July 9, 1984

Mr. Don Barber, Manager 
Lower James Conservancy Subdistrict 
Box 344 
1315 North Main 
Mitchell, South Dakota 57301

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 84-30

Withdrawal from water development districts not permitted until January 1, 1985

Dear Mr. Barber:

You have requested an official opinion based on the following factual  situation:

FACTS: 

On May 10, 1984, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 1, (Special Session 1984).  The Act sets up a system of 'water development districts' to replace the present 'water conservancy subdistricts.'

Based upon your examination of the statute, you ask the following question:

QUESTION: 

Can a county, or part of a county, included in one of the new 'water development districts' withdraw from the district to form a new district before January 1, 1985?

A brief analysis of the statute will answer the question. According to Senate Bill No. 1, the existing 'water conservancy subdistricts' are 'dissolved' as of December 31, 1984.  Senate Bill No. 1, §  2.  Further, the new water development districts 'shall exist as . . . legal entit[ies] beginning on January 1' after the effective date of the Act.  Senate Bill No. 1, §  6.

The Act thus sets up a coherent transition in which the existing water conservancy subdistricts are abolished on one day and the water development  districts come into legal existence the next day.

It is, of course, well established both that the task of one interpreting a statute is to discern the legislative intent and that this intention is to be derived from an analysis of the statute as a whole, See Herrmann v. Board of Commissioners, 285 N.W.2d 855, 856 (S.D. 1980); Olsen v. City of Spearfish, 288 N.W.2d 497 (S.D. 1980).  Based upon such an analysis, I am of the opinion that when the Legislature specified that the 'water development districts' were not to have legal existence until January 1, 1985, it clearly implied that the boundaries of such districts would not be subjected to revision until that date.

Further, it is my view, based upon a reading of the entire statute and based upon the events which preceded the enactment of the bill, that Senate Bill No. 1 was intended to put into place a logical and long-lasting system to facilitate orderly water development.  To find that the Legislature created such districts only to subject them to dismemberment before they came into existence would be anomalous indeed.  See also, S.B. #1, Section 2 (second sentence); id., section 13.

My answer to your question is therefore NO.

Sincerely,

Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General