CO Code § 37-45-112 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 37 - Water and Irrigation|Article 45 - Water Conservancy Districts|§ 37-45-112. Protests and Hearings on Petitions

     At any time after the filing of a petition for the organization of a conservancy district having a valuation for assessment of irrigated land within the proposed district, together with improvements thereon, of twenty million dollars or more, a petition protesting the creation of said district may be filed in the office of the clerk of the court wherein the proceeding for the creation of said district is pending. Such protesting petition shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the time fixed by order of court for the hearing upon the petition to create such district, and not thereafter.    Any such protesting petition shall be signed by either: Not fewer than fifteen hundred owners of the irrigated lands in said proposed district, but not embraced within the incorporated limits of a city or town, the aggregate valuation for assessment of which, together with improvements, is not less than two million dollars and 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 such situated within the proposed district, the aggregate valuation for assessment of which, together with improvements, is not less than one million dollars; or owners of property subject to ad valorem taxes within the proposed district, regardless of number, the aggregate valuation for assessment of which property is more than fifty percent of the total valuation for assessment of all property subject to ad valorem taxes within the proposed district.    The signers of any such protesting petition shall state therein a description of the taxable property owned by each, the value thereof as shown by the last preceding assessment, and that they did not sign the petition for creating the proposed district.         At any time after the filing of a petition for the organization of a conservancy district having a valuation for assessment of irrigated land within the proposed district, together with improvements thereon, of less than twenty million dollars, a petition protesting the creation of said district may be filed in the office of the clerk of the court wherein the proceeding for the creation of said district is pending. Such protesting petition shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the time fixed by order of court for the hearing upon the petition to create said district, and not thereafter.    Any such protesting petition shall be signed by either: Not fewer than twenty-five percent of the owners of the irrigated lands within said proposed district not embraced within the incorporated limits of a city or town and also signed by not fewer than five percent of owners of nonirrigated lands or lands embraced in the incorporated limits of a city or town, all situated within the proposed district; or owners of property subject to ad valorem taxes within the proposed district, regardless of number, the aggregate valuation for assessment of which property is more than fifty percent of the total valuation for assessment of all properties subject to ad valorem taxes within the proposed district.    The signers of any such protesting petition shall state therein a description of the taxable property owned by each, the value thereof as shown by the last preceding assessment, and that they did not sign the petition for creating the proposed district.       In the event a petitioner signs such 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.      Upon the filing of any petition either for or against creation of a district, it is the duty of the clerk of the court to make as many certified copies thereof, including the signatures thereto, as there are counties in which any part of said district extends.    The court shall thereupon order the mailing of such copies to the appropriate county treasurers, which order shall include directions to the county treasurers to certify by a day certain such information contained in their official files as the court may deem necessary to resolve the issues of property ownership and valuation for assessment raised in or incidental to the petitions as filed.         Upon the day set for the hearing upon the original petition, if it appears to the court from the information furnished by the county treasurers, and from such other evidence as may be adduced by any party in interest, that a protesting petition is not signed by the requisite number of owners of lands and of the requisite values, as applicable, the court shall thereupon dismiss said protesting petition and shall proceed with the original hearing as provided in this section.    If the court finds from the evidence that a protesting petition is signed by the requisite number of owners of lands and of the requisite values, as applicable, the court shall order an election on the question of the formation of the district in accordance with the procedure 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.    The finding of the court upon the question of total valuation, the genuineness of the signatures, and all other matters of law and fact incident to such determination shall be final and conclusive on all parties and interests whether appearing or not.         Any owner of real property in said proposed district not having individually signed a petition for the organization of a conservancy district may file objection to the organization and incorporation of the district. Such objection shall be limited to a denial of the statements in the petition.    The owner of any real property, or interest therein subject to ad valorem taxation, within the proposed district may file a petition with the court stating reasons why said property should not be included therein and praying that said property be excluded therefrom. Such reasons may include, but shall not be limited to, the absence of benefit to the said property derived from the proposed district and the fact that the exclusion will not interfere with the purposes of the proposed district. Such petition shall be duly verified and shall describe the property sought to be excluded. The court shall hear said petition and all objections thereto at the time of the hearing on the petition for organization as an advanced matter and shall determine whether said property should be excluded or included in said district. A final order of the court shall be entered on a petition for exclusion prior to and separately from any final order granting or dismissing the petition for the organization of the district.    Any petitions or objections filed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection (6) shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the time fixed by order of court for hearing upon the petition to create said district and not thereafter. (6.5)   The only objections or protesting petitions allowed in the case of a petition for an election under section 37-45-109 (2.5) shall be those filed under paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of this section and those which protest that such petition for an election has not been signed and presented in compliance with said section.    In the event that a petition is amended to request an election, any protesting petitions not allowed under paragraph (a) of this subsection (6.5) shall be dismissed by the court and the proceedings continued as provided in section 37-45-109 (2.5). (6.6) Any petition originally filed under section (1) or (2) may, at any time, be amended to request an election on the question of the organization of the district as provided in section 37-45-109 (2.5) if the original petition stated that it may be used in the alternative to request an election on the question of the organization of the district. Any such amended petition shall then conform with the petition requirements of section 37-45-109 (2.5), and any signers to the petition originally filed shall be considered valid signers on the amended petition so long as such signers meet the requirements of section 37-45-109 (2.5).          Upon said hearing on a petition filed under section 37-45-109 (1) or (2), if it appears that the petition for the organization of a water conservancy district has been signed and presented in conformity with this article, and that the allegations of the petition are true, and that no protesting petition has been filed, or if filed has been dismissed, by order duly entered of record, the court shall adjudicate all questions of jurisdiction, declare the district organized, and give it a corporate name, by which in all proceedings it shall thereafter be known, and 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.    In such decree the court shall designate the place where the office or principal place of business of the district shall be located, which shall be within the corporate limits of the district and which may be changed by order of court from time to time. The regular meetings of the board shall be held at such office or place of business but for cause may be adjourned to any other convenient place. The official records and files of the district shall be kept at the office so established.    If the court determines that a petition for organization of a water conservancy district has not been signed and presented in conformity with this article or that the material facts are not as set forth in the petition, the court shall allow the petitioner thirty days within which to cure any defects as provided in section 37-45-109 (4) or to amend the petition as provided in subsection (6.6) of this section to request an election on the question of organizing the district. Any such amendment of a petition shall be valid if amended within said thirty days. If after said thirty days any defects are not cured or the petition is not so amended, the court shall dismiss the proceedings and adjudge the costs against the signers of the petition in such proportion as it deems just and equitable. No appeal or other remedy shall lie from an order dismissing said proceeding; but nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the filing of a subsequent petition for similar improvements or for a similar water conservancy district, and the right to renew such proceeding is expressly granted and authorized.    If an order is entered establishing the district, such order shall be deemed final and no appeal or other remedy shall lie therefrom, and the entry of such order shall finally and conclusively establish the regular organization of the district against all persons except the state of Colorado, in an action in the nature of quo warranto, commenced by the attorney general within three months after said decree, declaring such district organized as provided in this article, and not otherwise. The organization of such district shall not be directly nor collaterally questioned in any action or proceeding except as expressly authorized in this article.    Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect districts organized prior to May 10, 1939, under the provisions of this article.     History. Source: L. 37: P. 1317, § 7. CSA: C. 173B, § 21. L. 39: P. 594, § 2. L. 49: Pp. 740, 743, §§ 2, 3. CRS 53: § 149-6-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-5-7. L. 67: P. 699, § 2. L. 81: (7) amended, (6.5) and (6.6) added, and (9) R&RE, pp. 1754, 1755, §§ 3, 4, effective June 19. History. Source: L. 37: P. 1317, § 7. CSA: C. 173B, § 21. L. 39: P. 594, § 2. L. 49: Pp. 740, 743, §§ 2, 3. CRS 53: § 149-6-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-5-7. L. 67: P. 699, § 2. L. 81: (7) amended, (6.5) and (6.6) added, and (9) R&RE, pp. 1754, 1755, §§ 3, 4, effective June 19.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, ”Irrigation Confirmation Proceedings“, see 21 Dicta 140 (1944).   The general assembly has provided that certain objections may be filed up to and including the date set for hearing. Hill v. District Court, 134 Colo. 369 , 304 P.2d 888 (1956).   A petition for formation of a water conservancy district cannot stand fully at issue until the date of the hearing itself, and continuation of the hearing date beyond that set forth in the published notice does not divest the court of jurisdiction. Hill v. District Court, 134 Colo. 369 , 304 P.2d 888 (1956).   If the applicable statutory requirements are complied with, the district court is directed to formalize the organization. Peaker v. Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 174 Colo. 210 , 483 P.2d 232 (1971).   A water conservancy district is a legal entity upon the entry of a decree by the district court having jurisdiction. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 146 Colo. 318 , 364 P.2d 215 (1961).   A decree of the district court creating a water conservancy district may be attacked only by the attorney general of Colorado. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 146 Colo. 318 , 364 P.2d 215 (1961).   A quo warranto proceeding, being in the nature of a common-law writ, searches the entire record, including the testimony and all matters considered by the trial court. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503 , 343 P.2d 812 (1959).   Each taxpayer shares proportionately in the funds of a voided district. The district existed only as a de facto district, and its existence was ousted when the order of this court became final upon the denial of the petition for rehearing. The taxpayers as claimants shall share proportionately with the claimants in the funds in the registry of the court in that proportion in which the claim of each including the taxpayers bears to the total amount of the claims finally allowed. Each claimant including each taxpayer shall bear his proportion of the cost of these proceedings and each item shall bear its cost of refund. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platte Water Conservancy Dist., 146 Colo. 318 , 364 P.2d 215 (1961).   Water conservancy districts are not public utilities subject to the regulation of the public utilities commission (PUC). Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).   The power of a conservancy district to engage in rate fixing for the sale, leasing, or disposition of its waters does not by this authority alone give it public utility status or subject it to the rules, regulations, and supervision of the PUC. Matthews v. Tri-County Water conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).   A water conservancy district, a political subdivision of the state, having the powers of a public or municipal corporation and having no obligation to sell, and being prohibited by statute from selling water for use outside the district boundaries, does not rationally fall within the definition of a public utility or within the regulatory control of the PUC. Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).