Case Name: YAMHILL COUNTY et al, Respondents, v. DAUENHAUER et al, Petitioners
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1972-01-19
Citations: 261 Or. 154
Docket Number: 
Parties: YAMHILL COUNTY et al, Respondents, v. DAUENHAUER et al, Petitioners.
Judges: Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 154–158

Head Matter:
Argued December 9, 1971,
affirmed January 19, 1972
YAMHILL COUNTY et al, Respondents, v. DAUENHAUER et al, Petitioners.
492 P2d 766
Edward N. Fadeley, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
Donald R. Blensly, District Attorney, McMinnville, argued the eause for respondents Yamhill County and Jack Beeler. With him on the brief was Duane R. Ertsgaard, Salem, for respondent Marion County.
Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and McAllister, Denecke, Holman, Howell and Bryson, Justices.

Opinion:
O'CONNELL, C. J.
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding to determine whether a proposed measure filed in Yamhill County in July, 1970 by defendants is a proper subject for the initiative procedure. Defendants appealed from the trial court's judgment for plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 6 Or App 422, 487 P2d 1167 (1971), and defendants filed this petition for review.
The proposed measure provides that,
"Notwithstanding any contrary previous decision made by a majority, vote of the Yamhill County Commissioners, Yamhill County shall in no manner undertake the construction of, or participate in any manner in the construction of, any bridge or bridges, crossing the Willamette River."
Prior to the filing of this measure, the Board of County Commissioners of both Yamhill and Marion counties had agreed to construct a bridge across the Willamette river between the two counties. The question of whether bonds should be issued for the construction of the bridge was submitted to the voters of Yamhill County in November, 19.68. A similar submission was made in Marion County. The measure passed in both counties. We regard this not only as the voters' decision to issue bonds but also their decision to build the designated bridge. The bonds were offered for sale and the lowest bid was accepted by each county, subject to the bond attorney's approval. As a result of defendants' filing of the initiative petition, the bond attorney refused to approve the bonds and the bids were withdrawn.
The voters of a county have only such power as is granted to them by the legislature. Where the legislature grants to the citizens of a county the power to approve or reject certain expenditures, that power is exhausted when the expenditure is once approved, absent express statutory authority to the contrary. The power of the citizens of a county to vote on the issuance of bonds for county purposes is derived from ORS 287.054-287.074. Having once exercised the power granted to them by the statute, the voters of Yamhill County have no power to rescind that approval in a later vote. Without such power, the proposed initiative measure is improper insofar as it relates to the construction of the bridge previously agreed upon by the Yamhill Board of County Commissioners.
The measure is, however, cast in language broad enough to proscribe the construction of bridges in Yamhill County in the futriré. Whether the voters would have the power by initiative to enact such a proposal is a question we need not now decide. The proposed measure would have called upon the electorate in Yamhill County to vote also upon the question of whether the bridge previously approved could be constructed. As we have noted, the voters do not have the power to rescind their previous approval. Since the proposed measure contained matter not properly included, the trial court correctly held that it was not proper to submit the measure for a vote under the initiative procedure.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
See 68 ALR2d 1045-1047 and cases cited therein. See also Garrett v. Tubac-Amado School District No. 5, 9 Ariz App 331, 451 P2d 909, 912 (1969); Enloe v. Baker, 94 Ariz 295, 383 P2d 748, 762 (1963); Custer City v. Robinson, 79 SD 91, 108 NW2d 211, 213-214 (1961).