Court Opinion

ID: 9549581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:21:33.09698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:34.249757
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, C. J.
(concurring in the result)—I concur in the result arrived at by the majority, but upon a different basis. As to whether or not the commissioners acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the plan and sys*836tem resolution, the trial court found that even though the commissioners may be in error, yet they reached their decisions honestly and in good faith and in exercise of the sound discretion vested in them. In other words, as to that question, the district commissioners did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
However, the question was also raised that in attempting to build this dam, the commissioners are acting beyond the scope of the powers granted to them under the public utility district act, and that their proposed actions would be ultra vires.
That places a legal question squarely before the court for determination. In arriving at such determination the question before the court is not whether the commissioners are acting either in good faith or arbitrarily, but whether or not they have a right under the law to do what they are attempting to do. The commissioners cannot preclude the court from going into the entire record for the purpose of deciding this question, by saying: “We have already decided it, and you cannot go back of our decision unless we acted arbitrarily or capriciously.”
I feel that the majority used an entirely wrong basis in determining this purely legal question. However, from an examination of the record, I am convinced that the commissioners are not acting without the scope of the authority granted to them under the Public Utility District Act, and feel that the trial court should be reversed.