Opinion ID: 2275677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The central issue in this appeal is whether the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction to determine the boundary between Arkansas County and Desha County arising from a change in the flow of the Arkansas River through accretion or avulsion. The Commission is a creature of the legislature whose power and authority is limited to that which the legislature confers upon it. Lincoln v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm'n, 40 Ark.App. 27, 842 S.W.2d 51 (1992), aff'd, 313 Ark. 295, 854 S.W.2d 330 (1993). Accordingly, we must examine the statutes creating the Commission's authority. Our basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. See Rosario v. State, 319 Ark. 764, 769, 894 S.W.2d 888 (1995). We must give effect to that intent by making use of common sense and giving words their usual and ordinary meaning. Kyle v. State, 312 Ark. 274, 849 S.W.2d 935 (1993). Where the statutes are unambiguous, we construe them by looking to all laws on the subject, viewing them as a single system, and giving effect to the general purpose of the system. See Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest, 325 Ark. 257, 265-66, 926 S.W.2d 432 (1996) (citing Hercules Inc. v. Pledger, 319 Ark. 702, 894 S.W.2d 576 (1995); Pace v. State Use Saline County, 189 Ark. 1104, 76 S.W.2d 294 (1934)). When read as a whole, the purpose of the statutory provisions governing the Commission is to create an administrative agency vested with authority to valuate, assess, and equalize public utility property, and to apportion taxes to the appropriate taxing districts. Ark.Code Ann. § 26-24-102. Section 26-24-101(1)(A) specifically grants the Tax Division the responsibility of performing all functions and duties regarding assessment and equalization of properties of public utilities and public carriers. Considering the plain language of the statutes, we cannot say that the legislature intended to vest the Commission with the responsibility of resolving boundary disputes, nor can we interpret the statute to find that that function is related to the assessment and equalization of the property. As further evidence of the legislature's intent, we may also consider subsequent amendments to statutes. Rosario v. State, 319 Ark. 764, 769, 894 S.W.2d 888 (1995). Notably, in Ark.Code Ann. section 23-3-119 (1987 & Supp.1999), which deals with complaints filed in the Commission, the legislature clarified the Commission's jurisdictional authority in a 1985 amendment to the section. The amendment, codified as subsection (f), acknowledges the Commission's quasi-judicial jurisdiction to adjudicate public rights and claims in individual cases and to act generally and prospectively in the public's interest. Ark.Code Ann. § 23-3-119(f)(3) However, in subsection (f)(2), the legislature clarified that the Commission's jurisdiction to adjudicate public rights does not and cannot ... extend to disputes in which the right asserted is a private right found in the common law of contracts, torts, or property. Further, in subsection (d), the legislature expressly stated that the commission did not have authority to order payment of damages or to adjudicate disputes in which the right asserted is a private right found in the common law of contracts, torts, or property. Appellees suggest that this statute is inapplicable, but the legislature's intent is clear. The chancery court's interpretation of the governing statutes runs counter to the overall purposes of the Commission. Moreover, no statute authorizes the Commission or the Tax Division to resolve a boundary dispute, and we cannot disregard the legislature's enactment of its intent in this area. In sum, we cannot say that the legislature intended to delegate to the Commission the jurisdiction to resolve common-law property right issues between landowners sharing a river boundary. For these reasons, we hold that the chancery court erred by finding that the Commission was vested with jurisdiction to decide the boundary dispute and the location of AECC's property. In the absence of an administrative remedy, the chancery court erred by dismissing appellant's complaint. We reverse and remand for the chancery court to resolve the boundary issue. We also require that the Commission continue to be a party in the action because we believe it is eminently preferable to have the legal and factual issues thrashed out in chancery court with the full participation of Arkansas County, Desha County, AECC, and the Commission. See Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 338 Ark. 762, 768, 1 S.W.3d 430, 434 (1999). Reversed and remanded.