Court Opinion

ID: 9582016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:29.828477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:23.993751
License: Public Domain

Justice Copeland
dissenting.
Article II, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution declares that “[t]he General Assembly shall not enact any local, private or special act or resolution” which falls within certain designated categories. Thus, there must be a two-prong analysis to determine whether a law is a prohibited local act or a valid general one.
First, the act in question must be local, which means,
“primarily at least, a law that in fact, if not in form, is confined within territorial limits other than that of the whole state, ... or [applies] to the property and persons of a limited portion of the state, ... or is directed to a specific locality or spot, as distinguished from a law which operates generally throughout the state.” McIntyre v. Clarkson, 254 N.C. 510, 518, 119 S.E. 2d 888, 893 (1961).
By necessity, however, this Court has recognized that not every valid law does by definition apply equally to all areas of the State. *707“A law is general in the constitutional sense when it applies to and operates uniformly on all members of any class of persons, places or things requiring legislation peculiar to itself in matters covered by the law.” State v. Dixon, 215 N.C. 161, 171, 1 S.E. 2d 521, 526 (1939) (Barnhill, J., concurring), quoted in McIntyre v. Clarkson, supra at 520, 119 S.E. 2d at 895. (Emphasis added.)
An examination of the Coastal Area Management Act (the Act) itself warrants the conclusion that this piece of legislation is nothing more than a device enabling the implementation of conservation and land-use management. G.S. 113A-102(b) sets forth the goals of the Act, which include insuring the development and preservation of the land, water and natural resources and setting guidelines for economic development, recreation facilities, historical and cultural enhancement and transportation in the coastal area. While these results are unquestionably desirable, no one would seriously contest that they can and should apply to all of North Carolina.
It is important to note that the Act merely lays out these broad policies and sets up the system by which the goals are to be reached, specifically through a Coastal Resources Commission and a Coastal Resources Advisory Council working with local governments. I do not doubt that economic, conservation and environmental problems differ significantly among various areas throughout the State. However, these problems are specifically dealt with outside the Act by the bodies set up for that purpose.
The trial court overlooked this fact when it found 'that “[a] comprehensive management plan of the type envisioned by the CAMA would be beneficial in dealing with problems in other regions of North Carolina, however, the uniqueness of the problems in the coastal area provided a rational basis for inclusion of the counties covered by the Act.” In fact, the legislation in question does not even attempt to deal with these “unique” problems. Furthermore, a comprehensive statewide land-use management act is possible, viable and reasonable. See, e.g., Land Policy Act of 1974, N.C.G.S. §§ 113A-150 et seq.
The majority of this Court cites the legislative findings and goals in G.S. 113A-102 as signifying the importance and uniqueness of our coastal area, such that it can be singled out for this special treatment. The Mountain Area Management Act, Senate Bill 973, 1973 Session, which was introduced the same time as the *708Coastal Area Management Act but was not enacted, states its legislative goals in proposed § 113A-137.
“It is hereby determined and declared as a matter of legislative finding that the mountain area including its land and water resources is one of the most valuable areas of North Carolina. The forest and mineral resources of the region are of major importance to the economy of the State and nation. The clear and unpolluted streams, the vast forests, and the scenic vistas of the mountain region make it one of the most esthetically pleasing regions of the State and nation. Because of these features the mountain area of North Carolina has an extremely high recreational and esthetic value which should be preserved and enhanced.
The mountain area in recent years has been subjected to increasing pressures which are the result of the often conflicting needs of a society expanding in industrial development, in population, and in the recreational aspirations of its citizens. Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated management, the very features of the mountain area which make it economically, esthetically and ecologically rich will be destroyed. The General Assembly, therefore, finds that an immediate and pressing need exists to establish a comprehensive plan for the protection, preservation, orderly development, and management of the mountain area of North Carolina.
This language is virtually identical in all possible respects to G.S. 113A-102, quoted above in the majority opinion.
The second question which must be answered to determine if a law is a prohibited local act is whether it falls within one of the subject matters listed in N.C. Const, art. 2, § 24. The trial court found that the Act “relates to health, sanitation and the abatement of nuisances and to non-navigable streams and CAMA regulates labor, trade, mining and manufacturing.” It thus determine that the Act comes within three of the categories listed in our Constitution.
Although defendants except to this finding, I feel that their argument is without merit. For instance, G.S. 113A-102 dictates that guidelines must be set as to “economic development of the *709coastal area, including but not limited to construction, location and design of industries, port facilities, commercial establishments and other developments.” Clearly these relate to the regulation of trade. Moreover, the same section of the Act states that “water resources shall be managed in order to preserve and enhance water quality.” Again, I do not see how water pollution does not relate to “health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances.” See also Glenn, The Coastal Area Management Act in the Courts: A Preliminary Analysis, 53 N.C.L. Rev. 303, 306-07 (1974).
In summary, the North Carolina Constitution forbids the Legislature to enact local laws that deal with certain topics. It was determined that concern over these subject matters embrace the entire State. The Coastal Area Management Act is such a prohibited local law; therefore, it is unconstitutional.
For the foregoing reason, I respectfully dissent.