Opinion ID: 2623522
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Law Is Local Or Special If It Is Arbitrary, Capricious Or Unreasonable

Text: Concerned Taxpayers also noted, The test for determining whether a law is local or special is whether the classification is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 137 Idaho 496, 500, 50 P.3d 991, 994 (2002). The district court applied this rule, citing Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center, 134 Idaho 464, 4 P.3d 1115 (2000). The legislature stated the intent of HB 391 in I.C. § 22-4801, which reads: It is the intent of the legislature to promote agricultural activities while at the same time protecting public health. The legislature finds that due to the climate, soils and crop rotations unique to north Idaho Counties, crop residue burning is a prevalent agricultural practice and that there is an environmental benefit to protecting water quality from the growing of certain crops in environmentally sensitive areas. It is the intent of the legislature to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources by providing a safe harbor to farmers when burning crop residues in compliance with this chapter and limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be exposed to claims outside of the lawful framework for crop residue burning. (Emphasis added.) The district court correctly observed, [T]he statute does not say that `burning protects water quality.' Instead, the statute in essence says `the crop which the legislature is protecting protects water quality.' This implies that if farmers are not allowed to burn, they will not grow this crop for which there is an environmental benefit. The district court stated that this belief is based on the fallacy that one must burn in order to grow these crops. The district court points out that Washington, Oregon, and free markets have proven that these crops can be grown without burning. It concluded that the purpose of the statute as written by the legislature is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable since it is based on a fallacy. The majority states that the district court's conclusion is based on an independent finding that `there is no need to burn' and further states that the plaintiffs must provide some factual foundation of record that contravenes the legislative findings. For support of this contention, the majority cites O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire, 282 U.S. 251, 258, 51 S.Ct. 130, 132, 75 L.Ed. 324, 328 (1931). However, that case did not analyze whether a statute was special or local. Again, the controlling case in Idaho regarding local and special laws is Concerned Taxpayers. In Concerned Taxpayers the Idaho Supreme Court was not persuaded by the defendant's justifications for the statute, and went on to state, Regardless of the rationalizations and social policy arguments offered by [the defendant], one cannot escape the fact that [the statute in question] is directly contrary to the prohibitions contained in Article III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution. 137 Idaho 496, 499, 50 P.3d 991, 996. The district court's conclusion that the rationalizations given for the statute are unpersuasive and that § 22-4803A(6) is a special or local law, and therefore unconstitutional, is correct and should have been upheld. This analysis precludes the necessity of addressing additional constitutional issues raised.