OCR Text |
Show 174 is the Colorado case of Interstate Trust Company v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation District.1*2 Under this rule, the bond liability is charged ratably against the land as a special assessment lien, so that each parcel once sold for that lien is freed from further obligation therefor.133 Montana decisions accord with this rule.134 A qualification of the rule has been adopted in Utah.135 Another aspect of financing merits notice. Like certain other local taxing agencies, an irrigation district may have a composition of its indebtedness under federal bankruptcy legis- lation.138 The increasing use of district organizations for water de- velopment, utilization, and conservation is well illustrated by Texas legislation. It has made special provision for over 30 separate districts of this type.137 In addition, Texas has enacted general laws for the organization of many types of districts, including irrigation districts, water-improvement districts, con- servation and reclamation districts, water-control and improve- ment districts, water-control and preservation districts, fresh- water-supply districts, levee-improvement districts, drainage districts, and navigation districts.138 182 66 Colo. 219, 181 Pae. 123 (1919). Three years earlier, and prior to a state ruling on the point, a federal trial court adopted the minority view. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist., 240 Fed. 825 (D. C. Colo., 1916). But this decision was reversed in Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist., 248 Fed. 369 (C. A. 8,1918), cert, den., 248 U. S. 569 (1918). Subsequent federal decisions in cases arising in Colorado have followed the holding of the Interstate case. Denver-Oreeley Valley Irr. Dist. v. Mc- Neil, 80 F. 2d 929, 930-931 (C. A. 10, 1936); Kiles v. Trinchera Irr. Dist., 136 F. 2d 894, 897 (C. A. 10,1943). 133 66 Colo, at pp. 224-225,181 Pac. at p. 125. m See, e. g., State ex rel. Malott v. Board of Com'rs of Cascade County, 89 Mont, 37, 95, 296 Pac. 1,18-19 (1931). 135 See, e. g., Nelson v. Board of Com'rs of Davis County, 62 Utah 218, 224, 218 Pac. 952, 954 (1923). 149 Act of August 16, 1937, 50 Stat. 653, 654, as amended, 11 U. S. C. 401 et seq. An earlier provision was held unconstitutional in Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. One, 298 U. S. 513 (1936). 187 See Vebnon's Ann. Rev. Civil Stats, of Texas, 1937, and 1949 Cum. Supp., Title 128, ch. 8. U8 Vebnon's Ann. Rev. Civil Stats, of Texas, vol. 21, Water. |