Opinion ID: 2636767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statutory Provisions Pertaining to Public Access

Text: [¶ 13] Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2-216 through -218 provided State funding for the reconstruction of Hawk Springs Reservoir. It included a provision expressly pertaining to public access to the reservoir and adjacent lands for recreational purposes. We must interpret the statute to determine whether public access to HCCD land adjacent to the reservoir is required. [¶ 14] Our statutory interpretation rules are well-known. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. Krenning v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 2009 WY 11, ¶ 9, 200 P.3d 774, 778 (2009). Our paramount consideration is the legislature's intent as reflected in the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute. Initially, we determine whether the statute is clear or ambiguous. A statute is clear and unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations. If we determine that a statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute. Id., quoting RK v. State ex rel. Natrona County Child Support Enforcement Dep't, 2008 WY 1, ¶ 10, 174 P.3d 166, 169 (2008). In interpreting a statute, we will not ignore other statutory provisions pertaining to the same subject but will, instead, consider all such provisions in pari materia. Qwest Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of Wyoming, 2007 WY 97, ¶ 22, 161 P.3d 495, 501 (2007). [¶ 15] The language and context of the relevant statutes are critical to our decision. Consequently, despite its length, we quote the majority of the act here. Section 41-2-216 stated: (a) As used in this act: (i) Commission means the Wyoming water development commission; (ii) Department means the department of economic planning and development [economic development and stabilization board]; (iii) District means the Horse Creek conservation district; (iv) Project means the Hawk Springs project under W.S. 41-2-217; (v) This act means W.S. 41-2-216 through 41-2-218. Section 41-2-217 stated: (a) The Hawk Springs project consists of the following components: (i) Necessary repairs to Dam No. 1 on Hawk Springs Reservoir, Goshen County; (ii) Renovation of the existing delivery system of the district; (iii) A public recreation area; (iv) A geological and hydrological review of the project by the department; (v) Replacement of the existing Horse Creek siphon; (vi) Lining of the existing canal and, where economically feasible, replacing the canal with buried pipe; (vii) Installation of necessary public facilities. Section 41-2-218 stated: (a) Subject to the conditions in subsection (b) of this section, the construction of the project shall be financed as follows: (i) A grant to the district through the department not to exceed four million five hundred fifteen thousand dollars ($4,515,000.00), of which two million three hundred thirty thousand dollars ($2,330,000.00) shall be expended only for dam repair and outlet works and two million one hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($2,185,000.00) for canal repairs. The department shall release grant funds as it deems necessary; (ii) A loan to the district through the department as authorized in W.S. 9-2-206 [repealed] in an amount not to exceed one million nine hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($1,975,000.00) to construct the project for a term of fifty (50) years to commence as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph at an annual interest rate of four percent (4%)[.]    (iii) Authorization to the game and fish commission to expend not more than one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000.00) for necessary public facilities for the public recreation area in consultation with the department and the recreation commission [parks and cultural resources commission]; (iv) Authorization to the department to expend not more than sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) for a geological and hydrological review of the project under W.S. 41-2-217(a)(iv). (b) The department shall not release any funds to the district authorized under paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) of this section until: (i) An independent geological and hydrological review under W.S. 41-2-217(a)(iv) has been completed; (ii) The department and the district have entered into a project agreement providing the district shall undertake construction of all project components concurrently containing the following provisions and terms: (A) The department shall review and approve all design and construction plans prior to construction; (B) The district shall supervise design and construction and submit all requests for payment to the department; (C) The department shall directly make necessary payments in response to requests for payment; (D) The district shall provide security to the department as deemed sufficient by the attorney general to include a mortgage on the dam and canals and an assignment of water rights; (E) The district shall grant to the department for the state, ownership of the storage in Hawk Springs Reservoir from elevation 4,446.9 feet to elevation 4,461.9 feet according to the 1982 United States soil conservation service survey, approximately one thousand seven hundred seventy-nine (1,779) acre-feet of water; (F) The district shall operate the reservoir to provide a pool depth of twenty (20) feet by January 1 in those years when sufficient water is available; (G) The district shall grant public access in perpetuity to the Hawk Springs Reservoir proper and to all adjacent lands owned by the district or the state for the purposes of hunting, fishing and general recreation including the construction of such facilities as deemed necessary by the game and fish commission to maximize the public enjoyment; (H) The district shall pay all the costs including manpower for all operation, maintenance and repairs to the dam and water delivery system after the project is completed; (J) The department shall determine an amount to be assessed annually by the district against district members and the district shall place the funds so collected into a separate account as a sinking fund adequate to meet future maintenance costs for the project; (K) The department may contract with the district for maintenance of public facilities constructed under this project. (There is no subparagraph (b)(ii)(I) in this section as it appeared in the printed acts.) [¶ 16] Section 41-2-218(b)(ii)(G) pertains to public access. HCCD and Phase 23 argue that the public access provision is ambiguous. They claim that, by describing the areas where HCCD was required to allow public access with the disjunctive or (i.e., public access to lands owned by the district or the state) the legislature gave HCCD and DEPAD the power to negotiate perpetual public access to either district or State lands adjacent to the reservoir, but not necessarily to both. The appellants claim that, in making that election while drafting the project agreement, DEPAD and HCCD decided that the public would have access to the State land in Section 16 adjacent to the reservoir but not to HCCD's land adjacent to the reservoir. [5] [¶ 17] On its face, the clear language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-2-218(b)(ii)(G) requires HCCD to grant public access to all adjacent lands, whether owned by the district or the State. The term or follows the phrase all adjacent lands. Consequently, it seems that the or was used to distinguish between the two different types of lands the public would be entitled to access, not to give DEPAD and HCCD the authority to choose one or the other. [¶ 18] The appellants correctly point out that this interpretation runs counter to one of the traditional statutory interpretation rules. That rule provides that the term or is typically used in the disjunctive sense and provides a choice between alternatives. See, e.g., Olsten Staffing Services, Inc. v. D.A. Stinger Services, Inc., 921 P.2d 596, 600 (Wyo.1996). See also Amoco Production Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Carbon County, 876 P.2d 989, 993 (Wyo.1994) (interpreting or as disjunctive in the context of a statute requiring refund of erroneous or illegal tax payments). There is also authority, however, stating that or may be interpreted differently if necessary to harmonize the statutory provisions and give effect to the clear legislative intent. [¶ 19] In Beitel v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 991 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (Wyo.1999), we interpreted a statute stating that an employee's late filing of an injury report in a worker's compensation case raised a presumption that his claim should be denied. The statute provided that the presumption could be rebutted if the employee establishe[d] by clear and convincing evidence a lack of prejudice to the employer or division in investigating the accident and in monitoring medical treatment. Id. at 1245, quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-502(c) (Michie 1991) (emphasis added). This Court held that when both the division and the employer objected to the employee's claim for benefits, the or must be interpreted as a conjunction, obligating the employee to prove that both the division and the employer were not prejudiced in order to overcome the presumption. That interpretation gave effect to the clear legislative intent that a worker should not receive benefits if his dilatory notice of injury prejudiced the ability of any eligible objector to investigate the accident or monitor medical treatment. Id. at 1247. [¶ 20] State Department of Family Services v. PAJ, 934 P.2d 1257, 1262 (Wyo.1997) is another case interpreting the word or differently from its typical disjunctive meaning. The statute at issue in that case stated that [t]he consent of the mother shall include an affidavit stating that she was not married at the time of conception or at the time of birth of the child. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-102(c) (Cum.Supp.1996) (emphasis added). The State claimed that the mother's consent satisfied the statute if she averred to just one of the alternatives: she was unmarried at the time of conception, or she was unmarried at the time of birth. We ruled that, even though the term or was used in the statute, the legislature clearly intended a consent to be valid only if the mother could aver that she was not married at both the time of conception and the time of the child's birth. PAJ, 934 P.2d at 1262. [¶ 21] Considering the entire act pertaining to the Hawk Springs Reservoir in pari materia, it is obvious that the legislature appropriated a large sum of money and, in order to get full public benefit in exchange for the funding, required public access for recreational purposes. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-2-217 provides for a public recreation area and the [i]nstallation of necessary public facilities. Section 41-2-218(a)(iii) appropriated $170,000 to the Wyoming Game and Fish for construction of public facilities. By focusing on the public recreation potential for Hawk Springs Reservoir and expressly identifying hunting, fishing and general recreation as the purposes of the public access, the legislature clearly intended for HCCD to grant broad, as opposed to narrow or limited, public access to the area. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-2-218(b)(ii)(G). Interpreting the statutes as requiring access either only to State land or only to district land would result in an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the public access provision. Accordingly, as in Beitel and PAJ, reading the or in its typical disjunctive sense would not fulfill the obvious legislative intent of broad public access expressed throughout the act. [¶ 22] Further, as the State argues, there is a grammatical reason for using or rather than and in the phrase. If the legislature had used the conjunctive and in place of the or, the public arguably would have had access only to lands jointly owned by HCCD and the State. That interpretation would render the statute nonsensical, because no such jointly owned lands exist. [¶ 23] In order to accomplish its purpose of providing for greater public recreational opportunities, the legislature clearly meant to require HCCD, as a condition of receiving funding for the Hawk Springs Reservoir rehabilitation project, to grant public access to all lands adjacent to the reservoir, whether held by the State or owned by the district. We therefore conclude that the clear and unambiguous language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41-2-218(b)(ii)(G), when read in pari materia with the rest of the act, required HCCD to grant public access to all of its lands adjacent to the reservoir.