What If Colorado Managed Its Growth Differently?

The Actual History

Colorado experienced dramatic population growth and development beginning in the mid-20th century, transforming from a relatively quiet mining and agricultural state into a major urban and technological hub. The state's population grew from approximately 1.3 million in 1950 to over 5.8 million by 2022, with particularly explosive growth along the Front Range corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo.

The post-World War II period saw the beginning of Colorado's modern growth trajectory. The federal government established multiple facilities in the state, including the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, and the Denver Federal Center. The 1970s brought the first major oil boom, while the 1990s tech boom further accelerated development, particularly in the Denver metropolitan area.

Throughout this period, Colorado's approach to managing growth was largely reactive and fragmented. Unlike states such as Oregon, which implemented comprehensive statewide growth management in the early 1970s, Colorado primarily left development decisions to local governments. This created a patchwork of regulations that varied significantly between municipalities and counties.

In 1974, Colorado voters rejected a ballot initiative to limit growth that would have prevented Denver from hosting the 1976 Winter Olympics. The initiative's proponent, Richard Lamm, was subsequently elected governor, but comprehensive statewide growth management never materialized. Some individual communities, such as Boulder, implemented their own growth limitations, but these created spillover effects in neighboring communities.

The lack of coordinated growth management led to several significant challenges: extensive suburban sprawl along the Front Range, diminishing agricultural lands, stressed water resources, traffic congestion, and increasing housing costs. Between 1982 and 2015, Colorado lost approximately 1.7 million acres of agricultural land to development. Water became increasingly contentious as growing municipalities purchased water rights from agricultural users through "buy and dry" transactions that left formerly productive farmland fallow.

By the early 21st century, Colorado's Front Range had largely merged into a continuous urban corridor with Denver at its center. Housing affordability became a significant crisis, with median home prices in Denver rising 68% between 2011 and 2021. Traffic congestion worsened despite investments in public transportation, including Denver's expanding light rail system. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) opened its first light rail line in 1994, but expansions came too late and with insufficient density to prevent auto-dependence.

Air quality deteriorated along the Front Range, with the region frequently failing to meet EPA ozone standards. Water supplies became increasingly stressed, particularly during drought years. Climate change exacerbated these challenges, bringing more frequent wildfires, reduced snowpack, and uncertain water futures.

Colorado's spectacular natural landscapes and outdoor recreation opportunities remained major assets and economic drivers, though increased visitation brought challenges of overuse to popular areas. Tourism continued to boom, with Rocky Mountain National Park becoming one of the nation's most visited national parks, hosting over 4.4 million visitors in 2019 before COVID-19 restrictions.

By 2025, Colorado faces the accumulated consequences of decades of largely unmanaged growth: housing affordability crises, water scarcity, loss of agricultural lands, traffic congestion, air quality issues, and increasing strains on its natural areas. While some individual communities have implemented successful local planning initiatives, the lack of comprehensive statewide growth management has left the state struggling to address these interconnected challenges.

The Point of Divergence

What if Colorado had pioneered comprehensive growth management in the American West during the 1970s? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Colorado implemented a statewide growth management framework just as its modern growth boom was beginning, fundamentally altering the state's development patterns for the next fifty years.

The point of divergence occurs in 1974, when Governor John Vanderhoof, recognizing the coming growth pressures and inspired by Oregon's recently passed statewide land use planning legislation, proposes the "Colorado Landscape and Community Protection Act." In our timeline, no such comprehensive legislation was attempted, and Richard Lamm rode anti-growth sentiment to the governor's office after the Olympic rejection. But what if Vanderhoof had recognized the political winds and proposed his own growth management framework?

Several plausible mechanisms could have produced this divergence:

First, Colorado's environmental movement of the early 1970s could have been channeled more effectively toward comprehensive planning rather than the reactive measure of rejecting the Olympics. Key environmentalists like Lamm might have been convinced that systematic management, rather than simple growth opposition, offered a more sustainable approach.

Second, Colorado's political establishment might have recognized earlier how water limitations would eventually constrain growth. The drought of 1976-1977 occurred after our point of divergence, but political leaders with foresight could have anticipated how water scarcity would eventually threaten Colorado's development patterns.

Third, the property tax revolt that swept California in the late 1970s might have motivated Colorado's leaders to act preemptively with planning measures that would manage growth costs before they triggered similar taxpayer revolts.

In this alternate timeline, the Colorado Landscape and Community Protection Act passes the legislature in early 1975 and is signed into law by Governor Vanderhoof, who despite losing to Lamm in the 1974 election, secures this significant legacy during his final months in office. Lamm, rather than opposing the legislation, recognizes its alignment with his environmental values and pledges to implement it vigorously during his administration.

The act creates a state planning office with real authority, requires all local governments to develop comprehensive plans conforming to statewide standards, establishes urban growth boundaries around existing communities, creates a robust program to protect agricultural lands and water resources, and implements a regional tax-base sharing program to reduce fiscal competition between municipalities.

This single decision—to implement comprehensive growth management at the beginning of Colorado's modern growth boom—sets the state on a dramatically different development trajectory for the next five decades.

Immediate Aftermath

Initial Implementation Challenges (1975-1980)

The passage of the Colorado Landscape and Community Protection Act sparked immediate controversy. The newly established Colorado Planning Commission began the arduous process of drawing preliminary urban growth boundaries around existing communities and establishing statewide planning standards. Local governments were given three years to develop conforming comprehensive plans or face restrictions on development approvals.

The real estate and development industries initially mobilized significant opposition. The Colorado Association of Home Builders filed a lawsuit challenging the act's constitutionality, arguing it constituted a taking of private property without compensation. However, in a narrow 4-3 decision in 1977, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the law, citing the state's responsibility to protect natural resources under the Colorado Constitution.

Governor Lamm, though initially skeptical of centralized planning, became the legislation's strongest champion, appointing respected land use attorney and environmentalist Dorothy Bradley as the first director of the Colorado Planning Commission. Under Bradley's leadership, the commission conducted an unprecedented statewide inventory of natural resources, agricultural lands, and development patterns.

The 1976-1977 drought dramatically strengthened public support for growth management. Water providers throughout the Front Range imposed severe restrictions, bringing home to many residents the reality of Colorado's limited water resources. The Planning Commission accelerated work on the water resources element of the state plan, incorporating drought scenarios that seemed radical at the time but would later prove prescient.

Changing Development Patterns (1977-1985)

By 1980, all major Colorado communities had approved growth management plans. Denver's plan, among the most ambitious, established an urban growth boundary roughly following I-470's planned route and implemented a comprehensive urban infill strategy. Rather than continued outward expansion, Denver began redeveloping its core areas decades earlier than in our timeline.

The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), established by companion legislation in 1976, began planning a comprehensive regional transit system while development patterns could still accommodate efficient public transportation. The first light rail line broke ground in 1982, connecting downtown Denver to the Denver Tech Center, fifteen years earlier than in our actual timeline.

Colorado's water management underwent a revolution. The growth management act included provisions requiring adequate water supplies for new development, effectively ending the practice of approving subdivisions with speculative water rights. The Colorado Water Conservation Board gained new authority to reserve water rights for environmental purposes, and the concept of "minimum stream flows" became established in Colorado water law much earlier than in our timeline.

Agricultural preservation became a cornerstone of the growth management system. Counties established agricultural preservation zones where development rights were purchased or transferred, creating permanent agricultural greenbelts between communities. Boulder County's agricultural lands preservation program, which became a national model in our timeline, was replicated throughout the Front Range under the state framework.

Tourism industries initially feared the growth management system would stifle their expansion, but quickly discovered that preservation of Colorado's natural landscapes enhanced the state's appeal as a destination. The growth management act included special provisions for resort communities, allowing development focused within existing town centers while preserving surrounding landscapes.

The act's tax-base sharing provisions proved among the most transformative elements. By requiring communities within each region to share portions of their commercial tax base, the law reduced the "race to the bottom" competition for retail development. Municipalities found themselves cooperating rather than competing, leading to more rational placement of commercial centers and reducing unnecessary duplication of infrastructure.

Economic Adaptation (1980-1985)

Initially, growth management appeared to dampen Colorado's economy. Housing production fell approximately 15% between 1975 and 1977 as developers adjusted to the new regulatory framework. However, by 1980, construction had rebounded as builders adapted to working within urban growth boundaries and infill opportunities. Housing costs rose in desirable areas but remained more stable overall compared to our timeline.

The oil crash of the early 1980s tested Colorado's new growth management system. The economic contraction provided time to refine implementation while growth pressures temporarily abated. During this period, planners made significant adjustments to urban growth boundaries and density requirements, creating more flexibility while maintaining the system's core principles.

By 1985, ten years after implementation, Colorado's growth management system had weathered its initial challenges and become an established part of the state's governance. The predicted economic catastrophe never materialized, while tangible benefits in transportation efficiency, agricultural preservation, and water conservation were becoming evident. The growth management system had fundamentally altered Colorado's development trajectory just as it entered a new period of expansion.

Long-term Impact

Transformed Urban Form (1985-2005)

By the early 2000s, the urban geography of Colorado's Front Range contrasted dramatically with our timeline. Rather than a continuous corridor of low-density development, the Front Range evolved into a series of distinct communities separated by agricultural greenbelts and natural areas.

Denver, constrained by its urban growth boundary, pursued upward rather than outward growth. The city's downtown renaissance began in the mid-1980s rather than the 2000s, with LoDo (Lower Downtown) becoming one of the nation's first successful warehouse district revitalizations. The Central Platte Valley redeveloped into a mixed-use urban district decades earlier than in our timeline, with Union Station becoming a multi-modal transportation hub by 1995 rather than 2014.

Transportation Revolution

The transportation system evolved dramatically differently. With density concentrated within urban growth boundaries, public transit became viable much earlier. By 2000, the Regional Transportation Authority operated over 75 miles of light rail and commuter rail connecting major Front Range communities, compared to just 5.3 miles in our timeline. Transit-oriented development became the norm rather than the exception, with new neighborhoods clustered around transportation hubs.

Highway expansion still occurred but at a significantly reduced scale. Instead of continually widening I-25 through Denver, transportation investments focused on parallel transit infrastructure and strategic improvements to the existing road network. Traffic congestion, while still present, never reached the levels experienced in our timeline, and commute times remained relatively stable despite population growth.

Housing and Affordability

The housing market developed quite differently under the growth management system. Initially, concerns about housing affordability dominated debates, with critics claiming growth boundaries would create artificial scarcity. The reality proved more nuanced:

Housing prices within desirable areas did increase faster than they would have without growth management, but the system included countervailing measures. The growth management act required all communities to zone for diverse housing types, effectively outlawing exclusionary zoning. Middle-density housing—duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and low-rise apartments—became common throughout metropolitan areas rather than confined to central cities.

By the 1990s, Colorado implemented one of the nation's most ambitious inclusionary housing programs, requiring 15-20% affordable units in new developments. Combined with tax-base sharing that reduced municipal fiscal incentives to exclude less expensive housing, these policies created more economically integrated communities than in our timeline.

Agricultural Preservation

The impact on agricultural lands proved dramatic. Rather than losing 1.7 million acres between 1982 and 2015 as in our timeline, Colorado preserved approximately 70% of the agricultural land that would have been developed. The protected agricultural greenbelts between communities became defining features of Colorado's landscape and contributed significantly to local food systems.

The preservation of agricultural land maintained the viability of supporting businesses like food processing facilities, equipment dealers, and seed suppliers. Agriculture remained a more significant component of Colorado's economy than in our timeline, with the emerging local food movement of the 2000s finding an established infrastructure to build upon.

Environmental Outcomes (1990-2025)

Colorado's environmental trajectory diverged significantly from our timeline. With development concentrated within urban growth boundaries, natural habitats experienced less fragmentation. Wildlife corridors remained intact along major mountain-to-plains routes, protecting biodiversity and allowing species to adapt to climate change by shifting their ranges.

Water quality improved dramatically compared to our timeline. With less impervious surface from sprawling development, watershed health improved. Stream channelization became less common as development avoided floodplains, which were typically designated as protected open space within the growth management system.

Air quality challenges persisted but never reached the severity of our timeline. The more compact development pattern reduced vehicle miles traveled by approximately 35% compared to the actual development pattern. Public transportation's higher mode share further reduced emissions. By 2020, the Denver metropolitan area consistently met federal air quality standards, unlike in our timeline where it remained in non-attainment status.

Climate resilience became an unexpected benefit of the growth management system. As climate change impacts intensified in the early 21st century, Colorado's more compact communities proved more energy-efficient and easier to protect from wildfire, flooding, and other climate-related hazards. The preserved agricultural lands and natural areas provided crucial ecosystem services like flood mitigation and carbon sequestration.

Economic Development (1995-2025)

By the mid-1990s, Colorado's growth management system was attracting international attention from planners and policymakers. The feared economic stagnation never materialized; instead, Colorado developed a national reputation for high quality of life and environmental amenities that attracted skilled workers and innovative companies.

The tech boom of the 1990s transformed Colorado just as it did in our timeline, but with development channeled into existing urban areas and designated employment centers. The Boulder-Denver innovation corridor emerged with more intensive development in targeted areas rather than sprawling across the landscape. The preserved natural landscapes and outdoor recreation opportunities became key assets in attracting technology workers who valued quality of life.

Tourism evolved differently as well. Rather than mass tourism threatening to overwhelm natural areas, Colorado developed more sustainable models. Resort communities like Aspen, Vail, and Breckenridge implemented growth management systems that concentrated development in walkable village centers while preserving surrounding landscapes. Mountain communities established regional transportation systems that reduced dependence on private vehicles and protected air quality.

Agricultural tourism emerged as a significant economic sector that barely exists in our timeline. The preserved agricultural lands near urban areas created opportunities for farm-to-table restaurants, agritourism, and value-added agricultural businesses. By the 2010s, Colorado had developed a national reputation for artisanal food and beverage production firmly rooted in its preserved agricultural landscape.

Political Transformation (2000-2025)

Perhaps most significantly, Colorado's growth management system transformed its political culture. By reducing competition between municipalities and encouraging regional cooperation, the system fostered a more collaborative approach to governance. The tax-base sharing program meant that even politically conservative areas recognized benefits from regional planning.

By the early 2000s, growth management had transcended partisan politics to become part of Colorado's identity. The Colorado Landscape and Community Protection Act underwent several major revisions, with both Democratic and Republican administrations making adjustments while maintaining its core principles.

Colorado's approach became a model for other western states facing similar growth pressures. Nevada, Arizona, and Utah all adopted modified versions of Colorado's system between 2005 and 2015, creating a western approach to growth management distinct from the earlier models developed in Oregon and Washington.

By 2025, Colorado is recognized globally as a case study in alternative development patterns for western landscapes. While still facing challenges from climate change, water scarcity, and economic inequality, the state has maintained its environmental quality and community character through fifty years of substantial growth, creating a distinctive approach to western development that never materialized in our actual timeline.

Expert Opinions

Dr. William Cronon, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and expert on western environmental history, offers this perspective: "In our actual history, Colorado represents a missed opportunity to reimagine western development patterns before they became entrenched. Colorado had all the ingredients—environmental awareness, population growth pressures, and water limitations—to necessitate a different approach. Had Colorado implemented comprehensive growth management in the 1970s as in this alternate timeline, we might have seen a fundamentally different model for western development emerge. The traditional pattern of boom-and-bust resource extraction followed by amenity-driven growth might have been replaced by something more sustainable. Colorado's actual history shows the power of path dependence—once development patterns are established, they become extraordinarily difficult to redirect."

Dr. Eliana Ramirez, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Colorado-Denver, analyzes the potential economic outcomes: "The conventional wisdom that growth management necessarily reduces economic vitality has been thoroughly debunked by empirical research. In this alternate timeline, Colorado would likely have experienced similar overall growth but distributed differently across space. The key difference would be in distribution of economic benefits and costs. Our actual development pattern privatized benefits through land speculation and development while socializing many costs through infrastructure requirements, water subsidies, and environmental degradation. A robust growth management system would have captured more development value for public benefit while reducing long-term costs. By 2025, Colorado would likely have a slightly smaller but more broadly prosperous economy with significantly reduced inequality between communities."

Mark Rylant, former Director of the Trust for Public Land Western Region and conservation strategist, provides this assessment: "The tragedy of Colorado's actual development history isn't just environmental—it's the foreclosure of possibilities. Each parcel developed in a sprawling, land-consumptive pattern eliminates countless future options for that landscape. What makes this alternate timeline so compelling is how it preserves optionality. The agricultural lands, wildlife corridors, and watershed functions maintained in this scenario create possibilities that simply don't exist in our actual timeline. Conservation is fundamentally about maintaining options for future generations. In this alternate Colorado, communities would have retained the freedom to adapt to changing conditions like climate change because they preserved the natural systems necessary for resilience. Our actual development pattern has painted us into a corner in terms of adaptation possibilities."