Source: https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1138554
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:51:35+00:00

Document:
172 the proposed system.119 Consequently, by assessments and by charges for water services, irrigable lands alone bear the entire cost of the irrigation works and their operation. As a result, nearby urban settlements were established and flourished upon the reflected benefits from the irrigation development but bore none of the cost burden. This situation led some states to enact provisions for improvement districts authorized to in- clude not only lands to be benefited directly but also adjacent areas indirectly benefited, including urban communities.120 Still broader is the Colorado statute making provision for a general ad valorem tax in certain types of districts.121 This departure from the earlier limited concept of special benefit assessments, and the substitution of a general tax was upheld by the Supreme Court of Colorado as one "for a public pur- pose." 122 In addition to this provision for a general tax, the statute provides for voluntary agreements for benefit payments by special beneficiaries of the water development.123 Anotner example of a statute providing for corporate entities with broad powers in connection with water-use developments is the Met- 118 See, e. g., N. Mex. Stat. Ann. 1941, § 77-2205. Under this statute, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District was created in connection with the Rio Grande Project of the Bureau of Reclamation. §§ 77-2201 et seq. Sperry v. Elephant Butte Irr. Dist., 33 N. Mex. 482, 484, 270 Pac. 889, 890 (1928). ia>See, e. g., the New Mexico Conservancy District Act, N. Mex. Stat. Ann., § 77-2701 et seq., and the New Mexico Conservancy District and Reclamation Contract Act, id. § 77-3101 et seq. Under the latter statute, the Arch Hurley Conservancy District functions in connection with the Tucumcari Project of the Bureau of Reclamation. Districts of this broader type are often referred to as "conservancy districts," but the statute itself must be examined to ascertain the nature of the districts authorized since named designations are frequently mis- leading. See, e. g., N. Mex. Stat. Ann. §§ 77-3101 et seq., and compare 1935 Colo. Stat. Ann., ch. 138, §§ 126-199. m Colo. Stat. Ann. 1949 Supp., ch. 173A, § 15 et seq. Under this statute, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District was created in connection with the Colorado-Big Thompson Project of the Bureau of Reclamation. See Act of August 9, 1937, 50 Stat. 564, 592; People ex rel. Rogers v. Letford, 102 Colo. 284, 289, 79 P. 2d 274, 278 (1938). 118 People ex rel. Rogers v. Letford, 102 Colo. 284, 302, 79 P. 2d 274, 284 (1938). 128 Colo. Stat. Ann. 1949 Supp., ch. 173A, § 19 (3).

References: § 77
 v. 
 § 77
 § 77
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19