Great Salt Lake Authority v. Island Ranching Co.
421 P.2d 504
Utah
1966
Check Treatment

*1 AUTHORITY, SALT LAKE GREAT RANCHING

ISLAND of Utah. Latimer, Parsons, Behle, Robert Evans & in its first con Jr., City, appel- Campbell, Salt tention claims that the act S. Lake does not delineate territory lant. limits over which the shall have to act. Sec Hansen, Atty. Gen., L. Phil L. Richard “development tions and 6 refer to Atty. Gen., Dewsnup, Asst. Salt *2 Great Salt Lake and its The environs.” respondent. for title to the act makes the reference to “Me TUCKETT, by Line ander Established the States United General,” Surveyor but the title is not plaintiff, respondent The Great Salt part of act. are the We inclined the view to in Authority, by proceedings seeks to legislature that the the words use of the property the the defend- eminent domain of uncertainty its created “and environs” an ant, appellant, on the north end of spell failing to out the the area over which dismiss Defendant moved to Island. plaintiff was to exercise its functions The complaint which motion denied. by reason thereof the act is invalid.1 interlocutory petition for an defendant’s appeal granted. An was filed objection to The defendant’s second appears in 18 Utah 2d June that statute is contains no definite granted A rehearing was authority standards or limitations on Plereafter we the case resubmitted. granted delegation an unlawful of plaintiff and de- shall refer to as authority. The act makes several fendant. accomplishment objec of references act; purposes set out in but tives Authority was

The Great Salt Lake objectives not define the act does what the it has power and derives whatever created purposes are. section of Chapter Chapter (now from S.L.U.1963 attempts objectives statute which to out set U.C.A.1953). Title of is as follows: 1) : that the act is because contends invalid plain- authority prescribe limits to “The shall multi-

It fails definite co-ordinate boundaries; 2) property purposes : That ple tiff’s territorial use of such legis- delegation an unlawful game, mining it contains and min- grazing, fish and removal, 3) any development : power; and That in event utilization lative eral resources, plaintiff authority grant to take in- does not of water and other natural dustrial, property defendant’s eminent domain. and other uses in addition Agricul Howell, 65-86, U.O.A.1953. Section Commission, 155, 192 563, A.L.R.2d necessary for recre- deemed ful means as adopt development, and recreational ational use.” regulations as rules and reasonable insure authority may deem advisable legislature in be observed will objectives accomplishment concerned property we are speaking of purposes of this act.” acquisi- include as a means of with failed to entirety domain. taking eminent We tion reading act in its A careful legislature intended power must assume any on the limitation fails to disclose may have language, otherwise well plaintiff. It is also observed granted to the provision altogeth- quote the above any de- omitted identify with that the act fails to that the er. must conclude and re- We clarity powers, duties gree of acquisition Ante- intended a manner of plaintiff.3 sponsibilities of the lope than eminent domain. We Island other third conten is the defendant’s plaintiff was not em- conclude that grant to the the act does tion that powered by bring proceed- the act to these property take defendant’s right ings.4 that Section It is noted eminent domain. complaint It is directed that be dis- follows: act 65-8-6 missed. No awarded. costs power to shall *3 acquire real facilities construct HENRIOD, CALLISTER, J., J.,C. personal property in the name concur. means, authority by legal proper all devise, gifts, emi- including purchases, McDONOUGH, Justice, argu- heard the lease, domain, exchange, other- nent or opinion filed. ments but died before the wise.” paragraph section CROCKETT, The last of the same (dissenting). specifically with Is- which deals my prior I belief that the adhere deci- land as follows: rehearing grant- sion issued before the correct, is authorized to ed is 18 Utah 2d 963. any steps necessary this, that are to secure temptation to Because of there is a donation, part Antelope points Island reiterate the discussion of each of the purchase agreement, lease, upon majority or other law- and the basis Agricul- Rowell, al., Bertagnoli Baker, et v. Utah 215 al., supra; 626; Moyle P.2d et v. Salt Oakden, Comm., supra; Nowers v. 176 P.2d 882. P.2d State v. 110 Utah Packard, 122 Utah impression they may reached the court as then constituted is writer’s sustaining judg- opposite legislative compromise conclusions resulted from However, Nevertheless, the trial inasmuch ment of court. amendment. when majority practicalities of this court now consti- probably are considered there contrary, tuted it serve rules to would should be no lamentation about the matter. purpose no useful apparent for me to further extenu- proceed that to further with upon matter, spare ate project and I therefore there would have to be a new repetition appropriation from such and refer legislature anyway. prior opinion, adding Therefore, to the discussion the whole situation will undoubt- following edly observations: given be further consideration a n First, newly differently elected and somewhat impresses being me as unneces- constituted which is to meet next sary to declare the act unconstitutional month. If is to be carried forward dispute when the between could undoubtedly wise, would helpful be adjudicated be position and the defendant’s charged those with that responsibility, that justified grounds on other stated in there be some clarification of the act. opinion, Giles, court’s Heathman v. 2d proposition second concerns another

equally prior well established: In the deci- majority

sion gave of the court what we proper considered to be deference to legislative prerogative indulging the PRITCHETT, Leon G. Administrator presumption validity usual in favor of the Mary Pritchett, Estate of Deceased, H. they acts to the end should be operable so construed as to make them reasonably and constitutional whenever that EQUITABLE LIFE AND CASUALTY IN prior can be done. See decision referred corporation, SURANCE above and authorities therein cited. seems to me that point this is the of diver- gence respective opinions, between the Utah. just follows the course

stated, majority opinion while the instant contrary. rather inclines

As was conceded in the certainly

act is not without its frailties.