Case Title: Wallegham v. Thompson

Citation: 185 N.W.2d 649

Docket Number: 8659, 8660

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1971-04-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
185 N.W.2d 649 (1971) Hector WALLEGHAM, First National Bank in Grand Forks, as Executor of the Estate of Arthur Flecton, deceased, Howard Bellamy, Howard Tisdale, Melvin Juhl, John Stellon, Marcus Stellon, Alex Peil, Don Halcrow, John Halcrow, Fern Christenson and Oscar Unke, Appellants, v. Edward THOMPSON, Robert Howell, and Leo Laxdahl, as the duly appointed, qualified and acting Commissioners of the Water Management Board of Pembina County, North Dakota, Respondents. Herman SELLHEIM, Anton Hartje, John Unke, Arthur Puppe, Bernard Unke, Edward Redman, Ernest Boru, Byron Busse, and Oscar Unke, Appellants, v. Edward THOMPSON, Robert Howell and Leo Laxdahl, as the duly appointed, qualified and acting Commissioners of the Water Management Board of Pembina County, North Dakota, Respondents. Civ. Nos. 8659, 8660. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 8, 1971. *651 Stokes, Vaaler, Gillig, Warcup & Woutat, Grand Forks, for appellants. DePuy, Fair & O'Connor, Grafton, for respondents. COYNE, District Judge. These two cases based upon the same facts and involving the same issues of law were consolidated by the trial court and will be considered here without differentiation. On March 23, 1966, a petition for the establishment of a drain was filed with the Pembina County Water Management Board, whose commissioners are the respondents herein. The appellants are landowners within the district who opposed the establishment of the drain. The trial court hearing the appeal from the order establishing the drain upheld the Water Management Board. The cases are before this Court upon four specifications of error: "1. The Court erred in its conclusion of law No. 4 when it concluded: "2. The Court erred in its conclusion of law No. 5 where the Court concluded: "3. That the Court erred in its conclusion of law No. 6 where the Court concluded: "4. The Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's Appeal from the order establishing drain No. 66, which order establishing drain was entered on May 27, 1966, appeal from which was duly taken by the Appellants herein." By their first specification of error appellants question the jurisdiction of the Water Management Board, pointing out that the proposed new drain would superimpose two existing drains duly established and constructed by the Pembina County Board of Drainage Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 61-21, N.D.C.C. Appellants call our attention to the following statutes: The petition for the establishment of the proposed new drain was filed with the Water Management Board, and the drain was established by the Water Management Board, without any proceedings having been had for the dissolution of the two existing drainage districts nor for the consolidation of the existing districts into a water management district. The Pembina County Board of Drainage Commissioners has power to construct, repair, maintain, and improve drainage ditches. The Pembina County Water Management Board has "all of the powers conferred by statutes upon a board of county drain commissioners". § 61-16-11, N.D.C. C. While it is true, as argued by appellants, that the drainage board had jurisdiction of the two existing drains (§ 61-21-42, N.D. C.C.; Chester v. Einarson, 76 N.D. 205, 34 N.W.2d 418), it is our opinion that proceedings for the dissolution of the two existing districts into a water management district are not a prerequisite to the establishment of a new superimposing drain by the Water Management Board. Proceedings for dissolution or consolidation will presumably follow in due course. It is noted that at all meetings involving the proposed new drain, the Water Management Board and the Board of Drainage Commissioners met together, and the record reveals no conflict nor disagreement between them. Both are served by the same clerk. We are in agreement with the following statement by the trial court: Section 61-16-16, N.D.C.C., expresses the legislative recognition of the public interest in construction of water control works: *654 Such direction by the legislature should not be unnecessarily thwarted. Appellants' second specification of error finds fault with the action of the respondents in preparing a notice of hearing, delivering the notice to the official newspaper, which printed the same, all prior to the official action of the board setting the time for the hearing. The record does not disclose that any prejudice resulted therefrom. We therefore find no merit in this specification of error. We consider this slight departure from the customary procedure to be immaterial. Chester v. Einarson, supra. By their third specification of error, appellants zero in on § 61-21-16, N.D.C.C. A written power of attorney shall authorize an agent to cast the votes of any affected landowners." This statute, say the appellants, violates §§ 11 and 20 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota and is constitutionally infirm because it violates the "one man, one vote" rule established by the United States Supreme Court. Weighted voting is not invalid per se. The Court of Appeals of the Fourth District of California has upheld a statutory apportionment of voting rights for election of members of a board of trustees of an irrigation district in proportion to the assessed value of the landowners' property within the district. Schindler v. Palo Verde Irrigation District, 1 Cal. App. 3d 831, 82 Cal. Rptr. 61 (1969). Plaintiff contended that the California statute discriminated against small landowners and, therefore, violated the "one man, one vote" doctrine. The California Court held that the statutory voting formula is sustainable by reason of the promotion and protection of a "compelling state interest", following a constitutional standard suggested by the United States Supreme Court in Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S. Ct. 1886, 23 L. Ed. 2d 583. We have no hesitation in concluding that the construction of water control devices in that part of this state which is susceptible to periodic flooding is a "compelling state interest". While the doctrine of "one man, one vote" first enunciated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S. Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663, has been extended beyond elections involving seats in a legislature, it is our opinion that we cannot further extend the doctrine to cover the cases involved herein. It is our opinion that § 61-21-16, N.D.C.C., is not invidiously discriminatoryit is not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The statutory formula for voting rights in proportion to the anticipated assessment that land in the drainage district may be subjected to distributes voting influence fairly among the landowners. Those landowners who own more land will be burdened more and have more at stake. *655 In State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 749, 752 (N.D.1966), in paragraph 1 of the syllabus, we said: We cannot say that the voting formula enacted by the legislature is wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the State's objective. Indeed, we are of the opinion that it is entirely relevant. In State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., supra, we also said that a statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it; and that only invidious discrimination is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The statutory voting formula can be reasonably justified, and if it is discriminatory it is not invidious. It stands upon reason. It is not arbitrary. For reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM. The Honorable Justice Ralph J. Erickstad deemed himself disqualified and did not participate; the Honorable Eugene E. Coyne, District Judge in and for the Fifth Judicial District, sat in his stead. The foregoing opinion was prepared by Judge Coyne before his death. It is adopted by the undersigned as the opinion of this court. STRUTZ, C. J., and TEIGEN, KNUDSON and PAULSON, JJ., concur.