Can Oklahoma's wildlife agency be forced to pay counties an annual 'in lieu of tax' on its land?
Plain-English summary
The Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission (OWCC) buys land, wildlife management areas, lakes, hunting grounds, using funds dedicated to wildlife conservation under article XXVI of the Oklahoma Constitution. In 1988, the legislature added 29 O.S. § 3-303(C), requiring OWCC to make annual payments to counties "in lieu of" ad valorem taxes on each acre of OWCC-owned land, equal to the average per-acre tax on similar private land in that county.
OWCC Chairman Barwick asked the AG whether the in-lieu-of payments are constitutional. AG Drummond answered no, on two independent grounds:
- State property is constitutionally exempt from taxation. Article X, § 6(A) of the Oklahoma Constitution says "all property of this state ... shall be exempt from taxation." OWCC is a state agency. Its property is state property. The legislature cannot dress up an ad valorem tax as an "in lieu of" payment: "what may not be done directly should not be allowed to be done indirectly" (Reherman v. OWRB).
- It diverts dedicated funds. Article XXVI, § 4 says OWCC funds shall be used "for no other purpose" than the conservation, restoration, and management of wildlife resources. Paying counties for general budgetary use is a different purpose. The diversion is unconstitutional independent of the tax-exemption issue.
Because the AG concluded a statute is unconstitutional, the opinion is advisory only (not binding on state officials, per State ex rel. York v. Turpen). But the legal analysis stands.
OWCC has paid more than $4.5 million to counties under § 3-303(C) since 1989. Whether OWCC can claw back those payments is a question for the courts.
What this means for you
If you serve on the OWCC or work for the Department of Wildlife Conservation
The opinion concludes § 3-303(C) is unconstitutional. As an advisory opinion, it does not bind you to stop the payments, but it gives you a strong legal basis to do so and a legal foundation to challenge the statute in court if a county sues for unpaid amounts.
The opinion notes that the payments have "imperiled the OWCC's ability to obtain federal grant funds, the terms of which typically require state wildlife agencies to dedicate the administration of their real property to the beneficial purposes contemplated by the grants." Stopping the payments may enable federal funding that has been blocked.
If you are a county treasurer
If your county has been receiving in-lieu payments from OWCC, this opinion signals the payments may stop. Plan budgets accordingly. If OWCC stops paying and the county wants the money, the county will need to sue and persuade a court that the AG's analysis is wrong.
If you are a hunter, angler, or wildlife user in Oklahoma
The OWCC budget runs on hunting and fishing license fees, federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson grants, and other dedicated funds, not state appropriations. Every dollar paid to counties was a dollar not spent on wildlife management areas, hatcheries, game wardens, or habitat restoration. Stopping the payments redirects funds back to wildlife purposes.
If you are a state agency attorney
The opinion has broader implications. The reasoning, that state property is categorically exempt from taxation and that the legislature cannot impose disguised taxes on state agencies, applies to other state agencies too. If your agency makes "in lieu of" payments to local governments not on the § 2805 list, this opinion is a starting point for analysis.
If you are an Oklahoma legislator
The AG flagged § 3-303(C) as unconstitutional. To address county concerns about lost revenue near OWCC properties, the legislature would need a constitutional amendment to either change article X, § 6(A) (very heavy lift) or to fund a county-impact program through general state appropriations rather than from OWCC's dedicated wildlife fund.
Common questions
Q: Why is OWCC property tax-exempt?
A: Article X, § 6(A) of the Oklahoma Constitution says all state property is exempt from taxation. That's a constitutional rule, not a legislative one: the legislature cannot override it by statute.
Q: But isn't this a payment "in lieu of" taxes, not a tax itself?
A: Doesn't matter. The AG applied the rule that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The legislature can validly impose "in lieu of" taxes only when it is substituting one form of taxation for another the agency would otherwise owe (e.g., gross-production tax substituting for ad valorem on oil and gas). Here, OWCC owes nothing in the first place, so there is nothing to "substitute."
Q: Can OWCC get back the $4.5 million it has already paid?
A: Maybe, but that question is not answered in this opinion. It would require litigation. The AG explicitly declined to address remedies.
Q: Will counties sue OWCC over stopped payments?
A: Possibly. If counties believe the AG's analysis is wrong, they could file suit to enforce § 3-303(C). The AG opinion is advisory because it concludes the statute is unconstitutional; only a court can definitively settle the question.
Q: Can the legislature fix this?
A: Not by statute alone. The constitutional bar on taxing state property is in the Oklahoma Constitution. A constitutional amendment would be required. Alternatively, the legislature could appropriate state general-fund money to compensate counties: that does not run into either constitutional problem.
Q: Does this affect federal in-lieu-of-tax (PILT) payments?
A: No. Federal PILT payments are made by the federal government to local governments for federally-owned lands. They are unrelated to this state-law analysis.
Background and statutory framework
Article XXVI of the Oklahoma Constitution was adopted in 1956. It created the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the OWCC, gave OWCC the power to acquire property for wildlife purposes, and dedicated all OWCC funds to wildlife purposes "and for no other purpose" (§ 4). The funds come from hunting/fishing license fees, federal grants tied to wildlife conservation, and similar wildlife-specific revenue.
The Wildlife Conservation Fund is a non-fiscal-year fund under OWCC's exclusive control (29 O.S. § 3-302). The legislature cannot appropriate it for non-wildlife purposes (per Oklahoma Wildlife Federation v. Nigh, 1972).
In 1988, the legislature added § 3-303(C), requiring annual in-lieu payments to counties for OWCC-acquired land. The provision sat unchallenged in published Oklahoma case law until this opinion.
The AG analyzed two constitutional questions:
- Article X, § 6(A): the tax-exemption issue. State property is exempt from taxation. The legislature can substitute one valid tax for another (per Home-Stake Prod. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization) or apply a different valuation method (per Magnolia Petroleum). It cannot create a tax obligation where none would otherwise exist. The 11 categories of valid in-lieu taxes in 68 O.S. § 2805 (gross production tax, motor-vehicle registration, aircraft registration) all operate by substituting one tax for another. Section 3-303(C) does not substitute; it creates.
- Article XXVI, § 4: the dedicated-funds issue. Even if § 3-303(C) were a valid tax, OWCC could not pay it from wildlife conservation funds, which can only be used for wildlife purposes "and for no other purpose."
Because § 3-303(C) is unconstitutional, the opinion is advisory under the rule that AG opinions concluding statutes are unconstitutional do not bind state officials.
Citations and references
Constitution:
- Okla. Const. art. X, § 6(A), State property exempt from taxation
- Okla. Const. art. XXVI, §§ 1, 2, 4: Wildlife Department; dedicated funds
Statutes:
- 29 O.S. § 3-303(C), In-lieu payments (held unconstitutional)
- 68 O.S. § 2805, Permissible in-lieu taxes
- 68 O.S. § 2887(2): Property exempt from ad valorem
Cases:
- Cumberland Operating Co. v. Ogez, 1988 OK 14, 769 P.2d 105, state property exempt from ad valorem
- Home-Stake Prod. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization, 1966 OK 115, 416 P.2d 917, substitution of taxes
- Reherman v. OWRB, 1984 OK 12, 679 P.2d 1296, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
- Oklahoma Wildlife Federation v. Nigh, 1972 OK 144, 513 P.2d 310, wildlife funds dedicated
Source
- Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/ag-opinion-2025-03.html
- Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2025/A.G. Opinion 2025-3 2025 OK AG 3.pdf
Original opinion text
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2025-3
James V. Barwick, Chairman
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
1801 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
April 16, 2025
Dear Chairman Barwick:
This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect,
the following question:
Whether the Legislature may impose, consistent with the Oklahoma
Constitution, an obligation on the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation
Commission (“OWCC”) requiring it to make annual payments to individual
counties “in lieu of” ad valorem taxes on its property located within those
counties? 1
I.
SUMMARY
No, the Legislature may not obligate the OWCC to make annual payments to individual counties
“in lieu of” ad valorem taxes on its property located within those counties. The Oklahoma
Constitution generally exempts state property from taxation. OKLA. CONST. art. X, § 6(A). Title
29, section 3-303(C) of the Oklahoma Statutes improperly skirts that constitutionally mandated
exemption by fashioning a substitute for a tax that it could not impose directly. And even if the
Legislature could permissibly exact such a tax, the statute also violates a separate and distinct
constitutional requirement devoting the OWCC’s funds to the management and benefit of the
state’s wildlife resources “and for no other purpose.” OKLA. CONST. art. XXVI, § 4. In short, title
29, section 3-303(C) is unconstitutional. The OWCC does not bear any “in lieu of” ad valorem tax
obligations to individual counties arising under section 3-303(C). Finally, because the office
concludes that section 3-303(C) violates the Oklahoma Constitution, this opinion is advisory only.
The request consists of eight separate questions, but each of these revolves around the central issue of title
29, section 3-303(C)’s constitutionality.
1
313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • FAX: (405) 521-6246
Chairman James V. Barwick
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
A.G. Opinion
Page 2
II.
BACKGROUND
The question presented tests the constitutional fitness of a legislative enactment imposing the
functional equivalent of an annual tax on state lands belonging to the OWCC for the fiscal benefit
of Oklahoma’s counties. In 1956, the people of Oklahoma adopted article XXVI of the Oklahoma
Constitution, which created the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the OWCC. 2 OKLA.
CONST. art. XXVI, § 1; see also Okla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. Nigh, 1972 OK 144, ¶ 6, 513 P.2d
310, 312 (recounting the history of article XXVI’s enactment). Relevant here, the Constitution
empowers the OWCC to acquire “all property necessary, useful or convenient for its use in
carrying out the objects and purposes of [article XXVI].” OKLA. CONST. art. XXVI, § 2; see also
29 O.S.2021, § 3-303(A) (codifying similar OWCC authority). The Constitution also describes
both what those “objects and purposes” are and are not: the OWCC “shall” dedicate its funds to
“the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the bird, fish, game and
wildlife resources of the State, including the purchase or other acquisition of property for said
purposes, and for no other purpose.” OKLA. CONST. art. XXVI, § 4 (emphasis added); see also 29
O.S.2021, § 3-101(A) (same); 29 O.S.2021, § 3-302(A)–(B) (creating the “Wildlife Conservation
Fund,” which “shall be under the control and supervision of the [OWCC]”).
In 1988, the Legislature amended title 29, section 3-303, a provision within the Oklahoma Wildlife
Conservation Code, to include a new subsection containing the following language, in pertinent
part:
On any land acquired by the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code, after the
effective date of this act, the Commission shall annually make in lieu of tax
payments equal to the average ad valorem tax per acre paid on similar land in that
county. Said payments shall be made from any funds created in or pursuant to the
authority granted by the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code. 3
1988 Okla. Sess. Laws ch. 120, § 3 (codified at 29 O.S.2021, § 3-303(C)). You seek the office’s
opinion on the OWCC’s obligations arising under this subsection. You report that since section 3303(C)’s enactment thirty-six years ago, the OWCC has remitted more than $4,500,000 in the form
of statutorily mandated “in lieu of tax payments” to various Oklahoma counties. Furthermore, you
indicate that these payments have imperiled the OWCC’s ability to obtain federal grant funds, the
terms of which typically require state wildlife agencies to dedicate the administration of their real
property to the beneficial purposes contemplated by the grants. Since the date of its enactment, it
appears that no Oklahoma court has considered any challenge to the validity of the statute in a
published opinion.
The statute at issue refers only to the OWCC. See 29 O.S.2021, § 3-303(C). As set forth in the Oklahoma
Constitution, the “Department of Wildlife Conservation shall be governed by the Wildlife Conservation Director . . .
under such rules, regulations and policies as may be prescribed from time to time by the Oklahoma Wildlife
Conservation Commission.” OKLA. CONST. art. XXVI, § 1; see also 29 O.S.2021, § 3-101(A) (codifying the creation
of the Department and Commission in the Oklahoma Statutes). The OWCC serves as the governing body of the
Department, and references to the two entities are used interchangeably in this opinion.
2
3
The Legislature provided an effective date of January 1, 1989.
Chairman James V. Barwick
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
A.G. Opinion
Page 3
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
The Legislature may not require an “in lieu of” payment from the OWCC as a
substitute for an expressly exempted ad valorem tax obligation.
Although you have posed multiple questions about the application of section 3-303(C), your
request essentially asks whether the Legislature acted within proper constitutional bounds when
enacting section 3-303(C), thereby creating an “in lieu of” ad valorem tax obligation for lands
belonging to the OWCC. “Ad valorem taxes are direct taxes on real and personal property based
on the property’s value.” Liddell v. Heavner, 2008 OK 6, ¶ 8, 180 P.3d 1191, 1196. Toward that
end, all property in Oklahoma, both real and personal, “is generally subject to ad valorem taxation
at a percentage of its fair cash value, unless it is expressly exempted by law.” Kingfisher Wind,
LLC v. Wehmuller, 2022 OK 83, ¶ 16, 521 P.3d 786, 789–90 (citing 68 O.S.2021, § 2804). But, of
paramount importance here, the Oklahoma Constitution exempts the property of the state from
taxes in general. OKLA. CONST. art. X, § 6(A) (“all property of this state . . . shall be exempt from
taxation”). And this categorical exemption applies to ad valorem taxation as well. Oklahoma law
has expressly exempted the “property of the state or a subdivision thereof . . . from the payment of
ad valorem taxes.” Cumberland Operating Co. v. Ogez, 1988 OK 14, ¶ 13, 769 P.2d 105, 108–09.
That is, “[a]ll property of this state” falls into the category of property that “shall be exempt from
ad valorem taxation.” 68 O.S.Supp.2023, § 2887(2); see also Cumberland Operating Co., 1988
OK 14, ¶ 13, 769 P.2d at 108 (explaining how “[p]roperty which is exempt from ad valorem
taxation, in which the taxpayer is relieved of the duty of paying the tax, is expressly enumerated”
by statute).
As a threshold matter, the OWCC is an agency of the State of Oklahoma. See, e.g., 61
O.S.Supp.2022, § 102(5) (defining an “[p]ublic agency,” for purposes of the Public Competitive
Bidding Act of 1974 as “the State of Oklahoma . . . and any department, agency, board, bureau,
commission, committee or authority of any of the [State]”). Because the property of the OWCC is
therefore state property, it is categorically exempt from ad valorem taxation within the plain
meaning of article X, section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution and title 68, section 2887(2) of the
Oklahoma Statutes. This determination does not, in itself, end the analysis. To be sure, section 3303(C) does not purport to apply a direct ad valorem tax at all. Rather, the Legislature took care
to require that the OWCC “shall annually make in lieu of tax payments equal to the average ad
valorem tax per acre paid on similar land in that county.” 29 O.S.2021, § 3-303(C).
Indisputably, the Legislature may employ “in lieu” language when drafting Oklahoma tax statutes.
See Cumberland Operating Co., 1988 OK 14, ¶ 13, 769 P.2d at 108 (property in Oklahoma “is
subject to ad valorem taxation, unless specifically exempt by law or by reason of payment of an in
lieu tax”); 68 O.S.2021, § 2804 (authorizing ad valorem taxation of all property “except that which
is specifically exempt by law, and except that which is relieved of ad valorem taxation by reason
of the payment of an in lieu tax”). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, and
its meaning clear . . . , the statute will be accorded the meaning as expressed by the language
therein employed.” Cave Springs Pub. Sch. Dist. I-30 v. Blair, 1980 OK 103, ¶ 4, 613 P.2d 1046,
1048. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has specifically stated that the phrase “‘[i]n lieu of’ means
‘in substitution for.’” Apache Gas Prods. Corp. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 1973 OK 34, ¶ 18, 509 P.2d
Chairman James V. Barwick
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
A.G. Opinion
Page 4
109, 114; see also 1987 OK AG 150, ¶ 9 (“The meaning of ‘in lieu of,’ when that phrase is used
in a statute, is well settled. Our State Supreme Court, as well as most other state courts, universally
hold that the phrase means ‘instead of,’ ‘in place of,’ or ‘in substitution for.’”).
Within the state’s Ad Valorem Tax Code, the Legislature has enumerated eleven distinct categories
for which “fees or taxes levied by the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes shall be in lieu of ad
valorem tax.” 68 O.S.2021, § 2805. The statutory list is instructive. By way of example, it includes
the “registration fees and taxes imposed upon aircraft,” id. § 2805(1), “[r]egistration fees for motor
vehicles,” id. § 2805(2), and the “taxes levied upon the gross production of” minerals, id. §
2805(5); see also Cumberland Operating Co., 1988 OK 14, ¶ 14, 769 P.2d at 109 (describing how
the Legislature’s enactment of the gross production tax “imposed a special tax in lieu of and as a
substitute for the general ad valorem tax on [] oil and gas”). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has
long recognized “the right of the state, where the nature of the property rendered the assessing and
levying of ad valorem taxes thereon difficult, to adopt a different method more suited, in the
judgment of the legislature, to reach and assess such property.” Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Okla.
Tax Comm’n, 1940 OK 437, ¶ 5, 106 P.2d 829, 831; see also Apache Gas Prods. Corp., 1973 OK
34, ¶ 19, 509 P.2d at 114 (Legislature may “value and classify such property by means and methods
differing from that commonly employed in the assessment, levy, and collection of taxes by
counties”) (quotation and citation omitted). Meanwhile, nothing resembling section 3-303(C)’s “in
lieu of tax payments equal to the average ad valorem tax per acre paid on similar land in that
county” is included among the categories found in title 68, section 2805 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Here, the Legislature has merely replaced an ad valorem tax on exempt real property with an
essentially identical substitute tax on the same exempt real property under the label of a
permissible “in lieu of” payment. 4 This approach is improper; regardless of the framing, it is an
unconstitutional tax.
Plainly, “[t]he Legislature may substitute one form of taxation for another” as a general matter.
Home-Stake Prod. Co. v. Bd. of Equalization, 1966 OK 115, ¶ 16, 416 P.2d 917, 922; see also In
re Assessment of Chickasha Cotton Oil Co., 1920 OK 339, ¶ 5, 194 P. 215, 216 (“The Constitution
does not require that property be taxed upon an ad valorem basis. The Legislature may substitute
another form of taxation.”); Save Ad Valorem Funding for Students v. Okla. Dep’t of Env’t Quality,
2006 OK CIV APP 53, ¶ 7, 135 P.3d 823, 826 (noting that the Legislature “may withdraw a class
of property from ad valorem taxation if it substitutes another form of taxation”). But the exercise
of legislative judgment inherent in the act of substitution presumes the prior existence of a valid
ad valorem tax obligation for which a new and equally valid mode of taxation is simply being
exchanged. In other words, the taxpaying entity will have been “relieved of payment of ad valorem
taxes by payment of the substitute” tax. Cumberland Operating Co., 1988 OK 14, ¶ 14, 769 P.2d
at 109. That is not the case here. Section 3-303(C) does not “relieve” the OWCC of anything.
Instead, the statute burdens the OWCC by grafting an invalid recurring payment obligation onto
an otherwise legitimate—and constitutionally authorized—exemption from ad valorem taxes.
Fundamentally, our state Constitution “grants to the Legislature the power to legislate on any
‘rightful subject.’” Naifeh v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 2017 OK 63, ¶ 11, 400 P.3d 759,
763 (quoting OKLA. CONST. art. V, § 36). By a similar token, courts “do not look to the Constitution
“Real property, for the purpose of ad valorem taxation, shall be construed to mean the land itself, and all
rights and privileges thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining . . . .” 68 O.S.2021, § 2806.
4
Chairman James V. Barwick
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
A.G. Opinion
Page 5
to determine whether the Legislature is authorized to do an act but rather to see whether it is
prohibited.” Draper v. State, 1980 OK 117, ¶ 10, 621 P.2d 1142, 1146. “A mandatory provision
in our constitution . . . is a limitation upon the power of the legislature.” Lepak v. McClain, 1992
OK 166, ¶ 8, 844 P.2d 852, 854. And the Oklahoma Constitution mandates that state property
“shall be exempt from taxation.” OKLA. CONST. art. X, § 6. By using the words “in lieu of” in
section 3-303(C), the Legislature conjured a costly substitute for a tax obligation that the OWCC
did not owe to any county. “The principle applies that what may not be done directly should not
be allowed to be done indirectly.” Reherman v. Okla. Water Res. Bd., 1984 OK 12, ¶ 15, 679 P.2d
1296, 1301. Accordingly, the “in lieu of tax payments” imposed by section 3-303(C) do not
comport with the requirements of the state constitution.
B.
Section 3-303(C) further contravenes the Oklahoma Constitution by directing the use
of OWCC funds for a purpose that does not benefit wildlife resources.
Even if section 3-303(C)’s “in lieu of tax payments” could withstand constitutional scrutiny under
article X, section 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the statute would also independently violate the
separate constitutional provision governing how the OWCC must use and dispose of its funds in
accordance with article XXVI, section 4. “A constitutional provision must be construed
considering its purpose and given a practical interpretation so that the manifest purpose of the
framers and the people who adopted it may be carried out.” Fent v. Fallin, 2014 OK 105, ¶ 17,
345 P.3d 1113, 1117. By vote of the people, article XXVI of the Oklahoma Constitution
established the OWCC and delineated the means by which it would accomplish its mission and
purpose. Significantly, our state constitution expressly permits the OWCC to acquire “all property
necessary, useful or convenient for its use in carrying out the objects and purposes of [article 26].”
OKLA. CONST. art. XXVI, § 2. For its part, the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code provides
the OWCC with an identical directive. See 29 O.S.2021, § 3-303(A) (the OWCC “may acquire . .
. all property or money necessary, useful or convenient for its use in carrying out the objects and
purposes of this Code”).
The Oklahoma Constitution has not left these objects and purposes to guesswork. The OWCC
must exclusively dedicate its funds to “the control, management, restoration, conservation and
regulation of the bird, fish, game and wildlife resources of the State, including the purchase or
other acquisition of property for said purposes, and for no other purpose.” OKLA. CONST. art.
XXVI, § 4 (emphasis added); see also 29 O.S.2021, § 3-302(C) (restricting the “fees, monies or
funds” of the OWCC to “the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the
wildlife resources of the state, including the purchase or other acquisition of property for said
purposes, and for the administration of the laws pertaining thereto and for no other purposes”).
Bearing these constitutional imperatives in mind, the office concludes that section 3-303(C)’s
continual diversion of OWCC funds to various counties has allowed “the obvious purposes of
Article 26 [to] be defeated.” Okla. Wildlife Fed’n, 1972 OK 144, ¶ 20, 513 P.2d at 314; see also
1976 OK AG 287 (“[T]he intent of the people of the state, in adopting Section 4 of Article 26 of
the Oklahoma Constitution was that no money arising from the operation and transactions of the
Department of Wildlife Conservation was to be diverted from the Wildlife Conservation Fund.”);
1971 OK AG 163 (emphasizing that, in order for “any [OWCC] expenditure to be permissible, it
must serve to further the ‘control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation’ of the
State’s wildlife resources”).
Chairman James V. Barwick
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission
A.G. Opinion
Page 6
“When reasonably possible, . . . statutes should be construed as to uphold their constitutionality.”
Williamson v. State, 1969 OK CR 326, ¶ 8, 463 P.2d 1004, 1008. But article XXVI, section 4 of
the Oklahoma Constitution unambiguously contains “an evident object and purpose” that is
thwarted by the application of section 3-303(C) to the OWCC. Lepak, 1992 OK 166, ¶ 8, 844 P.2d
at 854. Simply put, “[t]he Constitution is the bulwark to which all statutes must yield.” EOG Res.
Mktg., Inc. v. Okla. State Bd. of Equalization, 2008 OK 95, ¶ 16, 196 P.3d 511, 520. In sum,
section 3-303(C) imposes extraneous tax obligations on the OWCC that cannot be reconciled with
the fulfillment of its clear constitutional duties under article XXVI as the steward of the state’s
wildlife resources.
Although your request goes on to suggest additional grounds supporting section 3-303(C)’s
invalidity, any remaining questions about the application and enforceability of the statute are
resolved by the office’s conclusion that the statute independently violates articles X and XXVI of
the Oklahoma Constitution. As a final matter, you ask whether the OWCC could seek
reimbursement of its prior payments to individual counties following a legal determination that
section 3-303(C) is unconstitutional. Answering that question would require this office to assess
the availability of legal remedies and potential defenses in advance of anticipated litigation. Your
final question must ultimately remain for determination “by an action in the District Court of this
state.” State ex rel. York v. Turpen, 1984 OK 26, ¶ 12, 681 P.2d 763, 767. As such, it falls beyond
the scope of this opinion. See 74 O.S.2021, § 18b(A)(5); 2024 OK AG 7, ¶ 19 (“Unlike a court, an
Attorney General Opinion does not consider or make rulings on factual issues . . . .”).
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
Title 29, section 3-303(C) of the Oklahoma Statutes imposes an
unconstitutional “in lieu of” ad valorem tax obligation on the OWCC.
Furthermore, section 3-303(C) impairs the constitutionally defined objects
and purposes of the OWCC, in derogation of article XXVI, section 4 of the
Oklahoma Constitution. 5
GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
CULLEN D. SWEENEY
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
By virtue of this opinion’s conclusion that title 29, section 3-303(C) of the Oklahoma Statutes violates the
Oklahoma Constitution, it must be construed as advisory only. State ex rel. York v. Turpen, 1984 OK 26, ¶ 12, 681
P.2d 763, 767.
5