For the first time, the Colorado Court of Appeals has decided the state law requiring counties to maintain bridges and culverts that cross highways also mandates counties replace those structures at the end of their useful lives.

“There is nothing illogical about requiring a county to both maintain a culvert and replace that culvert when it reaches the end of its useful life and might pose a danger to travelers using the road above it,” wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez in an opinion published on Thursday.

Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company, a ditch and reservoir company, owned and maintained an irrigation ditch under County Road W in Montezuma County. In 2017, the county determined a culvert tunnel that intersected with the ditch under the road needed to be replaced for safety reasons.

Montezuma County asked MVIC to pay to construct a new culvert. The company refused. As a result, the county itself replaced the culvert, then attempted to have MVIC reimburse the government.

Under Colorado law, entities that own or construct ditches and drains across highways are also responsible for building the necessary culverts and bridges. However, once constructed, boards of county commissioners “shall maintain” the structures.

MVIC turned to the courts, seeking a declaration that Montezuma County was responsible for the replacement culvert. The county’s road and bridge superintendent, in turn, stated that the understanding of “maintenance” in the construction industry is limited only to keeping a structure in working condition.

A district court judge sided with MVIC and dismissed the county’s request for repayment.

Noting that the most recent amendment to the law occurred in 1947, the three-member appellate panel read the statute literally, determining that to maintain something necessarily encompasses replacing it, if necessary. Similar laws about roadside memorials and advertising also made it clear that maintenance extended to replacement.

“[W]e disagree with the county’s contention that our interpretation leads to an absurd result by obligating taxpayers to pay for a culvert that benefits only corporate shareholders,” wrote Gomez for the three-member appeals panel. “Replacing a defunct culvert benefits more than just the shareholders who receive water using the culvert. It also benefits anyone who travels on the road by ensuring the road’s structural integrity.”

Attorneys for MVIC declined to react to the decision. Larry Don Suckla, chair of the board of county commissioners, said this is an issue affecting all counties, and he would ideally like to see a more equitable burden of replacement between the government and the private owner.

“We think that maintenance and something that wears out are two different things,” Suckla said. He estimated Montezuma County had over 200 culverts to maintain, and 10 need to be replaced in a given year.

“If you put the burden on just one entity, it’s causing a problem like this one is causing now,” Suckla added.

The case is Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company v. Montezuma County.

This story has been updated with comments from the Montezuma County board chair.