Colorado § 30-11-204 - Channel of Platte river - improvement.

§ 30-11-204. Channel of Platte river - improvement.

The city council of the city and county of Denver is authorized to improve, change, straighten, widen, narrow, deepen, or extend the channel of the South Platte river within the city and county of Denver.

Source: L. 15: p. 198, § 1. C.L. § 8974. CSA: C. 53, § 6. CRS 53: § 36-18-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 36-18-6.

ANNOTATION

In determining its policy and character of construction work to be done under this section, the city acted in its governmental capacity; the power so to act is expressly conferred upon the city council, and this authority it could not delegate. City & County of Denver v. Talarico, 99 Colo. 178, 61 P.2d 1 (1936).

But in the performance of the ministerial work it is not acting in a governmental capacity and will be held liable for damages resulting from its negligence in the construction and maintenance of the works erected in carrying out the policy adopted. City & County of Denver v. Talarico, 99 Colo. 178, 61 P.2d 1 (1936).

And in an action against a municipality for damages occasioned by the flooding of plaintiff's lands and crops, resulting from the city's negligence in making and leaving an excavation in an embankment through which the flood waters reached his land, it was held that the evidence supported a finding that the excavation was the proximate cause of the damage. City & County of Denver v. Talarico, 99 Colo. 178, 61 P.2d 1 (1936).

Ordinary care required. In an action for damages to land and crops resulting from the alleged negligence of a city, if the latter failed to use ordinary care in maintaining an embankment constructed in line with its policy for flood water control, it cannot escape liability by imputing the cause of damage to an act of God. City & County of Denver v. Talarico, 99 Colo. 178, 61 P.2d 1 (1936).

City must see that adjacent land not subject to greater hazard. Where city under legislative authority makes improvements in and along the channel of a natural stream, in the absence of contract, it owes no duty to adjacent landowners other than to see that in the plan of the improvement and its maintenance or failure to maintain, such land is not subjected to a greater burden or hazard from floods than that to which it would have been exposed had the stream been left in its natural state. City & County of Denver v. Pilo, 102 Colo. 326, 79 P.2d 270 (1938).