PUB00148

• Year: 1978
• Title: The Colorado Water Study Directions for the Future
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Description: The Colorado Water Study Directions for the Future
• Publications - Doc Type: Historical

~

I

statutes in 1905144 and 1921~45 were given power to issue bonds,
tax landowners with irrigable land, exercise the power of eminent
domain, and contract with the federal government. However, since
their tax base was limited, there was a limit to the type of pro-
jects which the districts could take on.146 There were also problems
of fairness, since "the entire burden was carried by the land irri-
gated, while reclamation plainly benefitted the entire community.,,147

I

I

I

(3) Conservancy Districts.

This problem led to the Water Conservancy Act of 1937.148 Conser-
vancy districts were given the power to tax all property in the
district, which allowed them to finance the larger and more complex
projects which were needed to supply the state's growing demands.149
One of the declared purposes of the act was to enable Colorado
farmers to cooperate with the federal government in financing and
constructing large reclamation projects.150 Water conservancy
districts were seen as the best way to buy federal water and deliver
it to local users.

I

I

I

I

The district courts of the state were given special and exclusive
jurisdiction by the act to entertain and approve petitions for the cre-
ation of conservancy districts.lsl The petition had to be signed by
at least 1,500 owners of irrigated land located within the proposed
district, and property within the district itself was required to have
a total assessed valuation of at least $20 million.152 The petitioners
were required to post a bond for costs in the event the petition was
denied or declared invalid.153

I

I

~

I

After published notice, opponents of the proposed district could
oppose its creation by signing a protesting petition. At least 1,000
signatures of protesting landowners were required, or 15 percent of
the total owners of irrigated lands in the proposed district, which-
ever was lower. The valuation, with improvements Qf the protestors'
lands, was required to total at least $2 million.154 .

I

I

Very simply, the creation or failure of a proposed district
depended upon the validity of the signatures and valuation of lands
of those in favor of or opposed to the district. If a protesting
petition had the requisite signatures and property valuation, the
petition to create was denied, irrespective of the fact that the
petition to create had the necessary signatures and valuation.155

I

I

Once the petition to'create a district was granted, the district
court appointed the first board of girectors. Vacancies on the board
were filled by court appointment.ls The board, as the primary execu-
tive body of the district, was given the following general powers:157

I

I

11-22

I
I