SNOW HYDROLOGY (GEOG 4321): HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT 7

Instuctor: Mark Williams
Telephone: 492-8830

Homework 7

• Assigned 20 October.
• Due 23 May (Thursday), 5 pm.
• There are 30 possible points.
• WRITE NEATLY and LEGIBLY.
• INDICATE THE QUESTION AT THE START OF EACH ANSWER.

  As a federal court of appeals judge you have been asked to render a decision on one of the following two court cases in Colorado. For this assignment, you will be working in groups of 2-4. Please read both scenarios carefully and choose one to write a decision on. For each scenario I have provided you with the basic facts of the case as well as a list of issues that you may wish to consider. If you can think of other pertinent issues, feel free to include them in your decision. Your task is to write a decision which will settle the lawsuit you have chosen. Your decision should be based on your own opinion as well as your knowledge of either avalanche hazards or artificial snowmaking. There are no right or wrong answers, you may side entirely with one side or the other or come up with a compromise. You will be graded on the organization and logic of your answer. Each group should submit one written decision approximately 2 pages in length.

1. Town of Vail vs. John Doe

   Scenario: John Doe owns three acres of property adjoining the base of an avalanche path in East Vail. He submitted a permit to build two townhouses that was rejected by the town zoning board because the board deemed building on the site a "threat to public safety". John Doe is now suing the Town of Vail to allow him to develop his property.

   Possible questions to consider:

   • What are the rights of private property owners?
   • What are the states rights to dictate how private property is used (eminant domain)?
   • Would the buildings pose a danger to public workers?
   • Is it possible to predict and zone avalanche danger? What information would you need?
   • Should property owners receive monetary compensation for lost development rights (takings)?
   • When is hazard permissable?

2. A-Basin & US Forest Service vs. Colorado Wild

   Scenario: A-Basin ski area obtained a permit from the USFS to begin limited snowmaking operations by withdrawing water from a tributary of the Sanke River in Summit County. The environmental group Colorado Wild is suing the Forest Service for breaching its own water quality mandates by issuing the snowmaking permit. The Snake River is polluted with heavy metals resulting from acid mine drainage, therefore removing water from a clean tributary, as A-Basin proposes to do, will decrease the amount of water available for dilution effectively increasing the concentrations of heavy metals in the stream.

   Possible questions to consider:
   • Can A-Basin be held accountable for indirect downstream impacts to water quality?
   • Would the ski area have the ability to mitigate downstream effects?
   • Can water rights be considered seperately from water quality as has traditionally been the case in Colorado? Further, should preexisting state allocated water rights take precedence over newer federal water quality standards?
   • Should A-Basin be penalized for their proximity to an acid mine drainage stream compared to other Summit County ski areas which are making snow?