Court Opinion

ID: 9546859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:36:44.035084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:57.615812
License: Public Domain

Hamley, J.
(dissenting) — In my opinion, the enactment of Laws of 1949, chapter 9, p. 38 [cf. RCW 75.20.010, .020, .030], represents the exertion of two distinct powers of state government — the police power of the state to preserve its fishing resources, and the power to define and control the functioning of subordinate units of government.
In so far as chapter 9 is sought to be applied as an exercise of police power, it may or may not have been superseded by the Federal power act, a question we need not now decide. In so far as chapter 9 is sought to be applied as an exercise of the power of the state over subordinate units- of government, it has not been superseded. The Federal government may not confer corporate powers upon local units of government, and the Federal power act does not purport to do so. The supersedure, if any, with respect to the exertion of police power, does not affect applicability of chapter 9 as an exercise of the other power named, for, in my view, the legislature would have intended the act to remain in force in the latter regard had the matter of supersedure been called to its attention.
That the legislature may restrict the powers of municipalities, is beyond question. Cities are limited governmental arms of the state. Russell v. Grandview, 39 Wn. *495(2d) 551, 236 P. (2d) 1061. They may exercise only those powers which are granted to them in the state constitution or statutes. Except as limited by the constitution, legislative control over municipalities is therefore plenary. State v. Aberdeen, 34 Wash. 61, 74 Pac. 1022; Wheeler School Dist. v. Hawley, 18 Wn. (2d) 37, 137 P. (2d) 1010. It follows that the legislature may enlarge or diminish powers already granted to such subordinate units of government. State ex rel. Nat. Bank of Tacoma v. Tacoma, 97 Wash. 190, 166 Pac. 66. Needless to say, the wisdom of any restriction which the legislature determines to place upon the corporate powers of municipalities is not an issue in this court.
That the legislature intended Laws of 1949, chapter 9, to restrict the corporate powers of municipalities with regard to the construction of the dams in question, seems clear to me. Under Rem. Supp. 1947, § 9488 [cf. RCW 80.40-.010 et seq.], incorporated cities or towns are authorized and empowered to erect and build dams or other works across or at the outlet “of any lake or water course in this state.” If that corporate power were left undisturbed, the whole purpose of the fish sanctuary act would be defeated. Hence, when, in chapter 9, the legislature forbade the construction of any dam of a height greater than twenty-five feet on “all streams and rivers tributary to the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam,” it by implication amended or partially repealed Rem. Supp. 1947, § 9488, so as to restrict, to that extent, the corporate powers granted by the latter statute.
I recognize that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored, and to so work a repeal the implication must be a necessary one. Mesher v. Osborne, 75 Wash. 439, 134 Pac. 1092; Generaux v. Petit, 172 Wash. 132, 19 P. (2d) 911. But, where the subsequent legislation is contrary to, and inconsistent with, a former act, a repeal by implication is effected. Peterson v. King County, 199 Wash. 106, 90 P. (2d) 729. Here the conflict between Rem. Supp. 1947, § 9488, permitting municipal corporations to construct dams for stated purposes across or at the outlet of “any lake or water course in this state,” and Laws of 1949, chapter 9, *496forbidding the construction of dams of a greater height than twenty-five feet on certain water courses, is patent — they cannot both stand.
Appellant argues that the provisions of chapter 9 are not separable, and that if that chapter is superseded to any extent, it is thereby rendered wholly void.
The question here is not whether part of the statute is enforcible where the remainder has been declared invalid (as in all cases cited by appellant), but whether all of the act is enforcible as to incorporated municipalities if it is found to be unenforcible and void as to other persons and corporations.
The doctrine of separability has most frequently been applied to statutes of which one or more sections were valid and other sections, relating to other subjects, were unconstitutional. However, the rule is not limited to such instances, and when, as here, the same provision of the statute affects different classes of persons or corporations, as to some of which it is valid, and as to others of which it may be invalid, the valid applications of the statute may be held enforcible. State v. Bevins, 210 Iowa 1031, 230 N. W. 865; Robert Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co., 220 N. Y. 270, 115 N. E. 711. In the latter case, no question as to the workability of part of a statute is presented, but there does remain the question of whether the legislature would have passed the statute knowing that it would have only its limited application. Robert Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co., supra; State v. Bevins, supra. For a discussion of the difference between these two kinds of separability problems, see 2 Sutherland Statutory Construction (3d ed.) 175, 190-194, §§ 2402, 2413-2416.
In my view, the legislative history of chapter 9 indicates that the legislature would have restricted the corporate powers of municipalities in the respect indicated, even had it then believed that, as to persons and corporations other than incorporated municipalities, the state could not prohibit the building of such structures.
Chapter 9 was introduced as S. B. 4. After it had passed the Senate and when it was on second reading in the House, *497Representative William D. Shannon moved the adoption of an amendment which would have excluded from the operation of the act “the waters of the Cowlitz River lying East of Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian.” House Journal, page 215. During the debate which then ensued on this amendment, the following colloquy occurred:
“Mr. Carty: ‘Mr. Speaker, I would, like to ask Mr. Shannon a question.’ The Speaker: ‘Will the gentleman yield?’ Mr. Shannon: ‘Yes.’ Mr. Carty: ‘Just what area of this proposed dam would this line drawn in your amendment cross?’ Mr. Shannon: ‘A mile and a half below the May-field Dam.’ Mr. Carty: ‘Then the purpose of this amendment would be to make this act ineffective?’ Mr. Shannon: ‘In my opinion, it wouldn’t. It would make a fish sanctuary on all of the lower part of the Cowlitz River; on all the tributaries below the Mayfield Dam, about twenty miles from the Columbia River up.’ ”
As indicated in the majority opinion, the Mayfield dam is one of the two projects here in question, the other being further upstream on the same river. The purpose of Mr. Shannon’s amendment, therefore, was to exclude from the act that portion of the Cowlitz river on which these two dams are sought to be constructed. After this information was disclosed during the exchange quoted above, Mr. Shannon’s amendment was laid on the table and the bill was passed in its present form.
It therefore appears that the prime purpose of chapter 9 was to forestall construction of the very dams involved in this case. Nothing in the act, nor in its legislative history, indicates that the legislature intended to give ground any more than it was compelled to in enforcing the stated policy of protecting anadromous fish life in the rivers and streams tributary to the lower Columbia river. While the construction of high dams by any person or corporation would defeat that purpose, the plan of appellant city to construct the dams in question offered the real threat.
Appellant also argues that chapter 9 was enacted in violation of the Washington constitution, Art. II, § 19, pertaining to the subjects to be embraced in a bill, and the form *498of title; and in violation of Art. II, § 1, which vests legislative power in the Senate and House of Representatives. In my opinion, these contentions are without merit, but no useful purpose will be served by discussing them in this dissenting opinion.
I would affirm the judgment.