Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-11-301 (2026)

Legislative declaration

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that the existence of uranium mill tailings at active and inactive mill operations poses a potential and significant radiation health hazard. This part 3 is therefore enacted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by cooperating with the federal government in providing for the stabilization, disposal, and control of such tailings in a safe and environmentally sound manner to prevent or minimize other environmental impacts from such tailings.

(2) The general assembly recognizes the need for the state to expend such funds as are necessary to provide land annotation and site information for purposes of protecting prospective purchasers or users of mill sites designated for cleanup pursuant to public law 95-604. The general assembly therefore declares its intent to assist local governments with the identification, removal, storage, and disposal of tailing deposits associated with such designated mill sites for which remedial action is not taken pursuant to the federal "Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978".

Source: L. 79: Entire part added, p. 1069, § 1, effective January 1, 1980. L. 97: Entire section amended, p. 337, § 2, effective April 16.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1989–1994 · leading case: State, Dep't of Health v. Mill, 887 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State, Dep't of Health v. Mill, 887 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 4× “sections 7901 to 7942 (1988), and the corresponding state statute, sections 25-11-301 to -305, 11A C.R.S. (1989).”

Dep't of Health v. Hecla Mining Co., 781 P.2d 122 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “§ 7901 (b) (1978) and § 25-11-301, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 11). This is an undisputable public purpose as the trial court found when it denied Hecla’s motion to dismiss.”

Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “and the Colorado Radiation Control Act, § 25-11-301 et seq. C.R.S. In its present condition, the cost of remedial action and cleanup of The Mill’s property to properly decontaminate it exceeds the fair market value which the property would otherwise have if completely…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.