PROJC01779 ‎(2)‎

• Contract/PO #: C153723
• Contractor Name: Orchard Mesa Irrigation District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 72
• County: Mesa
• Bill Number: HB 95-1155
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Contract Documents

voter approval in advance for increases in taxes and spending and

direct or indirect debt increases. See Colo. Const. art. X,

~ 20. "Districts" are defined in Amendment l's express language

to include "the state or any local government, excluding

enterprises." Colo. Const. art. X, ~ 20, cl. (2) (b). Since both

parties concede that a 1921 Act irrigation district is neither an

enterprise nor an agency of the state,6 our inquiry focuses on

whether a 1921 Act irrigation district is a local governmental

entity for purposes of Amendment 1.

Turning to the text of Amendment 1, we note that the term

"local government" is not defined. In interpreting the meaning

of "local government.," we rely upon general rules of statutory

construction. See Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Auth., 896

P.2d 859, 867 (Colo. 1995); Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d

215, 228 n.10 (Colo. 1994). Our duty in construing Amendment 1

is to give effect to the electorate's intent in enacting the

amendment. See In re Interrogatories Propounded by the Senate

CQncerning House Bill 1078, 189 Colo. 1, 7, 536 P.2d 308, 313

(1975). We, must, therefore, construe the term "local government"

in light of the objective Amendment 1 sought to achieve. See

Acosta, 892 P.2d at 267.

6 We have previously recognized that "irrigation districts
are not agencies of the state." Logan Irrigation Dist. v. Holt,
110 Colo. 253, 260, 133 P.2d 530, 533 (1943).

7