Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith

opinion, on Dodson general severability which relies v. Saint fuse to let a provision Co., trump unambiguous Paul Ins. clear and exclusion. separately opera- otherwise, To require and do exclusions are read would re-we general independently write the tive decla- contract —a task we not under- identifying take.52 which will ration events not be

covered. Each exclusion eliminates cover- QUESTIONS CERTIFIED ANSWERED. age. V.C.J., WINCHESTER, HARGRAVE, already 28 We have determined that the OPALA, KAUGER, TAYLOR, COLBERT, liability automotive exclusion is clear and JJ., concur. ambiguity. The contains no contract be- LAVENDER, J., anticipated tween the Rowland concurs in insured and result. policies purchased— that there would be two J., EDMONDSON, not participating. general liability one for and one for automo- liability.49 require tive The did not contract

coverage liability automotive to be for includ- Rather, general liability policy.

ined policy purchased second was to insure 2006 OK 34 against liability gen- claims. automotive The RANCH, L.L.C., JACOBS an Oklahoma general of page liability eral declaration’s liability Ranch, company, limited Roos policy charge contained no for automotive Inc., corporation, an Oklahoma coverage and the Commercial General Liabil- Resources, Inc., Roos an cor Oklahoma ity Coverage specifically provides Form poration, Plaintiffs/Appellants, provisions policy various restrict cov- erage. coverages bodily for injury lists Director, SMITH, Duane A. as Executive property damage, specifically excluding and the Oklahoma Water Resources liability.50 automotive Board, agency an of the State Of Okla ¶ 29 ques- We answer secоnd certified homa, Defendants/Appellees, tion in negative. pre- Under the facts sented, where the exclusion is clear un- Conservancy District, Arbuckle Master ambiguous is no and there indication that City Ardmore, City Davis, The liability coverage automotive was intended in City Durant, City Sulphur, general liability policy, the inclusion of City Tishomingo, City Wynne both an “Auto clause “sepa- Exclusion” and a wood, City Ada, Green, Gary The ration of in a insureds” clause commercial Brewer, Bruno, Reginald Earl John general liability policy will not create an am- Easterling, as members of the Citizens biguity in the contract. Preservation of the Arbuckle- Simpson Aquifer, Intervenors/Appellees.

CONCLUSION 101,727. No. ¶ Upholding the vehicle exclusion in the general liability policy does not burden the Supreme Court Oklahoma. unjust insured with an result. liability May policy limits of the automotive have been As Corrected Denial of Rehearing paid, and specific there is no evidence that a Nov. premium was collected automotive cover- liability age policy.51 We are

persuaded by jurisdictions those which re- policies 49. The issuance of two supra. distinct evidences 51. Oaks v. note Dupuy, see duplicated coverage. some intent to avoid Cy- prus Mining Corp. Plateau v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., Wynn Ins. Avemco 17, supra; Co., see note Dupuy, see note Oaks v. 572; Co., see Dodson v. Saint Paul Ins. 36, supra. 6, supra. note 1, supra.

50. See note Muchmore, Grossman, A. Clyde Mark S. OK, Dunlevy, City, & for Crowe Oklahoma plaintiffs/appellants. OK, Couch, City, for

Dean A. Oklahoma defendants/appellees, Duane A. Smith Resources Board. Oklahoma Water Aamodt, Rayanne Tobey, B. Jason G. Tulsa, OK, interve- Tobey, & for Aamodt Green, Brewer, Gary nors/appellees, Earl Bruno, Reginald Easterling as John Preservation members of the Citizens for the Aquifer. Arbuckle-Simpson of The Smith, Shew, Shew, Craig & D. Scrivener Corbin, Ada, OK, intervenor/appellee, for City of Ada. Kellogg, Shipley, D.

Charles W. Robert P.C., Taylor Shipley Kellogg, & Boyd, Jamie OK, Tulsa, intervenors/appellees, Ar- The Conservancy and the Master District buckle- Davis, Durant, Sulphur, Ardmore, Cities Wynnewood. Tishomingo Leader, Attorney Senior Assistant Neal OK, General, City, the Office Oklahoma Attorney General.1 paperwork. those counsel of Identified herein are appear appellate parties whose names TAYLOR, area that can with in law J. be dealt 3) Const., 59; contrary 5, § to the Okla. art. challenge 1 Plaintiffs/appellants recent special required with no notice as to the Oklahoma Groundwater amendments 4) Const., 32; taking the Okla. art. 1020.1, Law, O.S.2001, seq. §§ et private just property compensation without challenged legislation,2 codified at Const., contrary 2, § to the Okla. 1020.9, §§ O.S.Supp.2003, 1020.9A and Const., Amendment, Takings the U.S. Fifth 1020.9B, relates to “sensitive sole source 5) Clause; discriminatory treatment It defines “sensitive groundwater basins.” Const., contrary landowners to the U.S. basin” sole source as: Amendment, Equal Fourteenth Protection major groundwater basin or subbasin all Clause. challenged legisla- We conclude the portion designated or a has of which been uphold tion is valid codi- Aquifer” by aas “Sole Source the United 1020.9, §§ O.S.Supp.20Q3, fied' at 82 1020.9A Agency Protection States Environmental and 1020.9B. Act, pursuant Drinking Water Safe act, as of of this the effective date includ-

ing any any contiguous Proceedings I. portion aquifer Facts and Below (5) located within five miles of the known Ranch, plaintiffs/appellants, 3 The Jacobs out-crop areal extent the surface of the LLC, Inc., Ranch, Resources, Roos and Roos groundwater sensitive sole source basin. Inc., rights claim groundwater in and to the 1020.9A(B)(1). § O.S.Supp.2003, The Arbuckle-Simpson Basin Groundwater imposes challenged legislation moratoria on underlying in property them Pontotoc Coun- 1) issuing temporary permits that would lead ty. They tempo- also claim to be holders of any municipal public to additional use rary permits for withdrawal of that groundwa- from a sensitive sole source water groundwater; basin at ter locations outside basin and ¶ defendants/appellees, 4 The Oklahoma 2) municipalities contracting by and other (OWRB) Water Board Duane Resources and political a sensitive subdivisions outside sole Smith, OWRB, A. Director Executive groundwater source for water from the basin responsible are for the and administration 1020.9A(B)(1) §§ 82 O.S.Supp.2003, basin. enforcement of Oklahoma’s law. 1020.9B(A). and The moratoria are effective intervenors, Ardmore, Davis, municipal The hydrological study completed until a and Durant, Sulphur, Tishomingo, Wynnewood the Oklahoma Water Resources Board deter- Ada, and all portion receive or a of their yield mines a maximum for annual the sensi- supply water Arbuckle-Simpson from the tive sole source basin. Groundwater Basin. Other are intervenors 1020.9A(B)(2) O.S.Supp.2003, §§ Conservancy Arbuckle Master District 1020.9B(B). challenged legislation The also and some of the members Citizens requires the Oklahoma Water Resources Aqui- Preservation of the Arbuckle-Simpson Board, permit issuing before to withdraw fer. frоm groundwa- water source sensitive sole basin, proposed ter if the determine use is Arbuckle-Simpson 5 The Groundwater likely degrade springs or interfere with major groundwater Basin is a basin de- emanating part streams in or in whole from fined the Oklahoma Groundwater Law. 82 originating water from sensitive sole O.S.2001, § It entirely 1020.1. lies within the source 82 O.S.Supp. basin. State of It Oklahoma. five extends into 2003, 1020.9(A)(1)(d). Pontotoc, Murray, Johnston, counties- Carter ¶2 1) The as: depths- and Coal greater counties. has special municipal any state, law regulating county than aquifer ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍other its Const., contrary 5, hydraulic affairs Okla. geologic unique conditions are 2) 46; special relating subject to a predominately state. It is a carbonate Laws, Regular 2. Senate Bill No. 288 First 2003 Okla. ch. Ses- Sess. Forty-Ninth Legislature, sion of the Oklahoma completed hydrological upon a must be flows to based high-sustained provides aquifer that yield for- annual determi- study carbonate and a maximum Its springs and streams. strata, O.S.2001,§ mation, and dolomite 1020.11. the limestone nation. 82 discharge rates to recharge and causes Survey and Geological 9 The Oklahoma with the aquifers than predictable be less Survey Geological studied States the United shale forma- sandstone more common Arbuckle-Simpson hydrology of tions. agencies those Basin. Groundwater Arbuckle-Simpson Groundwater The hydrology of the Arbuckle- reported on the good-quality a source Basin serves as report Basin but Simpson Groundwater users, mu- many domestic drinking water to finding prepared support was not overlying area parks nicipalities and by the yield annual OWRB. maximum Environmental States The United the basin. study hydrological suf- that a advises OWRB (EPA) designated a has Agency Protection yield a maximum annual to determine ficient Arbuckle-Simpson Groundwa- portion of the year of completed in the calendar will be aquifer pursuant source Basin as a sole ter Act, 42 U.S.C. Drinking Water the Safe ' ¶ 1986, the OWRB issued 10 In 1985 and a total of There are 300g §§ and 300h-3 e.3 to withdraw water temporary permits aquifers sole source seventy-two designated municipal plaintiffs/appel- use to public and United States. in the continental interests in land Pon- on their lants based receive municipal intervenors 7 The County overlying the Arbuckle- totoc Arbuckle-Simpson drinking water tempo- Basin. The Simpson Groundwater originate Basin or sources Groundwater annually until revalidated rary permits were sup- Municipal water in the basin. protests Beginning in numerous largest uses of is one of the ply use plain- objecting to further revalidation from the Arbuck- permitted to be withdrawn temporary permits have tiffs’/appellants’ Basin. le-Simpson Groundwater with the OWRB. been filed ¶8 duty to make a has the The OWRB ¶ Plaintiffs/appellants did not withdraw 11 investigation of each survey and hydrologic Arbuckle-Simpson any from the water at least ev- Oklahoma groundwater basin tempo- pursuant to their Basin Groundwater O.S.2001, § 1020.4. twenty years. ery However, plain- in 2003 rary permits.4 duty to determine a has the also OWRB begin selling proposed to tiffs/appellants groundwater to be yield annual maximum of water twenty gallons billion than more basin. 82 groundwater produced from each Arbuckle-Simpson annually permit O.S.2001, Any regular § 1020.5. municipalities in Cana- Basin to groundwater basin Groundwater from a withdraw water designated 300h-3(e) areа. Notice of the demands for 300g §§ authorize and 3. 42 U.S.C. 1) designation published at 54 F.R. 39230. an EPA to determine that of the EPA Administrator aquifer is the sole source or an which area has protect an area are available Federal funds drinking area principal water for the source of aquifer. designated source sole within located contaminated, which, sig- would create a if protected § The area to be 42 U.S.C. 300h-6. publish public health and to nificant hazard to aquifer protection as a critical be identified must Regis- in the Federal 1) the determination vulnerability notice of following by criteria: area 2) financial assistance try to withhold federal hydrogeolog- aquifer due to to contamination the sole project that contaminate characteristics, 2) using people number of ic 1989, 25, September aquifer. economic, source, 3) On source drinking aquifer water as a designated portion EPA Administrator area benefits to the environmental social and system Aquifer a sole Arbuckle-Simpson water, 4) drinking maintaining high quality 1) aquifer determining aquifer, that economic, source costs due to environmental social and water supplies and domestic all of the quality of the water. degradation of the portions comprising in an area 300h-6(d). consumed U.S.C. counties, 2) Johnston, Murray and Pontotoc landowners' dispute not involve the drinking does existing water 4. This no alternative there is O.S.2001, provided in 60 rights water as provides to the which of sources source or combination statutory right have drinking Landowners fifty percent water or more use without groundwater for domestic area, 3) withdraw available cost-effective there is no O.S.2001, § 1020.3. drinking permit. supplying the water capable of source Although no tent with the federal and state constitutions. County, dian Oklahoma. Cana- summary They judgment. County municipality is involved in moved for dian this litigation, plaintiffs/appellants assert that the ¶ 16 The district court concluded that the County municipalities depend on Canadian sensitive sole source basin law become im- sources is valid and and entered sum- enforceable practical in the future due to more restrictive mary judgment favor of the defendants drinking arsenic standards for water. Those appealed. and intervenors. Plaintiffs This purchase municipalities also from Court appeal. retained the City.5 Oklahoma II. Standard Review ¶ hydrological 12 Without a sufficient Summary judgment disposes study, plaintiffs’/appellants’ pro- the effect of solely of issues of which we review posed water from withdrawal of the Arbuck- Brown, Manley de novo standard. le-Simpson Basin can Groundwater not be 79, 448, 989 P.2d 455. Our de novo However, determined the OWRB. it is plenary, independent review is and non-def 1) undisputed aquifers in that: Oklahoma erential. Indep. Gladstone Bartlesville have suffered irreversible decline where ¶30, Sch. Dist. No. aquifer’s ability withdrawals exceeded 442, 445. 2) recharge, Ogallala Aquifer; such as the decline in level has resulted ¶ Here, the issue is the constitu streams, in the loss of the natural flow of tionality of the 2003 amendments to the such as the Beaver River Oklahoma groundwater strong statutes. There is a 3) panhandle; groundwa- a decline presumption that the statutes are constitu Arbuckle-Simpson ter level of the Ground- Service, Inc., tional. Black v. Ball Janitorial jeopardize water Basin could the flow of In streams, springs such as spring deciding constitutionality, their the statutes city is the source of the water for the of Ada. upheld they clearly will be unless are incon sistent with the Id. constitution. Legislature the Oklahoma passed Bill 288 and Senate No. the Governor ruling III. The trial court’s signed it expressly into law.6 The measure plaintiffs’ standing on necessary found that “a moratorium on the dissenting opinion 19 The raises a temporary permits issuance of certain obliged issue we are threshold which to ad- groundwater certain source sensitive sole ba- proceed dress before we to review the merits health, sins protect safety or subbasins to the summary judgment appeal. on The people and welfare of of the Oklahoma.” 82 position dissent takes that 1020.9A(A). the there is no O.S.Supp.2003, § paper clear trail of trial ruling the court’s on major 14 A designat- basin plaintiffs’ in standing raised defendants’ dis- aquifer, ed as a sole the source Arbuckle- missal motion and as an asserted affirmative Simpson Basin falls Groundwater within the defense intervenors’ answer. statutory definition of “sensitive sole source ¶ 20 The record this Court before shows O.S.Supp.2003, basin.” 82 that the trial court did make a determination 1020.9A(B)(1). Presently, it is the plaintiffs standing that have to maintain this sensitive sole source basin in declaratory judgment July action. On the state. 2003, the filed a defendants motion to dismiss for, Plaintiffs/appellants among 15 grounds, standing. filed this other lack of action asking ground- fully September that the sole The motion sensitive source was briefed. On 25, 2003, water arguments basin law be struck down as the trial heаrd inconsis- court on 5. Apparently, County ty. project municipali- pipeline the Canadian The cost the is estimated plan transport through $200 to be $150 ties the between million and million. to water some eighty pipeline miles the Arbuckle- Simpson supra. Basin to 6. See 2 Groundwater Canadian Coun- footnote

849 police power IV. Exercise of minute the motion entered dismissal regulate water resources trial court overruling the motion. The order ruling in a September 25th the memorialized constitutionality Defending 24 the journal entry on October filed Attorney challenged legislation, the argues that measure is an exer General ¶21 does not show appellate The record Legislature’s police power for the cise directly that intervenors regulating water re purpose of the state’s standing summary judg- plaintiffs’ in their power sources. Police is an attribute state opinion filings. dissenting The correct- ment sovereignty. K. & T.R. Gibbons Missouri munici- ly answers filed that the response summary judg- the nors filed 355; Corp. Anderson-Prichard v. P.2d Oil proceeded Comm’n, The trial court 234, ment motion. Corp. 241 1951 OK P.2d Okla. Bd., summarily dispose 363; of the merits of the con- v. Resources Kline Okla. Water 18, 210, sum- 759 which the state troversy argued parties all the on 1988 OK P.2d health, may regulate for the welfare and mary judgment. See, Wyoming v. safety people. Colo ¶23 plaintiffs’ ruling The trial court’s 419, 552, rado, 42 66 L.Ed. 999 259 U.S. S.Ct. by implication not drawn from standing is (1922); Landfill, Sanitary Fort Gratiot Inc. It is clear in this record that mere silence. Resources, Dept. 504 Natural Mich. Of standing, recognized plaintiffs’ the trial court 6, 2019, 353, 365, 2026- note 112 S.Ct. U.S. determined, when it allowed it had earlier (1992). 2027, Legisla The L.Ed.2d 139 119 heard plaintiffs to be on the merits protect police power its ture exercise upon rights proceeded irrespective when it to consider and rule state’s water immediately filings. of the land most summary judgment private owners merits 850 County policy.

concerned. Hudson Co. v. Water reasonable utilization Okla. Water McCarter, 349, 355, 529, County Irrigation 209 U.S. 28 S.Ct. Resources Bd. v. Texas (1908). Resources, 531, health, and Water 52 L.Ed. 828 For the 711 P.2d at 41. The citizens, safety provided for Legisla welfare and of its “the allocation hydrologic for reasonable use may regulate a based on sur ture landowner’s use and veys ground of fresh enjoyment water basins or prevent resources to subba- water sins to produc determine a restriction infringement on the rights waste and on the of oth tion, based Charolaise, overlying the acres ers. Franco-American Ltd. ground water Bd., basin or subbasin.” Okla. Water Resources 1990 OK 855 O.S.Supp.1972, In 568, 576; 1020.2. the 1972 enact P.2d Kline v. Okla. Water Res ment, Legislature Oklahoma Bd., declared ources 759 P.2d at 212. that a policy necessary water utilization was for the health and welfare the state and its Y. Oklahoma’s Groundwater Statutes citizens. Id. ¶ 27 Legisla- The OWRB asserts that the ¶ 30 Enacted in Legisla- the exercise of the ture, regulating groundwater, has classi- police power, groundwater ture’s the current groundwater fied basins as minor basins and law, O.S.2001, §§ seq., 1020.1 et is the major challenged legisla- basins and that the regulatory regime for the reasonable tion is a further protec- classification for the groundwater utilization of the state’s re- tion supply drinking of basins that water for subsequent sources and the amendments argues communities. The OWRB that thereto.- amendments im- challenged legislation management is sound pose a against moratorium the transfer of stewardship unique aquifers within water for municipal out-of-basin regulatory system the current of allocation interject requirement use a conservation for reasonable use. amended, regime. to the utilization As ¶ An overview of the stat- requires permit applicant helpful analysis utes is in our of the chal- to show that the withdrawal of water is not lenged legislation. In the Oklahoma likely degrade springs interfere with Legislature enacted the Oklahoma Ground emanating streams part whole or in regulate taking Water Law to and use of water originating from the sensitive sole ground water order “to pro- conserve and source basin. ground tect water resources of the State.”7 The 1949 law restricted landowners Const., 5, § VI. The Okla. withdrawing only yiéld the safe annual of a ¶ 31 Plaintiffs/appellants contend that the basin as measured average annual challenged legislation unjustifiably limited O.S.1951, recharge. 1015; Okla. Water to the Arbuckle-Simpson Groundwater Basin County Resources Bd. v. Texas Irrigation naming without it and that the limitation is Resources, and Water 1984 OK law, irrational subterfuge special and a for a Legislature 41. The determined relying City Tulsa, on Elias v. ground that regulation served “the They argue 408 P.2d 517. agricultural domestic, interest of stability, classification of “sensitive sole source municipal, industrial and other beneficial groundwater basin” is invalid because it is uses, general economy, health and welfare of reasonably not legislative related to a valid citizens_” O.S.1951, the State and its objective, Porter, citing Reynolds v. § 1003. They 760 P.2d 816. argue further ¶29 Legislature Oklahoma the withdrawal of wаter for out-of-basin use repealed the 1949 Ground Water Law8 and and the reduction in stream flow due statutory enacted a new scheme “to utilize groundwater pumping could be addressed on resources the state.” a statewide basis as in ground- was done The 1949 policy statutes, conservation replaced'by O.S.2001, was §§ 82 1020.1- Laws, 11, 3, 7. Laws, 248, § 1949 Okla. Sess. ch. § codified at 8. 1972 Okla. Sess. ch. 23. O.S.1951, § 82

851 operation in prohibit its legis- ular localities 1020.22, subject could be and that locations, though it not particular ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍even did required as under general in upon a lated every part in of the state. practically operate 5, 59, Goodyear Tire & citing Grant art. Id. 41, Co., P.3d 594. 2000 OK Rubber ¶ statehood, Immediately this after 5, Constitution, 32 The Oklahoma uniformity considered the restriction Court upon restrictions two distinct imposes 5, § by art. imposed upon lawmakers gen- that “laws of a requires It lawmakers. 250, Ritterbusch, 98 P. 1908 OK Anderson through- uniformly operate nature” must eral Brown, ex rel. Smith v. OK State enact- prohibits also state. out the Walker, P. and Burks v. “general where a “special a law” ment of Anderson, In a statute 109 P. 544. 5, § Article 59 reads: applied. law” can be to collect taxes on establishing procedure a a nature shall have general of a Laws contrary challenged property was omitted State, throughout operation uniform practical § 59 because it had no to art. law can be made general a and where state, half of the application in the eastern special law shall be enacted. applicable, no Territory. Anderson pre-statehood Indian 5, § in 59 was included 33 Article challenged statute had uni determined of Okla of the State original Constitution though application form across state even meanings of the At statehood the homa. governmental in the the dissimilarities nature,” “general general Territory a “law of in Oklahoma terms industrial conditions operation” in law,” Territory “uniform caused a difference “special law” and and Indian ruling, application. so general a na the statute’s A “law of established.9 were McAllister, Noffzigger v. quoted Anderson subject of common interest to a ture” related Kan. 315: Sutherland, Statutes to the whole state. J.G. (1891). general of a nature is a law Whenever 148-150 Statutory Construction Legislature for the whole passed subject of com to a “general A law” related state, Legislature applied and is not state and em to the whole mon interest locality and has any particular thereof class subject or a whole the whole braced any prohibiting operation no words subject.10 Although it Id. related to the thereof, locality it is a law of particular subject of common might have related to a state, throughout operation uniform state, “special law” a to the whole interest meaning of the constitutional within the things of a persons or particular embraced although may practically not provision, it subject or whole not the whole class but every part of the state. operation have operation” A law had “uniform class. Id. Anderson, P. at 1009. a when it related to sub throughout a state Brown, a rel. Smith v. ject to the whole state 35 In State ex of common interest sheriffs, the removal of partic- providing for apply not it to statutе Legislature did and the ject to the whole give matter is of common interest provisions effect 9. We read constitutional recognized generic people in sub- and the to the intent of the framers state. Sutherland State, instance, adopting may Boswell v. jects legislation them. be divided. For Sutherland, and Stat- Statutes 74 P.2d 940. J.G. utory may dealing people be divided into with laws (1891) observed that voters, Construction persons, sane and insane such as classes Century, sever- of the Nineteenth the second half wives, minors, parents and chil- husbands required uniform statewide al state constitutions operation subject explained of a dren. also He provi- general nature. The of laws of general, is limit- but if the statute be statute equal require just and laws was intended to sion special Id. at scope, statute. it ed in its possible, prevent, enactments and to as far as instance, for local officers is For fees was intended to were not such. Id. It which prevent every political general subject extends to granting privileges citizens state, prescribing a statute but subdivision granted not to all of citizens which was or class special particular is a law on counties fees for upon at 151. same terms. Id. the citizens subject. He further ex- general Id. at 152. frequency of local and and inconvenience general subject in nature plained that a law on adop- special legislation acts led to the may operate only a class if the class has uniformity requirement. Id. at 147. tion of the require exclusive peculiar which characteristics explained that legislation. at 147. Sutherland at 162. 10. Sutherland Id. thе sub- in nature because 852 ¶ marshals, officers,

constables, police city pletho and 37 This Court has tested a county attorneys ra of diligently conformity and for failure to statutes for with the re 5, quirements § Adhering of art. prohibition challenged enforce the laws was 5, § 5, principles pronounced art. 59 contrary applied at state as to art. 59 because it hood, jurisprudence our county, legis extant tests a township not all to some but and lative general classification a law of a municipal officers. State ex rel. Smith deter- nature to determine if the distinction of the challenged mined the statute had uniform (the class) persons, things entities or has a application applied across the state because it reasonable and substantial and a basis sound to all the local officers in the class of officers subject and rational relation to the duty prohibition who had the to enforce the See, Foster, legislation. Hudgins v. 1928 OK laws. 243, 30, 645, (striking 267 P. 649 down a Walker, In v. 36 Burks a statute estab abolishing township statute forty- offices in county lishing superior county court in each nine remaining twenty- counties but not the 30,000 city that had at least inhabitants and a eight basis); counties for lack of reasonable 8,000 with inhabitants was as a Ledgerwood, 723, 18, Roberts v. 1928 OK special application. Recogniz with local law 448, (striking P. down a statute ing general may that a law of a nature have imposing duty bridge to oversee road and operation throughout uniform the state even county commissioners, work on with incre only though operates upon legislative it salaries, only mental in counties that fall Burks, class, 317, ¶ 23, 1909 OK 109 P. at specific within population arbitrary levels as 549, explained: subject and without relation to the matter of general for a order law to be in its statute); Sheldon v. Grand River Dam operation, nature and to have a uniform it ¶76, 17, 355, Authority, 1938 OK 76 P.2d necessary operate upon is not that it shall (upholding a creating statute a reclamation every person every locality in and district Authority for the Grand River Dam general state. A law be have as reasonable with sound and rational rela application apply designated local or to a subject tion to the legislation); Elias operates equally upon class if it all ¶¶ Tulsa, City 164, 1965 OK 9-10 and subjects within the class for which it 20, was 517, (striking 408 P.2d 519-520 down a adopted. To determine whether or not a providing statute a city-county coopera- special, statute is courts will planning tivé spe commission in cities within look to the statute to ascertain whether it population cific only limits fitted to Tulsa as operate uniformly upon persons will all the arbitrary subterfuge); and a Isaacs v. Okla parts brought 267, the state that are City, homa (up OK 437 P.2d 229 pro within the holding population-based relation circumstances ur classification for People Hoffman, it. reasonable); vided ex rel. v. redevelopment 116 ban Tulsa 587[, (1886)]; Ill. 5 N.E. N.E. Expo. Corp. County & Fair v. Bd. Of al., Comm’rs, Nichols v. Walter et 37 Minn. operation

N.W. 800. And the if (striking is uniform authorizing county down a statute persons it affects alike all like situation. fairs having population counties class, operates upon 100,000 But where a statute 200,000 between as not related to capricious subject matter); the classification must not Porter, be Reynolds v. arbitrary per and must be reаsonable and (striking 760 P.2d 816 down peculiarity subject tain to some mat negligence medical statute of limitations as calling legislation. ter special 46); for the As between prohibited by persons places Co., included within Kerley Uniroyal Goodrich Tire operation omitted, of the law and those (striking 10 P.3d 230 down workers’ there compensation must be some distinctive allowing only characteris statute self-in tic which employers a different treatment recoup overpayment sured reasonably temporary disability founded and that furnish a as underinclusive class practical legislation). and real basis for discrimination. Under the reasonable basis and Walter, supra. tests, Nichols v. the rational relation the court must ¶ 41 next determine whether the We must classification legislative if the determine rationally pur- related to the classification is that bears difference upon a reasonable rests Plaintiffs/appellants goals pose legislation. purposes relation a rational purpose of the chal- i.e., assert that the actual does the classification legislation, legislation stop transport the lenged or interest'. purpose state legitimate further County municipalities for water to Canadian Analysis of the interfering municipal public use without VII. the legislation under Okla. legisla- temporary permits. The with other Const., 5, § art. County single out Canadian tion does not It that a moratorium on municipalities. finds plaintiffs’/appel 38 The essence temporary permits on “sensi- the issuance of sole challenge that the sensitive lants’ groundwater basins” is need- tive sole source аn in legislation creates groundwater source health, safety and welfare protect the ed prohibited the Okla. valid classification O.S.Supp. people the of Oklahoma. requires Const., challenge § This 2003, 1020.9A(A). And, imposes it a mora- 1) legisla nature of the inquire into the us to temporary permits on the issuance of torium 3) 2) tion, legislative classification municipal public use until out-of-basin uniformity operation. itsof -ofwa- that further it is determined removal nature, ¶39 the sensitive sole to its As groundwa- sole source ter the “sensitive legislation relates groundwater basin source will not reduce the flow ter basin” supply that water resources to the state’s O.S.Supp.2003, springs and streams. to the basin area and drinking water safe 1020.9A(B)(2). live, there. work or visit people who all ¶42 undisputed that the source It is a sub- drinking water is Unquestionably, safe drinking for in-basin use safe throughout the state interest ject of common large quantities degraded by the transfer of regula- subject legislative rightful and a is also of water for out-of-basin use. sole source tion. sensitive public use is one of the undisputed that nature. a law of a legislation is basin Arbuckle-Simpson largest uses legislative classification 40 As to the transfer Anticipating that the groundwater. basin,” source sole “sensitive municipalities might of water to out-of-basin distin- whether there are must determine we availability drinking of safe interfere with the “sensi- which make guishing characteristics use, Legislature decid- water for in-basin really groundwater basins” sole source tive drinking the sources of safe preserve ed to groundwater basins from other different completion of a use until water for in-bаsin Legislature determined state. The of a hydrological study and determination groundwater basin is source a sensitive sole Accordingly, we con- yield. annual maximum major groundwater ba- different from other challenged leg- purpose clude that Source of the EPA’s “Sole sins virtue of safe is to conserve the sole source islation designation EPA designation. The Aquifer” overlying area water for use drinking aquifer area all within a sole source protects until a sole source the sensitive aquifer for safe drink- depend upon the completed and a maxi- hydrological study is the EPA designation allows ing water. The that ensures yield is determined mum annual financially projects assisted to review federal will not interfere withdrawal of water aquifer a sole source out-crop area of supply. drinking water with the in-basin pro- area to ensure or its streamflow source public of in-basin 43 Different treatment aquifer jects not contaminate do F.R., use does not use and out-of-basin 39230. We public health. threaten special law because designation EPA’s of “Sole make conclude the are out-of-basin areas in-basin area and reason- Aquifer” is a substantial and Source area re- The in-basin not in like situations. sole that makes the “sensitive able distinction drinking water. solely aquifer for on the different lies groundwater basin” class source are that designation EPA bases for the in this The major groundwater basins from other designated sole drinking water state. provided designated prior area is the Ar- so aquifer source to its effective aquifer However, aquifer intent, that there are bucklе-Simpson glean express date. we no drinking existing implicit, no alternative water legislation from that it would the capable sources apply any major sources nor cost-effective groundwater not to in basin supplying drinking which, water demands for future, the this in EPA state the the area. 54 F.R. 39230. The designated the designates aquifer. as a sole source We in-basin use and out-of- distinction between groundwa- the conclude sensitive sole source pur- use has a rational relation to the basin legislation operates uniformly ter basin pose legislation. We conclude that the of the throughout upon major ground- the state all designat- groundwater basins classification designated aqui- as sole basins source Aquifers” EPA as is ed the “Sole Source fers before and after its effective all date and rationally related to the conservation of safe persons brought within the circumstances overlying drinking water for use the area. provided by only it. The fact that there was groundwater designated one basin the operation, to its uniform 44 As we EPA Aquifer” as “Sole Source when the must whether the “sensitive sole determine challenged legislation was enacted does not groundwater basin” classification lim source destroy operation throughout its uniform application particular legislation’s its the state. thereby particular persons pre locations or venting application uniform statewide summary, challenged sensitive Plaintiffs/appellants argue that law. groundwater legislation source sole basin is a only Arbuckle-Simpson class embraces general legislative law оf a nature. The clas- persons having Groundwater Basin and those sification groundwa- sole source “sensitive overlying They urge an land. interest rationally ter basins” is reasonable and relat- open any that the class is not other purpose ed to legislation. The groundwater in the state that basins groundwater leg- sensitive sole source basin designate EPA in the future as sole operates uniformly islation throughout aquifers legislation because the de source major groundwater state all basins des- aquifer designated by fines sole source future, ignated, presently and in the as sole EPA “as of the effective date of this act.” aquifers. challenged legislation source The disagree. We general Const., is a valid law under the Okla. 5, § art. 59. Because the legisla- ¶45 challenged legislation The law, general tion is a we need not consider general language apply framed plaintiffs’/appellants’ argument on the notice major groundwater whole des class of basins requirements special for a law under the ignated by EPA the Administrator of the Const., 5, § Okla. art. aquifers be sole source in accordance with Act, Drinking Water Safe U.S.C. Const., 5, § The VIII. Okla. 300h-3(e). rule, general §§ 300g and As a prospectively applied statute is unless the 47 Plaintiffs/appellants challenge source, language an intent that it also evidences sensitive sole basin applied retrospectively.11 statutory legislation contrary The lan to art. 46 of the guage defining They the “sensitive sole source Oklahoma Constitution.12 contend that class as basin” those basins des the moratorium on contracts the sensitive ignated aquifers sоle source “as of the effec legislation sole source basin is a expresses special tive of this act” an regulating municipal county date intent law apply any They argue shall sole source affairs.13 the moratorium Comm’n, counties, cities, towns, Corporation Regulating 11. Seal v. Okla. the affairs of wards, ¶34, 51, or school districts.... O.S.Supp.2003, § 13.Title 82 1020.9B reads: provides part: 12. Section 46 hereby A. A moratorium is established on not, legislature except shall as otherwise municipality political or other subdivision Constitution, provided pass any prohibiting any entity in this local or of this state such special entering agreement law ... into a contract or other § 24. are not convinced. The county We affairs be- municipal and regulates Legislature restrict the rule is that the ability of out-of-basin impacts it cause re enjoyment con- the state’s water to enter into use and counties municipalities and They police power of its for the supplies. exercise public water sources for their tracts health, safety and it special preservation because argue it also compensating property all counties and not without to some but welfare applies Charolaise, and to Ltd. in the state Franco-American municipalities owner. Bd., Basin. Arbuckle-Simpson Groundwater Resources v. Okla. Water 568, challenged legislation 576. The ¶ that the already determined have 48 We ex regulates the state’s water resources subject a relates to challenged legislation health, safety protect pressly “to state and throughout interest common people of Oklahoma.” welfare resources water regulates that it the state’s O.S.Supp.2003, 1020.9A(A). police of the state’s through the exercise health, safety of welfare and power for the Takings Clause of Fifth 51 The groundwa- Clearly, regulation of public. of the United Amendment to the Constitution public is a for the benefit ter resources private property provides “nor shall States Although we are mindful concern. statewide public just compen use without taken for be con- supply is a basic fact that water The recent case of sation.” Tahoe-Sierra subdivisions, political we of our cern of each Council, Regional v. Tahoe Preservation Inc. regulation of the state’s view the do not 302, 122 Planning Agency, 535 U.S. S.Ct. counties, cities an affair of resources as water (2002), 1465, that L.Ed.2d 517 observed 5, Accordingly, § we art. 46. or towns under Takings ’ Clause re the Fifth Amendment plaintiffs’/appel- further consider need not govern compensation quires whenever 5, arguments. § art. lants’ private property for a appropriates ment ¶49 that also determined We have interest, necessarily but it does not public legislation is to purpose of the just compensation government where require drinking of safe the sole source conserve property a owner from regulations “prohibit hydrological use until a for in-basin water private property.” making certain uses of her annual completed and a maximum study is 321-322, 1465. Id. at S.Ct. Whether the with- that ensures yield is determined taking prohibition amounts to a regulatory the in- will not interfere with drawal of water depends upon Amendment under the Fifth supply. Obviously, drinking water basin Id. facts аnd circumstances. all the relevant legisla- that intended to serve 1020.9Bwas 322, 122 at S.Ct. purpose. tive Constitution, art. The Oklahoma Takings Clauses U.S. IX. The “[p]rivate property provides § 24 that Const., Amendment and the Fifth public use damaged or for not be taken shall Const., art. Okla. govern just compensation.” While without public taking private property for argue Plaintiffs/appellants mental gov a reasonable compensated, must groundwater use be sole source the sensitive property is not regulation of the taking pri ernment constitutes a basin Operating Corp. Inn compensable. con Suntide just compensation property vate without State, Amendment, Const., Fifth trary to the U.S. Suntide, 1210, quoted Const., regard, at Gib- In this

Takings and the Okla. Clause effect until municipal public B. Said moratorium shall or lead to which would Water Resources such time as the Oklahoma a sensitive supply use hydrological completes a Board conducts and study as defined in basin sole source yield approves a maximum annual moratorium shall Section 1 of this act. Said any permit for the remov- ensure that that will municipalities political apply only or subdi- from a sensitive sole source al of water groundwater any county outside of visions which are located will not reduce the natural basin overlays part or whole or in said basin springs ema- and streams of water from flow nating subbasin. subbasin. basin or from said Missouri, Co., plain per taking K & T.R. flood bons v. ordinance is not ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍se use). private property public 285 P. 1040: challenged legislation prohibits 53 The proper done exercise of the [A]cts issuing temporary permits the OWRB from merely impair police power, which the use municipal public for out-of-basin use until taking property, do not constitute hydrological study completed and a maxi- meaning of within the the constitutional yield annual mum is determined. It also requirements making compen- OWRB, requires considering applica- taking property sation for the regular permits, tions for to determine use, accordingly do not entitle the proposed likely degrade whether a use is property compensation of such owner springs or interfere with or streams emanat- agents, give him from the state or ing originating from water from a sensitive injuries right of action for the sus- sole source basin. view this words, We regulations tained. In other which temporary permits moratorium on as a tem- state, police pow- in the exercise of its restriction, most, porary plain- at on the er, respect authorizes with to the use of tiffs’/appellants’ use of their water. We view entirely independent property are of requirement applicants the additional on question compensation of for such use. regular permits proper regulation to be a of question compensation The of has no influ- the state’s water resources in the exercise of establishing ence in them. The exercise of Legislature’s police power. the We conclude police power, therefore differs from the that pre- under the facts and circumstances domain, right exercise of the of eminent summary judgment, temporary sented appropriation private which involves the of moratorium on use, plаintiffs’/appellants’ pro- property public requires, in its posed use of water from the exercise, sensitive sole pecuniary compensation lawful aquifer source permit and the additional re- owner. the loss inflicted on the quirement taking pri- do not constitute a state, that or is well settled property'for public vate use under the consti- agents, police power in the exercise of its tutions of the United States and the State of power can extend this to such meas- Oklahoma. as are under all the ures reasonable cir- adopted cumstances. The means must Equal X. The Protection Clause in bear some real and substantial relation or Const., the U.S. Fourteenth reasonably necessary for the accom- Amendment object plishment legitimate of a falling Plaintiffs/appellants complain that the scope police power, within the of the sensitive sole source basin clas- regulation the law or must tend toward the disparate sification causes treatment of land- welfare, health, preservation safe- permit applicants owners and holders ty, morals. contrary Const., to the U.S. Fourteenth also, Phillips Corporation See Petro. Co. v. Amendment, Equal Protection Clause and Comm’n, 313, (holding 312 P.2d 916 Due Process agree. Clause. We do not gas that a requiring produc statute a natural gas pump er to available to make water for Supreme 55 The United States agriculture irrigation price aat fixed equal protec Court has fashioned a two-tier Corporation regulation is not a Equal protection Commission tion framework. analysis police power taking under but a requires judicial scrutiny strict of statutes producer’s property process without operate peculiar due that disadvantage to the a appropriation producer’s suspect and an class such aas class based on alien- property just compensation); age ancestry without or that interfere with the Norman, City Mattoon v. right grounded exercise of fundamental (concluding vote, P.2d 1347 the exercise of right constitution such as the police power right to divert surface water onto rights guaran interstate travel and one’s land must be tested under the rule of teed the First Amendment. Mass. Bd. Of reason holding that the Murgia, enactment of a Retirement v. 427 U.S. (1976). prudence for all act with the benefit of L.Ed.2d S.Ct. analysis is Unquestionably, of other statutes in the state. protection citizens Equal stringent rational basis standard. comprehensive policy the less for both the statewide is a ration- legislative class examined for utilization and the of the state’s conservation objective the statute. Id. to the al relation is crucial to the health welfare 2562. The rational relation at 96 S.Ct. every in this inhabitant state. We conclude “relatively re- relaxed standard inquiry is challenged groundwater legislation con- flecting that the draw- the Court’s awareness operates it cerns statewide interest and pecu- ing lines that create is distinctions uniformly throughout leg- the state task” action liarly legislative and such ground- class of source islative “sensitive sole presumed Id. Legislature is valid. water basins” that is and rational- reasonable regulation ly related to the of the state’s ¶ 56 The sole source “sensitive challenged water resources. We hold legislation groundwater basin” does not re general legislation is a valid law under the right grounded in the late to a fundamental Const., 5, § Okla. operate upon nor it a sus constitution .does ¶ 58 The district court concluded that the Equal analysis pect protection classification. legislation “addressed judi legislation require does not strict Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer.”14 This conclu scrutiny. already have examined the cial We sion is inconsistent with our conclusions that 5, § purposes of art. 59 and legislation for terms drafted source concluded “sensitive sole applies major to any and that it has a rea groundwater basin” classification that, future, in may designated be basin rationally and it is related to sonable basis EPA aquifer. as a sole source Even of the law. reach the same purpose We so, the district court reached the correct purposes equal protection. for of conclusions result. the trial court reaches the Where legislation deny challenged does not The wrong for the or on correct result reasons equal plaintiffs/appellants protection theories, it not will be reversed. incorrect laws. Bartlett, 369; 680 P.2d Estate OK of XI. Conclusion Bhuiyan, Dixon v. 10 P.3d 888. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ¶ of 57 The utilization and the conservation summary judgment of defen in favor rightful are sub- the state’s water resources dants/appellees intervenors/appellees. jects legislative regulation. The Okla- Legislature power not homa has the DISTRICT SUMMARY COURT’S profound responsibility regulаte also the but AFFIRMED. JUDGMENT precious to allocate this natural resource WATT, C.J., LAVENDER, state. The state’s KAUGER

the benefit whole EDMONDSON, writing), subject (by separate is a over which the water resources COLBERT, JJ., Legislature vigilant be and TAYLOR and concur. Oklahoma must following required, pursuant con- Const. Art. 5 district court entered the not to Okla. The summary ap- judgment general in the order on prior clusions to their As a enactment. peal: Arbuckle-Simpson Aqui- law addressed to the fer, controversy lawfully as to challenged There is no substantial can enactment material facts Defendants and Interve- aquifer in a manner treat waters are, law, judg- a matter nors entitled aquifers from waters other in different in ment. (temporary State. Such different treatment Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer unique a is and. re- moratoria licenses and contracts aquifer in the State of Oklahoma. criterion) general quired does not convert the challenged legitimate law advances 3. The special statute into or local law. protection in the waters of state interests challenged not 5. The enactments do violate Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer. protection equal right. Plaintiff’s Simpson-Arbuckle unique, 4. Because the challenged do not consti- 6. The enactments similarly aquifer is no and thus there situated process due an unconsti- tute a violation of nor statutes, Oklahoma, though challenged taking property. tutional application, gen- having local are nevertheless added.) (Emphasis laws, and thus advance notice was eral J., OPALA, (by separate writing) dissents. there must be some distinctive characteris- tic which a different treatment HARGRAVE, J., participating. not founded, reasonably be and that furnishes WINCHESTER, V.C.J., disqualified. practical and real basis for discrimina- Walter, supra.” tion. Nichols KAUGER, J., WATT, C.J., with whom ¶ very recently 2 The Burks test was reaf- J., EDMONDSON, join, concurring: City firmed in Employees Enid v. Public agree majority 1 I with the Board, Relations question statutes in are not unconstitutional. question 281. There the of what constituted governed by precedents This result our purposes determining class for the Walker, beginning in 1909with Burks v. legislative whether a special enactment was a 317, 23, 109 P. 544 in which we said: Constitution, law barred the Oklahoma general a law “In order for to be in its 5, § art. 46 was considered. We said 15: operation, nature and to a uniform have it “Thus, Burks, the Court created two- necessary operate upon is not that it shall part, rational-relationship test to deter- every every person locality population-based mine whether a classifica- general A state. and have a special general tion was a or law. The application apply designated local Court has used this test numerous eases operates equally upon class if it all sub involving challenges popu- constitutional jects within the class for which it was Const., lation-based under Okla. adopted. To determine whether or not a 5, §§ 46 and 59.” special, statute is courts will Enid, look to the statute to ascertain it In City whether both Burks and the Court operate uniformly upon will persons all the application noted the two-part test parts brought applied regardless state that are of whether the classifica within the relation pro and circumstances tion is under the Okla. Const. art. People Hoffman, Enid, §§ vided it. ex rel v. 46 or City 59 or both. 587[, (1886)]; Ill. 5 N.E. 8 N.E. 788 number of cities which fell into the classifica al., Nichols v. Walter et 37 Minn. tion was immaterial because the test for con operation N.W. 800. And stitutionality numerical, is uniform if is not but rather persons it affects alike all in like situation. whether clearly capri the classification is operates class, cious, But where a statute a arbitrary, wholly unrelated to the the classification capricious here, must not be or Act. applies The same test making also arbitrary and per must be reasonable and fact that only ground there is one peculiarity subject tain to some designated by mat basin the EPA as a “Sole calling ter legislation. for the As between Aquifer” wholly Source immaterial to the persons places operation included within the law’s uniform throughout operation omitted, of the law and those state.1 law.); City practicing

1. To hold otherwise § Enid would have (Requir- 11 O.S.2001 44-103 of effectively population-based ing Adjustment nullified at least 51 population of Board in cities with legislative 200,000 regulate month.); enactments that per the affairs of over to meet at least twice counties, cities, towns, (Members § wards and school dis- municipal 11 O.S.2001 45-102 of tricts, planning some of which have been on population the books commission in cities with 200,000 just diem.); requiring since after statehood. per For statutes over entitled to 11 O.S.2001 cities, (Size by § classification of or departments towns counties 29-203 of volunteer fire set population, e.g., Supp.2004 by population.); (Munici- § see § 11 O.S. 28-101 11 O.S.2001 22-116 (Creating municipal 350,000 a pality population criminal court of record in with of more than has 65,000.) population greater jurisdiction cities with property than over all within limits belonging [Predecessor municipality, may statute declared valid as a enact State, regulation property law in Buchanan v. 30 Okla.Crim. 236 ordinances real it owns out- (1924)]; limits.); § (County corporate P. 903 20 O.S.2001 § 1201 side its 2 O.S.2001 15-69 300,000 greater (Requiring libraries counties of than to be board of directors of fair boards in operated 55,000 promulgated population in accordance with rules counties with of more than Court.); by Supreme shows.); § county 11 O.S.2001 27-104 hold additional fairs and stock (Prohibiting municipal judges pop- (Setting salary § in cities with 63 O.S.2001 1-203 minimum 200,000 greater county superintendent by ulation popula- than from otherwise for of health

859 city (Creating depending Act on whether or not has § county.); O.S.2001 1-210 63 tion of 50,000 population.); pop- 62 O.S. with than city-county of health in counties more less board 225,000, (Housing § Supp.2003 contain at districts which 885 reinvestment of more than ulation 150,000 people.); may only 62 with city than be created in cities and counties of more least one counties, 300,000.); (Cities, townships and population § 62 O.S.2001 385 of less than O.S.2001 200,000 population (Defining municipality purposes §871 between with for school districts 300,000 may pay Housing on the statute bonds which Incentive District the Oklahoma Rural (Re- run.); § 331 city population has 62 O.S.2001 of limitation a or town with a of less Act as 30,000 population 40,000 quiring county population with more than cities with a of less than in a Budget budget levy 75,000.); Ac- (Defining for their Park § 62 O.S.2001 2102 than count.); (Prohibiting appoint- § 10 purposes 51 O.S.2001 community of the Industrial for the only county in coun- vacant offices county, city, to fill Development ments Act as a Facilities 600,000.); 50 population than with a of more ties place population thаn with a of less town cemetery place- (Defining § 42 allowed 7,000.); O.S.2001 Supp.2004 (Making § 2-104 11 O.S. city, exempt- by population of nearest ments purposes population for the of de- classification 300,000 population from ing over cities with plat termining territory a what be created in a statutory requirements where such matter Supp.2004 municipality.); O.S. for a new city planning a commis- be covered would petition (Requiring § for a new town to 3-101 sion.); (Exempting § coun- 1103.1 28 O.S.2001 appropriate prove "the documentation to contain 400,000 from population of more than a ties with corporate territory within five miles of devel- hiring director for economic an executive municipality having population a a limits of (Mu- § program.); O.S.2001 16-302 opment 200,000 historically has been identi- more than 1,000 population and nicipalities with less than community people residing in com- fies as a required and consider to elect officers no charter form”.); pact (Requiring § 2 O.S.2001 15-113 meeting, questions unless and biannual initiative 20,000 city representation to have on or more election.); regulation 11 O.S. set of a otherwise board.); § county Supp.2005 fair 63 O.S. 2843.1 (Setting § number of 34-101 maximum (Providing suspending the collection of the for police work officer hours reserve required wireless fee in counties with § municipality.); 1206.1 12 O.S.2001 size of the 30,000 population where the of less than 60,000 (Excluding municipalities of less than service.). agency yet deployed has not financially having the ac- to contribute requiring, permitting, dif- For statutes but not rights-of-way highways.); quisition state population based on a classifica- ferent action libraiy (Limiting powers § O.S.2001 158.1 (Permit- § e.g., tion. See 11 O.S.2001 39-103.1 200,000 in counties with lеss than commission ting, requiring, municipalities awith but not (Setting § persons.); mini- 65 O.S.2001 4-206 1,500 levy population greater than create and qualifications popu- of librarians based mum districts.); Supp.2004 improvement O.S.. libraiy county locat- in which the lation of the requiring, only (Permitting, § com- 339.6 but not ed.); types (Defining § 1-104 65 O.S.2001 greater population counties with a missioners in location.); population of their libraries 500,00 juvenile apply curfew to than to set (Minimum population § cre- for the O.S.2001 11 county.); unincorporated 11 O.S. areas of the county.); § 207 a new 3A O.S.2001 ation of (Permitting, requiring § but not 13-101 population (Municipalities of less than with equal population to or or towns with a cities greater 1,000 racing proceeds.); horse tax not to receive 2,000 charter.); 10 O.S. to frame than (Municipalities more 17-105 with 11 O.S.2001 (Authorizing appointment 1050A 2,500 $25,000 in income but less than than juvenile in those coun- an assistant officer accounting stringent stan- population held to less 24,000 having population between ties a 2,500 municipalities with more dards then than 40,000.); (Defining § "rural 18 O.S.2001 1324.2 (Requiring § population.); 215.36 19 O.S.2001 Water, Sew- purposes of the Rural area” for the er, 300,000 population to than counties with more Management Districts Solid Waste Gas and Attorney equipment and with furnish District "may” portions aof as an area that include Act personal computer a based microfilm to create having pop- any municipality a corporate "rural”, limit of service.); (Defining § 19 O.S.2001 1202 10,000.); 20 O.S.2001 of less than ulation purposes Service of the Rural Ambulance for the (Permitting, requiring, dis- § but not 1304A Act, municipality population a a with Districts population with a of in counties 8,500.); trict courts § 27A O.S.2001 2-5-103 of less than 200,000 publish a 300,000 greater to their dockets in thаn (Requiring than to obtain cities of less fund.); by daily paid 19 newspaper for the court enforcing feasibility prior approval before as to (Authorizing a standards.); § counties with O.S.2001 951 municipal air 27A clean stricter 3000,000 population of-greater to a than create (Approval applications § of O.S.2001 2-10-1001 § county system.); 19 O.S.2001 941 management retirement station counties for a solid waste 20,000 great- (Authorizing population of requires previ- with a population counties than with less 300,000 county operate Supp. to county plan.); than install placement a 62 O.S. er ous on lots.); (Authorizing § parking 565.1 (Using county population 19 O.S.2001 § to set for- 2004 842 population county of in counties with available to sheriff for maximum amount of funds mula 40,000 operate greater Develop- to establish and county than under the Oklahoma Local identification.); Supp.2002 Leverage 68 O.S. bureau of Enterprises Incentive ment and Act.); Zone popu- (Permitting only (Using § counties with Supp.2005 § different 1370.9 62 O.S. 856 200,000 levy lodging tax Development to lation of less than funding under the Local formula 860 (2) ALA, J., orthodoxy, dissenting. stitutional the court’s

OP opinion impermissibly extends text and upholds groundwater legisla- 1 The court sweep outer statute before as free from state and tion enacted in 20031 subjecting expanded contours to constitu- taint. I recede from federal constitutional testing. public-law controversy tional In this (1) today’s for two reasons: pronouncement would first trial court I afford the its missed disposi- trail no record that the there is here (in opportunity deficiency to cure the standing of was ever record) tive threshold issue by exploring deciding the stand- passed exрressly ad- ing considered and issue before other issue is reached judicial testing for con- on vance the statute’s review. of 5%.); (Law up library (Giving preference expenditure § § 1202 5013.2 of 20 O.S.2001 greater population Minority trustees counties with a of Develop- of funds from the Business 300,000 suspend change than authorized Program ability applicants ment Fund to an with Library payments the amount of Revolving to the State Law minority to aid owned businesses located in com- Fund.); (Setting § 19 O.S.2001 547 10,000.); populations munities with less than county maximum number of hours reserve sher- (Requiring § 74 O.S.2001 910 all counties with a may county.); population iffs work 19 400,000 population of less than to become a (Town city having popu- § O.S.2001 less a participating employer in the Oklahoma Public 5,000 may designate county lation of less than Employees System Retirement no later than Jan- the official of the town or treasurer has city.); treasurer 1, 1974.); uary § (Creating 74 O.S.2001 (Board § Supp.2004 11 O.S. 36-113 Advisory Intergovern- seats Committee on construct, County may improve, Commissions re- mental Relations which be filled municipalities having pair or maintain streets in municipalities meeting pop- officers from certain 5,000, population municipali- of less that and in county (In- requirements.); § ulation 69 O.S.2001 15,000 if the has a sales ties of less than cluding incorporated all roads within the limits repair.); tax earmarked for road 11 O.S.2001 municipality population aof with a of less than 2,500 may (Municipalities § 37-223 of less than 2,500 county in the certification of road mile- pay assessments with for their share school age.); Supp.2005 (Permitting § 68 O.S. building building proceeds of a tax bonds or the municipalities population with a of less than (Counties levy.); Supp.2004 § 19 O.S. 215.30 100,000 400,000 up tо receive of the amount of a 25% population permitted with or more payment qualified county Attorney’s establishment in the mu- supplement the District sala- ry.). nicipality Quality under the Oklahoma Jobs Pro- arguably Act.); at gram (Portioning § would have voided least an addi- spe- 68 O.S.2001 706 legislature tional 19 statutes in which has by population.); cial fuel tax revenue 68 O.S. population made a based on distinction § (Apportioning 500.7 diesel fuel tax reve- through purpose facilitating state services by population.); (Ap- § nue 68 O.S.2001 500.6 e.g., § counties or cities. See 17 O.S.2001 40.1 gasoline portioning by population.); tax revenue (Corporation required Commission to establish a (Adjusters municipali- § 36 O.S.2001 6220.1 regional municipality having a office in each 6,000 population pro- ties less with than are not 250,000); population greater Supp. than 68 O.S. having pecuniary entity hibited from interest in (Exempting § retirement communi- services.); providing reconstruction 47 O.S. greater municipalities population ties in with a Supp.2005 (Classifying § 1140 counties and mu- 500,000 payment than of ad valorem from nicipalities by population purposes placing taxes.); (Counties § 19 O.S.2001 866.1 in which agents.); Supp.2004 motor vehicle 59 O.S. 200,000 city there is no of more than creat- (Requiring § 567.4 at least members of the Okla- commission.); county planning zoning ed a Nursing homa Board to be from with counties (Providing § 74 O.S.2001 2901.2 that between 40,000 population.); Supp.2004 less than 63 O.S. expenditures from the Okla- 65% 75% 3,000 (Municipalities popu- 142.4 of less than Housing homa Trust Fund shall be made in exempt filing lation fees under the Under- 490,000.); population counties with a of less than Act.); ground Damage Facilities Prevention Supp.2004 (Requiring 75 O.S. the Gover- (Calculating O.S.2001 901.57 formula for thе appoint nor and Lt. Governor to each a member distribution of funds under the Rural Fire Protec- regulatory of the small business committee from Program by population.). tion Fund Act 300,000 municipalities more, population of with Tempore and the President ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍Pro of the challenged groundwater legislation 1. The is 82 Speaker Senate and the of the House to each 1020.9A, 1020.9B, appoint O.S.Supp.2003 §§ municipalities one member from with a 300,000.); 1020.9(A)(1)(d),(2)(d). population of less than 74 O.S.2001 showing trial of a tion advance

I upon sepa- passed two court considered DIRECT FAILED TO HAS THE COURT standing.2 challenges plaintiffs’ to the rate DISPOSI- A TRIAL COURT’S THAT challenges were made at different These THE THRESHOLD OF TION stages summary process. The first was BE ISSUE SECURED STANDING stage pre-intervention at when pressed THE GROUNDWATER BEFORE (Water Board and Duane the defendants CONSTITU- FOR LAW IS TESTED Smith) to dismiss.3 The second was moved ORTHODOXY TIONAL interposed by intervenors.4 infirmity alleged reach the We cannot legisla- challenged 2003 ** cognizable AFFIRMATIVEDEFENSES* Standing predicated must be Ranch, improp Jacobs LLC is an 17. Plaintiff Service Co. Oklahoma harm. Public economic Inc., standing bring party to this Co-op., er and has no Oklahoma Elec. v. Northeastern Ranch, 80, 82; 29, 6,¶ Jacob’s LLC holds no Gas & action in that P.3d Oklahoma OK Defendant, Inc., permits OWRB nor Coop., issued v. Oklahoma Elec. Elec. Co. any plaintiff land based on which it can does it own 1132. The 517 P.2d permit. apply injury for an OWRB to that he in fact suffered must show Resources, improper Inc. is an person to Plaintiff Roos legally protected A who seeks interest. standing bring party to this action and has no must es- a statute as unconstitutional invalidate permits showing it holds no issued Defen- standing by because that the tablish detrimentally OWRB. dant sought affеcts to be invalidated his/ direct, and substan- in a immediate her interest permit are holders 26. Since Plaintiffs either Oklahoma v. Public Service Co. tial manner. Inc., applicants qualified to become for Ar- supra or not Co-op., Oklahoma Elec. Northeastern Walters, buckle-Simpson ground permits, 82; Plain- 49 P.3d at Hendrick at 1232, 1237; standing 162, 4,¶ to Senate Bill 288 is tiffs lack assert Independent OK applicants Glass, respect with to unconstitutional 639 P.2d School Dist. No. 9 Doan, groundwater permits. 1233, 1237; Estate Matter partial summary adju- 15, 7,¶ CAPSA'scross motion for dication states: twelfth statement of fact is ob- 12. Plaintiffs' dismissal on three defendants moved for 3. The misleading jected and is to as incorrect (1) present justicia- grounds: the case does not papers own show that denied. Plaintiffs’ (2) ripe; plaintiffs controversy and is not ble temporary, do revocable Plaintiffs not hold against Duane Smith to state a claim fail munic- permits use for various Resources, (3) granted; Roos which relief can be Instead, light purposes. ipal and industrial .They standing challenge SB288. lacks Inc. I to the Plaintiffs motion indi- Exhibits B and premature urged plaintiffs’ was because claim Enterprises holds Jacobs interest cate that effective, (a) yet legislation had not become appears any temporary permits. from the (b) temporary permits' would revalidation papers they an do not hold Plaintiffs own later, at which time until six months not occur any permits that are claimed interest in temporary per- plaintiffs not even hold with. to have been interfered (c) plain- to revalidate them mits or choose demon made and can make no Plaintiffs have allegе any were actual con- did not there tiffs injury they will suffer economic stration that groundwater which would for the sale of tracts implementation S.B. 288. a result of impacted. court heard the defen- The trial ground regulation water does of the use of 2003; September the order dants’ motion on constitutionally infringe-upon landowners’ not quest 6 Octo- denying was entered the dismissal rights. property vested (see 7). explicit no note It makes ber infra acknowledge, they must Plaintiffs As even the challenge standing. mention permit the Oklahoma Water obtain a from first any using water for Board before Resources Municipalities Preserva- and Citizens For The claimed, Though purpose. it is hon-domestic some, (CAPSA) Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer tion Of The actually Plaintiffs do not if not all granted 3 October 2003. leave to intervene were permit to use own a affirmatively challenged Standing in the in- was they Simpson Aquifer do have nor Arbuckle clearly implicated and was answers tervenors' anyone. water to to sell the contract summary plaintiffs’ response motion for though made this assertion in intervenors Even Intervenors/municipalities' an- judgment. The theory, public- pressing another the context plaintiffs' petition state as an affirmative swers duty-bound supply litigation this court is defense: legal fact issue be norm. If this the correct favor, dispos- would be bring it standing cause resolved in intervenors' this The Plaintiffs lack declaratory plaintiffs’ relief. claim for itive of of action short, Standing, presents which here a there is no shedding record trail “ question, any judicial cannot be ‘inferred ar- light inquiry threshold conducted gumentatively plead- from avermеnts in the standing below into the issue into affirmatively appear ings’ ‘must but rather inquiry respect extent of that with to either ”6 standing Because will not in the record.’ facts law. .or record, presumed from a silent we look to be appears regard amply 5 The court paper meaningful prius trail of a nisi implied disposition sufficient trial court’s inquiry would reveal the issues of law or express standing issue in contrast to an fact, both, inquired that were into and give on-the-record decision would an There trail resolved below. must be record appellate insight court some into the nature judicial express finding standing of an in a inquiry. and extent of the conducted There journal entry. judge-signed today’s judg- is here no need for rush to absolutely paper 4 There is here no proper standing in ment advance of resolu- trail kind that informs us of reaching any tion.9 This court should not be employed process disposing decisional pressed constitutional issues without standing issue. The trial court being first assured of an affirmative on-the- quest, have indeed denied the dismissal but response record trial-court decision in to a squarely expressly its order does not standing challenge. Because the two consec- standing challenge.7 address itself to the challenges plaintiffs’ utive made below to express There no mention the order record, standing present, on this an unre- challenge disposing of the first that affirma- issue, solved threshold the cause should be tively enlightens deals with that issue us in-depth inquiry remanded for an and deter- standing presents on whether an issue of mination the first-instance court. fact, law or or both. In none of the triаl entry court’s requirement standing orders is there an that address- V6 The is at the standing challenge.8 inquiry es itself to the second heart of power the court’s into its Schools, 4, 7,¶ Spiro prudential necessity, Amos Public 9.The rule of adhered to 813, courts, 816. all state and federal commands that con stitutional issues not be resolved in advance of FW/PBS, Dallas, 215, City 5. Inc. v. 493 U.S. necessity. qua principle strict This sine non 231, 596, 608, (1990) 110 S.Ct. 107 L.Ed.2d 603 judicature plainly ignored constitutional Co., (quoting Grace v. American Central Ins. patently today. Snyder, offended In re 472 U.S. 278, 284, 207, 210, U.S. 3 S.Ct. 27 L.Ed. 932 642-43, 2874, 2880, 105 S.Ct. 86 L.Ed.2d (1883)). (1985); Valley Ashwander v. Tennessee Au 288, 347, thority, 297 U.S. 56 S.Ct. FW/PBS, Dallas, City supra J., (1936)(Brandeis, Inc. note concurring); L.Ed. 688 State (quoting 493 U.S. at 110 S.Ct. at 608 Bd., Mans ex rel. Fent v. State ex rel. Okla. Water Res. Swan, 379, 382, C. 29, 12, & L.M.R.Co. v. 111 U.S. field 510, 511, (1884)). 4 S.Ct. 28 L.Ed. 462 governing "Embedded in the traditional rules adjudication principle constitutional is the that a 7. The trial court’s order states: person may constitutionally to whom a statute be applied challenge not will be heard to that stat Having considered Defendants’ Motion to Dis- ground may conceivably ute on the that it Support, miss and Brief in Plaintiffs’ Brief in others, applied unconstitutionally to Dismiss, other sit Opposition to Motion to and Defen- closely uations not before the Court.... A related Reply Support dants’ Brief in of Defendants' principle rights person is that Dismiss, constitutional are argu- Motion to and the additional vicariously.... al and not be asserted These presented by respective ments counsel at the principles rest on more than the fussiness of hearing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS AND judges. They reflect the conviction that under DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss system roving our constitutional courts are not is DENIED. assigned pass judgment commissions on the validity specifically Even if the triаl court’s order had of the Nation’s laws. Constitutional issue, standing legal judgments justified only dealt with the there is no ... are out of neces ground prohibiting sity parties adjudicating rights particular later-included cases challenging standing litigants brought as an affirmative de- between the before the Court.” Oklahoma, 601, 610-11, They op- fense. are entitled to "full and fair Broadrickv. U.S. portunity” litigate (1973)(empha this threshold issue before S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 830 added, omitted). decision on the merits. sis citations

863 unique closely today satisfying of the na- fall short litigation before it.10 the entertain jurisdiction. question obliged inquire into its of the are inquest own ture we follows an tersely the passing as a sufficient record on the constitutional or- accept To into before memorials, as the court thodoxy worded entries the attacked for of statutes funda- mandatory relegate the today, infirmity. does would record trail mental-law relied of to the exclusive concern standing inquiry today court not afford by on the does the nothing leave for review- the trial courts and discharging duty to revisit means of our the stamp to rubber lower ing but tribunals the standing. factum of cases, one, in as this in such court’s decision ¶ Confronted, are, by as the 9 we record’s standing appears to be presence of which the silence, summary judg- I total would reverse I only to the court of first instance. satisfied (a) give an parties opportunity ment and both reviewing re- this court’s would not abdicate re-present unresolved threshold issue accepting by and irre- sponsibility as final disposition upon meaningful and secure its that court’s of versible the trial resolution (b) court inquiry full afford the trial threshold issue. deficiency opportunity to cure the now the ¶ Stаnding 7 must be satisfied whether expressly reaching deciding record or not.11 parties it to the court’s attention call plaintiffs’ standing in advance of resolv- issue, parties fail raise the Even if the ing all other issues. from va- cannot be drawn standing’s factum cuity. obligation pursue has an The court II sponte until it is satisfied inquiry sua In the meet law’s test. plaintiffs IMPER- TODAY’S PRONOUNCEMENT an re-inquiry standing on of a into absence THE STAT- MISSIBLY STRETCHES join record, adequate I cannot and do not TEXT BE UTE’S THAT IS TO TEST- today’s it resolves pronouncement insofar as ED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS ne- advance of strict constitutional attacks Moreover, ques- resolving when cessity.12 today’s judicial strongly reject I law, duty to it is this court’s tion of stretching of the text legal norms sponte correct invoke sua legislation. appellate An court dispositive pressed that are issues extending grave scope error commits review.13 to a dimension without of the law statewide ¶8 testing then short, any language warrant microscopic prius nisi In presence relying on it for the of constitutional flaws.14 the court record references 106, 2, 762, public-law affirmatively Standing inquiry re 597 P.2d 764. 10. must be OK falls, litigation prius litigation, appeal which this that the into this court solved at nisi ensure brought sponte properly parties may tribunal. was before the trial than the choose sua rather Leavitt, Group, Impact Inc. v. dispositive appeal. Toxic Waste v. the issues Amos 1, 906, 910-11; 148, ¶ 1 Schools, 4, 7,¶ Okla OK 890 P.2d n. Employees at Spiro supra at 816. Public note Dept. Oklahoma homa Public Ass'n v. sponte public- Standing be raised sua Services, 71, ¶ 21, 55 P.3d Central of stage controversy at an issue 1072, 1081; City Dover Soc. v. 1103, see also Historical process by any party judicial the court. Com’n, Planning A.2d Dover Walters, 2, supra v. 865 P.2d at Hendrick note (Del.Supr.2003). be resolved in 1236. Once raised it must ad vance of the trial court's decision on merits. Doan, 7,¶ 2, supra at 11. Estate note Matter Employees v. Okla Oklahoma Public Association at 576. Services, 10, supra Dept. note at Central homa Of ¶ 21, 1080; Impact P.3d at Toxic Waste Authority, Valley Tennessee su Ashwander v. 9,¶ Leavitt, Group, supra note at Inc. v. pra at at 483 297 U.S. 56 S.Ct. note at J., (Brandeis, concurring); Okla Broadrick 610-11, homa, supra at 93 S.Ct. note U.S. not, guise of court under the con- 14.This at 2915. struction, extend, change enlarge or otherwise plain of a Where the statute the terms statute. Independent No. 52 School Dist. Burdick 48, 54; judicial unambiguous, there is no room Cty., 1985 OK 702 P.2d Oklahoma beyond Lawton, extend its ambit City construction would McCracken v. Goodwin, 18, 21; unambiguous plain scope lan- Application appear apply 11 The statute does not 2006 OK 72 beyond single aquifer Arbuckle- —the SHORTER, Petitioner, John Simpson Basin.15 Groundwater Its terms v. target only groundwa- sole source” “sensitive At ter basin.16 the time the statute’s EQUIPMENT TULSA USED AND IN- passage, Arbuckle-Simpson was the SERVICES, DUSTRIAL ENGINE Na- major groundwater basin in the state which Company tional American Insurance designated aquifer. had been as sole-source Compensation Court, and the Workers’ Respondents. Today’s search for constitutional or- thodoxy attributes statute a 102,280. No. (in aquifers general application to all state) Supreme by invoking pure than Court of Oklahoma. no more thin air pedestal of the for the statute’s textual ex- Oct. tension.

Rehearing Denied Dec. Ill

SUMMARY

¶ 13 I would counsel the court to defer its

pronouncement standing until the issue has thoroughly explored

been and decided below.

Standing by has been raised the defendants intervenors, is no but there clear record prius disposition

trail of its nisi which would

inform us about that issue and would tell us law, poses

whether it an fact issue of or or standing’s

both. An affirmative decision

presence by implication cannot drawn or silence,

from mere but must be an shown ruling.

affirmative on-the-record today’s pronounce- 14 I not would make

ment important on the several constitutional

challenges upon judicial in reliance stretch-

ing of facially the statute’s text that is con- single aquifer.

fined to a U.S., ¶77, 10, guage. public supply Hammock v. any county water ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‍use outside of 93, 97; Mead, Gauge overlying groundwater Arrow Tool & "sensitive sole source” (b) ¶ 15, 1120, 1125-26; municipalities basin and the other on Sisney 16 P.3d (located political other any subdivisions Smalley, outside of basin) county overlying contracting transport aquifer water from a sole-source groundwater 15. The contested law affects the municipal public-water supply or use. The term plaintiffs' present right to withdraw water from groundwater "sensitive sole source basin or sub- Arbuckle-Simpson Groundwater Basin for basin” major is defined municipal supply use outside designated basin that has been aas overlying the five counties ba- aquifer by sole-source the United States Environ- sin. (EPA). Agency O.S.Supp. mental Protection 1020.9A, 1020.9B, 1020.9(A)(1)(d). §§ At challenged legislation imposes 16. The two mora- passage, the time of the contested law’s the Ar- (a) toria one on the Oklahoma Water Resources buekle-Simpson only major groundwa- was the temporary permits Board's issuance of designated for the ter basin in the state which had been withdrawal municipal aquifer. the EPA as a sole-source notes Co., 1040, Syllabus by OK 285 P. pal alleged plaintiffs lacked intervenors that generally power It is an inherent the Court. affirmative But standing as an defense. legislature that extends to of the state standing dissenting opinion reaches to find system regulation of internal which whole order, plaintiffs’ preserves prevents challenge public in the attack status state state, .against the insures tо offenses municipal permit holders intervenors’ enjoyment property people rights partial summary judgment. for cross-motion enjoyment reasonably consistent with like standing challenge find a It also reaches property by Through rights and others. Id. lack plaintiffs’ inju- the attack on of economic police power, Legisla of its the exercise ry municipal argument intervenors’ necessary for ture determines what is judgment plaintiffs’ summary responding to peace people. and welfare of the Edmondson argument plaintiffs not suffered an have Pearce, 23, ¶ 34, OK taking. unconstitutional P.3d ¶22 that de- appellate The record shows Legislature may The exercise directly challenged stand- plaintiffs’ fendants police power regulate property its ing trial court the trial court.' The before reg jurisdiction state when within the defendants on their chal- against ruled necessary to secure the ulation lenge journal entry plaintiffs’ standing in a welfare, safety, peace and the not file filed of record. Intervenors did Gibbons, community. good, order of the for lack plaintiffs’ petition dismiss motion to Legislature may The exercise P. at 1042. they directly challenge standing regulate enjoy nor did police power to the use and exercise of plaintiffs’ standing property this declarato- when the free maintain ment public interest. such use is detrimental to the ry summary judg- judgment action their Comm’n, Phillips Corp. Petro. Co. v. plaintiffs motion filings. The filed their ment in- summary judgment. municipal The response summary filed a tervenors ¶26 principle is a basic par- and a judgment motion cross-motion resource, a natural Sheldon v. summary judgment. citizen interve- tial Auth., Dam River Grand

Case Details

Case Name: Jacobs Ranch, L.L.C. v. Smith

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: May 23, 2006

Citation: 148 P.3d 842

Docket Number: 101,727

Court Abbreviation: Okla.