Issues Paper, Central Utah Project

Page 201

/fsr Mr. Arthur L. Monson Page 9 November 18, 1977 not consider whether delegation of the taxing power to ap-pointed officials violated Article VI, Section 29 of the Utah Constitution. However, this issue was reached in the case of Lehi Citv v. Melling, 48 P.2d 530 (Utah 1935) where the Court decided the constitutionality of the Metropolitan Water Dis­trict Act. That Act provides that the legislative body of a citv or cities comprising the district appoint the trustees who have general taxing power. U.C.A. 73-8-20, 73-8-36 In holding that the Metropolitan Water District Act did not unlawfully^ delegate the power of taxation to a special commission in viola­tion of Article VI, Section 29, the Court stated: "Objection is urged that the members of the board are not elected by the electors of the district but are appointed by the governing authorities of the cities or towns as representatives of such munici­palities. We, however, find no provision of the Constitution which limits the power of the legislature to provide for the governing or control of such public agencies by officers selected in the manner provided rather than by election. In the absence of constitutional provision controlling legis­lative action in this respect, the choice of methods by which the governing body may be selected is within the discretion of the legislature." It should be noted that the Court emphasized the fact that a metropolitan water district required approval of the majority of the electorate within the city or cities comprising the district. This is not true with the case of a water conservancy district which may be created by the court without approval of the majority of the property owners or electorate in the district. However, failure of a statute to require the majority of the property owners to approve a water conservancy district has been held constitutional. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grant Conservancy District, 282 P. 1 (New Mex. 1929); /0 A.L.R. IzM. In Freeman v. Stewart, 273 P.2d 174 (Utah 1954), the Utah Supreme Court held that the Salt Lake County Suburban District created pursuant to U.C.A. 17-6-1, et seq. did not violate Article XIII, Section 5 as it was not a municipal corporation. The Court, in reaching this decision, stated as follows: