People ex rel. Rogers v. Letford

• Citation: 102 Colo. 284,79 P.2d 274
• Decision Date: 02 May 1938
• Docket Number: 14254.
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. ROGERS, Atty. Gen., v. LETFORD et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

79 P.2d 274

102 Colo. 284

PEOPLE ex rel. ROGERS, Atty. Gen., v. LETFORD et al.

No. 14254.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 2, 1938

Original proceedings in quo warranto by the People of the State of Colorado, upon the relation of Byron G. Rogers, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, against W. E. Letford and others to try the right of respondents to occupy the office and exercise the duties of directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.

Writ discharged.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and C. E. Sydner and Henry E. Lutz, Asst. Attys. Gen. (David J. Miller, of Denver of counsel), for relator.

Thomas A. Nixon and William R. Kelly, both of Greeley, for respondents.

KNOUS Justice.

This is an original proceeding in quo warranto upon information of the Attorney General to try the right of respondents to occupy the office and exercise the duties of directors of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, organized under the provisions of the Water Conservancy Act of Colorado chapter 266, p. 1309, Sess. Laws 1937, by the findings and decree of the district court of the Eighth judicial district sitting in and for Weld county. This action is permissible under section 3, article 6, of the Constitution, is of the nature of a common-law proceeding searching the entire record, and is not limited by sections 321 to 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People ex rel. Williams v Reid, 11 Colo. 138, 17 P. 302. The Water Conservancy Act, by its terms, section 7, invites such a proceeding and fixes the time within which the action may be brought, which provision was here complied with. The plea and answer of the respondents is a justification of the right to exercise and hold their office as directors of the conservancy district, and the cause is at issue on relator's demurrer thereto. In effect, the solution of this issue requires a judicial determination of the validity and constitutionality of the Water Conservancy Act.

At the outset it may well be said in this proceeding, as was stated in the case of Lehi City v. Meiling, 87 Utah 237, 244, 48 P.2d 530, 533, wherein the Supreme Court of Utah considered the constitutionality of the Metropolitan Water District Act of Utah, Laws Utah 1935, c. 110, that 'On this hearing we are concerned merely with such questions as arise upon the threshold of the formation of the proposed district * * * and with those considerations which involve the constitutionality of the act itself as distinguished from the validity of particular portions thereof, or the exercise of particular powers by the district or its officers after incorporation and in the course of operation.'

The relator asserts that the act contravenes a number of provisions of both the State and Federal Constitutions. The briefs in support of the respective contentions of the parties are unusually thorough and exhaustive and, with the oral arguments of counsel, have proven of invaluable assistance to the court in considering the numerous points involved.

In approaching the question of the validity and constitutionality of the statute, it is well to keep in mind certain fundamental rules. When an act of the Legislature is attacked on the ground of unconstitutionality, the question presented is not whether it may be voided but whether it is possible to uphold it. Denver v. Knowles, 17 Colo. 204, 30 P. 1041, 17 L.R.A. 135. Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the legislation and only clear and demonstrable usurpation of power will authorize judicial interference with legislative action. Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 499, 64 L.Ed. 878. The rule was well stated by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Re Wellington et al., Petitioners, 16 Pick. 87, 26 Am.Dec. 631, and quoted with approval by us in Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel District, 72 Colo. 268, 273, 211 P. 649, 651, as follows: 'When called upon to pronounce the invalidity of an act of legislation passed with all the forms and solemnities requisite to give it the force of law, courts will approach the question with great caution, examine it in every possible aspect and ponder upon it as long as deliberation and patient attention can throw any new light on the subject, and never declare a statute void, unless the nullity and invalidity of the act are placed, in their judgment, beyond reasonable doubt.'

The Colorado act was passed by the Thirty-First General Assembly and became effective on May 13, 1937. It was intended to make possible the organization of what is designated as 'Water Conservancy Districts.' Section 1 of the act (C.S.A. '37 Supp. c. 173A, § 15), states the purpose of the Legislature in passing the law in the following words:

'It is hereby declared that to provide for the conservation of the water resources of the State of Colorado and for the greatest beneficial use of water within this state, the organization of water conservancy districts and the construction of works as herein defined by such districts are a public use and will:

'a. Be essentially for the public benefit and advantage of the people of the state of Colorado.

'b. Indirectly benefit all industries of the state.

'c. Indirectly benefit the State of Colorado in the increase of its taxable property valuation.

'd. Directly benefit municipalities by providing adequate supplies of water for domestic use.

'e. Directly benefit lands to be irrigated from works to be constructed.

'f. Directly benefit lands now under irrigation by stabilizing the flow of water in streams and by increasing flow and return flow of water to such streams.

'g. Promote the comfort, safety and welfare of the people of the State of Colorado, and it is therefore declared to be the policy of the State of Colorado:

'1. To control, make use of and apply to beneficial use all unappropriated waters originating in this state to a direct and supplemental use of such waters for domestic, manufacturing, irrigation, power and other beneficial uses.

'2. To obtain from water originating in Colorado the highest duty for domestic uses and irrigation of lands in Colorado within the terms of interstate compacts.

'3. To cooperate with the United States under the Federal Reclamation laws now or hereinafter enacted and other agencies of the United States Government for the construction and financing of works in the State of Colorado as herein defined and for the operation and maintenance thereof.

'4. To promote the greater prosperity and general welfare of the people of the State of Colorado by encouraging the organization of water conservancy districts as provided in this article [Act].'

The act is general in its nature, and upon compliance with its terms a water conservancy district can be formed at any place within the State of Colorado. It is not amendatory of any existing statute and its provisions are not directly dependent upon other Colorado laws. As is evident from a consideration of the titles of its nine subdivisions, it was designed to cover the entire subject involved in all its angles. These subdivisions and titles are as follows:

Subdivision 1. 'Short Title--Declaration and Interpretation.'

Subdivision 2. 'Organization of Water Conservancy District.'

Subdivision 3. 'Board of Directors--Powers and Duties.'

Subdivision 4. 'Financial Administration--Taxes--Assessments.'

Subdivision 5. 'Water Administration.'

Subdivision 6. 'Inclusion and Exclusion of Lands.'

Subdivision 7. 'Contracts--Bonded Indebtedness.'

Subdivision 8. 'Proceedings--Confirmation.'

Subdivision 9. 'Construction--Interpretation--Repeal.'

With the exception of sections 1, 15 to 19, inclusive, and 25 to 28, inclusive, all of the provisions of the act, either in the precise words, in a modified form required by the circumstances, or at least in substance, have been taken from the Conservancy Act of Colorado, Sess.Laws 1922, Ex.Sess., c. 1, p. 11; '35 C.S.A. c. 138, §§ 126 to 199, inclusive; the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District Act, Sess.Laws 1922, Ex.Sess., c. 2, p. 88; '35 C.S.A. c. 138, art. 3, §§ 200 to 220; the Internal Improvement District Act, Sess.Laws 1923, c. 156, §§ 43 to 47, inclusive; the Colorado Irrigation District Act of 1905, as amended, '35 C.S.A. c. 90, §§ 419 to 423, inclusive; and the Metropolitan Water Districts Act of Utah, Laws Utah 1935, c. 110, which in turn was taken from the Metropolitan Water District Act of California, St.1927, p. 695, amended St.1929, p. 1613. By analogy are embraced certain principles contained in the Bridge and Highway District Act of California.

Although the great bulk of the Colorado act was lifted from the various laws indicated, all of which have been declared constitutional by the courts of last resort in these various states, the character of the districts contemplated by our law differs in some essential respects, both as to the basis of their formation and the powers of their officials, from those authorized under the acts enumerated.

Pursuant to this act, and admittedly in strict accordance with its procedural provisions, the district court of Weld county, on September 20, 1937, entered its findings and decree organizing the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District which includes generally the lands in the agricultural areas in the vicinity of the St. Vrain, Big Thompson, Cache la Poudre rivers, and of the Platte river from Platteville to the eastern line of Colorado. The approximate present total valuation of these farm lands and improvements thereon within the district is alleged to be $40,000,000, in addition to which it is said there has been an economic development within the district of approximately $100,000,000, making a total assessed valuation of all property within the district, both real and...