Opinion ID: 1381085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the constitutionality of railroad revitalization act

Text: Central to the controversy before us is the issue whether the expenditure of state funds for the programs contemplated by the Act is interdicted by the public purpose requirement of Art. 10 § 14, Okl. Const., [15] or stands proscribed by Art. 10 § 15, Okl.Const. because it constitutes an impermissible gift in the form of appropriation of tax money for the benefit of a private entity. Since we have determined, in Part II, that federal and private funds deposited in the state treasury under this Act retain their original legal character until expended, it is clear that the use of the federal/private funds combination for assistance to a railroad is not subject to the §§ 14 and 15 proscriptions. Neither do these constitutional clauses apply to the expenditure of state funds for the acquisition or rehabilitation of state-owned rail property. What now remains to be considered is whether it is constitutionally permissible for state-generated funds to be used for payment of assistance to non-state-owned railroads in the program designed to ensure continued rail service in areas of the state where rail trackage may be abandoned. Among the Department's powers and responsibilities under the Act are (a) the authority to rehabilitate non-state-owned railroad property and (b) the provision of rail service continuation payments for operating losses sustained on a line which may otherwise be abandoned or which may experience that reduced level of service which is not in the public interest. The terms of an agreement for assistance to non-state-owned entities must be in writing. The assistance may be rendered with federal, state or private resources in the form of money, property, labor or other things of value. These resources can only be spent for the purposes specified under the Act. The Act also delegates to the Department authority to make rules and regulations  consistent with state statutory and constitutional law and in compliance with the requirements of federal agencies which administer applicable federal laws or which have funds available for the Department under the Act. Insofar as the Act under consideration authorizes expenditures of state-generated revenue for use of non-state-owned railroads, its constitutional validity cannot be assayed in this proceeding. For the following reasons the controversy over that issue is not justiciable: The standards and parameters of legislative policy to be implemented by administrative rules and regulations are yet to be articulated. [16] No administrative rules and regulations have been, nor can they be, promulgated at this time. No structured program under the Act, which is conformable to the adopted rules and regulations, is tendered for adversarial testing. The Act cannot be implemented at this time because there has been no legislative funding for any programs to be structured under some well-articulated legislative policy that is capable of being translated into action through a framework of administrative rules. Though tendered here for our declaration of rights, the remaining issues must be left unadjudicated. They lack the necessary attributes of justiciability. IRWIN, C.J., BARNES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN and WILSON, JJ., concur. HODGES, J., concurs in Parts I and II and dissents from Part III. SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., dissent.