Associated Enterprises, Inc v. Toltec Watershed Improvement District 8212 1069

• Decision Date: 20 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Citation: 410 U.S. 743,93 S.Ct. 1237,35 L.Ed.2d 675
• Parties: ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, INC., and Johnston Fuel Liners, Appellants, v. TOLTEC WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. —1069
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

410 U.S. 743

93 S.Ct. 1237

35 L.Ed.2d 675

ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, INC., and Johnston Fuel Liners, Appellants,

v TOLTEC WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

No. 71—1069.

Argued Jan. 8, 1973.

Decided March 20, 1973.

Henry A. Burgess, Sheridan, Wyo., for appellants.

Fred W. Phifer, Wheatland, Wyo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, we are confronted with an issue similar to the one determined today in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719, 93 S.Ct. 1224, 35 L.Ed.2d 659. Appellee Toltec Watershed Improvement District was established after referendum held pursuant to Wyoming's Watershed Improvement District Act, Wyo.Stat.Ann. §§ 41—354.1 to 41—354.26 (Supp.1971). After formation, appellee sought a right of entry onto lands owned by appellant Associated Enterprises, Inc., and leased by Johnston Fuel Liners, for the purpose of carrying out studies to determine the feasibility of constructing a dam and reservoir. When Associated Enterprises resisted, the district sought to enforce its right in state court. Arguing that the stat- utes authorizing the referendum violated the Equal Protection Clause since under § 41—354.9 only landowners are entitled to vote and under § 41—354.10 a watershed improvement district cannot be determined to be administratively practicable and feasible unless a majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of the acreage in the district, favor its creation, appellants maintained that the district was illegally formed. The trial court agreed that had the district been formed in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, appellants would have a good defense under state law to the asserted right of entry, but it held against them on the merits. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, 490 P.2d 1069.

Appellants urge here that the provisions entitling only landowners to vote and weighting the vote according to acreage violate the Equal Protection Clause. Like the California water storage district, the Wyoming watershed district is a governmental unit of special or limited purpose whose activities have a disproportionate effect on landowners within the district. The district's operations are conducted through projects and the land is assessed for any benefits received. Wyo.Stat.Ann. §§ 41—354.17, 41—354.21, 41—354.22. Such assessments constitute a lien on the land until paid. Id., § 41—354.23.

We cannot agree with the dissent's intimation that the Wyoming Legislature has in any sense abdicated to a wealthy few the ultimate authority over land management in that State. The statute authorizing the establishment of improvement districts was enacted by a legislature in which all of the State's electors have the unquestioned right to be fairly represented. Under the act, districts may be formed only as subdivisions of soil and water conservation districts. Id., § 41—354.3. And a precondition to their formation referendum is a determination by a board of supervisors of the affected conservation district, popularly elected by both occupiers and owners of land within the district, that the watershed improvement district is both necessary and administratively practicable. Id., §§ 41—354.7, 41—354.8; Wyoming Conservation Districts Law, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 11—234 et seq., § 11—243 (Supp.1971). As in Salyer, supra, we hold that the State could rationally conclude that landowners are primarily burdened and benefited by the establishment and operation of watershed districts and that it may condition the vote accordingly. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

I

For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719, 735, 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1233, 35 L.Ed.2d 659, I cannot agree that the voting provisions of Wyoming's Watershed Improvement District Act pass muster under the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, I dissent.

At issue is Wyoming's Watershed Improvement District Act, Wyo.Stat.Ann. §§ 41—354.1 to 41—354.26 (Supp.1971). Appellee Toltec Watershed Improvement District was established as a result of a referendum held pursuant to this Act, May 12, 1969.¹

The purposes of the Wyoming Act are 'to provide for the prevention and control of erosion, floodwater and sediment damages, and the storage, conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water.' Id., § 41—354.2. These are not purposes related only to special, narrow interests of landowners. As noted in the Salyer Land Co. case, flood control is a purpose that affects at least everyone in a watershed district, whether he be owner, lessee, or a resident not engaged in farming, grazing, or other agricultural activity.

In June 1970, appellee sought a right of entry onto lands owned by appellant Associated Enterprises, and leased by appellant Johnston Fuel Liners, for the purpose of carrying out foundation studies for a dam site. When appellant Associated Enterprises resisted, Toltec sought to enforce its right of entry in state court. The trial court agreed with appellants that if Toltec had been illegally formed, they would have a good defense to the asserted right of entry, but held against them on the merits, despite appellants' objections that the referendum which authorized the creation of the watershed improvement district violated the Equal Protection Clause, the franchise being limited to property owners, and the votes being weighted by the amount of property owned. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

I conclude that the presumption set out in Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 90 S.Ct. 1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 523, has not been overcome, for '(p)lacing (voting) power in property owners alone can be justified only by some overriding interest of those owners that the State is entitled to recognize.' Id., at 209, 90 S.Ct. at 1994. Here, the suggestion was made below that property owners are those 'primarily concerned' with the affairs of the watershed district. But assuming, arguendo, that a State may, in some circumstances, limit the franchise to that portion of the electorate 'primarily affected' by the outcome of an election, Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 632, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 1892, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 the limitation may only be upheld if it is demonstrated that 'all those excluded are in fact substantially less interested or affected than those the (franchise) includes.' Ibid.

Other than the bald assertion by the court below that it 'makes sense' to limit the franchise in watershed district referenda to property owners, there is nothing in the record to support the exclusion. Appellant Johnston is a lessee of land in the District. Why a lessee is 'substantially less interested' in the creation of a watershed district than is a titleholder is left to speculation.² And mere speculation is insufficient to justify an infringement on the right to vote, a right which is 'the essence of a democratic society,' Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1378, 12 L.Ed.2d 506.

Moreover, we recently stated that 'a percentage reduction of an individual's voting power in proportion to the amount of property he owned would be (constitutionally) defective. See Stewart v. Parish School Board, 310 F.Supp. 1172 (ED La.), aff'd, 400 U.S. 884, 91 S.Ct. 136, 27 L.Ed.2d 129 (1970).' Gordon v. Lance, 403 U.S. 1, 4 n. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1889, 1891, 29 L.Ed.2d 273.

II

It is argued, however, that unlike 'units of local government having general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body,' Avery v. Midland County, Tex., 390 U.S. 474, 485, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 1120, 20 L.Ed.2d 45, a watershed improvement district is 'a special-purpose unit of government assigned the performance of functions affecting definable groups of constituents more than other constituents,' id., at 483—484, 88 S.Ct., at 1120. The court below sought to make such an analysis.

The Avery test, however, was significantly liberalized in Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45. At issue was an election for trustees of a special purpose district, which ran a junior college. We said,

'(S)ince the trustees can levy and collect taxes, issue bonds with certain restrictions, hire and fire teachers, make contracts, collect fees, supervise and discipline students, pass on petitions to annex school districts, acquire property by condemnation, and in general manage the operations of the junior college, their powers are equivalent, for apportionment purposes, to those exercised by the county commissioners in Avery. . . . (T)hese powers, while not fully as broad as those of the Midland County Commissioners, certainly show that the trustees perform important governmental functions . . . and have sufficient impact throughout the district to justify the conclusion that the principle which we applied in Avery should also be applied here.' Id., at 53—54, 90 S.Ct., at 794. (Emphasis added, footnote omitted.)

Measured by the Hadley test, the Toltec Watershed Improvement District surely performs 'important governmental functions' which 'have sufficient impact throughout the district' to justify the application of the Avery principle. The District may: levy and collect special assessments, Who.Stat.Ann. § 41—354.13(A); acquire and dispose of property, § 41—354.13(B); exercise the power of eminent domain, § 41—354.13(C); and borrow money and issue bonds, § 41—354.13(E)—all to exercise...