Laserfiche WebLink
<br />On October 3, 1996, the board members of the irrigation <br /> <br />district formed the Mesa Mutual Lateral Enterprise (enterprise).4 <br /> <br />The plaintiffs, who are landowners and taxpayers within the <br /> <br />irrigation district, filed suit against the irrigation district <br /> <br />and others, claiming that the irrigation district is a local <br /> <br />governmental entity whose actions are subject to the restrictions <br /> <br />of Amendment 1. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant's <br /> <br />formation and funding of the enterprise violated Amendment 1.5 <br /> <br />The defendants counter that an iirigation district is not a local <br /> <br />governmental entity within the meaning of Amendment 1 because it <br /> <br />serves the private interests of landowners. The district court <br /> <br />certified this issue to us based on its determination that there <br /> <br />was no controlling Colorado precedent. With this background in <br /> <br />mind, we now examine the first certified question of whether <br /> <br />irrigation districts are "districts" subject to the limitations <br /> <br />of Amendment 1. <br /> <br />II. ANALYSIS <br /> <br />The first step in reviewing an alleged violation of <br /> <br />Amendment lis to examine the terms of the amendment itself and <br /> <br />apply its provisions according to its clear terms. See City of <br /> <br />Aurora v. Acosta, 892 P.2d 264, 267 (Colo. 1995). The provisions <br /> <br />of Amendment 1 require "districts" to hold elections to obtain <br /> <br />4 The purpose of the enterprise was not disclosed in the <br />certification order and shall remain unaddressed. <br /> <br />5 The U.S. Department of Agriculture later removed the <br />action from Mesa County District Court to federal district court. <br /> <br />6 <br />