Water Dist. No. 105, King County v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 41379,41379 |
| Parties | , 3 ERC 1096 WATER DISTRICT NO. 105, KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington, State Department of Health, and State Pollution Control Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Clodfelter, Lindell & Carr, V. Robert Barker, Stephen C. Watson, Seattle, for appellant.
Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Henry W. Ipsen, Charles B. Roe, Jr., Jane Dowdle Smith, Asst. Attys. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
This is an action by the plaintiff (appellant), Water District No. 105, King County, a municipal corporation, seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating Laws of 1967, Ex.Ses., ch. 135, § 3, on the grounds that the act is in contravention of our state constitution.
Defendants (respondents) are the Pollution Control Commission, an agency of the state of Washington, established in RCW 90.48, and the Department of Health, an agency of the state of Washington, established in RCW 43.20.
Pursuant to Laws of 1963, ch. 111, § 1, which authorizes water districts to establish, maintain and operate sewer systems, the plaintiff water district conducted engineering and financial feasibility studies, prepared and adopted a comprehensive plan of sewage facilities; and on April 15 1966 adopted resolution No. 92, thereby declaring an intent to construct and furnish sewage service in its district.
The title to the 1967 act, now being challenged, was passed by the legislature subsequent to the water district's resolution and reads as follows:
AN ACT relating to water districts; authorizing the leasing out of real property; section 1, chapter 111, Laws of 1963 and RCW 57.08.065; and adding a new section ot chapter 57.08 RCW.
In addition ot the section relating to the leasing of real property, the following new section is contained in the act which has precipitated this lawsuit:
Provided, That no water district shall proceed to exercise the powers herein granted to establish, maintain, construct and operate any sewer system without first obtaining written approval and certification of necessity so to do from the state of Washington pollution control commission and department of health.
Pursuant to this provision in the statute, both the Pollution Control Commission and the Department of Health adopted regulations to be used in applying for an approval and a certification of necessity, and informed the Water District that it could not proceed with its sewer system until approvals and certifications of necessity were obtained from them.
The Water District thereupon instituted this declaratory judgment action against the two state agencies in the Thurston County Superior Court, seeking to invalidate the act on constitutional grounds. The trial court held the act was not in contravention of our constitution and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff first contends that the 1967 act, Supra, is invalid on the grounds that it violates article 2, section 19 of our state constitution which requires the subject matter of every bill to be expressed in the title. The plaintiff asserts that the title of the challenged act does not give notice of the new requirement that water districts must secure prior written approval and a certification of necessity from the Pollution Control Commission and the Department of Health, and therefore violates this constitutional provision.
It is well-established that where the validity of a statute is assailed there is a presumption of the constitutionality of the legislative enactment unless its repugnancy to the constitution clearly appears or is made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt. Clark v. Dwyer, 56 Wash.2d 425, 353 P.2d 941 (1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 932, 81 S.Ct. 379, 5 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961). It is equally well settled that the constitutional provision relating to titles is to be liberally construed in order to sustain the validity of the statute. Shea v. Ol on, 185 Wash. 143, 53 P.2d 615 (1936).
In addition to the aforementioned rules, we have held that the sufficiency of the title of an amendatory act will not be inquired into if the new matter is within the purview of the title of the original act. Goodnoe Hills School District v. Forry, 52 Wash.2d 868, 329 P.2d 1083 (1958); Keeting v. Public Utility District No. 1, 49 Wash.2d 761, 306 P.2d 762 (1957); St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co. v. State, 40 Wash.2d 347, 243 P.2d 474 (1952). In St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., Supra, we approvingly cited the following section from J. Sutherland, 1 Statutory Construction § 1908 (3d ed. 1943), page 345:
If the title identifies and purports to amend a prior act, any matter properly connected with, or germane to, the subject expressed in the title of that act may be included in the body of the amendatory act. Any matter that could validly have been enacted as part of the original act under its title is considered germane. If the title of the original act is sufficient to embrace the matter contained in the amendatory act, the sufficiency of the title of the latter will not be inquired into.
In the present case the 1967 act is amendatory of Laws of 1963, ch. 111. Therefore the issue is not, as the plaintiff contends, whether the title of the act gives notice of the subject matter contained therein. Rather the issue is whether the title identifies the original act, and whether the matter in the body of the amendatory act is germane to the subject expressed in the title of the original act.
The first clause in the title of the amendatory act generally identifies the original act by stating that this is 'AN ACT relating to water districts; * * *.' The third clause specifically identifies the original act and denominates the particular section which is to be amended by providing: '* * * amending section 1, chapter 111, Laws of 1963 and RCW 57.08.065; * * *.'
The title of the amended act, Laws of 1963, ch. 111, reads as follows: 'An Act relating to the establishment, maintenance and operation of sewer systems by water districts; and adding a new section to chapter 57.08 RCW.' The challenged provision of the amendatory act which requires written approval and a certification of necessity from the designated agencies is a prerequisite for the establishment and operation of a sewer system. Clearly this new matter is within the purview of the title of the original act. We therefore hold that plaintiff's contention, that the title of the 1967 act does not embrace the full subject matter of the act, is without merit. The cases cited by the plaintiff in support of this contention are inapposite.
The plaintiff further contends that the 1967 act is invalid for the reason that the act contains two subjects, in violation of article 2, section 19 of the state constitution. The plaintiff argues that one section of the act relates to the leasing of real property by water districts and another section limits the power of the water districts to construct sewer systems; therefore, two subjects are contained in the enactment in contravention of our constitutional prohibition.
This court has held that where the title embraces a general subject it is not violative of the conviction even though the general subject contains incidental subjects. All that is required is that there be some 'rational unity' between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions. Kueckelhan v. Federal Old Line Ins. Co., 69 Wash.2d 392, 418 P.2d 443 (1966); Robison v. Dwyer, 58 Wash.2d 576, 364 P.2d 521 (1961). We are satisfied that the 1967 act meets this requirement.
The title of the 1967 act provides that this is 'AN ACT relating to water districts.' The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. Copeland
... ... public highway in the Satus area of Yakima County, Washington, with a car full of passengers ... her equal protection under the federal and state constitutions. U.S.Const. amend. 14; Const. art ... , 81 Wash.2d 640, 503 P.2d 1063 (1972); Water Dist. No. 105, King County v. State, 79 Wash.2d ... ...
-
Washington Federation of State Employees v. State
... ... State Fin. Comm. v. O'Brien, 105 Wash.2d 78, 80, 711 P.2d 993 (1986); Washington State Sch ... See also Water Dist. 105 v. State, 79 Wash.2d 337, 485 P.2d 66 (1971); ... ...
-
State v. Grisby
... ... Water Dist. 105 v. State, 79 Wash.2d 337, 485 P.2d 66 (1971). As ... See Sheriff, ... Page 502 ... Washoe County v. Smith, 91 Nev. 729, 542 P.2d 440 (1975). With this ... ...
-
City of Fircrest v. Jensen
... ... Gen., Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Wash. State Dept. of Licensing ... Shannon ... See, e.g., Fray v. Spokane County, 134 Wash.2d 637, 952 P.2d 601 (1998) (in ... 105 Wash.2d 228, 713 P.2d 1101 (1986), and State v ... Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 49 Wash.2d 761, 306 P.2d 762 (1957); ... , 52 Wash.2d 868, 329 P.2d 1083 (1958); Water Dist. No. 105 v. State, 79 Wash.2d 337, 485 P.2d ... ...
-
"original Acts," "meager Offspring," and Titles in a Bill's Family Tree: a Legislative Drafter's Perspective on City Offircrest v. Jensen
...session that intervened between the "original act" and its 1967 descendant. In Water Dist. No. 105 v. State, 79 Wash. 2d 337, 340-41, 485 P.2d 66, 68-69 (1971), plaintiffs claimed both subject-in-title and single-subject violations. In that case, ch. 135, Laws of 1967 Extraordinary Session ......
-
Washington's Product Liability Act
...Constitution, however, is liberally construed to sustain the validity of a statute. Water Dist. No. 105 v. State, 70 Wash. 2d 337, 485 P.2d 66 (1971). Further, the title may be very broad where the act has numerous subjects incidental to the title; there need be only "some rational unity" b......