Court Opinion

ID: 9559174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:23:59.192422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:54.035738
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring):
The only difference I can see between this case and the case of Morton International, I He. v. Southern Pacific, cited in the main opinion, is that plaintiff Solar here makes the contention that the defendant’s construction of the causeway has created a nuisance under Section 73-Id — 2(a), U.C.A.1953, which defines pollution:
“Pollution” means such contamination, or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties, of any waters of the state, ... as will create a nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or injurious to . . . industrial . . . uses ....
The correct interpretation and application of that statute can best be defined by reading it in its total context and in the light of its purpose. Under the familiar rule of statutory construction known as noscitur a sociis, it should be assumed words used together are intended to be of similar meaning; and under the rule of ejusdem gener-is general terms are deemed to mean things of the same character as the specific terms.1
If the statute is read in that light, I do not believe that a diminution of salt content could reasonably be regarded as either “pollution,” or as a harmful, detrimental, or injurious contamination; and therefore the general words “or other alteration” should be deemed to mean something of the same character as the particular terms just stated. I therefore think the trial court correctly rejected plaintiff’s complaint.
This further comment seems to be justified, supplementing that made in the Morton Salt case, in regard to possible rectification of this unfortunate situation. This is particularly so in the light of the representation that there are so many millions of dollars worth of minerals recoverable from this lake. If the two SO-foot openings in the causeway are not adequate to permit sufficient free flow and interchange *290between the north-south portions of the lake, perhaps with some cooperation and forbearance between the various mineral-producing lessees and the Railroad Company, and the State Land Board, some feasible plan could be worked out to construct additional openings in the causeway, with trestles over them, to eliminate or at least minimize this difficulty, in order to achieve the greatest possible benefit to all parties concerned, including the State of Utah and its people, from the resources of the Great Salt Lake.

. See Hatch v. Put). Serv. Comm., 3 Utah 2d 7, 277 P.2d 809, 812; Anderson v. Utah Oounty, 1'3 Utah 2d 99, 368 P.2d 912; 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d Ed.) 393, 395.