Dissents.
I respectfully dissent because the Court departs from the Legislature’s original intent in this ease and expands fire districts powers beyond that granted to them by the Legislature.
The Court’s primary duty in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the legislative intent and purpose of the statute. Adamson v. Blanchard, 133 Idaho 602, 605, 990 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1999); Bannock County v. City of Pocatello, 110 Idaho 292, 294, 715 P.2d 962, 964 (1986). Additionally, the legislature’s intent is ascertained from the statutory language and the Court may seek edification from the statute’s legislative history and historical content at enactment. Adamson, 133 Idaho at 605, 990 P.2d at 1216. As in Adam-son, the parties present two competing interpretations of “preservation of life.”
The “preservation of life” language was added to I.C. § 31-1401 in 1974. Discussions about the amendment took place in the Senate Health, Education, and Welfare (H.E.W.) Committee on January 31, 1974, and February 14, 1974 and in the House Local Government Committee on March 8,1974.
During the first discussions, Senator Barker explained:
that the present law governing Fire Protection Districts gives no authority to men trained in life saving techniques to use those techniques. In fact, the Attorney General’s office says that.they cannot administer aid in the form of lifesaving techniques to anyone under present law. This bill would add a provision to present law for the protection and preservation of life.
H.E.W. Committee, Minutes, January 31, 1974.
The Local Government Committee heard the following:
Fire Chief Peterson spoke in favor of this bill and answered the question, “why the emergency clause” because they cannot render first aid legally, at this time.
Mr. Anderson urged passage of this bill also, to make it legal to administer first aid.
Fire Chief Lane said it is impossible to curtail this type of activity which has been going on since the formation of fire departments. He hoped the legislature would “come to their aid" on this.
The legislative intent seems clear — first aid at the scene, nothing more.
This is consistent with the overall legislative scheme. During the H.E.W. Committee meeting of January 14, 1974, Senator Snow asked if this would apply to cities and Senator Barker answered it wouldn’t because city fire departments have their own regulations.
This bill was aimed at rural county fire districts only. Counties are allowed to pass an ambulance district pursuant to Idaho Code Chapter 39, Title 31. Why would the legislature duplicate efforts with this very nebulous phrase? The district court should be reversed with instructions to limit the fire protection district to “first aid” at the site of their fire suppressing efforts. Ambulance services should be left to ambulance districts or nonprofit and for profit private ambulance organizations.
Chief Justice TROUT concurs.