Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />C..l <br />00 <br />'.--' <br />,-, <br />..- <br /> <br />Amendments confirms to a Contracting District a.ll requisite powers <br /> <br />,"';" to enter into, implement and perform a Salinity Control Contract. <br /> <br />While existing statutes grant irrigation districts the power to <br /> <br />contract with the United States, it is unclear whether such <br /> <br />statutes contemplate the exercise of such power for the specific <br /> <br />purposes intended under a Salinity Control Contract. Thus the <br /> <br />amendment seeks to remove any such uncertainty. <br /> <br />3. Powers of Eminent Domain. For the reasons more fully <br /> <br />discussed in our Prior Report, the ability of a Contracting <br /> <br />District to exercise wide powers of eminent domain is believed to <br /> <br />be essential to a Salinity Control Contract. I:~ our Prior Report, <br /> <br />we concluded the most favorable candidate for a formal organiza- <br /> <br />tion to be a contracting Non-federal entity would be a water <br /> <br />conservancy district. Water conservancy districts have been <br /> <br />granted broader powers of eminent domain by sta1:ute than have <br /> <br />Irrigation Districts. Moreover, a water conservancy district has <br /> <br />been held by the Colorado Supreme Court to be a quasi-municipal <br /> <br />corporation designed for st,ate purposes. KistlE!r v Northern <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservancy District, 126 Colo. 11; 246 P.2d 616 <br /> <br />(1952) . <br /> <br />On the other hand an irrigation district has been construed <br /> <br />by the Colorado Supreme Court to be a "public corporation" and not <br /> <br />truly a municipal corporation. Logan Irrigatior.. District v Holt, <br /> <br />110 Colo. 253, 133 P.2d 530 (1943). <br /> <br />For the above reasons, we recommend the amendments specified <br /> <br />in the first two sentences of paragraph (3) of the Proposed <br /> <br />-7- <br />