CO Code § 37-41-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 37 - Water and Irrigation|Article 41 - Irrigation District Law of 1905|§ 37-41-101. Irrigation District - Organization - Purposes

  If a majority of the owners of the land within any district, whether residents or nonresidents, as well as the owners in the aggregate of a majority of the lands in such district desire to provide for the irrigation of the same and drainage work, or both, necessary to maintain the irrigability of the land within the district, they may propose the organization of an irrigation district under the provisions of this article. When so organized, each district shall have the powers conferred upon such irrigation district; except that where ditches, canals, or reservoirs have been constructed before May 3, 1905, such ditches, canals, reservoirs, and franchises, and the lands watered thereby, shall be exempt from the operation of this article, except such district shall be formed to purchase, acquire, lease, or rent such ditches, canals, and reservoirs and their franchises.    An irrigation district may also be formed in order to cooperate, or a district formed prior to May 3, 1905, may cooperate, with the United States under the federal reclamation laws or any other federal laws enacted by the congress of the United States which do not conflict with the constitution and laws of the state of Colorado for the purposes of the construction of irrigation works, including drainage works necessary to maintain the irrigability of the land, or for the acquisition, purchase, extension, operation, or maintenance of constructed works, or for the assumption as principal or guarantor of indebtedness to the United States on account of district lands. When so cooperating with the United States, but only in such cases, the lands of the district in their entirety shall become and remain liable to assessment and levy annually until payment is made of all contract obligations due by the district to the United States.    Except when cooperating with the United States, the liabilities of an irrigation district shall be a charge upon the land ratably, and taxes levied to pay such liabilities shall be local or special improvement assessments. Such a district shall also have power to take over the assets and assume the liabilities of water users' associations organized for cooperation with the United States under the provisions of the act of congress approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof, in case a majority of the lands of each association shall be within such district, subject to the provisions that the shareholders of such association, by vote as provided by their articles of incorporation and bylaws, shall assent and agree that such assets and liabilities be so taken over. Entrymen upon public lands of the United States within the proposed district boundaries shall be deemed to be the owners of lands within the district for the purpose of becoming petitioners for the organization of such irrigation district and shall share all the privileges and obligations of private landowners within the district.    All contracts between irrigation districts and the United States shall be recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of the county in which the office of the irrigation district is located; except that, where the district is located in more than one county, said contract shall be recorded with the clerk and recorder of each county in which the district or any part thereof is located.     History. Source: L. 05: P. 246, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3440. L. 21: P. 495, § 1. C.L. § 1960. CSA: C. 90, § 377. CRS 53: § 149-1-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-1-1. History. Source: L. 05: P. 246, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3440. L. 21: P. 495, § 1. C.L. § 1960. CSA: C. 90, § 377. CRS 53: § 149-1-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-1-1.    ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. ORGANIZATION, NATURE, AND POWERS OF DISTRICTS.    III. LAND IRRIGATED PRIOR TO ARTICLE.     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.   Law reviews. For article, ”Rights and Remedies of Irrigation District Bondholders“, see 20 Dicta 137 (1943). For article, ”When Corporate Stock Becomes Real Estate“, see 21 Dicta 53 (1944). For article, ”Irrigation Confirmation Proceedings“, see 21 Dicta 140 (1944). For article, ”Some Elements of Colorado Water Law“, see 22 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 343 (1950). For article, ”Legal Problems in City Water Supply“, see 22 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 356 (1950). For article, ”Seepage Rights in Foreign Waters“, see 22 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 407 (1950). For article, ”Legal Classification of Special District Corporate Forms in Colorado“, see 45 Den. L.J. 347 (1968).   For constitutionality of this section, see Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs. of High Line Irrigation Dist., 39 Colo. 409 , 89 P. 963 (1931); In re Green City Irrigation Dist., 91 Colo. 202 , 13 P.2d 1113 (1932).   This section does not deprive landowners of their property without due process of law. Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906).   This section, like other similar statutes, should be given a reasonable construction, bearing in mind that statutes imposing special taxes or burdens are strictly construed, and, in case of doubt, in favor of the taxpayer. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs. of High Line Irrigation Dist., 39 Colo. 409 , 89 P. 963 (1931).   The object of this section, as even a casual reading shows, is compulsorily to provide means, at the expense of those landowners within the proposed district primarily benefited, for bringing into cultivation the arid lands of the state and making them highly productive by the process of irrigation. Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); Holbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Adcock, 127 Colo. 192 , 255 P.2d 384 (1953).   Applied in Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Lamont, 194 Colo. 320 , 572 P.2d 151 (1977).   II. ORGANIZATION, NATURE, AND POWERS OF DISTRICTS.   Irrigation districts have been judicially declared to be public corporations. Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); People ex rel. Weisbrod v. Lockard, 26 Colo. App. 439, 143 P. 273 (1914); Kiles v. Trinchera Irrigation Dist., 136 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1943).   Quo warranto will lie to test the validity of organization. The assertion of the right, and the exercise thereof by individuals acting as directors of irrigation district, to use the public franchise so granted, when the district has not been lawfully and regularly organized, is in the nature of a violation of a public law, and any interested citizen ought to have the same right to a quo warranto proceeding to inquire into the authority of such individuals to act as if they had usurped, or intruded into, a public office. People ex rel. Weisbrod v. Lockhard, 26 Colo. App. 439, 143 P. 273 (1914).   Irrigation districts chiefly serve private purposes and are for the benefit of private landowners. Holbrook Irrigation Dist. v. First State Bank, 84 Colo. 157 , 268 P. 523 (1928); Logan Irrigation Dist. v. Holt, 110 Colo. 523 , 133 P.2d 530 (1943).   Irrigation districts are not exempt from taxation as municipal corporations under § 4 of art. X, Colo. Const.Logan Irrigation Dist. v. Holt, 110 Colo. 523 , 133 P.2d 530 (1943).   Property of irrigation district is exempt from mechanics' lien, as is property of all public corporations. Fisher v. Pioneer Constr. Co., 62 Colo. 538 , 163 P. 851 (1917).   Districts have power to own property, to sue and be sued, and to sell bonds. This act provides for the organization and operation of irrigation districts, and these districts have power to own property, to sue and be sued, to acquire and conduct an irrigation system, and to issue and sell their bonds for that purpose. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 248 F. 369 (8th Cir. 1918).   An irrigation district is entitled to reclaim waters which escape by seepage from its works. Acting with reasonable diligence it may maintain a bill to establish such right as against a stranger claiming the escaped waters and restrain him from asserting unlawful claims. McKelvey v. North Sterling Irrigating Dist., 66 Colo. 11 , 179 P. 872 (1919).   Lands held by a receiver may be included. Lands held by a receiver's receipt issued by a land office of the United States, no patent having issued, may be embraced within an irrigation district. Carson v. Cudworth, 26 Colo. App. 131, 140 P. 935 (1914).   III. LAND IRRIGATED PRIOR TO ARTICLE.   This section exempts all ditches theretofore constructed and not owned by the district and lands watered thereby. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 240 F. 825 (D. Colo. 1916 ).   It was the purpose of this provision to exempt lands from the burden of a bonded indebtedness created to furnish water to irrigate lands embraced in an irrigation district which were irrigated from a system in existence when the act took effect, unless the district was formed to acquire or lease such system. Wilder v. Bd. of Dirs. of S. Side Irrigation Dist., 55 Colo. 363 , 135 P. 461 (1913).   The provision for exemption from taxation found in § 37-41-121 is not more explicit than the provision found in this section, whereby lands watered by ditches constructed before the passage of the act are exempted from the operation of the act, which includes the right of taxation. Nile Irrigation Dist. v. Gas. Sec. Co., 248 F. 861 (8th Cir. 1918).   This provision depends upon certain questions of fact, namely, that ditches, canals, and reservoirs have been constructed before the passage of the act and that they have sufficient capacity to water the land thereunder for which the water taken in such ditches, canals, and reservoirs is appropriated. Such district shall be formed to make purchase of such ditches, canals, reservoirs, and franchises. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Longenbaugh, 54 Colo. 391 , 131 P. 262 (1913).   It does not of its own force exclude from the proposed district lands already provided with facilities for their irrigation, which the district is not formed to acquire. If the proceedings for the organization for the district, and the definition of its boundaries, conform to the statute, one entitled to lands of the character described in the proviso is afforded opportunity to object to the inclusion thereof in the district, and if he fails to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the statute, and permits the district to be so organized as to include such lands, then by force of the provisions made in other sections of the act he is concluded. Wilder v. Bd. of Dirs. of S. Side Irrigation Dist., 55 Colo. 363 , 135 P. 461 (1913).   A party may be estopped to avail himself of the advantages of this exemption. Plaintiff sued to restrain the collection of irrigation district taxes upon certain lands, and for a decree that his lands were no part of an irrigation district. His complaint alleged, and the court found, that prior to the organization of the district, and ever since, he was the owner of water rights sufficient for the irrigation of his lands, and which he had always since applied to this purpose; and that the district was not formed to acquire such water rights, and had not acquired them; upon account of which facts the plaintiff claimed that he was within the proviso to this section. But plaintiff, with full knowledge of the situation, had signed the petition for the organization of the district, which, as therein defined, included the land described in his complaint. During two years following the organization of the district he had paid irrigation district taxes upon said land. Without objection from him, proceedings had been taken, and a decree entered under the act, declaring the validity of the district, and confirming an issue of district bonds. Hence he was estopped. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Longenbaugh, 54 Colo. 391 , 131 P. 262 (1913).