Cherokee Water & Sanitation District v. El Paso County
Docket: 87CA1529
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; December 29, 1988; Colorado; State Appellate Court
In the case 770 P.2d 1339 (1988), plaintiffs Cherokee Water, Sanitation District, Triview Metropolitan District, Sunset Metropolitan District, Falcon Properties and Investments, and Woodmen Hills, Inc. challenged the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners' amendment to subdivision regulations requiring developers to demonstrate water supplies sufficient for 300 years before approval of new residential subdivisions. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment declaring the regulation invalid and asserted four additional claims for relief but faced adverse judgments on all claims.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of four claims, including requests for injunctive relief and judicial review, on the grounds that the regulation was adopted as a legislative act rather than quasi-judicially. Consequently, claims under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) and (a)(4) were ruled inapplicable, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was deemed irrelevant due to the county's lack of statewide jurisdiction.
Moreover, the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim was upheld, with the court rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments that the regulation was ultra vires, constituted an unconstitutional taking, was arbitrary and capricious, or preempted by state statute. The appeal resulted in a confirmation of the trial court's decisions, including the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to transfer the case to water court, as the matter was deemed a challenge to land use regulations rather than a water rights issue.
The amendment to the regulations is valid and not ultra vires, as it attempts to implement the state statute on subdivision regulations (XX-XX-XXX, C.R.S. 1986 Repl. Vol. 12A), which mandates that counties ensure adequate water supply for subdivisions. The statute prohibits plot approval without evidence of sufficient water quantity, dependability, and quality. The county's regulation aligns with this requirement, and plaintiffs failed to prove an unconstitutional taking, as they could not demonstrate that the regulation deprived them of all reasonable property use. The plaintiffs also did not establish that the regulations were arbitrary or capricious; the county provided evidence supporting the need for adequate water supplies before development.
Additionally, the plaintiffs' argument that the regulations are preempted by state water use statutes amended by Senate Bill 5 in 1985 is unfounded. The state statutes relate to water allocation, while the county regulation sets land use requirements and does not conflict with the water statutes. The regulation does not restrict water withdrawals over 100 years but requires evidence for additional water supply for up to 300 years. Therefore, the regulation is valid and in harmony with state law, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.
