Seven black-robed judges file into a Denver courtroom at 9 a.m. today. They sit down and announce a case: Town of Telluride versus the San Miguel Valley Corporation. An attorney stands up, and so begins the Valley Floor showdown.

This morning, the Colorado Supreme Court is set to hear hour-long oral arguments to decide what will become of the 570 acres of privately owned wetlands, meadows and aspens that lie just west of Telluride’s borders. Will the court allow the town to condemn the land using its eminent-domain powers? Will it side with the landowner and decide that Telluride has no right to take the Valley Floor?

For both sides, years of work and millions of dollars hang on the high court’s answer, which it will likely hand down months from today, in a written decision.

The public debate over the Valley Floor has been a fevered one, with people arguing about preservation and property rights, wildlife habitat and public spending, debt, development and whether elitist landowners are worse than elitist ski towns.

But all of the emotion and ardor spilled over this land could be meaningless to the seven people whose opinions now matter most. This morning, the arguments won’t center on what’s best for Telluride, or what’s fair for the landowner, but on more delicate points of law.

The court is looking at two major issues.

The first: Is a state law that effectively forbids Telluride from condemning the Valley Floor constitutional, or is it unconstitutional?

The second: Under the Colorado Constitution, does Telluride have the power to take the Valley Floor using eminent domain?

Some background. In 2004, the state passed a law that barred any home-rule town from condemning land outside its borders for open space. The law was aimed squarely at Telluride’s years-long effort to acquire the Valley Floor, despite vehement opposition from its owner.

Lawyers for landowner Neal Blue’s San Miguel Valley Corporation tried to halt the condemnation by citing that law, known as the Telluride Amendment. But a district judge dismissed their claims, saying the Telluride Amendment was illegal because it ran afoul of Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.

But does it?

The crucial section of Article XX is one that grants eminent-domain powers to home-rule towns like Telluride. It says that these municipalities:

“Shall have the power, within or without its territorial limits, to construct, condemn and purchase, purchase, acquire, lease, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate water works, light plants, power plants, transportation systems, heating plants, and any other public utilities or works or ways local in use and extent.”

Lawyers for Blue point out that the Constitution says nothing about parks or open space. They argue that, in this case, if the power isn’t specifically granted, it doesn’t exist. And they say the Colorado Supreme Court has long held that view.

The town takes the opposite tact, arguing that it doesn’t matter whether the Constitution specifically mentions open space. The power exists, even if it isn’t spelled out, Telluride’s lawyers say.

They say that five state Supreme Court cases have established a clear framework: the uses mentioned in Article XX are simply examples. Telluride, they argue, can take the land for any “lawful, public, local and municipal purpose.”

It comes down to reading the state Constitution narrowly or broadly. If you’re a judge who believes there’s a right to privacy or abortion inherent to the U.S. Constitution, you’d probably side with Telluride on this question. If you think no such right exists because there’s no such right explicitly laid out, you’d probably rule with Blue.
And about that Telluride Amendment.

Simple laws cannot conflict with the higher law of a constitution. Not in Colorado, not in federal government. That much isn’t in dispute.

Here, lawyers for Telluride argue that the Telluride Amendment takes away powers that flow from the Colorado Constitution.

Lawyers for Blue essentially argue the opposite. The Telluride Amendment doesn’t conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution never granted towns the power of extraterritorial open-space condemnations, they say.

The Planet is attending the arguments this morning, and will update www.telluridenews.com with summaries of the arguments and questions from the judges. For full coverage, check the racks tomorrow.