*1 Gary French; Lampert Ranch, Farm Inc., Clausen, Shaw, Earl Michael La (“Bud”) MOON, Jr., individually Lawrence Morris, Terry Nichols, Catherine Eu similarly and on behalf of others all gene Towne, Bloomsburg, Jeff Brian La situated, Moon, through Alex H. and Shaw, Sievers; Bergen Bothman, Joe parents guardians, Defendants-Appellants, her and H. Trina Moon, Moon, individually and James H. and similarly and on behalf of all others Schlepp Ranch, Farms, Inc., Clausen Lar situated, Kaley Moon, through F. ry Heaton, Lampert, David Eric Larson parent guardian, her Laura F. Idaho, and the Defendants. Moon, individually and on behalf of all Lampert Ranch, Inc., Farm & Earl Clau similarly situated, others Jeanne Wol sen, Shaw, Michael La Catherine Mor cott, individually and behalf all ris, Terry Nichols, Eugene Towne, Jeff similarly situated, Jerry Vickers, others Bloomsburg, Shaw, Larry Brian La Hea individually and on behalf of all others Sievers; Lean, ton and Mc Joe G. Wade similarly situated, Bruce Charles Roth Doug Bruce, Schlepp, Gary Michael еrmel, individually and on behalf of all Erling Place, Third-Party French and similarly situated, others Plaintiffs-Re Plaintiffs-Appellants, spondents, Freeburg Freeburg; Tim and Michael Henry Bentz, Franz, Chester Dou d/b/a Ranch, Hemken, ble F. Michael Hemken NORTH IDAHO FARMERS ASSOCIA Farms, Inc., Terry Jacklin and Walter TION; Wayne Dole, Meyer, Mi William Third-Party Meyer, Defendants-Appel Dole, Dole, Jacquot chael Farms Warren lants, Inc., Farms, Inc., Enterprises, Satchwell Meyer, Baune, Wallace Terrell K. Baune Farms, Inc., Deshiell, Paul Arnold Sherry Claus, personal representative as Daman, Daman, Brincke Keith Paul Carter, Gary the Estate of John John Denny Bros., L.L.C., Denny, Mat son, Chad Farms, D Daman & G Broth d/b/a Gary Dreshel, Drechsel, Brothers, Inc., Partnership,
thew Dreschsel ers d/b/a Brothers, Fischer, Reshel Jim Ford Duncan, Duncan, Dennis David Chris Gumm, Haas, Alvin Haas Farms Gener Duncan, Joyce Duncan, Randy Duncan, Partnership, Hughes, al Francis J.R. Fish, Freeburg, David David Thomas Simplot Company, Jacklin Seed- d/b/a Gumm, Hahner, A. Hahner Charles Simplot, Rodney Jacot, Lacy, Ted d/b/a Farms, Larry Hansen, Joyce Inc., Han Lacy Enterprises, Thelma Mc Farm Hanson, Farms, sen, Martin Hatter Cree Clellan, personal representative of as Inc., Hay, Haeg, Randy Don Clarence Clellan, the Estate of L.E. Mc William Cindy Holt, Jenneskens, Duane Jannesk Mellick, Meyer, Miles, Glen Walter ens, Johnson, Lacy, Phillip R. Ted Dale Morrfarms, Inc., Heaton Farms Partner Lampert, Lawson, Casey Lawson, Nick ship, Partnership, Holt KSH Gerald Farm, Inc., Lewis, Maple Allen Leaf Third-Party Rockcreek, Defen d/b/a Millhorn, Farms, Herbert Millhorn W. dants. Morrison, Inc., Mills, Richard El Bruce 29896,29897,29898, Nos. Ness, Ram, Michael mer Chris R. 29899,29900,29901. Roecks, Farms, Inc., Rogada John Idaho, Supreme Court of Schultz, Schultz, Schultz, Tammy Karl Boise, May 2004 Term. Windy Tee, Thoma, Hill Ron Allen Aug. Gary Wrigh, Farm, Inc., Wright, F. Todd Lean, Doug Wrights, Inc.; Mc Wade
Bruce, Erling Place, Schlepp, Michael *3 Blanton;
Hall, Farley, & Oberrecht Boise, Fisher, appellants Batt for North & Idaho Farmers. Kentucky Miller, burning their blue-
Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, growers from Brooke & court, August Miller, grass The district LLP, fields. d’Alene and Baise & Coeur plaintiffs’ medi- testimony from the D.C., Meyer 2002 took appellants for Washington, Washington from experts, ar- cal State officials Wrights, Inc. Erbland through Peter C. Idaho, grаss farmers. class members gued appellants. for all fact and findings of court issued McNiehols, Lewiston, Clements, Brown & ultimately granted the conclusions of law and appellants through French. for McLean injury injunction to abate the preliminary E. Ramsden and Jedediah James Michael by the field caused d’Alene, Whitaker, appellants Coeur posting of a bond. required the farmers and through Lampert Farm Sievers. 2002, however, September Law, Chartered, Boise, appel- Brady granted the defendant-seed Supreme Court Bothman, Bentz and Jacklin. lants prohibition, request for a writ of growers’ *4 Eismann, d’Alene, for D. Coeur Samuel concluding injunction exceeded after Freeburg through Hemken Farm. jurisdic- court’s respects in the district some enjoined court the district tion. The Court Offices, Hagens, Law Boise and Gordon preliminary enforcing the terms of the from LLP, Seattle, respondents. WA. for Berman injunction against grass burners. argued. Berman Steve W. granted plaintiffs sought and were The Wasden, Attorney Lawrence G. Gen- Hon. granted as a class1 and were certification eral; Strong, Deputy Attorney D. Gen- Clive complaint to assert a to amend their leave Smith, eral; Attorney Clay Riggs Deputy Thereafter, damage in the punitive claim. General, Boise, curiae, amicus early spring of several related bills Clay Riggs argued. Idaho. Smith burning field were under consideration court held legislature. the Idaho BURDICK, Justice. impact hearing April where growers appealing are The defendant-seed with re of the various bills was discussed holding court’s the district decision property and their spect plaintiffs’ to the seq., amendments to I.C. 22-4801 et which nuisance statutory rights to abate the and/or passed by Legislature, uncon- were the 2003 grass enjoin trespass caused burn granted permissive stitutional. This Court ers’ smoke. appeal interlocutory For the of this order. below, recently April Kempthorne reasons outlined we hold after Governor conformity law, enacted amendments to in signed plaintiffs be Bill 391 into House with the Idaho and United States Constitu- court to declare filed a motion to the district applied tions. unconstitutional as the law passed HB was facts of this case. measure, emergency amended the as an AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL Management Crop Residue Dis- Smoke BACKGROUND seq., et posal Act of I.C. 22-4801 claiming plaintiffs The are individuals sen- effectively extinguished liability for all North smoke, sitivity action grass who filed an compliance farmers burn against growers various seed north Idaho signifi- provisions. particular Of with its traditionally post-harvest straw who burn the cance, portions HB 391 amended of I.C. part in their fields as of their and stubble statute, I.C. and added a new 22-4803 complaint, farming plaintiffs’ The activities. § 22-4803A. others, among asserted filed June the motion of the trespass. plain- The district court heard claims of nuisance and The unconstitutionality of injunction July plaintiffs, arguing preliminary tiffs filed for a 22-4803A(6), as follows: seeking enjoin which reads the defendant-seed granted were class certification 2003. The April by the order of the district court dated (6) Crop burning property residue conducted ac- under both the Idaho and United Code, cordance with section 22-4803 Idaho States Constitutions? private public shall not constitute a finding 2. Did the district court err in trespass. Nothing nuisance or constitute I, § that HB 391 is a violation of Article 1 of chapter in this shall be construed create Constitution, the Idaho because the “limita- any against per- cause of action imposed by tion” the amendments were not engages crop son who in or allows in the “interests of the common welfare”? required of a field or fields to be finding 3. Did the district court err in 22-4803(3)
registered pursuant to section HB 391 is a “local or law” violation Code, provided such are activities III, § of Article 19 of the Idaho Constitution? chapter conduсted in accordance with Code, promulgat- title and rules
ed thereunder.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On June
the district court issued
constitutionality
of a statute is
holding
an
HB
order
391 unconstitutional.
question
of law over which this Court exer
(1)
The district court held:
that HB 391
Cobb,
cises free review. State v.
taking
property
effects
unconstitutional
(1998);
Fremont-
prior compensation
process;
without
or due
Mitigation Group
Madison Irr. Dist. and
imposes
that HB 391
a limitation that is
Inc.,
Appropriators,
Idaho Ground Water
not in the interests of the common welfare
I, §
*5
and thus violative of Article
1 of the
party challenging a statute on constitutional
Constitution;
HB
Idaho
that
391 is a
grounds
establishing
the
of
bears
burden
“local or
law” in violation of Article
that the statute is unconstitutional and “must
III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution. The
strong presumption
validity.”
a
of
overcome
district court concluded that for two months
706,
Olsen v. J.A. Freeman
117 Idaho
year, August
September,
of the
“the
709,
1285,
791 P.2d
1288
Courts are
burning
destroys
of
invades and
twо
the
obligated
interpretation
an
of a
to seek
stat
aspects
plaintiffs’
three fundamental
of the
constitutionality.
upholds
ute that
its
property rights
possession
...
and use.”
Newman,
13,
856,
5,
v.
696 P.2d
by
The district court also ruled that
affirma-
judicial power
864
The
to declare
tively granting
grass
right
the
burners the
legislative
upon
invalid
constitutional
action
plaintiffs’ prop-
maintain the nuisance on the
grounds
only in clear cases.
is to be exercised
erty,
imposed an
on the
the State
easement
Hanson,
Brassey
State ex rel.
v.
plaintiffs’ land.
706,
709
judge
who ruled on the consti-
amendments,
tutionality
statutory
par-
DISCUSSION
22-4806,
ticularly
disqualified by
I.C.
was
By
order
order of the
dated June
I.
Supreme
Court dated June
por
HB 391 affected amendments
Judge
the Honorable District
W.H. Wood-
22-4801,
§§
-4804 and
tions of I.C.
-4803 and
appointed to take over the case.
land was
section,
§ 22-
entirely
added an
new
thereafter,
Shortly
granted
the
court
district
April
motion dated
plaintiffs’
4803A. The
stay
proceed-
motion to
the
the defendants’
constitutionality
HB
challenged the
of
ings
Supreme
until the
Court determines the
respects.
in several
permissive appeal
motion for a
of the inter-
12(a).
locutory
pursuant
I.A.R.
The
order
statute,
challenge
asserting
In
their
to the
granted
motion for
Supreme
the
immunity
plaintiffs contended that
the
the
-
22,2003.
permissive appeal
July
22-4803A(6)
grass
to the
by I.C.
conferred
results in a
farmers who burn their fields
APPEAL
ISSUES ON
pay-
property
taking
private
without
in violation of federal
finding
compensation
HB ment of
1.Did the district court err
provisions. The stat-
“taking”
private
and state constitutional
391 is an unconstitutional
“Crop
by tangible
An invasion
provides
part:
at issue
invasion
matter.
ute
relevant
burning
usually by
a
in accordance
constitutes
nuisance is
conducted
which
22-4803,
Code,
substances,
or
intangible
with section
shall not
such as noises
public
Supervisors,
a
or
v.
constitute
nuisance
odors.” Bormann
Board of
(Iowa 1998),
trespаss.”
constitute a
district court
cert. den. sub
584 N.W.2d
nom,
Bormann,
that I.C.
uncon-
v.
determined
Girres
525 U.S.
(1999), citing
property
stitutional because
takes
without
taking,
permanently deprives
the own-
70 Idaho
Next,
court concluded
the district
taking of ease-
in the Board’s
which resultеd
right to maintain a nuisance is an
that the
neighbors’ properties for the
ments in the
Prop
easement, citing the Restatement
at 321. The
applicants.
the
Id.
benefit of
erty
provides:
at 2912
legislature had ex-
that the
court concluded
owner
“An affirmative easement entitles the
authorizing
authority by
the use
ceeded its
subject
the land
to the ease
thereof to use
infringe
the
way
as to
property
such
which,
by doing
ment
acts
were it not for
of a
rights
by allowing the creation
of others
easement,
privileged
to do.”
he would
be
compensa-
payment
without the
nuisance
by
§ 451:
explained
As
the comments to
tion,
por-
court to hold “that
compelling the
cases,
many
use an owner of an
352.11(l)(a) that
tion of Iowa Code section
easement is entitled to make
affirmative
un-
immunity against nuisances
provides for
upon
him to intrude
the land sub-
enables
any force and ef-
constitutional and without
which,
ways
it
ject to the eаsement in
were
at 321-322.
fect.” Id.
easement,
him a
not for the
would make
authority
hold-
in Idaho
There is no direct
trespasser upon the land. On the other
right to maintain a nuisance
hand,
ing that the
may
entitle him to do acts on his
which,
arising out
In a case
land
were it not for the ease-
easement.
own
ment,
on Lake
d’Al-
mooring
would constitute a nuisance.”
of a houseboat
Coeur
notorious, continuous, un-
open,
ene
was
Idaho, however, has not
Id. cmt.
knowledge with-
interrupted and with
but
Restatement; moreover, in the
adopted the
owners,
littoral
permission
out
Court,
case before the
the smoke created
owners had
held that
the houseboat
burning of the fields is the “nuisance or
rights and
prescribed part of the littoral
statute,
trespass” immunized
gross
against the
as
acquired an easement
22-4803A(6).
immunity
This
thus entitles
Smith,
littoral owners. West
property
farmers to invade the
enjoin
In an action
from their
plaintiffs’ with the smoke
highway
sign on a state
fields,
maintenance of a
preventing
plaintiff
while
*8
use,
referred to a Califor-
possession,
right-of-way,
full
and
the Court
from
landowners
denying
or
enjoyment
involving
alleged
land and
an
obstruction
quiet
of their
nia case
the
remedy from the invasion from
in
form of a shed
highway
them a
on a
the
nuisance
right-of-way,
farmers’ smoke.
which held:
on a
erected
the
question is whether
the sole
“Where
reasoning
the
The district court followed
the structure or obstruction
maintenance of
Bormann,
Supervi
v. Board
the court in
enjoyment
full
of the
inconsistent with the
Bormann,
Supreme
the Iowa
sors.
way by
the owner of the
right
public,
the
right to
long-standing law that the
recalled
greater rights
possess no
easement,
fee is deemed to
is an
maintain a nuisance
strangers
the title.”
315-16,
who are
to
Bur
than those
citing
at
Churchill v.
N.W.2d
139, 319,
Kelly,
compensation
State ex rel. Burns v.
89 Idaho
which awarded
for the
146,
P.2d 566
gases
engines
and smoke emitted from
in the
tunnel,
“special
pecu-
which constituted
and
challenge in
Bormann was one of
damage resulting
liar”
in diminution of the
inverse condemnation
the landowners
Richards,
plaintiffs property.
value of the
Supervisors
when the Board of
failed to seek
658,
at
233 U.S.
at
58 L.Ed. at
condemnation in court.
South Carolina Coastal
(1992),
112 S.Ct.
545 Flipside, v. I, § Estates Village 18. violating Article of limitation without Hoff- of Hoffman 498, Inc., 489, Estates, 102 Green, 498, 455 788 P.2d U.S. Hawley v. 117 Idaho man 362, (1982); 1193, (1990). 1186, 371 recently, the deter- 71 L.Ed.2d More 1321 S.Ct. 12, Newman, 5, P.2d right a vested to 696 that no one has 108 Idaho mined v. necessarily, to a 856, citing Thompson, law or v. particular common 863 Steffel State, 1209, v. statutory 452, cause of action. Osmunson L.Ed.2d 505 94 39 415 U.S. S.Ct. (2000). 236, 292, 295, 17 P.3d 239 clearly are some inter- there Because two cases comments these being protected The Court’s common welfare ests of the newly enacted directed to whether allowing were field by Legislature’s action the provision of the Idaho contradicted statute say that the burning, we cannot Constitution, I, § 18. In specifically Article conceiva- to show no have met their burden Ctr., County Medical 134 Kirkland v. Blaine legisla- application for this ble constitutional 464, (2000), the Court held presented at this no facts tion. There were cap personal placing 6-1603 that I.C. ease, accordingly, an “as stage the and personal injury cases does injury damаges in to the challenge is not available applied” guaran- right jury trial as not violate the plaintiffs. I, § 7 the teed Article Idaho Constitu- presented facts were there Nor tion, special legislation in not constitute does sufficiency moti challenging or the either III, § of the Idaho violation of Article 19 Legislature’s findings. vation behind Constitution, separa- and not violate the does legis supporting facts “The existence of Ida- powers tion of doctrine embodied presumed.” to be United judgment lative ho Constitution. Co., Products 304 U.S. States v. Carolene provi- Accordingly, we hold that that the 1234, 778, 783, 144, 152, L.Ed. 82 58 S.Ct. 22-3806A(6) granting sion of Idaho Code legislature’s judgment 1241 immunity rep- farmers does Parker, “well-nigh conclusive.” Berman taking under ei- resent an unconstitutional 27, 32, 98, 102, 26, 99 L.Ed. 75 S.Ct. 348 U.S. ther the state federal constitution. Rechel, (1954); 159 U.S. also Sweet v. 37 see 188, 43, 45, 380, 392, 193 16 40 L.Ed. S.Ct. II. Co., (1895); Realty 272 Euclid v. Ambler that HB vio- The district court ruled 71 L.Ed. 47 S.Ct. U.S. I, § 1 of Constitution. lates Article the Idaho (1926) (“If validity legislative applied The district court the tеst of New fairly zoning purposes be classification for Child, land v. debatable, judgment legislative must be analyze whether I.C. control.”). challenging Plaintiffs allowed to 22-4803A(6) promoted the common welfare required constitutionality of a statute are placed on the and a reasonable limitation factual foundation of rec provide “some plaintiffs’ right possess “to inalienable findings. legislative ord” that contravenes I, § by Article protect property” conferred Young v. Fire Ins. & O’Gorman Hartford findings Legislature’s with the Disagreeing 251, 258, 51 282 U.S. S.Ct. making independent finding that Ken- In the absence L.Ed. tucky bluegrass grown can be without burn- proof, presumption “the of constitution such Washington, ing, Oregon as is done ality prevail.” Id. at 51 S.Ct. must limita- court determined that the the district at 328. 75 L.Ed. “in the imposed tion the statute was not holding The district court erred interests of the common welfare.” it unconstitutional because vi- challenge plaintiffs’ I, § Article 1 of the Idaho Constitu- olated challenge, invoking a stan statute is a facial tion. requiring challenger to dard establish that no set of circumstances exist under III. which the Act would be valid. United States HB un Salerno, court ruled 481 U.S. (1987); a local or also constitutional constitutes 95 L.Ed.2d see
546
III,
special
665,
law in violation of Article
19 of
at
P. at
special
Id.
150
37. Local and
Constitution,
provides
the Idaho
separately
apply
laws are defined
and
legislature
pass
spe-
shall not
“[t]he
local or
applies
different situations. The Jones ease
any
following
cial laws in
enumerated
“capricious,
arbitrary”
unreasonable
test
cases,
say:
that is to
... For limitation of
special
local
laws not
laws. To the extent
civil or criminal actions.”
Valley
City
Valley,
v.
Sun
Co.
Sun
is said
of
laws,
apply
to local
it is disavowed.
special
A law
not
“is
when it
persons
treats
in
all
similar situations alike.”
The district court in its memorandum deci
Valley
City
Valley,
Sun
Co. v.
Sun
109
rephrased
analyzing
sion
the test for
whether
424, 429,
147,
(1985);
Idaho
708 P.2d
152
special,
a law is local or
it stated:
when
“The
Hospital Bldg.
Twin Falls Clinic and
v.
determining
test for
whether
law is local or
Hamill,
19, 26,
341,
103 Idaho
644 P.2d
348 special
basically
legislature
is
whether the
(1982). Nor
applies
is
law local “when it
singled
corporations
has
out ‘persons or
for
equally
Valley
to all areas of the
”
state.” Sun
preferred
Taxpay
treatment.’
Concerned
Co.,
429,
147;
Jones of Applying upon the test as ten northern counties quirements P.2d at 416-17. that district court concluded rephrased, department each with the register each field proof legisla- that “simply no there was to obtain au- burning conducted and year corporations singled ‘persons out or ture has that department thorization from the ” preferred treatment.’ for (2)(a) are met before of conditions subsection text court then examined the The district burning. 22-4803A(6), provi- § sole which is the of I.C. of the § defines violations 22-4803A I.C. challenged special a local or law sion as preauthorization require- registration and court first con- plaintiffs. (3) of I.C. pursuant to subsection ments immunity nothing provi- cluded that Thus, § there are no ramifications 22-4803. sion, 22-4803A(6), only pertains § I.C. in the ten coun- other than to field burners However, the dis- north counties. tеn Idaho procedures 4803A also outlines ties. Section §§ that “via I.C. 22-4803 trict court reasoned violations, such for imposing penalties for 22-4803A(3),” immunity statute is and possible vio- investigations of inspections and counties. The specific to the ten northern lations, limitation of ac- and sets forth the immunity then found that the
district court proceedings to recover applicable tions apply “equally to all areas statute does chapter. arbitrary, capricious any provision and the state” and violations unreasonable, (5) conclusion that supporting specifically § its of I.C. 22-4803A Subsection 22-4803A(6) § local law. I.C. is a investigate all provides department shall “the court’s will discuss each of the district We burning crop residue agricultural field findings in turn. lodged against persons disposal complaints Kootenai, Benewah, burning in conducting immunity provision provides: “Crop The Latah, Bonner, Shoshone, Boundary, Clear- burning residue conducted in аccordance Code, Perce, 22-4803, water, coun- shall not Lewis and Idaho with section Nez public nuisance or pursuant constitute to subsection ties.” It is clear According trespass.” constitute a to I.C. scrutiny (5), heightened the statute mandates 22-4803, Agricultural § Field Burn- entitled counties, compli- named to ensure the ten ing, open burning crop residue is field general conditions that must be ance with the compli- burning allowed when the is done in anticipation burning. satisfied in provisions promul- ance with the and rules Lastly, consider the second sentence we gated chapter other and when no immunity (6), which follows the subsection economically burning viable alternatives provision: 22-4803(1). are I.C. Under available. See following provisions subsection shall chapter shall be construed Nothing this apply agricultural burning: to all field against private cause of action to create a (a) impacts upon In order to minimize engages crop in or allows any person who designated populated areas of the counties required burning of a field or fields residue section, any person in subsection of this 22- registered pursuant to section to be crop burning conducting residue must 4803(3), Code, provided such activi- only every effort to burn make reasonable with the ties area conducted accordance weather conditions are conducive to when Code, chapter title and rules dispersion, adequate smoke and the burn- thereunder. promulgated particulates or other ing does not emit which exceed the state and fed- materials portion of the statute to mean We read standards; quality eral ambient ah’ comply any person if fails to with (b) shall open burning crop residue burning, provisions chapter when gener- it is be conducted in the field where of a negligence per se on account there is no ated. holding of this the statute. The violation of (6) of the statute (b). is that subsection 22-4803(2)(a), provisions These I.C. crop burners applies equally to all apply agricultural to all field state- counties; KIDWELL, dissenting. and not to the ten northern Justice therefore, is not a local majority opinion misinterpreted has law. misapplied the Idaho Constitution its 1803A(6); therefore, analysis of I.C. I The district court concluded that the stat 22— respectfully portion forth a dissent and set arbitrary, capricious ute was and unreason my analysis as follows: *12 able, principally independent based on its finding that there is no need to burn. Gen
erally, plaintiffs challenging the constitution 22-1803A(6) (a 391) portion I.C. of HB ality required provide of a law are “some III, Article 19 Violates Section Of factual foundation of record” that contra The Idaho Constitution legislative findings. venes the O’Gorman & prohibits The Idaho Constitution certain Co., Young Fire Ins. 282 U.S. Hartford III, “special “local” or laws.” Article sеction 51 75 S.Ct. L.Ed. legislature pass 19 states: “The shall not proof, In “the the absence of such special any following local or laws presumption constitutionality pre- must cases, say enumerated that is to ... For vail.” Id. at at 75 L.Ed. at limitation of civil or criminal actions.” Plain- 328. See also United States v. Carolene argument special tiffs’ that HB 391 is a or Products 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. 22-4803A(6). § local law addresses I.C. The (1938) (“The L.Ed. 1234 existence of facts correctly that HB district court found supporting legislative judgment is to be limits “civil actions” in ten north Idaho coun- presumed.”); County, Jones Power Ida- 22-4803A(6), ties via which states: (1915) (“We ho 150 P. are not Crop burning conducted in accor- residue any whereby aware of rule an act of the 22-4803, Code, dance with section Idaho legislature specify must the conditions on private public not constitute a shall but, validity depend, on the which its must trespass. Nothing nuisance or constitute contrary, the court will assume the existence chaрter shall be construed to create apparent until it is that of such conditions against any per- cause of action exist.”). they Despite particu- do not some crop engages son who or allows larized references to the ten northern coun- burning required of a field or fields to be ties, including imposition of stricter re- 22-4803(3), registered pursuant to section counties, quirements on Idaho North Code, provided such activities are applies to all counties. reverse statute We chapter conducted in accordance with the district court’s conclusion that the statute Code, promulgat- title and rules special is a local and a law. ed thereunder. 22-4803A(6) Apply A. Does Not I.C. CONCLUSION Equally All The To Areas Of immunity provision The found I.C. And Is Therefore Unconstitutional taking in does not effect a controlling concerning The law Fifth violation of the Amendment found in a special local and laws can'be I, § 14 Constitution or Article United States unanimous decision of the Idaho Su- recent It not of the Idaho Constitution. does violate Court, Taxpayers preme Concerned Koo I, § or the Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution County, County v. Kootenai tenai prohibition against local or laws found majority As the III, § in Article 19 of the Idaho Constitution. indicates, rephrased court the law the district is constitutional. statute (“the Taxpayers point at one of Concerned a law local or determining whether test legislature and Justices basically Chief Justice TROUT whether the special is McKEE, Judge, corporations singled ‘persons Senior out SCHROEDER has ”); however, major- preferred treatment’ concur. areas of the upon populated impacts court mize recognize that the district ity fails to (3) of this designated in subsection counties Taxpayers law of used the correct Concerned appears from this section, It any person ...” corrеctly. analysis applied it in its to the counties 22-4803 refers alone held, Taxpayers, the Court Concerned (3) only to show under subsection listed all special when it treats “A law ‘is not protected. intended to be counties are these alike,’ and it is persons in similar situations However, reading shows that subsec- further equally to all areas applies local ‘when it agricul- all apply equally to tion does not ” state.’ imposes it addi- field because tural The district court made upon ten counties requirements tional language it cited to to this when reference from the obtain authorization register and Valley City for the Valley Sun Co. v. Sun majority burning. department before that, “Accordingly, 22- proposition scrutiny, heightened but acknowledges the *13 4803A(6) it special or local law because is scrutiny heightened explain how the fails to apply ‘equally to all areas does not application of the stat- equal not еffect does ” 708 P.2d state.’ Idaho re- that the additional ute. It seems clear (3) dem- forth in subsection quirements set apply does not that the statute onstrate found that HB 391 does The district court the state. equally to all areas of apply equally all of the state. not areas § 22- Though nothing language in the of I.C. 22-4803A(6)
4803A(6) counties, § pertains specified 2. The Sentence Second it references two sections that are limited to reads: The second sentence court ten north Idaho counties. The district 22-4803A(6) chapter § 22- be construed Nothing § in this shall stated that references (this against 22-4803A(3), likely private create a cause action § is a cleri- 4803 and crop person engages in or allows any who cal error of the district court —the section re- 22-4803(3), burning or § § residue 22-4803 and references field fields 22-4803A(3)). registered pursuant to section quired to be § Both sections 22-4803 and 22-4803(3), Code, ac- provided such 22-4803(3) Idaho north Idaho are limited to tеn with conducted accordance tivities are that counties. The district court concluded Code, rules 22-4803A(6) chapter title special § local law be- is or promulgated thereunder. apply “equally cause it does not to all areas of the state” via the two sections referenced. added.) majority incor- (Emphasis The conclusion, in its The district court is correct mean the section rectly interprets this to may at each though helpful be to look state, again, applies crop to all burners 22-4803A(6) §of in more detail. sentence sen- explanation. The second without much 22^1803(3), specifically refers tence
1. The First Sentence states, specifically the counties “[I]n subsection, person no shall identified in this “Crop residue The first sentence reads: any burning crop allow residue conduct or burning conducted in accordance with section registering field with the without first each 22-4803, Code, not constitute a shall burning con- year before is department each private public nuisance or constitute or ducted, receiving authoriza- and without first trespass.” every- ...” department Since tion from the referenced, crop burning in these ten helpful engages that it is one Since 22-4803 is au- register and obtain majority must first closely. The counties to look at it more thorization, appears to sentence the second correctly provisions identifies chapter be con- say, “Nothing in this shall agricultural field apply to all subsection (2)(a) of action create a cause the ten strued to burning. Provision refers to allows any person engages who states, against mini- “In order to counties when it Kootenai, Benewah, crop burning grow crops. burn order to these The Latah, Bonner, Shoshone, points Washington, Boundary, district court out that Clear- water, Perce, Oregon, proven and free markets have Nez Lеwis and Idaho coun- crops grown burning. these can be without clearly ties.” This shows that the statute purpose It concluded that the of the statute apply equally does not to all counties that legislature arbitrary, as written is conduct field statewide. capricious and unreasonable since it is based fallacy. on a Special B. A Law Is Local If It Or Is Arbitrary, Capricious Or Unreason- majority The states that the district court’s able independent conclusion is based on “an find- ” ing that is ‘there no need to burn’ noted, Taxpayers also “The Concerned test provide further states that the must determining a law local whether “some factual foundation of record” that con- special is whether classification arbi- findings. sup- legislative travenes the For trary, capricious, or unreasonable.” 137 Ida- contention, port majority of this cites ho Fire, Young O’Gorman & Hartford rule, applied citing district court Kirk U.S. 75 L.Ed. Center, County land v. Blaine Medical (1931). However, that did not ana ease legisla lyze whether a statute was or local. ture stated the intent of HB 391 in 22- *14 Again, controlling regard- case in Idaho 4801, which reads: ing special local and laws is Concerned Tax- payers. Taxpayers the Idaho legislature pro- It Concerned is the intent of the Supreme persuaded was not agricultural mote activities while at statute, justifications for the defendant’s public protecting same time health. The state, “Regardless went on to of the rationali- climate, legislature finds that due policy arguments offered zations and social crop unique to soils and rotations north defendant], escape the one cannot [the Counties, crop is a directly question] is fact that statute [the prevalent agricultural practice and that in Ar- contrary prohibitions contained pro- there is environmental benefit III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution.” ticle tecting quality growing water from crops environmentally certain sensitive legislature areas. It is intent of the that the ra- The district court’s conclusion agricul- reduce the loss to the state of its unper- given for the statute are tionalizations by providing tural resources a safe harbor and that is suasive burning crop to farmers when residues unconstitutional, law, local and therefore compliance chapter limiting with this upheld. This correct and should have been agricultural the circumstances under which necessity of address- analysis precludes the exposed operations may be to claims out- ing constitutional issues raised. additional crop resi- side the lawful framework burning. due added.)
(Emphasis court cor- observed,
rectly say does not statute “[T]he ‘burning protects quality.’ In- water
stead, says crop ‘the the statute essence legislature protecting protects which the ” implies that if farmers quality.’
water This burn, they grow not allowed to will not
are crop is an environmental
this for which there
benefit. The district court stated fallacy on the that one must
belief is based