Court Opinion

ID: 9547276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:44:41.926043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:34.280783
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, C. J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from that part of the holding of the court contained in Syllabus Paragraph No. 4, and the corresponding portions of the opinion that the State Corporation Commission has statutory authority to adopt the rule in question; that the rule is reasonably related to the prevention of waste in the production of oil and gas, and to the protection of usable water as it may be affected by such production; that the applicant failed to sustain his burden in proving an exemption; that the State Corporation Commissions order of denial was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or unreasonable, and that the Commissions rule and denial order did not violate the due process clause of the federal Constitution.
The State Corporation Commission possesses no powers not granted it by statute. (Bennett v. Corporation Commission, 157 Kan. 589, 596, 142 P. 2d 810.) Allegedly, under the authority granted by K. ,S. A. 1973 Supp. 55-604, and K. S. A. 55-704, the Commission promulgated K. A. R. 82-2-125. Rules and regulations of an administrative agency are void when they bear no reasonable relation to the purpose for which they are authorized to be made. I fail to see how the Commission s rule K. A. R. 82-2-125 accomplishes the purposes set forth in the relevant statutes.
Schroeder, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.