Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Cj) <br />en <br />l:"- <br />c..::J <br />::J <br />::::J <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />246 P.2d 616 (1952). Such a District is recognized as a <br /> <br />political subdivision of the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />Matthews v Tri-County Water Conservanc): District, 200 <br /> <br />Colo. 202, 613 P.2d 889 (1980). <br /> <br />(2) The purposes of water conservancy districts are broad, <br /> <br />extending to the promotion of "the greater prosperity <br /> <br />and general welfare of the people of the State of <br /> <br />Colorado" (37-45-l02(d), C.R.S.) and in our opinion <br /> <br />would encompass the public purposes of the Salinity <br /> <br />Control Act. <br /> <br />(3) Powers of eminent domain granted to districts are broad <br /> <br />(being inclusive of dominant eminent domain) and in our <br /> <br />opinion, sufficient to implement the objectives of the <br />Proposed Organization(s). 10 <br /> <br />10 Please refer to footnote 6. <br />The Supreme Court has said of the power of eminent domain of <br />water conservancy districts that: <br /> <br />In the exercise of this broad power vested in <br />the district board, there is a duty to determine <br />among other things, the extent of the property <br />necessary to be taken to accomplish the public <br />purpose, and its determination of the question, <br />in the absence of fraud or bad faith, is there- <br />fore, final; Kistler v Northern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District, supra. <br /> <br />The applicability of Section 38-1-101.5, C.R.S. (concerning <br />the right to take land for pipelines) to a water conservancy <br />district constructing pipelines is questionable. However, such <br />applicability has not been determined. <br /> <br />-37- <br />