Court Opinion

ID: 9679041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:39:03.967413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.831834
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially.)
I concur in the majority opinion. However, I wish to point out the subject matter of the comment contained in the majority opinion wherein it is stated we do not approve the procedure followed by the State Water Commission in the instant case is not before us because the certified questions as framed do not include the procedure employed in administering the law in question. Although it is true that as a general rule a law cannot be held unconstitutional because, while its just interpretation is consistent with the constitution, it is unfaithfully administered by those who are charged with its execution it is, nevertheless, an equally well-established principle that a provision not objectionable on its face may be adjudged unconstitutional because of its effect in operation upon a showing of a fixed and continuous policy of unjust and discriminatory application by the officials in charge of its administration.
KNUDSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the syllabus of the opinion prepared by Judge Paulson but do not agree with all that is said in the opinion.
Section 61-01-01 is a part of chapter 61 of the North Dakota Century Code headed “Waters,” covering the whole field of the law on waters, including the laws on irrigation. The foregoing statutory provision was a part of a comprehensive statute on irrigation enacted by the Legislative Assembly in 1905, Session Laws 1905, chapter 34, section 1, and has been retained in subsequent compilations and codes, including the Century Code.
I agree with the majority in their finding that the statute constitutes a reasonable exercise of the police power of the state and is not unconstitutional, and especially so when considered with all of the other provisions of the laws governing the regulation and use of waters for irrigation purposes.
Subject to constitutional guaranties for the protection of property rights, the public authority, under the police power, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations in respect of the exercise of the right of appropriation.
56 Am.Jur. Waters § 295 (1947).
I do not believe that in the majority opinion it was necessary to go into a discussion of the questions of the vested rights and priorities of the several riparian owners as we ought not to determine those rights and priorities from the very unsatisfactory record before us. Such questions should be resolved only after a full-blown trial, affording all parties the opportunity to present all the facts and circumstances in the matter.
However, since the maj ority has gone into a discussion of the merits I feel compelled to comment that the action taken by the Water Commission may not be within a valid exercise of the police power, and thus constitutes an unconstitutional application of the law.