Part 3 of a Three-Part Investigation
High Country Advocate Staff Report
The conflict documented in Part 1 — where Chaffee County’s Planning Commission chair recommended code provisions benefiting her own employer — was not an isolated failure. It was a symptom of a broader system. Across Colorado’s high country, county governments have aligned themselves with a statewide land use framework built around mandates, incentives, and consultant-drafted templates. They were not dragged into it. They joined it — often eagerly — because the system brought grant dollars, technical support, and political cover for sweeping reforms. But the codes and regulations they adopted now carry profound legal risks. Down zonings, wildlife overlays, and exemptions for government-connected developers are already triggering disputes that point directly toward regulatory takings and, in some cases, potential eminent domain battles.
What began as a statewide push to update local planning systems — whether through full code rewrites, new land-use regulations, or targeted amendments — has now created a legal landscape that counties may not be prepared to face. As these rules collide with long-established property rights, the question is no longer whether conflicts will emerge, but when.
A System Built Around Compliance
The shift did not happen overnight. It began with HB21-1271, which tied grant funding to the adoption of specific regulatory tools. Counties could choose from a state-approved list — density increases, reduced parking requirements, expedited review — but the structure ensured that every participant moved in the same general direction.
HB22-1304 expanded the pattern with larger awards tied to “best practices” written by state-aligned consultants. These weren’t locally generated solutions; they were standardized policy models traveling from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Then Proposition 123 cemented the system. Counties that accept Prop 123 funds must contractually commit to 3% annual growth in affordable housing and implement fast-track development review by 2027. These obligations apply regardless of market conditions, water supply, infrastructure limits, or community sentiment.
Once a county signs a Prop 123 agreement, it must produce deed-restricted units year after year. That reality encourages regulatory structures that favor Housing Authorities, nonprofit developers, and public-private partnerships — not private landowners.
This is the landscape in which Chaffee County and other rural communities began their rewrites.
The 2026 Building Code Mandate
Another statewide requirement arrives in 2026: every Colorado county, including those that have never operated a building department, must adopt the 2018 or 2021 International Building Code. If they do not, the state will impose a default code.
In the San Luis Valley, Xcel Energy funded building code consultants to help rural counties adopt the 2018 and 2021 standards — a requirement local governments had neither the staff nor the budget to navigate on their own. Counties such as Saguache and Conejos relied heavily on Xcel’s consultants to interpret and implement the mandate.
The arrangement was unusual but strategic. Modern building codes contain energy-efficiency and electrification requirements that increase long-term electricity usage. By helping rural counties adopt these codes, Xcel ensured a uniform regulatory baseline that aligns with its infrastructure planning and future load forecasts — even though most residents were never told why a utility company was involved in the process.
Where Pressure Becomes Liability
As rural counties adopt consultant-shaped codes aligned with state requirements, landowners face restrictions that can produce substantial legal exposure.
In Chaffee County, the most dramatic example was Jed Selby, whose 275-acre Meadows property — long understood to support approximately 480 homes — was reduced to six. Selby holds some of the most senior water rights in the county and sits adjacent to existing infrastructure. The new code eliminated decades of planning precedent. Legally, that matters. Courts examine effect, not intent. If a county cannot justify the loss of established rights with proportional public purpose, the change risks becoming a regulatory taking.
A different issue surfaced for Gordon Sloat, whose property was labeled “high-quality wildlife habitat” and placed under a 300-foot buffer. Sloat disputes the designation, saying he has not seen elk or deer on the parcel in more than ten years. The severity of the buffer depends on the parcel’s configuration, but the restriction applies regardless. When overlays are based on data that landowners contest as inaccurate or unverified, counties face increased liability.
These conflicts are predictable outcomes of standardized regulatory models applied without site-specific verification.
Public Entities Receive Exemptions; Private Landowners Do Not
Part 1 of this series documented how the Chaffee Housing Authority was exempted from key infrastructure obligations under the new Land Use Code. Private developers must dedicate or build roads, drainage, and utilities. CHA does not. While the exemption does not automatically violate the law, it raises serious questions under U.S. Supreme Court precedent governing development conditions. If a county imposes substantial obligations on private developers while exempting its own affiliated entities, courts may view the distinction with skepticism.
For counties relying on Housing Authorities to satisfy Proposition 123 growth commitments, these exemptions take on even greater significance.
The Shadow of Eminent Domain
Strict regulations often produce unintended consequences. When new rules eliminate meaningful uses of a property, landowners may bring inverse-condemnation claims, arguing the county has taken property rights without compensation.
The next step is more serious. If a county’s code renders land “undevelopable,” the county may later attempt to acquire it for conservation or public use at the reduced value — a pattern courts have repeatedly found unlawful if government policies created the depressed value in the first place.
For small rural counties operating on limited budgets, even a single successful takings claim can be financially devastating.
Rural Counties Bear the Greatest Risk
Urban counties have extensive planning departments, legal teams, and budget capacity. Rural counties do not. Yet all counties must comply with the same mandates, meet the same deadlines, and adopt codes built on similar consultant frameworks.
Rural communities also have large tracts of private land held by families, ranchers, and agricultural operations whose livelihoods depend on flexibility. When statewide templates impose rigid overlays, mandatory buffers, and narrow use categories, it is these landowners — and the counties that regulate them — who face the most serious legal and financial consequences.
A System Without a Single Architect — But With a Single Direction
Across the high country, the pattern is unmistakable:
Counties accepted the incentives.
Consultants delivered the structure.
State law set the expectations.
Public entities gained strategic advantages.
Private landowners absorbed new constraints.
Legal exposure increased accordingly.
No conspiracy is required to explain the outcome.
The system functions through alignment — political, financial, and procedural — and gains momentum with each county that adopts it.
Conclusion
The regulatory framework spreading across rural Colorado is more than a collection of local land use updates. It marks a shift in who controls development, who pays the cost of compliance, and who bears the risk when statewide policy collides with constitutional property rights.
For landowners like Selby and Sloat, the effects are already clear. For counties that entered this system without anticipating the legal liabilities built into it, the greatest consequences may still lie ahead.
This concludes the High Country Advocate’s three-part investigation. Further reporting will follow lawsuits, policy conflicts, and enforcement actions as they unfold across the region.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 