Opinion 85-2

S T A T E O F I D A H O OFSICE OF T H E ATTORNEY GENERAL BOISE 83720 GENELW, OPINION NO. 85-2 . . TO: A. Kenneth Dunn. D i r e c t o r ~ e ~ a r t m e n t o f ~ i t e r Resources S t a t e h o u s e M a i l Per Request f o r Attorney General ' s Opinion QUESTION PRESENTED: Does t h e Idaho Water Resource Board have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e revenue bonds f o r t h e purpose o f loaning t h e proceeds t o a l o c a l water p r o j e c t sponsor t o c o n s t r u c t a h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p r o j e c t which s e r v e s no o t h e r w a t e r development, usage o r c o n s e r v a t i o n purposes? CONCLUSION : Y e s . The Idaho Water Resource Board h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e revenue bonds f o r t h e purpose s t a t e d i n t h e question p r e s e n t e d . Idaho Code 3 42-1734(x) a u t h o r i z e s t h e board t o i s s u e t h e proceeds o f t h e s a l e o f revenue bonds t o l o c a l water p r o j e c t ' sponsors. Since t h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y language evidencing a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t , the t e r m "water p r o j e c t " must b e construed t o encompass p u r e l y h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p r o j e c t s . ANALYSIS : The Idaho Resource Board was e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a r t i c l e 1 5 , s e c t i o n 7 , o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e of Idaho. Idaho Code s e c t i o n 42-1732 e s t a b l i s h e s t h e board a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l agency w i t h i n t h e department of water r e s o u r c e s . Thus, t h e board, while o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n t h e department of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s , h a s i t s own c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and l e g i s l a t i v e e x i s t e n c e and d u t i e s . Idaho Code § 42-1734(x) a u t h o r i z e s t h e board t o i s s u e revenue bonds: To l o a n without p r i o r l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l , t h e proceeds o f t h e s a l e o f revenue bonds t o t h e l o c a l water p r o j e c t sponsor o r sponsors; t o e n t e r i n t o l e a s e , s a l e o r l o a n agreement; and t o purchase a l l o r a p o r t i o n o f , o r p a r t i c i p a t e i n , l o a n s , o r i g i n a t e d by p r i v a t e lending i n s t i t u t i o n s . The d e t e r m i n a t i v e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e term "water p r o j e c t s " encompasses a h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t t h a t has no i r r i g a t i o n b e n e f i t s . The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n c l u d e a d e f i n i t i o n o f I I water p r o j e c t " i n t h e a c t now i n q u e s t i o n and l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y concerning t h e a c t i s s c a n t and inconclusive. Furthermore, r e s e a r c h r e v e a l s no c a s e law t h a t would be h e l p f u l i n t h e m a t t e r . T h e r e f o r e , it i s necessary t o g l e a n t h e meaning o f t h e words, applying well-recognized r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y cons t r u e t i o n . . . . .- I n c o n s t r u i n g s t a t u t e s t h e Idaho Supreme Court has enunciated t h e following p r i n c i p l e s : I n t h e absence o f some m a n i f e s t a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y w e must assume t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h e o r d i n a r y i a p o r t of t h e words it used. Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 641, 448 P.2d 645, 647 (1968). When t h e language used i n a s t a t u t e h a s a d e f i n i t e , c l e a r meaning and a p p l i e s t o a c e r t a i n c a s e , t h e c o u r t s must g i v e e f f e c t t o t h a t meaning- whether o r not t6e i n d i v i d u a l s comprising t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a n t i c i p a t e d t h e . r e s u l t . Unity ~ i ~ h t L Power ~ o m ~ a n ~ v . C i t y o f Burley, 3 Idaho 285, 289, 361 P.2d 788, 790 (1961). I n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , it i s t h e duty of t h i s c o u r t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , and g i v e e f f e c t t h e r e t o . I n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h i s i n t e n t , n o t only must t h e l i t e r a l wording o f t h e s t a t u t e b e examined, b u t a l s o account must b e taken o f o t h e r m a t t e r s , "such a s t h e c o n t e x t , t h e o b j e c t i n view, t h e e v i l s t o b e remedied, t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e times and of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n upon t h e same s u b j e c t , p u b l i c p o l i c y , contemporaneous c o n s t r u c t i o n , and t h e l i k e . 11 Messenger v . Burns, 86 1daho 26, 29-30, 382 P.2d 9c3, 915 rn) The nos t fundamental premise u n d e r l y i n g j u d i c i a l review o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s enactments i s t h a t , u n l e s s t h e r e s u l t i s p a t e n t l y a b s u r d , the c o u r t s must assume t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e meant what it s a i d . Where a s t a t u t e i s c l e a r and unambiguous t h e e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f the l e g i s l a t u r e must b e g i v e n e f f e c t . S t a t e , Department o f Law v . One 1955 W i l l y s 100 Idaho 150, 153, 595 P . 2d 299, 302 (1979) . A s t a t u t e i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the r e a s o n f o r t h e s t a t u t e , i t s o b j e c t and purpose and t h e r e b y a s c e r t a i n and r e n d e r e f f e c t i v e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . S t a t e v. Hoch, 102 Idaho 351, 352, 630 P. 2d 143, 144 (1981). -- Examining t h e a c t i n q u e s t i o n w - i t h t h e above quoted p r i n c i p l e s i n mind mandates a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e board has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e revenue bonds f o r t h e purpose o f loaning t h e proceeds t o a l o c a l w a t e r p r o j e c t sponsor o f a h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t . A r t i c l e 1 5 , s e c t i o n 7 , o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e of a .- Idaho vests the Water Resource Agency w i t h c e r t a i n enumerated powers. It r e a d s as f o l l o w s : There s h a l l b e c o n s t i t u t e d a Water Resource Agency, composed as t h e L e g i s l a t u r e may now o r h e r e a f t e r p r e s c r i b e , which s h a l l have power t o forinulate and implement a s t a t e w a t e r p l a n f o r optimum development of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ; t o c o n s t r u c t and o p e r a t e w a t e r p r o j e c t s ; t o i s s u e bonds, w i t h o u t s t a t e o b l i g a t i o n , t o b e r e p a i d from revenues o f p r o j e c t s ; t o g e n e r a t e and w h o l e s a l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power a t t h e s i t e of p r o d u c t i o n ; t o a p p r o p r i a t e p u S l i c w a t e r s as t r u s t e e f o r Agency p r o j e c t s ; t o a c q u i r e , t r a n s f e r and encumber t i t l e t o r e a l p r o p e r t y f o r w a t e r p r o j e c t s and t o have c o n t r o l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y o v e r s t a t e l a n d s r e q u i r e d f o r w a t e r p r o j e c t s ; a l l under such laws as may b e p r e s c r i b e d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . The above quoted amendment t o t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n , passed i n 1964, c h a r g e s t h e agency w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o 11 implement a s t a t e water p l a n f o r optimum development of water , r e s o u r c e s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . ." (Emphasis added.) Such a p l a n must i n c l u d e b o t h t h e most e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n o f h y d r o e l e c t r i c power, and a l s o t h e most e f f i c i e n t method of g e n e r a t i n g h y d r o e l e c t r i c power. A r t i c l e 15, s e c t i o n 7, a l s o a u t h o r i z e s t h e Water Resource Agency "to g e n e r a t e and w h o l e s a l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c power a t t h e s i t e of production. . . I 1 This a u t h o r i t y i s n o t l i m i t e d t o h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p r o j e c t s w i t h a s s o c i a t e d i r r i g a t i o n b e n e f i t s . It would appear incongruous, absent a s p e c i f i c p r o h i b i t i o n a r y p r o v i s i o n , i f the board s p a r a l l e l a u t h o r i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i n d i r e c t f i n a n c i n g o f l o c a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c power through revenue bonds w a s l i m i t e d t o p r o j e c t s w i t h i r r i g a t i o n b e n e f i t s . Idaho Code $ 42-1731 r e a d s a s f o l l o w s : The w e l f a r e o f t h e people o f t h i s s t a t e i s dependent upon c o n s e r v a t i o n , development and optimum u s e o f o u r w a t e r r e s o u r c e s . To achieve t h i s o b j e c t i v e and p r o t e c t t h e w a t e r s o f Idaho from d i v e r s i o n o u t o f s t a t e , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t a c o o r d i n a t e d , i n t e g r a t e d . m u l t i ~ l e u s e w a t e r r e s o u r c e p o l i c y b e i o r m u l a t e d and a p l a n developed t o a c t i v a t e t h i s p o l i c y a s r a p i d l y a s p o s s i b l e . It i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e s e f u n c t i o n s b e c a r r i e d o u t by a s i n g l e s t a t e agency. The i s s u a n c e of revenue bonds f o r l o c a l h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s conforms t o t h i s d e c l a r a t i o n o f i n t e n t . The issuance o f s a i d bonds w i l l enable t h e s t a t e t o develop t h e optimum use of i t s water r e s o u r c e s and p r o t e c t t h e w a t e r s o f Idaho from d i v e r s i o n o u t o f s t a t e . Idaho Code $ 42-1734(s) a l s o g i v e s some guidance t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . It s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t t h e agency i s empowered t o " i s s u e revenue bonds f o r t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and r e p a i r o f e x i s t i n g i r r i g a t i o n p r o j e c t s and i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , and f o r water p r o j e c t s , . . . I 1 (Emphasis added.) I f t h e term "water p r o j e c t " was i n t e n d e d t o mean only i r r i g a t i o n p r o j e c t s , t h e above quoted language would b e superfluous. Although no d e f i n i t i o n o f "water p r o j e c t ' ' e x i s t s w i t h i n t h e a c t i n q u e s t i o n , t h e term i s d e f i n e d f o r purposes of t h e code s e c t i o n s concerning t h e r e v o l v i n g development fund. Idaho Code $ 42-1751(d) s t a t e s : " P r o j e c t " means any p r o j e c t by means o f which w a t e r s h o u l d b e u t i l i z e d o r b e n e f i t s a c c r u e w i t h i n this s t a t e f o r purposes w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f this a c t . Obviously, any h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t would have t o u t i l i z e water w i t h i n t h i s state and, i f found worthy o f revenue bond support by the b o a r d , would b e f o r p u r p o s e s w i t h i n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of this a c t . On A p r i l 1 5 , 1983, the Water Resource Agency adopted r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s i n o r d e r t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e revenue bond - program. Rule 2 , 3 d e f i n e s a n e l i g i b l e program as f o l l o w s : " ~ l i g i b l e p r o j e c t " means a p r o j e c t i n Idaho i n conformance w i t h t h e S t a t e Water P l a n developed p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e 1 5 , S e c t i o n 7 , Idaho C o n s t i t u t i o n , which h a s b e e n - a p p r o v e d f o r f i n a n c i n g by a n e l i g i b l e f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n . P r o j e c t s may i n c l u d e b u t are n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e d r a i n a g e o r i r r i g a t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o p e r t y , t h e p r o v i s i o n o f domestic and m u n i c i p a l w a t e r s u p p l i e s , energy p r o d u c t i o n , f l o o d c o n t r o l , f i s h and w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n , a g r i c u l t u r e , o r w a t e r q u a l i t y . P r o j e c t s w i t h m u l t i p l e water u s e s are encouraged, however, secondary w a t e r u s e s t h a t could b e i n c l u d e d i n a m u l t i - purpose p r o j e c t s h a l l b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e primary purpose. 1 1 Thus, w h i l e p r i o r i t y i s g i v e n t o p r o j e c t s w i t h m u l t i p l e water u s e s , " t h e agency b e l i e v e s it has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e revenue I I bonds f o r p r o j e c t s w i t h t h e s i n g l e purpose of energy p r o d u c t i o n . I T Although t h e a g e n c y ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s by no means c o n t r o l l i n g , it should b e g i v e n d e f e r e n c e : A c o n s t r u c t i o n g i v e n a s t a t u t e by e x e c u t i v e o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s o f t h e s t a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o g r e a t weight and w i l l b e followed by t h e c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e a r e cogent r e a s o n s f o r h o l d i n g o t h e r w i s e . Idaho P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Commission v . V - 1 O i l 0 Idaho 4 1 5 , 420, 412 P.2d 581, I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e a r e no cogent r e a s o n s f o r holding o t h e r w i s e . The a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e revenue bonds i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e broad powers and d u t i e s g i v e n t o t h e Water Resource Agency by t h e s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n and l e g i s l a t i v e enactment. u e s i d e s deciding whether t h e board h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i s s u e s a i d bonds, i t must a l s o b e determined whether t h e i s s u a n c e o f revenue bonds i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y permissible. However, examination o f t h e i s s u e i n d e t a i l i n t h i s opinion i s n o t necessary. The Idaho Supreme Court has a l r e a d y decided t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e o f revenue bonds i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e . Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kraner, 97 Idaho 535, -548 P.2d 35 ( 1 9 / 6 ) . T i e i s s u a n c e o f revenue bonds f o r h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s i s a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e and c o n s ~ i t ~ t i o n a l l ~ p e r m i s s i b l e . SUMMARY: Idaho Code $ 42-1734(x) a u t h o r i z e s the board t o i s s u e revenue bonds t o a l o c a l w a t e r p r o j e c t sponsor. The term "water p r o j e c t ' ' i s n o t d e f i n e d . However, t h e a c t i n q u e s t i o n manifests no l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o exclude p u r e l y h y d r o e l e c t r i c p r o j e c t s from w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n . It i s s t a t u t o r i l y authorized and - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e f o r t h e Idaho Water Resource Board t o i s s u e revenue bonds t o a l o c a l water p r o j e c t sponsor t o c o n s t r u c t a h y d r o e l e c t r i c power p r o j e c t which s e r v e s no o t h e r water development, usage o r c o n s e r v a t i o n purpose. AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED : -. 1. Idaho C o n s t i t u t i o n A r t . 1 5 , $ 7. 2. Idaho Code S e c t i o n s 42-1731, 42-1732, 42-1734(s), 42-1734(x), 42-1751 (d) . 3. Idaho Cases a . Unity Light & Power Company v. C i t y of Burley, 83 Idaho 285, 289, 361 P.2d 788, 790 (i.961). b . Messenger v . Burns, 86 Idaho 26, 29-30, 382 P.2d 913, 915 (1963). c . Idaho P u b l i c U t i l i t i e s Commission v. V - 1 O i l 0 Idaho 415, 420, 412 P.2d 581, 583 d . Nicolaus v . Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 641, 448 P.2d 645, 647 (1968). e. Idaho Water Resource Board v. K r a m e r , 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 ( 1 9 / 6 ) . f . S t a t e , Department of Law v. One 1955 Willys, 100 I a o > 3 , g. S t a t e v. Hoch, 102 Idaho 351, 352, 630 P.2d 143, 144 (1981). 3. Other A u t h o r i t i e s Idaho Water Resource Agency Rules and Regulations, Rule 2 , 3 , (April 1.5, 1983) . DATED this 3 1 s t day of May, 1985. ATTOmEY ANALYSIS BY: GENERAL Idaho STEVEN L. ADDINGTON / Deputy Attorney General Natural Resources Division