C153386 Appendixes to FS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

37-41-101 Water and Irrigation 198 the exercise thereof by individuals acting as which were irrigated from a system in exist- directors of irrigation district. to use the ence when the act took effect, unless the dis- public franchise so granted, when the district trict was formed to acquire or lease such has not been lawfully and regularly organized. system. Wilder v. Board of Dirs. of S. Side is in the nature of a violation of a public law. Irrigation Dist.. 55 Colo. 363. 135 P. 461 and any interested citizen ought to have the (1913). same right to a quo warranto proceeding to The provision for exemption from taxation inquire into the authority of such individuals found in section 37-41-121 is not more explicit to act as if they had usurped,or intruded into, than the provision found in this section. a public office. People ex rel. Weisbrod v. whereby lands watered by ditches constructed Lockhard. 26 Colo. App. 439. 143 P. 273 before the passage of the act are exempted (1914). from the operation of the act. which includes But irrigation districts chiefly serve private the right of taxation. Nile Irrigation Dist. v. purposes and are for the benefit of private Gas. Sec. Co..248 F. 861 (8th Cir. 1918). landowners. Holbrook Irrigation Dist. v. First This provision depends upon certain ques- State Bank. 84 Colo. 157, 268 P. 523 (1928). tlons of fact, namely. that ditches. canals,and See Logan Irrigation Dist. v. Holt. 110 Coio. reservoirs have been constructed before the 523, 133 P.2d 530(1943). passage of the act: that they have sufficient So irrigation districts are not exempt from capacity to water the land thereunder for taxation as municipal corporations under §4 which the water taken in such ditches.canals. of art. X. Colo. Const. Logan Irrigation Dist. and reservoirs is appropriated, provided fur- v. Holt. 110 Colo. 523. 133 P.2d 530(1943). then, except such district shall be formed to But property of irrigation district is exempt make purchaser of such ditches. canals. from mechanics' lien, as is property of all reservoirs, and franchises. Montezuma Valley public corporations. Fisher v. Pioneer Constr. Irrigation Dist. v. Longenbaugh.54 Colo. 391. Co..62 Colo. 538. 163 P. 851 (1917). 131 P. 262(1913). Districts have power to own property, to sue And it does not of its own force exclude from and be sued and to sell bonds. This act pro- the proposed district lands already provided vides for the organization and operation of with facilities for their irrigation, which the irrigation districts, and these districts have district is not formed to acquire. If the pro- power to own property. to sue and Pe sued. to ceedings for the organization for the district. acquire and conduct an irrigation system. and and the definition of !ts houndaries. conform to issue and sell their bonds for that purpose. to the statute. one entitled to 'ands of the Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist.. character described in the proviso is afforded 248 F. 369(8th Cir. 1918). opportunity to object to the inclusion thereof And an irrigation district is entitled to in the district. and if he fails to avail himself reclaim waters which escape by seepage from of the opportunity afforded by the statute, its works. Acting with reasonable diligence it and permits the district to be so organized as may maintain a bill to establish such right as to include such lands. then by force of the against a stranger claiming the escaped provisions made in other sections of the act waters, and restrain him from asserting he is concluded. Wilder v. Board of Dirs. of unlawful claims. McKelvey v. North Sterling S. Side Irrigation Dist., 55 Colo. 363. 135 P. Irrigating Dist..66 Colo. 11, 179 P. 872(1919). 461 (1913). Lands held by a receiver may be included. A party may be estopped to avail himself of Lands held by a receiver's receipt issued by a the advantages of this exemption. Plaintiff sued land office of the United States. no patent to restrain the collection of irrigation district having issued. may be embraced within an taxes upon certain lands,and for a decree that irrigation district. Carson v. Cudworth. 26 his lands were no part of an irrigation district. Colo. App. 131. 140 P. 935(1914). His complaint alleged, and the court found. III. LAND IRRIGATED PRIOR TO that prior to the organization of the district. ARTICLE. and ever since. he was the owner of water rights sufficient for the irrigation of his lands. This section exempts all ditches theretofore and which he had always since applied to this constructed and not owned by the district and purpose: and that the district was not formed lands watered thereby. Norris v. Montezuma to acquire such water rights, and had not Valley Irrigation Dist., 240 F. 825 (D. Colo. acquired them: upon account of which facts 1916). the plaintiff claimed that he was within the It was the purpose of this provision to proviso to this section. But plaintiff, with full exempt lands from the burden of a bonded knowledge of the situation, had signed the indebtedness created to furnish water to petition for the organization of the district. irrigate lands embraced in an irrigation district which, as therein defined, included the and described in his complaint. During two years