CO Code § 37-45-109 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 37 - Water and Irrigation|Article 45 - Water Conservancy Districts|§ 37-45-109. Petition

     Except as provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, before any water conservancy district is established under this article having a valuation for assessment of irrigated land, together with improvements thereon within the proposed district, of twenty million dollars or more, a petition shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court vested with jurisdiction in a county in which all or part of the lands embraced in such proposed water conservancy district are situated, signed by not fewer than fifteen hundred owners of irrigated land situated within the limits of the territory proposed to be organized into a district but not embraced within the incorporated limits of a city or town; and each tract of land shall be listed opposite the name of the signer, each such tract, together with improvements thereon, to have a valuation for assessment of not less than two thousand dollars. Such petition shall be also signed by not fewer than five hundred owners of nonirrigated land or lands embraced in the incorporated limits of a city or town, all situated in the proposed district; and each tract of land shall be listed opposite the name of the signer, each such tract, together with improvements thereon, to have a valuation for assessment of not less than one thousand dollars.    In the event a petitioner signs the petition both as owner of irrigated and nonirrigated land situated within a municipality, his name shall be counted only as an owner of irrigated lands. A signing petitioner shall not be permitted, after the filing of the petition, to withdraw his name therefrom.    No district shall be formed under this subsection (1) unless the valuation for assessment of irrigated land, together with improvements thereon, within the proposed district, is twenty million dollars or more, and no city, or city and county, having a population of more than twenty-five thousand as determined by the last United States census shall be included within such district unless by and with the written consent of the chief executive officer of such city, or city and county, and with the approval of the legislative body of such municipality, and such consent may specify that the rate of taxation on the valuation for assessment of property within said city, or city and county, under section 37-45-122, shall not exceed a maximum rate which may be less than the rates set out in section 37-45-122, and, in such case, the district shall not have power to levy an assessment on the property in said city, or city and county, at a greater rate than that specified in said consent.         Except as provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, before any water conservancy district shall be established under this article having a valuation for assessment of irrigated land, together with improvements thereon, within the proposed district of less than twenty million dollars, a petition shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court vested with jurisdiction in a county in which all or part of the lands embraced in such proposed water conservancy district are situated, signed by not fewer than twenty-five percent of the owners of irrigated lands to be included in the district but not embraced within the incorporated limits of a city or town; and each tract of land shall be listed opposite the name of the signer, each such tract, together with improvements thereon, to have a valuation for assessment of not less than one thousand dollars. Such petition shall be also signed by not fewer than five percent of the owners of nonirrigated land or lands embraced in the incorporated limits of a city or town, all situated in the proposed district; and each tract of land shall be listed opposite the name of the signer, each such tract, together with improvements thereon, to have a valuation for assessment of not less than one thousand dollars.    In the event a petitioner signs such a petition both as owner of irrigated and nonirrigated land situated within a municipality, his name shall be counted only as an owner of irrigated land. A signing petitioner shall not be permitted, after the filing of the petition, to withdraw his name therefrom.    No district shall be formed under this subsection (2) unless the valuation for assessment of irrigated land, together with improvements thereon, within the proposed district, is less than twenty million dollars, and no city, or city and county, having a population of more than twenty-five thousand as determined by the last United States census shall be included within such district unless by and with the written consent of the chief executive officer of such city, or city and county, with the approval of the legislative body of such municipality, and such consent may specify that the rate of taxation on the valuation for assessment of property within said city, or city and county, under section 37-45-122, shall not exceed a maximum rate which may be less than the rates set out in section 37-45-122, and, in such case, the district shall not have power to levy an assessment on the property in said city, or city and county, at a greater rate than that specified in said consent. (2.5)   As an alternative to the procedures set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a petition for an election on the organization of a water conservancy district may be filed with the clerk of the court vested with jurisdiction in a county in which all or part of the lands embraced in such proposed district is situated. The petition shall be signed by not less than ten percent or two hundred electors of the proposed special district, whichever number is smaller. The proposed boundary of the special district may include any part or all of any city or city and county of any size. Such petition and the hearing thereon shall otherwise comply with the provisions of this article which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection (2.5).    On the day fixed for the hearing, or at a continuance thereof, the court shall first ascertain, from such evidence which may be adduced, that the required number of electors of the proposed district have signed the petition. Upon said hearing, if it appears that the petition for the organization of the district has been signed and presented in conformity with this subsection (2.5) and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court, by order duly entered of record, shall direct that the question of the organization of the water conservancy district shall be submitted at an election to be held for that purpose in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 37-45-139 to 37-45-141. The court shall exercise all functions which are the responsibility of the board of directors of a water conservancy district as set forth in said sections.    At such election, the voter shall vote for or against the organization of the water conservancy district. If a majority of the votes cast at said election are in favor of the organization, the court shall declare the district organized and give it the corporate name designated in the petition, by which it shall thereafter be known in all proceedings. However, if the proposed district includes any territory within a municipality and a majority of the votes cast by voters residing within that incorporated area are against formation of the district, the governing body of said municipality may, within thirty days after certification of the election results, petition the court organizing the district for exclusion from the district of all such incorporated territory, and the court shall exclude such territory from the district. Thereupon, the district shall be a political subdivision of the state of Colorado and a body corporate with all the powers of a public or municipal corporation.          The petition shall set forth:   The proposed name of said district;    In cases where an election will not be held on the organization of the district, that property within the proposed district will be benefited by the accomplishment of the purposes enumerated in section 37-45-108;    A general description of the purpose of the contemplated improvement and of the territory to be included in the proposed district. The description need not be given by metes and bounds or by legal subdivision, but it shall be sufficient to enable a property owner to ascertain whether his property is within the territory proposed to be organized as a district. The territory need not be contiguous if it is so situated that the organization of a single district of the territory described is calculated to promote one or more of the purposes enumerated in section 37-45-108.    Whether or not any part of the proposed district is included within the boundaries of a district already in existence under the provisions of this article and, if so, the general description, as defined in paragraph (c) of this subsection (3), of the overlapping area;    The valuation for assessment of all irrigated land within the boundaries of the proposed district if the district is to be organized without holding an election on the question of organization;    A general designation of divisions of the district and the number of directors of the district proposed for each subdivision;    A prayer for the organization of the district by the name proposed and, in the case of a petition for an election under subsection (2.5) of this section, a request for the holding of an election on the question of the organization of the district.       No petition with the requisite signatures shall be declared void on account of alleged defects, but the court may permit the petition to be amended at any time to conform to the facts by correcting any errors in the description of the territory or in any other particular. However, similar petitions or duplicate copies of the same petition for the organization of the same district may be filed and together shall be regarded as one petition. All such petitions filed prior to the hearing on the first petition filed shall be considered by the court the same as though filed with the first petition placed on file.    In determining whether the requisite number of landowners have signed the petition, the court shall be governed by the names as they appear upon the tax roll which shall be prima facie evidence of such ownership.     History. Source: L. 37: P. 1313, § 4. CSA: C. 173B, § 18. L. 39: P. 592, § 1. L. 49: P. 737, § 1. CRS 53: § 149-6-4. L. 61: P. 845, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-5-4. L. 67: P. 698, § 1. L. 81: (1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(b), (3)(e), and (3)(g) amended and (2.5) added, p. 1752, § 1, effective June 19. History. Source: L. 37: P. 1313, § 4. CSA: C. 173B, § 18. L. 39: P. 592, § 1. L. 49: P. 737, § 1. CRS 53: § 149-6-4. L. 61: P. 845, § 2. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-5-4. L. 67: P. 698, § 1. L. 81: (1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(b), (3)(e), and (3)(g) amended and (2.5) added, p. 1752, § 1, effective June 19.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, ”When Corporate Stock Becomes Real Estate“, see 21 Dicta 53 (1944).   Section 37-45-108 gives a district court authority to form such districts only when the conditions stated in this section are found to exist. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   This statute requires as a prerequisite to the exercise of authority that a petition be first filed designating the boundaries of a district, so that it may be easily distinguished. This is for the benefit of the property owners. A property owner might be willing to sign for an improvement district as designated in the first petition, and might be unwilling to sign if a part of the property included within the boundaries of the district should be omitted; for this might have the effect of imposing upon the property owners additional and enlarged burdens which they did not contemplate when they signed the petition. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   The sufficiency of the petition giving the court jurisdiction is to be determined on the record at the time of the hearing fixed in the order of publication and not otherwise. Hill v. District Court, 134 Colo. 369 , 304 P.2d 888 (1956).   The function of requiring a petition to describe territory to be included and the purpose of the contemplated improvement is that a citizen may know what he is petitioning for. He is furnished a basis for estimating the quantities of water needed, the size of the tax base and population involved, and the benefit which might be anticipated in terms of the cost per acre foot of water supplied. Furnishing a ”basis for estimating“ various matters is a far cry from stating that a district's project must be completely planned in every detail prior to the time the petition is filed. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   This section requires a petition to pray for the organization of a district by the name proposed, not some other name. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   This section permits a petition to be amended at any time to conform to the facts by correcting errors in description of territories or in any other particular. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   A desire to foreclose opposition by excluding lands or individuals is not a correction of an error in description nor a correction of an error in any other particular in originating petitions. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   Subsection (4) may not be used to exclude originally included land. Subsection (4), permitting amendment of a petition to form a conservancy district to conform to the facts by correcting any errors in the description of the territory or in other particulars, does not authorize such amendment for the purpose of excluding territory originally included in the district. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   Changes of scope and magnitude emasculate the notice and information requirements of the act. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   It cannot be assumed that petitioners affixing their signatures to an originating petition would have done so had they known that the district to be created would be substantially different from that described in the original petition. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).