There is a problem in Colorado, although the average homeowner may not experience it to the same degree as owners of businesses and larger properties. My work as a government and private lawyer has brought me in contact with companies that were not allowed to renovate unless they donated their frontage property for a wider street, homebuilders who have had to give up land for parks and schools much greater than the needs generated by the builder's project, and farmers and ranchers who lost the use of part of their land because a soggy spot was called a wetland. Concerning expense, it proved costly for California, Oregon, and South Carolina to act without good information and legal advice. A measure that requires state and local agencies to look before they leap could save money. Finally, it is unfair to rely on courts alone.
Litigation is long and expensive.
Governments have deeper pockets than citizens. The same logic that defers to the courts would suggest that policemen should enforce criminal laws without regard for constitutional requirements because courts can always exclude evidence or let defendants go if the government messed up. That's a brutal and chaotic way to run criminal law or property regulation. It is far better for government officials to operate within constitutional bounds in the first place. So far, government bureaucrats and lobbyists are winning the argument.