TELLURIDE, Aug. 20, 3:22 p.m. – The San Miguel Valley Corporation has launched its document in Colorado State Supreme Court to get the 570-acre Valley Floor back.

The 42-page opening brief filed Aug. 15 with the state Supreme Court claims the town lacked the authority for condemnation to start with, and extended the state’s conflicting laws on eminent domain beyond what was originally intended.

“Despite the years-long uncertainty about whether the Town could actually afford to pay for the taking, Respondents were prevented from developing or selling their property, and prevented from making absolute their recently adjudicated water rights,” the brief states.

Much of the document reviews the entire history of the Valley Floor War between the Town of Telluride and the SMVC,  and one of the main targets of contention now regards Article XX of the Colorado State Constitution.

In the summary of the argument, the filing states: “When a home rule municipality exercises authority outside of its territorial boundaries, the action necessarily involves a matter of mixed state and local concern. In those circumstances, the authority of the home rule municipality to act is subject to preemption by a conflicting statute unless Article XX expressly grants such power.”

The SMVC argues no such power or circumstance exists in the town’s effort to obtain the Valley Floor through eminent domain.

“Authority for home rule towns to condemn extra-territorially for open space is found nowhere within Article XX. Yet, the trial court inferred just such authority.”

The SMVC challenges the original ruling by San Miguel County District Court Judge Charles A. Greenacre to allow the condemnation effort to proceed.

“Absent an express grant of constitutional authority, in matters of statewide or mixed state and local concern, the ordinances of home rule municipalities cannot stand in the face of inconsistent state statutes,” the SMVC brief states. “Here, there is no Article XX authority, either express or implied, for this taking. Even assuming, however, that authority could be found, it is certainly not an express grant. It was therefore essential that the trial court address whether the matter or extraterritorial condemnation for parks and open space was one of purely local and municipal, statewide or mixed state and local concern.

“Had it done so, the court would have determined it to be, at a minimum, a matter of mixed state and local concern. Consequently, because the Town’s condemnation ordinance conflicts with the Statute, the ordinance is preempted.”

While it will no doubt require the state’s Supreme Court judges some time to wade through the myriad – and sometimes quite murky – arguments listed in the brief, one thing is clear: According to the SMVC, “the trial court’s order should be reversed, and the condemnation dismissed.”

As of press time, SMVC officials had not returned phone calls.