Wagoner v. Central Platte Natural Resources Dist.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1995
• Docket Number: No. S-93-881,S-93-881
• Citation: 526 N.W.2d 422,247 Neb. 233
• Parties: Tom WAGONER, Appellant, v. CENTRAL PLATTE NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT, a Body Politic, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 422

526 N.W.2d 422

247 Neb. 233

Tom WAGONER, Appellant, v. CENTRAL PLATTE NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT, a Body Politic, et al., Appellees.

No. S-93-881.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 20, 1995.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Administrative Law: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. The district court reviews an administrative agency's final decision without a jury de novo on the record of the agency.

2. Administrative Law: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. An aggrieved party may appeal any judgment rendered or final order made by the district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. An appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act shall be taken in the manner provided by law for appeals in civil cases, and the judgment rendered or final order made by the district court may be reversed, vacated, or modified for errors appearing on the record.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court, in reviewing a judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings.

4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing an order for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

5. Administrative Law: Presumptions: Proof. A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to the actions of administrative agencies. The burden of proof rests with the party challenging the agency's actions.

6. Administrative Law: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will accord deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent.

7. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law; accordingly, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the decision reached by the trial court.

8. Administrative Law: Statutes. The Legislature can delegate to an administrative agency the power to make rules and regulations to implement the policy of a statute.

9. Administrative Law: Statutes. In order to be valid, a rule must be consistent with the statute under which it is promulgated.

10. Statutes: Legislature. A statute may have a specific meaning which is not necessarily changed because of the Legislature's attempt by amendment to clarify that meaning. However, this jurisdiction is committed to the doctrine that in a case where the proper interpretation of the statutory terms is involved, in order to ascertain the proper meaning of a statute, later as well as earlier legislation upon the same subject may be referred to. All existing acts should be considered, and a subsequent statute may often aid in the interpretation of a prior one.

11. Administrative Law: Legislature: Intent. In order to ratify a rule promulgated by an administrative agency for future application, it is necessary that the Legislature express an intent to do so, either by specifically appropriating funds, when necessary, to implement the rule or by making specific reference to the administrative rule in subsequently passed legislation.

12. Natural Resources Districts: Political Subdivisions: Legislature. A natural resources district, as a political subdivision, has only that power delegated to it by the Legislature, and a grant of power to a political subdivision is strictly construed.

13. Natural Resources Districts. A natural resources district possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others: first, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the district--not simply convenient, but indispensable.

Thomas A. Wagoner and John A. Wagoner, Grand Island, for appellant.

Randall L. Goyette and Brenda S. Spilker, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, Lincoln, for appellees.

Before HASTINGS, C.J., WHITE, CAPORALE, LANPHIER, and WRIGHT, JJ., and GRANT, J., Retired, and HOWARD, District Judge, Retired.

HASTINGS, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Tom Wagoner, appeals the June 18, 1993, order of the district court which affirmed the cease and desist orders of the defendant Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD). The court consolidated the two petitions for review and appeal regarding cease and desist orders issued to Wagoner for failing to comply with a ground water maintenance program rule. That rule required him to submit to CPNRD samples of soil from his farmland for nitrate testing and analysis. The first order, dated July 8, 1991, related to the crop year 1991, and the order dated September 14, 1992, related to the crop year 1992 and anticipated crop year 1993.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court reviews an administrative agency's final decision without a jury de novo on the record of the agency. Gausman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 246 Neb. 677, 522 N.W.2d 417 (1994). An aggrieved party may appeal any judgment rendered or final order made by the district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. An appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act shall be taken in the manner provided by law for appeals in civil cases, and the judgment rendered or final order made by the district court may be reversed, vacated, or modified for errors appearing on the record. Lee v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., 245 Neb. 564, 513 N.W.2d 874 (1994); Bell Fed. Credit Union v. Christianson, 244 Neb. 267, 505 N.W.2d 710 (1993). An appellate court, in reviewing a judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings. Lynch v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 245 Neb. 603, 514 N.W.2d 310 (1994). When reviewing an order for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Lee v. Nebraska State Racing Comm., supra.

A rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to the actions of administrative agencies. The burden of proof rests with the party challenging the agency's actions. In re Application of United Tel. Co., 230 Neb. 747, 433 N.W.2d 502 (1988); Haven Home, Inc. v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 216 Neb. 731, 346 N.W.2d 225 (1984). An appellate court will accord deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent. In re Application of Jantzen, 245 Neb. 81, 511 N.W.2d 504 (1994).

Last, the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law; accordingly, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the decision reached by the trial court. Howard v. City of Lincoln, 243 Neb. 5, 497 N.W.2d 53 (1993).

ISSUES ON APPEAL

Wagoner asserts that the district court erred in (1) affirming CPNRD's orders when the transcript furnished by CPNRD did not include the ground water quality management plan, the testimony of a Department of Water Resources representative, and results of tests conducted by CPNRD; (2) holding that CPNRD has statutory authority to order landowners within its district to provide deep soil samples; (3) failing to hold that CPNRD's regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Neb. Const. art. I, §§ 1 and 3; and (4) failing to hold that CPNRD's regulations amounted to a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

FACTS

Wagoner owns and operates a farm which is within the area making up the natural resources district. Wagoner's farm was in turn within the Phase II ground water quality management area of the district. The ground water management program rule 4 for Phase II areas requires an operator in a Phase II ground water management area to conduct "[a]n annual deep soils analysis for residual nitrate/nitrogen on each field of [sic] 40 acre tract, whichever is smaller, with the analysis to be conducted by a laboratory participating in the University of Nebraska Soil Testing Program."

According to the complaints filed against Wagoner, he was an operator of agricultural land in the Phase II ground water quality management area in both 1990 and 1991 on which irrigated corn or sorghum was grown and in both of which years he failed to comply with CPNRD's regulations, which required that he furnish and have tested deep soil samples (3 feet deep) taken from his land. After notice and hearings which Wagoner attended and in which he participated, CPNRD ordered that he cease and desist the operation of any agricultural land within the district in a manner contrary to or out of compliance with the rules. The cease and desist orders were to remain in force and effect until Wagoner furnished the necessary soil samples and otherwise complied with CPNRD's rules. Wagoner had furnished water samples and made various reports as to use of fertilizer, as required by the rules. He also offered to allow CPNRD's employees to come onto his land for the purpose of taking the soil samples or agreed to furnish the samples if CPNRD would pay him the cost of sampling and testing, which amounted to about $200.

According to the record, CPNRD held public hearings in May 1987 in Buffalo, Dawson, Hall, and Merrick Counties concerning proposed rules which required, among other regulations, landowners and operators in Phase II areas to submit annual water and deep soil analyses for nitrate content. On May 28, 1987, CPNRD adopted the ground water management program and its requirement that landowners and operators in Phase II areas submit annual water and deep soil analyses for nitrate content. Newspapers in Buffalo, Dawson, Hall, and Merrick Counties published the adopted text of the ground water...