Term limits never made much sense to me. For one thing, we have these events called “elections,” which allow us to throw out the rascals and replace them with a new set. For another, if somebody is doing a good job in office, why not allow him or her to stay on the job? And finally, I don’t like the government telling me whom I may or may not vote for.
But we have them in Colorado, although now there’s a new twist, thanks to a ruling last week by Judge Charles M. Barton of the 11th Judicial District, which comprises Chaffee, Custer, Fremont and Park counties.
At issue was whether the directors of water conservancy districts are subject to term limits.
Water administration in Colorado is complex, especially when you ponder the variety of water-related districts.
A “water conservancy district” should not be confused with a “water conservation district,” “water and sanitation district” or “water district.” The latter two basically operate like municipal utilities. They’re “special districts” with elected boards, just like hospital districts, fire-protection districts, school districts and the like.
As for “water conservation districts,” there are only three. In theory their major concerns are long-term planning and ensuring that Colorado meets its delivery commitments to downstream states. Their board members are appointed by the relevant county commissioners.
Then we have more than 50 “water conservancy districts,” which are supposed to develop water resources. There are two big ones. Northern, based in Berthoud, manages water from the federal Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Southeastern, based in Pueblo, handles Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water. In all conservancy districts the directors, with few exceptions, are appointed by district judges.
This goes back to 1937 when the federal Bureau of Reclamation was ready to build the Colorado-Big Thompson project, but needed a local entity to collect property taxes and handle distribution.
The legislature responded with the WCD. Area landowners could petition the court to establish a district. If the judge found enough signatures, then the district was formed and the judge appointed directors, who were supposed to be knowledgeable of water matters and representative of a variety of water users – agricultural, industrial, municipal, etc.
This happened during the New Deal when the political winds blew toward having experts handle things, rather than trusting the public. Yet there was more political accountability because judges were directly elected then, as opposed to the current system of appointment by the governor and retention votes by the public. Further, in those days all district judges heard water cases, and were thus familiar with hydrologic issues; now we have specialized water courts, and so some judges who appoint WCD directors may never have heard a water case.
Our judicial system has changed in the past 70 years, but the WCD methods really haven’t. The state has made it somewhat easier to conduct an election, rather than rely on appointment, but it’s still a difficult process of circulating petitions and facing the inevitable challenges from the WCD’s attorney, only to have to do it again four years later.
But since directors can be elected, should they be subject to term limits? Judge Barton ruled that elected directors are subject to term limits, but appointed directors are not. In other words, a WCD can have two classes of directors. Those elected by the public can serve only eight years. Those appointed by a judge can serve indefinitely.
Barton’s legal reasoning appears to be a fair reading of our laws, but it leads to an absurdity. Why should an appointed official enjoy more tenure than someone elected to the same office?
Since WCDs collect property taxes and enjoy the right of eminent domain, the current system amounts to “taxation without representation,” an issue that once inspired Americans to take up arms.
Is this just some arcane matter? Colorado is a desert where water can control much of what we care about: growth, sprawl, industrial development, recreation, family farms, etc. The WCDs we support with our tax money are often in court, sometimes litigating against people we elect to municipal and county boards.
The sensible solution is to change the law and make WCDs just like other special districts and have elected boards. But no matter which party is in charge in our legislature, and no matter how much we hear about the virtues of democracy, it’s one of those things that never seems to happen. Our constitution says the water of Colorado belongs to the people of Colorado, but our political system ensures that we don’t get much to say about it.
Ed Quillen of Salida (ed@cozine.com) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
