CO Code § 37-85-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 37 - Water and Irrigation|Article 85 - Charge for Delivery of Water|§ 37-85-103. County Commissioners to Hear and Consider Applications

 The board of county commissioners of each county, at its regular sessions in each year, and at such other sessions as it in its discretion may deem proper, in view of the irrigation and harvesting season, and the convenience of all parties interested, shall hear and consider all applications which may be made to it by any party interested, either in furnishing and delivering for compensation in any manner, or in procuring for such compensation, water for irrigation, mining, milling, manufacturing, or domestic purposes, from any ditch, canal, conduit, or reservoir, the whole or any part of which lies in such county. The application shall be supported by such affidavits as the applicant may present, showing reasonable cause for such board of county commissioners to proceed to fix a reasonable maximum rate of compensation for water to be thereafter delivered from such ditch, canal, conduit, or reservoir, within such county.   History. Source: L. 1887: P. 291, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3265. C.L. § 1742. CSA: C. 90, § 140. CRS 53: § 147-8-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-8-2. History. Source: L. 1887: P. 291, § 1. R.S. 08: § 3265. C.L. § 1742. CSA: C. 90, § 140. CRS 53: § 147-8-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 148-8-2.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For comment, ”Water: Statewide or Local Concern? City of Thornton v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.“, see 56 Den. L.J. 625 (1979).   The county commissioners have been invested with the power to set rates by the Colorado constitution. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   Pursuant to § 8 of art. XVI, Colo. Const., the general assembly has provided statutory procedures under this and the following sections whereby those furnishing water carriage can have the county commissioners establish reasonable maximum rates. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   Constitutional and statutory provisions not applicable to political subdivision. The language of § 8 of art. XVI, Colo. Const., and of this article is not applicable to a political subdivision of the state of Colorado. Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).   Provisions only applicable to private parties. The framers intended, and the general assembly understood, that § 8 of art. XVI, Colo. Const., was applicable only to private persons or corporations engaged in the business of storage, carriage, and sale of water for irrigation, mining, milling, manufacturing, or domestic purposes. Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).   The rate-making power cannot be delegated to others. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   Therefore, a carrier is not vested with power to prescribe the rate which it shall receive for its services. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   A contract between the carrier and the consumer, whereby the carrier attempts to fix and collect the rate for carrying and delivering water to the consumer, is not binding on the latter because the Colorado constitution and this section upon the subject, have conferred upon and vested in the county commissioners of the respective counties the exclusive power to fix the rate for such service. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   The only time the courts can interfere with rate making is after the board of county commissioners either acts or fails to act, and then only to determine whether what was done or not done was unreasonable, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   An assessment provided for by a court decree directing a ditch company to assess and plaintiff to pay a reasonable rate for carrying extra water for plaintiff is not a rate to be charged for use of water to be determined by the county commissioners, and the court's decree does not usurp the rate power of the county commissioners. Zoller v. Mail Creek Ditch Co., 31 Colo. App. 99, 498 P.2d 1169 (1972).   A mutual water company has been defined as a private corporation organized for the express purpose of furnishing water only to shareholders thereof and not for profit or for hire. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   Where a party is entitled to run water through a ditch as co-owner, in the absence of a contract concerning compensation to the ditch company therefor, he must pay his pro rata share of the upkeep of the ditch, and the amount fixed by the county commissioners as to such share is prima facie proof thereof. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   No stipulation of the parties and no decree of the trial court can have any validity as to the rates to be charged by a ditch company to users who are neither stockholders nor co-owners of such ditch company, the authority to set reasonable rates for the carriage and delivery of such water being in the board of county commissioners. Farmers Water Dev. Co. v. Barrett, 151 Colo. 140 , 376 P.2d 693 (1962).   Water conservancy districts not subject to county commissioners' jurisdiction. Water conservancy districts, when fixing rates for sale of water, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the boards of county commissioners. Matthews v. Tri-County Water Conservancy Dist., 200 Colo. 202 , 613 P.2d 889 (1980).