Laserfiche WebLink
<br />L'",) <br />M <br />00 <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />.,::' <br /> <br />c.) <br /> <br />of Mesa County nor the G.J. Bureau Office indicate that such <br /> <br />conveyances and transfers were made. Copies of correspondence in <br /> <br />the G.J. Bureau Office included in the Appendix to this report <br /> <br />indicate that the dissolution was not implemented because: (1) <br /> <br />Mesa County District was unable to meet the pn~requisi te of <br /> <br />Section 11 of the Carriage Contract, that the District must <br /> <br />discharge its indebtedness, and (2) Mesa County District was <br /> <br />unable to be assured of being able to receive its water for a <br /> <br />reduced cost directly from the Reclamation Project. After several <br /> <br />years of negotiation from 1927 to 1939, it appears that Mesa <br /> <br />County District ceased its efforts to end its obligations under <br /> <br />the Carriage Contract, implementation of the dissolution was <br /> <br />abandoned, and the District continued to function as an irrigation <br /> <br />district, receiving its water under the provisions of the Carriage <br /> <br />Contract. <br /> <br />Irrespective of abandonment of implementat:ion of the <br /> <br />dissolution, in our opinion, the existence of t:he vote authorizing <br /> <br />dissolution creates a cloUG on the de jure existence of the <br /> <br />District. Please note that the applicable dissolution statute <br /> <br />provides that, upon receiving authorization for dissolution from <br /> <br />the voters, "the directors shall proceed to carry out the plan so <br /> <br />authorized." 37-42-139(1), C.R..s. Moreover, t.he general <br /> <br />pertinent common law casts some doubt upon whether, after <br /> <br />dissolution, the District could be considered tL have even de <br /> <br />facto existence. <br /> <br />As discussed above, under a decision of the Colorado Supreme <br /> <br />-16- <br />