shall, at a minimum, provide for transportation, waste disposal, schools, and other governmental services in a manner that will not overload facilities of existing communities of the region. Priority shall be given to the development of total communities which provide for commercial and industrial activity, as well as residences, and for internal transportation and circulation patterns.
(8) Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas.
(9) Nuclear detonations shall be conducted so as to present no material danger to public health and safety. Any danger to property shall not be disproportionate to the benefits to be derived from a detonation.
Source: L. 74: Entire article added, p. 344, § 1, effective May 17. L. 75: (4)(a) amended, p. 1270, § 5, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "The Emerging Relationship Between Environmental Regulations and Colorado Water Law", see 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 597 (1982).
Board of commissioners was authorized to enact wetlands and nuisance regulations that were more stringent than those embodied in this section. Colo. Springs v. Eagle County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo. App. 1994).
Authority to regulate development of water projects under this section extends to projects within a county, even if end users of water were outside the county. Colo. Springs v. Eagle County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo. App. 1994).
No manifest or irreconcilable conflict between this article and the statutes that govern the transportation planning process, §§ 43-1-1101 to 43-1-1105. Although title 43 vests Colorado department of transportation (CDOT) with broad authority over the planning and construction of highways, the exercise of this authority does not require that CDOT be free of every conceivable regulation under this article. Indeed, this article and title 43 are easily reconciled because the schemes advance compatible goals. Although CDOT has the final word over the state's transportation plan, under § 43-1-1103 (5)(b), it must consider local concerns "including examination of the impact of land use decisions on transportation needs and the exploration of opportunities for preservation of transportation corridors". Similarly, consistent with subsection (5)(c) of this section, local governments must exercise their regulatory powers under this article in a manner that does not conflict with state transportation plans. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).
No express or implied preemption by state of city's ability to regulate transportation planning or construction under this section. With respect to express preemption argument, contrary to CDOT's argument, § 43-1-1101 does not express an unequivocal intent to preempt all local regulation of transportation issues. The statute does not foreclose all regulation; it remains open to the possibility that the statewide planning process will leave some questions unresolved and that local governments may decide those matters by regulation. With respect to implied preemption, the court cannot conclude that CDOT was meant to occupy the entire field of transportation planning when the legislature has indicated that local governments may regulate the site selection of airports, transit terminals, and highways. CDOT's role in transportation planning does not necessarily conflict with, or dominate, the city's interest in preserving the use and value of land. Dept. of Transp. v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2008).