CO Code § 38-2-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 38 - Property - Real and Personal|Article 2 - Specific Grants of Power|§ 38-2-101. Who May Condemn Real Estate, Rights-of-Way, or Other Rights - Additional Requirements for Private Toll Roads and Toll Highways

  If any corporation formed for the purpose of constructing a road, ditch, reservoir, pipeline, bridge, ferry, tunnel, telegraph line, railroad line, electric line, electric plant, telephone line, or telephone plant is unable to agree with the owner for the purchase of any real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right necessary or required for the purpose of any such corporation for transacting its business or for any lawful purpose connected with the operations of the company, the corporation may acquire title to such real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right in the manner provided by law for the condemnation of real estate or right-of-way. Any ditch, reservoir, or pipeline company, in the same manner, may condemn and acquire the right to take and use any water not previously appropriated.    Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a toll road or toll highway company may not condemn real estate or right-of-way, but the department of transportation may exercise, subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in sections 7-45-104 and 43-1-1202 (1)(f), C.R.S., the power of eminent domain for purposes of acquiring property and rights-of-way necessary for the completion of a toll road or toll highway open to the public that is incorporated into the comprehensive statewide transportation plan prepared pursuant to section 43-1-1103 (5), C.R.S., and is being undertaken as a public-private initiative between the department and the company. Such a toll road or toll highway company shall provide written notice of its intent to construct a toll road or toll highway as required by section 7-45-108 (2), C.R.S.    Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any toll road or toll highway company to construct a toll road or toll highway through, in, upon, under, or over any street or alley of any city, incorporated town, county, or city and county without first obtaining the consent of the municipal or county authorities having power to give the consent of the city, incorporated town, county, or city and county.      A political subdivision may levy a tax, fee, or charge on a toll road or toll highway company for any right or privilege of constructing or operating a toll road or toll highway such as a street or public highway construction permit fee or an impact fee or other similar development charge designed to fund expenditures by the political subdivision on capital facilities needed to serve the toll road or toll highway, but shall only levy a construction permit fee to the extent that the permit fee applies to all persons seeking a construction permit.    All permit fees, impact fees, or other similar development charges levied by a political subdivision on a toll road or toll highway company constructing or operating a toll road or toll highway shall be no greater than necessary to defray the costs directly incurred by the political subdivision in providing services, and, in the case of impact fees or other development charges, shall be no greater than necessary to defray impacts directly related to the toll road or toll highway. The fees and charges shall also be reasonably related in time to the incurrence of the impacts or costs. In any controversy concerning the appropriateness of a fee or charge, the political subdivision shall have the burden of proving that the fee or charge is no greater than necessary to defray the direct impacts or costs incurred by the political subdivision. All costs of construction shall be borne by the toll road or toll highway company constructing or operating the toll road or toll highway.       As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:   (Deleted by amendment,L. 2008, p. 1712, § 9, effective June 2, 2008.)    “Toll road or toll highway” shall have the meaning set forth in section 7-45-102 (8), C.R.S.    “Toll road or toll highway company” shall have the meaning set forth in section 7-45-102 (9), C.R.S.         History. Source: G.L. § 304. G.S. § 338. L. 1891: P. 98, § 3. R.S. 08: § 2461. C.L. § 6362. CSA: C. 61, § 52. L. 52: P. 109, § 1. CRS 53: § 50-2-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-2-1. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 1381, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2006: (2), (3), and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 1769, § 2, effective June 6; entire section amended, p. 546, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2008: (2) and (5)(a) amended, p. 1712, § 9, effective June 2. History. Source: G.L. § 304. G.S. § 338. L. 1891: P. 98, § 3. R.S. 08: § 2461. C.L. § 6362. CSA: C. 61, § 52. L. 52: P. 109, § 1. CRS 53: § 50-2-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 50-2-1. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 1381, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2006: (2), (3), and (4) amended and (5) added, p. 1769, § 2, effective June 6; entire section amended, p. 546, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2008: (2) and (5)(a) amended, p. 1712, § 9, effective June 2.    Cross references:   For the taking of private property for private use, see § 14 of art. II, Colo. Const.; for taking property for public use, see § 15 of art. II, Colo. Const.; for the right-of-way of pipeline companies, see § 7-43-102 .   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Eminent Domain in Colorado”, see 29 Dicta 313 (1952). For article, “Recent Developments in Colorado Eminent Domain”, see 27 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 23 (1954). For article, “Condemnation and Redevelopment”, see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 535 (1956). For article, “Assemblage, Design and Construction for Real Estate Developments”, see 11 Colo. Law. 2297 (1982).   Section not offensive to constitutions. This section does not offend either § 25 of art. V, Colo. Const. or the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution.Miller v. Pub. Serv. Co., 129 Colo. 513 , 272 P.2d 283 (1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 923, 75 S. Ct. 338, 99 L. Ed. 724 (1955).   De facto corporation may exercise power of eminent domain. Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915).   Irrigation districts fall within scope of section. Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Lamont, 194 Colo. 320 , 572 P.2d 151 (1977).   Applied in F.C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union P.R.R., 16 F.2d 395 (8th Cir. 1926); Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co., 90 Colo. 529 , 11 P.2d 221 (1932); Otero Irrigation Dist. v. Enderud, 122 Colo. 136 , 220 P.2d 862 (1950); Potashnik v. Pub. Serv. Co., 126 Colo. 98 , 247 P.2d 137 (1952); Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188 , 322 P.2d 1053 (1958); Buck v. District Court, 199 Colo. 344 , 608 P.2d 350 (1980).