Title: United Plainsmen Assn. v. ND STATE WATER CONSERVATION

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

247 N.W.2d 457 (1976) UNITED PLAINSMEN ASSOCIATION, a Non-Profit Corporation et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION, and Vernon Fahy, State Engineer, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. No. 9234. Supreme Court of North Dakota. November 19, 1976. *458 Jos. A. Vogel, Jr., Mandan, for appellants. Murray G. Sagsveen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for appellees. PEDERSON, Justice. This is an appeal by the United Plainsmen Association, a North Dakota non-profit corporation, from a decision of the district court of Burleigh County dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The complaint sought an injunction against the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission and Vernon Fahy, State Engineer. Should this court find that the trial court erred, then United Plainsmen asks for a temporary restraining order against the Commission and the State Engineer pending trial on the merits. We hold that the district court did err in dismissing the complaint, we deny a temporary restraining order, and remand the case for further proceedings. The first question is whether an order to dismiss is appealable. In Chas. F. Ellis Agency, Inc. v. Berg, 214 N.W.2d 507, 509 (N.D.1974), we said: *459 Section 28-27-02, NDCC, defines orders which are reviewable, and states in part: We note that the order appealed from was entered in accordance with a memorandum decision. In Nord v. Koppang, 131 N.W.2d 617, 618 (N.D.1964), we stated: United Plainsmen argues that the order appealed from does come within the statutory definition of an appealable order. We agree with appellants that an order of dismissal with prejudice of a complaint which prays for an injunction is an effective refusal to grant an injunction and is an appealable order under subsection 3 of Section 28-27-02, NDCC. We thus proceed to the merits of United Plainsmen's appeal. On appeal from an order dismissing a complaint which prays for an injunction, the Supreme Court will pass only on the sufficiency of the complaint and not on the question of whether there might be adequate proof to support it. The rule for determining the sufficiency of the complaint was stated in Newman v. Hjelle, 133 N.W.2d 549, 555 (N.D.1965): The injunction sought by United Plainsmen would have prevented the State Engineer from issuing future water permits for coal-related power and energy production facilities until there is a comprehensive short- and long-term plan for the conservation and development of the State's natural resources, which, United Plainsmen contends, is required by § 61-01-26, NDCC, and the common law Public Trust Doctrine existing in this State. Section 61-01-26 reads as follows: United Plainsmen argues that the language of subsection 4 of that statute imposes mandatory planning responsibility upon the State Engineer, which constitutes a condition precedent to the issuance of temporary or permanent water permits in this State. We do not agree. In the light of the qualifying proviso at the end of § 61-01-26, we must conclude that subsection 4 thereof is "hortatory and precatory, but not mandatory." See Dathe v. Wildrose School District No. 91, 217 N.W.2d 781, 782 (N.D. 1974). Although it is not mandatory, § 61-01-26, entitled "Declaration of state water resources policy," is a significant advisory policy statement. The last sentence therein clearly indicates that it is not to be construed to limit, impair or abrogate the rights, powers, duties or functions of any department or agency of the State. This statute provides but little support for United Plainsmen's contention that the State Engineer must complete short- and long-term planning as a condition precedent to the issuance of water permits. We note, also, that the Legislature has reserved to itself the task of research in the areas of natural resources use and the determination of governmental responsibility for the results or impacts from developments, and to assure that "there shall not be material detrimental deterioration of the environment or quality of life in North Dakota." See Section 4 of Chapter 4, Session Laws of 1975. The foregoing, however, does not relieve the Commission and State Engineer of mandatory planning responsibilities with respect to the issuance of water permits, and we note that counsel for the Commission emphasized in his argument that the State Engineer and the Commission do have plans and do not reject the concept of prior planning. We agree with United Plainsmen that the discretionary authority of state officials to allocate vital state resources is not without limit but is circumscribed by what has been called the Public Trust Doctrine. This doctrine was first clearly defined in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S. Ct. 110, 36 L. Ed. 1018 (1892), a case in which the United States Supreme Court was called upon to decide the competency of the State of Illinois to convey, by legislative grant, a portion of Chicago's harbor on Lake Michigan to the Illinois Central Railroad. The Commission, the State Engineer, and the lower court, while acknowledging the existence of this doctrine in North Dakota, interpret it in a narrow sense, limiting its applicability to conveyances of real property. We do not understand the doctrine to be so restricted. The State holds the navigable waters, as well as the lands beneath them, in trust for the public. North Dakota's Constitution, Article XVII, § 210, states: Section 61-01-01, NDCC, further defines the public waters of this State: *462 Sections 61-04-06 and 61-04-07, NDCC, provide: These statutes provide a means by which those who seek use of public waters can petition the State Engineer for water permits. In the performance of this duty of resource allocation consistent with the public interest, the Public Trust Doctrine requires, at a minimum, a determination of the potential effect of the allocation of water on the present water supply and future water needs of this State. This necessarily involves planning responsibility. The development and implementation of some short- and long-term planning capability is essential to effective allocation of resources "without detriment to the public interest in the lands and waters remaining." We believe that § 61-01-01, NDCC, expresses the Public Trust Doctrine. The public trust concept has been acknowledged throughout the country in varying forms. Without using those specific terms, this court said, in Baeth v. Hoisveen, 157 N.W.2d 728, 733 (N.D.1968): We said that section line right-of-way is a public trust in Saetz v. Heiser, 240 N.W.2d 67, 72 (N.D.1976). In Payne v. Kassab, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 14, 312 A.2d 86, 93 (1973), the court stated that the following Pennsylvania constitutional provision affixed a public trust concept to the management of public natural resources of that State: In declaring the taking of one-half acre of land from a public park to widen a public street to be constitutionally permissible, that court said: In an action for damages for the destruction of fish caused by the introduction of a "deleterious substance" into a creek in violation of a statute, the New Jersey court, in State, Dept. of Envir. Pro. v. Jersey Central P. & L. Co., 125 N.J.Super. 97, 308 A.2d 671, 674 (1973), discussed the Public Trust Doctrine in the following terms: It is evident that the Public Trust Doctrine is assuming an expanding role in environmental law. See 61 Am.Jur.2d 950, Pollution Control, § 145. As one author has commented: No one has suggested the need for such an expansive application of the Public Trust Doctrine here. Confined to traditional concepts, the Doctrine confirms the State's role as trustee of the public waters. It permits alienation and allocation of such precious state resources only after an analysis of present supply and future need. The Legislature has indicated its desire to see such planning take place, although not in mandatory language. Until the Legislature speaks more forcefully, we think the Public Trust Doctrine requires, as a minimum, evidence of some planning by appropriate state agencies and officers in the allocation of public water resources, and that the Environmental Law Enforcement Act (Chapter 32-40, NDCC) requires more than a plenary dismissal of the action. United Plainsmen has requested a temporary restraining order, enjoining the further issuance of water permits pending trial on the merits in the lower court. A temporary injunction or restraining order may be granted if it appears by the complaint that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested, and that such relief consists of restraining acts which would, if continued, produce injury to the plaintiffs during the litigation. Section 32-06-02, NDCC. We are not convinced that a temporary *464 restraining order is necessary or advisable in this instance. During oral argument counsel for appellees stated that, of the total number of water permits considered each year, a very small percentage is in the industrial category relating to energy conversion. Of that small percentage of industrial water-use applications considered, only a few are actually granted and some that are granted will never be used because of other causes which prevent the intended development. We express no opinion about the ultimate outcome of the trial on the merits, should that point be reached in this case. We acknowledge, however, that there is merit in the argument that the extent of planning is somewhat related to the sums appropriated therefor by the Legislature, and that United Plainsmen action to defeat legislation, such as S.B. 2088 and S.B. 2253, Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly, designed to accomplish more refined scientific planning, militates against its argument. Quite obviously, too, the type of study and impact statement which would have been necessary under the North Dakota Environmental Policy Act of 1975 (H.B. 1058, Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly), had it become law, are not required. It may be that the planning being done by the Commission, according to the oral argument made in this Court, is sufficient. We hold that the dismissal was premature and improvident under the circumstances. The amended complaint charges a failure to devise any water conservation plan, as well as a failure to consider injury to the public. For the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the trial court and this Court must consider all allegations of the complaint to be true. We hold, accordingly, that the complaint does state a claim upon which relief could be granted, if proved, and, therefore, must be reinstated. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, SAND and VOGEL, JJ., concur.