Opinion ID: 985211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Developments on Remand

Text: Our discussion in Eudora I of § 82a-619(g)’s “accept financial or other aid” clause apparently prompted the Kansas legislature to propose a statutory amendment: The supplemental note [to the bill proposing the amendment] indicates that [a representative from the] Kansas Rural Water Association[] spoke in favor of the amendment, noting that the federal code had changed and been put into another statute, that “an alert Attorney General caught the change in the federal law,” and the amendment “just puts back into place the authority to issue and refinance the bonds.” App. 1305 (quoting http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/committees/ resources/ctte_h_engy_utls_1_20120208_min.pdf). Subsection (g) was therefore amended, effective July 1, 2012, as follows (strikeouts indicate deletions; underscoring indicates insertions): Every district incorporated under this act . . . shall have the power to    cooperate with and enter into agreements with the secretary of the United States department of agriculture or the secretary’s duly authorized representative necessary to carry out the purposes of its organization; and to accept financial or other aid which the secretary of the United States department of agriculture is empowered to give pursuant -8- to 16 U.S.C.A., secs. 590r, 590s, 590x-1, 590x-a and 590x-3, and amendments thereto 7 U.S.C. § 1921 et seq., as in effect on the effective date of this act . . . . The citation to “§ 1921 et seq.” includes § 1926(b). See Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act, Pub. L. No. 87-128, Tit. III, § 306(b), 75 Stat. 307, 308 (1961). At the time of the amendment, the district court had been considering new cross-motions for summary judgment on the “necessary” question. Douglas-4 then raised the possibility that the amended version of § 82a-619(g)’s “accept financial or other aid” clause might moot the “necessary” question and give Douglas-4 the power, as a matter of law, to enter into the loan guarantee. The district court rejected Douglas-4’s argument, holding that the amendment does not apply retroactively to this dispute. The district court nonetheless certified to us this question: “whether the recent amendment to K.S.A. § 82a-619(g) is retroactive and, if so, whether Douglas-4 was empowered to accept financial or other aid from the USDA in the form of a guarantee, without the requirement of necessity.” App. 1312. We agreed to hear the appeal.