PROJC01779 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

entity into a gpyernmental entity for Amendment 1 purposes. We have repeatedly said that irrigation district special assessments are not general taxes characteristic of government. See Interstate Trust Co. v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 66 Colo. 219, 224, 181 P.2d 123, 125 (1919) (holding that the taxes levied by irrigation districts are local or special improvement assessments and not general taxes); ~ also People v. Letford, 102 Colo. 284, 303, 79 P.2d 274, 284 (1938) (same). While general taxes exact revenue from the public at large for general governmental purposes,s an irrigation district's special assessment benefits specific landowners whose land the district supplies with water.9 These special assessments are designated to pay the expenses, including servicing debt, incurred in irrigating the land. The assessments are levied in proportion to land ownership and are paid only by the landowners who receive S See C. B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. School Dist., 63 Colo. 159, 165, 165 P. 260, 263 (1917) (recognizing that" [t]he meaning of the term 'government' . . . may be defined as 'the exercise of authority in the administration of the affairs of a state, community, 6~ society; the authoritative direction and restraint exercised over the actions of [people] in communities, societies, or states.''') . 9 See Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 66 Colo. at 223- 25, 181 P.2d at 124-25: The assessment is not based upon the value of the land in the district as a whole, but is apportioned ratably upon irrigable land only, according to benefits, in conformity with the law of special assessments, under which the district, through a majority, may include land against the will of its owner. 9