Lead Opinion
This is an action for a declaratory judgment to deter
The trial court found the legislation wаs valid except as to certain provisions which were severable. The plaintiffs appeal and the defendants cross-appeal.
The principal аntecedent of the legislation involved in this case appears to have been the Soil Conservation Districts Law. Enacted in 1937, it was revised extensively in 1959 and amended again in 1963, 1965, and 1967.
L.B. 1357, enacted in 1969, established the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission ■ and directed the commission to divide the area of the state into natural resоurces districts. A major purpose of L.B. 1357 was to consolidate and merge. existing soil and v/ater conservation districts, watershed conservancy districts, watershed districts, watеrshed advisory boards, watershed planning boards, and mosquito abatement districts into natural resources districts or natural resources divisions of public power and irrigation districts. The governing boards of such districts were directed to complete the necessary transfers and other arrange
The plaintiffs contend L.B. 1357 was unconstitutional because it was amendatory of the Soil Conservation District Law and did not contain all sections amended. The Constitution provides that “no law shall be amended unless the new act contain the section or sections as amended and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.” Art. Ill, § 14, Constitution of Nebraska. The requirement does not apply to an independent act which is complete in itself. State v. Greenburg,
The plaintiffs argue that L.B. 1357 was not complete in itself because it related to the Soil Conservation Districts Law and did not make sense in the absence of that law. The fact that L.B. 1357 related to other statutes does not necessarily mean it was not independent legislation. The situation is similar to that presented in Bodenstedt v. Rickers,
As previously nоted, a purpose of L.B. 1357 was to consolidate and merge existing soil and water conservation districts into newly created natural resources districts. Soil and water сonservation districts were not abolished upon the effective date of the act but continued to exist while the consolidation and merger process was taking place. Thus, much of the legislation concerning soil and water conservation districts
The plaintiffs also contend L.B. 1357 and the othеr acts involved are so vague and incomprehensible that they are unconstitutional and void. It is a general rule that a statute must be reasonably clear and definite to be valid. Heywood v. Brainard,
The plaintiffs have cited many instances of vague and indefinite provisions in the statutes in question. For example, in section 1 of L.B. 1357 (now section 2-3201, R. S. Supp., 1973, as amended), the third sentence indicated thе merger of soil and water conservation districts into natural resources districts was mandatory. In 1972 the statute was amended to define a soil and water conservation distriсt as an “other special purpose” district' which in the last sentence of section 2-3201 was “encouraged” to merge with a natural resources district. § 2-3201, R. S. Supp., 1972. (The languаge “soil and water conservation districts” was stricken in 1973 and merger of soil and water conservation districts was again made mandatory. § 2-3201, R. S. Supp., 1973.) We think these ambiguities and uncertainties presented problems of construction and interpretation but the act was not void because of them.
The plaintiffs further contend the statute is invalid
The fixing of the boundaries of a political subdivision is essentially a legislative matter. Nickel v. School Board of Axtell,
The Nebraska Natural Resourcеs Commission,, as established by subsection (3) of section 2-1504, R. S. Supp., 1972, from January 1, 1973, until 1975, consists of 14 members. Three members are officers of the University of Nebraska. ' The Director of Water Resources is also a member. The trial court held this provision of the law was invalid as to these 4 members. The defendants cross-appeal.
The Director of Watеr Resources is a state officer. § 81-102, R. R. S. 1943. Membership on the commission is an additional duty of that officer which could be imposed by the Legislature. See 63 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees, § 30, p. 645.
The members of the commission who are officers of the University of Nebraska are not state officers. Martin v. Smith,
Section 2-1504, R. S. Supp., 1972, also contained a provision authorizing certain appointments to be made by the Governor-elect. (The рrovision has - now been repealed. § 2-1504, R. S. Supp., 1973). The trial court found this provision to be inyalid but severable. We think this finding was correct.
The judgment of the District Court is modified to providе that the designation in section 2-1504, R. S. Supp., 1972, of the Director of Water Resources as a member of the commission is valid. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority oрinion herein because I do not believe L.B. 1357 can be held constitutional without unduly straining the bounds of constitutional interpretation.
I would hold the acts challenged in this litigation сonstitute amendatory legislation which failed to comply with the constitutional requirements relating to the adoption of' amendments to statutes.
I would also hold the act is so imperfect and deficient in its terms as to render it impossible of execution and enforcement. As we said in Heywood v. Brainard (1967);
Further, I do not believe that the majority opinion has satisfactorily answered the contention that the act is in violation of Article I, section 24. of the Constitution.