BE THE POLICY OF THIS STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO REGULATE THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE IN A MANNER THAT WILL:
1. PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE;
2. PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE STATE;
3. CONSERVE VALUABLE LAND AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES;
4. ENHANCE THE BEAUTY AND QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT;
5. ENCOURAGE RECYCLING OF SOLID WASTE."
THE ACT CLEARLY HAS AS ITS GOAL THE REGULATION OF DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND SECTION 27A O.S. 2-10-802 PROVIDES A STRUCTURE WHEREBY CUSTOMERS ARE MADE TO PAY, THROUGH USER FEES, THE COST OF THIS PROGRAM. THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM IS THAT ONLY CUSTOMERS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND THEIR TRUSTS PAY THE FEE. CUSTOMERS OF OTHER SOLID WASTE SERVICES DO NOT PAY THIS FEE.
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION IS, OF COURSE, A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED IN AN OPINION OF THIS OFFICE. 74 O.S. 18B(A)5. WHETHER A STATUTE IS A PROHIBITED SPECIAL LAW IS A QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURTS. STATUTES ARE PRESUMED VALID, AND COURTS WILL NOT STRIKE THEM DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPECIAL LAWS UNLESS THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS SUPPORTING THE CLASSIFICATION. IN OTHER WORDS, A COURT ATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE IF A GOOD REASON EXIST TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PARTIES.
A COURT REVIEWING 27A O.S. 2-10-802(B) TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION WILL BE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE MANY FACTORS WHICH IT CONSIDERS TO BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION. IN DOING SO, THE COURT WOULD, OF COURSE, WEIGH THE JUSTIFICATIONS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE LEGISLATURE IN FAVOR OF THE CLASSIFICATION. IN MY OPINION IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT A CLASSIFICATION WHICH REQUIRES SOME CUSTOMERS TO PAY A FEE NOT REQUIRED OF OTHER CUSTOMERS.
27A O.S. 2-10-802(B) OF THE ACT IMPOSES AN ASSESSMENT ON SOME CUSTOMERS AND NOT OTHERS. IF THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THIS CLASSIFICATION THEN THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL. HOWEVER, IF IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTE CONTAINS AN ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION BEARING NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE OBJECTS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, THEN THE SAME WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPECIAL LEGISLATION. WHETHER A COURT WOULD FIND THAT A RATIONAL BASIS EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CLASSIFICATION IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE. HOWEVER, I DO REITERATE THE GENERAL PRESUMPTION FAVORING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY.
(DOUGLAS F. PRICE)