BOARD00444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2233 I memorandum. There are several discrepancies in the present law that we have encountered, One is a practical method of dividing existing districts. The present law provides that each individual landowner who wishes to be excluded from an existing district must petition the district, and the district board passes on the petition. That's not a practical method when there are fifty or a hundred people who are forming a new district, because of absentee lando~er- ships, estates in proceedings, etc. It's almost impossible to get the signatures in any reasonable length of time of the owners of land where there are numerous landowners. It was a situation that was never contemplated by the original act. Again the matter is left solely up to the discretion of the existing bo~rd. It either approves or disapproves and there is no appeal. So to take care of those cases where there will be a split of an exist- ing district we have amended the conservancy district law. That is a real problem which now faces the Tri-County Water Conservancy Dis- trict because that district will eventually be split into. at least two or three other dis~ tricts. One is in the process of formatiQnnow to sponsor the Bostwick Park Project, ,andt;he,re is some urgency in getting that districtfor~ed since the report will be completed and pr~~- sented to the Congress in about June of this year. I That district - the Tri-County - will,~lso probably be split in the future to take car:e.of the Dallas Creek Project and another possible future split to take care of the Grand Mesa' Project. We anticipate the same problem with districts now formed when the scope of a proj- ect changes. We have a potential same situation with the North Fork Water Conservancy District. Similar problems will arise, and the legislation is merely intended to take care of that. The other amendment that was made concerns publications. The statute presently reads that