Opinion ID: 1832483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the district has statutory authority to enter the agreement

Text: The appellants contend that the District lacks statutory authority to enter development agreements with private developers. They argue that § 2-3235 does not allow the District to contract with private developers, either expressly or impliedly. Regarding the power of a natural resources district (NRD) to contract with outside parties, § 2-3235(1) provides: Each district shall have the power and authority to cooperate with or to enter into agreements with and, within the limits of appropriations available, to furnish financial or other aid to any cooperator, any agency, governmental or otherwise, or any owner or occupier of lands within the district for the carrying out of projects for benefit of the district as authorized by law, subject to such conditions as the board may deem necessary. An NRD, as a political subdivision, has only that power delegated to it by the Legislature, [2] and we strictly construe a grant of power to a political subdivision. [3] An NRD possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others: (1) those granted in express words; (2) those implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and (3) those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the district, not simply convenient, but indispensable. [4] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 2-3229 (Reissue 1997) lists the purposes of NRD's. Under this section, NRD's may develop and execute plans, facilities, works, and programs relating to (1) erosion prevention and control, (2) prevention of damages from flood water and sediment, (3) flood prevention and control, (4) soil conservation, (5) water supply for any beneficial uses, (6) development, management, utilization, and conservation of ground water and surface water, (7) pollution control, (8) solid waste disposal and sanitary drainage, (9) drainage improvement and channel rectification, (10) development and management of fish and wildlife habitat, (11) development and management of recreational and park facilities, and (12) forestry and range management. The record shows that the Shadow Lake and Midlands Lake projects will achieve several of these purposes. Petermann testified that these projects would provide flood control, sediment and erosion control, recreation, and water quality benefits. The appellants acknowledge that regarding these purposes, the projects are within the District's judgment. Thus, we do not pass on the wisdom of the projects. [5] But the appellants contend that although the projects fulfill the District's statutory purposes, it could not contract with private developers to accomplish these purposes. They argue that § 2-3235(1) does not include developers among the parties with which the District may contract and provide financial aid. And they urge us to consider the historical context in construing this statute, citing Allen v. Tobin. [6] Historically, NRD's assisted farmers and rural landowners under § 2-3235(1). In construing a statute, we will give it its plain and ordinary meaning. And we will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. [7] Here, we need not look to history for the meaning of § 2-3235(1) because its language is clear. It applies to any owner or occupier of lands within the district. An owner is [o]ne who has the right to possess, use, and convey something .... [8] However transient their ownership may be, SLD and 370 LLC are the owners of the project lands. Thus, under § 2-3235(1), the District has express authority to cooperate, enter agreements, and furnish aid to them to carry out projects that benefit the District. Principled adherence to statutory interpretation need not prevent a court from questioning the policy and breadth of a statute. Reasonable minds may disagree whether it is good policy for NRD's to contract with private developers. That decision, however, is for the Legislature.