Riverside Irr. Dist. v. Lamont, 27456
| Decision Date | 05 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 27456,27456 |
| Citation | 194 Colo. 320,572 P.2d 151 |
| Parties | The RIVERSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. LAMONT, George Lamont and Agnes Lamont, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
George A. Epperson, Donald F. McClary, Edward L. Zorn, Douglas R. Vannoy, Fort Morgan, for plaintiff-appellant.
Alvin L. Steinmark, Greeley, for defendants-appellees.
The issue on this appeal is whether or not an irrigation district has the authority to exercise its right of eminent domain for the purpose of drilling groundwater wells. The trial court adjudged that the irrigation district had no such authority. We reverse.
The Lamonts own a ranch in Weld County, Colorado. Their title comes down from the original patentee who was issued a patent in 1915. The irrigation district was organized in 1907. In 1909, it obtained a right-of-way from the United States government extending fifty feet on each side of a canal through what is now the Lamonts' ranch. The irrigation district wants to acquire a right-of-way two hundred feet along the southern margin of the canal for the purpose of drilling groundwater wells to augment its supply of irrigation water. Unable to agree with the Lamonts on a price for the right-of-way, the irrigation district sued to condemn this property under the power of eminent domain.
The trial court determined that the irrigation district was without authority under our statutes to condemn land for the purpose of drilling groundwater wells. 1 The irrigation district thereupon appealed to this court. Both parties have stipulated that the only issue presented on appeal is whether or not the district has authority to condemn land for the purpose of drilling groundwater wells. 2 The Lamonts argue that there is no express grant of authority to irrigation districts to condemn land for groundwater wells, and that the authority must be expressly granted because eminent domain powers are to be strictly construed. Further, the Lamonts assert that section 949 of title 43 of the United States Code prohibits this condemnation. We disagree with these arguments and hold that the irrigation district does have the authority under our statutes to condemn this property. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Irrigation districts have the statutory right, under certain circumstances, to exercise the power of eminent domain. Section 38-2-101, C.R.S. 1973, and the Irrigation District Act of 1905, sections 37-41-113(3) and 37-41-114, C.R.S. 1973. 3 See Potashnik v. Public Service Co., 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137 (1952). Section 38-2-101 provides in part as follows:
"If any corporation formed for the purpose of constructing a . . . ditch (or) reservoir . . . is unable to agree with the owner for the purchase of any real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right necessary or required for the purpose of any such corporation for transacting its business or for any lawful purpose connected with the operations of the company, such corporation may acquire title to such real estate or right-of-way or easement or other right in the manner provided by law . . ."
This irrigation district, considered to be a municipal corporation, (see, McCord Mercantile Co. v. McIntyre, 25 Colo.App. 376, 138 P. 59 (1915)), was formed to provide water to the members of its district in order that the arid lands within the district would become productive. Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation District, 35 Colo. 525, 85 P. 313 (1906). To achieve this purpose the district must accumulate and distribute water, primarily by constructing ditches and reservoirs hence, irrigation districts fall within the scope of section 38-2-101. Drilling groundwater wells would provide more water for the irrigation district and therefore the easement can reasonably be said to be "necessary or required for the purpose of any such corporation for transacting its business or for any lawful purpose connected with the operations of the company." The precise purpose for forming the irrigation district was to provide for the irrigation of the lands within the district. See section 37-41-101, C.R.S. 1973.
The power of eminent domain granted to the board of directors of irrigation districts in the Irrigation District Act of 1905 also appears to clearly authorize the condemnation sought here....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc.
-
State Dept. of Highways, Div. of Highways v. Denver and Rio Grande Western R. Co.
...may not be condemned in the absence of express or necessarily implied statutory condemnation authority. Riverside Irrigation Dist. v. Lamont, 194 Colo. 320, 572 P.2d 151 (1977); Potashnik v. Public Service Co., 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137 (1952); Board of County Comm'rs v. Intermountain Rura......
-
Buck v. District Court for Kiowa County, 79SA428
...Art. II, Sec. 15, in the absence of express or necessarily implied statutory condemnation authority. Riverside Irrigation District v. Lamont, 194 Colo. 320, 572 P.2d 151 (1977); Potashnik v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, supra. The petitioners contend that such authority does not exist fo......
-
State Dept. of Highways, Div. of Highways, State of Colo. v. Denver and Rio Grande Western R. Co.
...even for a public use, in the absence of express or necessarily implied statutory condemnation authority. Riverside Irrigation District v. Lamont, 194 Colo. 320, 572 P.2d 151 (1977); Potashnik v. Public Service Co., 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137 (1952). In determining the scope of the condemna......