September 15, 1978

Mr. G. E. Bollinger 
Sanborn County State's Attorney 
Woonsocket, South Dakota 57385

Official Opinion No. 78-37

County commissions' authority to review township petitions to join conservancy subdistricts

Dear Mr. Bollinger:

You have requested an opinion from this office based upon the following factual situation:

FACTS: 

Several townships of Sanborn County have had petitions circulated in them to have townships join the Lower James Conservancy Subdistrict.  We were one of the few counties that did not participate in any conservancy subdistrict when they were originally organized.  These petitions were apparently circulated according to SDCL 46-18-11.  They were, a few days ago, filed with the Board of Natural Resource Development, the successor to the State Conservancy District Board. 
    
Several opponents of the proposed inclusion of these townships in the Lower James Conservancy Subdistrict met with our Board of County Commissioners requesting, among other things, that the Board of County Commissioners of Sanborn County request a return of the petitions for further review alleging, among other things, that the petitions were invalid for lack of sufficient signatures, legal descriptions, and possible misrepresentations made by circulators. 
    
My reading of the statutes in question indicates that a County Board of Commissioners has no duty or right with reference to the petitions.  This opinion of mine, buttressed by Janet Pearson, Esq., who I understand is an Assistant Attorney General and who has been assigned to Natural Resources for the last two years.

Based upon the above facts, you ask the following question:

QUESTION: 

Could you please advise whether or not we are misreading the statutes relative to the county's rights or duties with respect to the petitions, their filing, or their efficacy.

SDCL 46-18-11 provides: 
    
Areas may be added to and become part of an existing subdistrict by an affirmative vote of at least sixty per cent of the votes cast on the question as to such addition in the area proposed for such addition, provided, that the subdistrict board of directors by resolution advises the district board to the effect that the subdistrict board favors such addition to the subdistrict. Proposals for such additions shall be in the form of a written petition to the district board, signed and verified by not less than twenty- five per cent of the owners of real property in the area proposed for addition to the subdistrict.  Upon receipt of such petition, the district board shall call an election on the question whether such addition should be made to the subdistrict and proceed in all other ways, as hereinbefore provided for creation of a subdistrict, to determine the question whether such addition to the subdistrict should be accomplished, provided, that the county commissioners of the county, which in whole or in part may be proposed for addition to a subdistrict, may call a special election to determine said question.

After having read all of Chapter 46-18, I am in agreement with your reading of the statute.  The only action that the county commission could take would be to call a special election on their own motion if for some reason the Board of Natural Resource Development failed to act, or for some reason the action taken was held to be invalid.

The Board of Natural Resource Development is, of course, the district board referred to in the above-quoted Section 46-18-11.

Respectfully submitted,

William J. Janklow
Attorney General

WJJ:RVJ:jo