The issues presented to this Court by this petition are issues that have been much debated; and in support of and in opposition to each side of this argument learned scholars and professors have set pen.1
On each side of this issue are arrayed knowledgeable and intelligent individuals who argue that a decision following one course would result in the usurpation and a disruption, if not dislocation, of the function of the executive department of government and create instability in place of regulatory certainty. On the other side of the issue the argument persists that the representatives elected directly by the people are those who should ultimately determine the nature and quality of regulations insofar as whether or not they reflect the will of the legislature of the state of Idaho; and a decision contrary to the arguments of this faction would result in an ever burgeoning executive power not contemplated, provided for or desired by the people. All presenting arguments on this issue are agreed that however this Court might rule, if contrary to their expressed positions, the Court will be doing violence to the Constitution of the state of Idaho. Into this thicket this Court has been invited.
On October 15, 1985, applicants, the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare, adopted rules and regulations for individual and subsurface sewage disposal systems, IDA-PA 16.01.3001-999 (hereinafter referred to *662as the 1985 Rules). The 1985 Rules were promulgated pursuant to Idaho Code tit. 39, ch. 1, after substantial public testimony and written comment at three public hearings. The official testimony at all three hearings introduced the background of the previous regulations (ratified by the Board in 1978) and explained that the Board’s 1978 regulations were based on seventy-year-old criteria that would allow system failures and pose a threat to water quality and public health. It was argued the regulations needed to be revised to follow the latest pollution prevention techniques.- The 1985 Rules were duly adopted by the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare.
The Board issued more than 11,000 permits to private citizens and business entities in order to comply with the 1985 Rules. Then, during the 1989 legislative session, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Idaho Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution 29 (HCR-29), which “rejected, declared null and void and of no force and effect” the 1985 Rules. This action was taken in reliance upon the provisions of I.C. § 67-5218 as amended in 1985. Additionally, HCR-29 instructed the Board of Health and Welfare “to promulgate the rules and regulations relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems that were in effect prior to October 15, 1985, and those rules shall be deemed to be in full force and effect,” and to “begin procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act to promulgate rules and regulations relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems taking into account site specific factors such as climate, depth of the water table, where the systems will be installed, monetary hardships and other relevant factors.”
District VII has independently determined to follow HCR-29 until such time as the judicial system determines the resolution unconstitutional, and is ignoring the 1985 Rules. The Board of Health and Welfare has refused to comply with HCR-29 and now requests that this Court issue writs of prohibition and mandate to the legislature and District VII that will, in effect, command their acquiescence in the Board’s 1985 rules. The Board urges that the means the Court should take to reach this end is to hold I.C. § 67-5218 and HCR-29 unconstitutional.
The issue before the Court is whether the Idaho Legislature may rescind the rules promulgated by an executive department board or agency by concurrent resolution pursuant to I.C. § 67-5218. A number of jurisdictions have dealt with variations of the issue before us. In each case, differing issues, constitutional provisions, or statutes preclude our adoption of them as clear precedent.2
*663The Court’s position in this case is not unlike that described by Chief Justice Mar-shall in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 404 (1821):
The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do, is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.
Justice Bistline in Holly Care Center v. State Dep’t of Emp., 110 Idaho 76, 714 P.2d 45 (1976), anticipated that one day this question would reach this Court when he said:
Not before us, and left for another day and another case, is the legal effect of action by the legislature in rejecting an administrative rule. The legal efficacy of the legislative veto raises potentially serious constitutional issues, involving among others that pertaining to the presentment of bills and the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
This Court, mindful of Justice Marshall’s admonition, addresses the issues presented to it by the applicants and respondents.
Specifically, the issues before this Court are as follows:
1. Whether the Idaho Supreme Court can and should exercise original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate, prohibition and a declaratory judgment in mandamus?
2. Whether I.C. § 67-5218 and HCR-29 violate the Idaho Constitution’s legislative enactment and presentment clauses in article 3, §§ 1 and 15, and article 4, § 10, or the principle of separation of powers contained in article 2, § 1?
3.Whether District VII must comply with the Board of Health and Welfare’s 1985 Rules?
I. SUPREME COURT’S JURISDICTION
We exercise this Court’s original jurisdiction and review this case under the power granted by article 5, § 9 of the Idaho Constitution. Article 5, § 9 specifically states that the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.” We also note that the Idaho Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is limited only by article 2, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution and its own Court Rules. Article 5, § 13 of the Idaho Constitution provides that the legislature shall “regulate by law, when necessary, the methods of proceeding in the exercise of their powers of all the courts below the Supreme Court, ...” The principle that neither the legislature .nor the executive can in any way regulate or alter the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is basic to the doctrine of separation of powers. Idaho Constitution, art. 2, § 1. Even though legislative authorization is not necessary, I.C. § 10-1201 authorizes this Court to issue declaratory judgments in appropriate situations.
The procedural guidelines pertaining to special writs is delineated in Idaho Appellate Rule 43. Regarding the extent of the Supreme Court’s original appellate jurisdiction, I.A.R. 5 provides that: “Any person may apply to the Supreme Court for the issuance of any extraordinary writ or other proceeding over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and such application shall be made as provided in these rules.” Once this Court has asserted its original jurisdiction, it may issue writs *664of mandamus and/or prohibition. See also I.C. §§ 7-301-7-303, 7-401-7-404.
In the instant case, the Board is requesting that the writ of prohibition be issued to nullify legislative action taken pursuant to I.C. § 67-5218, and that the writ of mandate be issued to District VII. Our disposition of the constitutionality of I.C. § 67-5218 will be limited to a simple declaration of its constitutionality or lack thereof.
These limits do not apply, however, to our determination of whether District VII must comply with the 1985 Rules.
II. SEPARATION OF POWERS
A. EXECUTIVE POWER
Article 2, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of Idaho’s government. Article 3, § 1 provides that the power to pass bills is vested in the legislature. Article 3, § 15 provides that, “[n]o law shall be passed except by bill, ...” Read together, these three constitutional provisions stand for the proposition that, of Idaho’s three branches of government, only the legislature has the power to make “law.” See State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 213 P. 358 (1923); State v. Purcell, 39 Idaho 642, 228 P. 796 (1924); Suppiger v. Enking, 60 Idaho 292, 91 P.2d 362 (1939); Board of County Com'rs of Twin Falls County v. Idaho Health Fac. Auth., 96 Idaho 498, 531 P.2d 588 (1975).
While the power to make law lies exclusively within the province of the legislature, (Idaho Constitution, art. 3 §§ 1, 15) “the legislature may constitutionally leave to administrative agencies the selection of the means and the time and place of the execution of the legislative purpose, and to that end may prescribe suitable rules and regulations.” State v. Taylor, 58 Idaho 656, 664, 78 P.2d 125, 128 (1938). Administrative agencies do this by enacting rules and regulations. See Idaho Code tit. 67, ch. 52. However, while these rules and regulations may be given the “force and effect of law,” they do not rise to the level of statutory law. Only the legislature can make law. Idaho Power v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083 (1914); State v. Nelson, 36 Idaho 713, 213 P. 358 (1923); overruled on other grounds, Greater Boise Aud. v. Royal Inn of Boise, 106 Idaho 884, 684 P.2d 286 (1984); State v. Purcell, 39 Idaho 642, 228 P. 796 (1924); Marshall v. Department of Agric., 44 Idaho 440, 258 P. 171 (1927); Chambers v. McCollum, 47 Idaho 74, 272 P. 707 (1928); State v. Heitz, 72 Idaho 107, 238 P.2d 439 (1951); Idaho Savs. & Loan Ass’n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128, 350 P.2d 225 (1960); Boise Redevelopment Agency v. Yick Kong Corp., 94 Idaho 876, 499 P.2d 575 (1972); Board of County Com’rs of Twin Falls County v. Idaho Health Fac. Auth., 96 Idaho 498, 531 P.2d 588 (1975); and Kerner v. Johnson, 99 Idaho 433, 583 P.2d 360 (1978).
The Constitution of the state of Idaho and this Court, through its interpretation in the cases cited herein, have clearly established that the legislative power was vested exclusively in the legislature; that a statute or law should be enacted only by a bill, passed by both houses of the legislature and signed by the governor, or rejected by the governor, passed over the veto by the legislature, or having become law without the governor’s signature as provided in the Constitution. The next question that early on developed was: What was the nature, constitutional basis for and effect of the legislature delegating certain rule making authority to the executive department?
This Court, speaking through a number of eminent jurists, has rather consistently defined the nature of that which results from rules and regulations adopted by executive agencies by virtue of authority delegated to such agencies from the legislature.
Sullivan, J., speaking for the Court in Idaho Power Co. v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083 (1914), described the authority delegated by legislative act by quoting language from the United States Supreme Court contained in Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U.S. 194, 32 S.Ct. 436, 56 L.Ed. 729 (1912):
*665[T]he congress may not delegate its purely legislative power to a commission, but, having laid down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may require, of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within the rules laid down by the congress.
Continuing, the Court quoted Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892), as follows:
“The true distinction,” as Judge Ranney, speaking for the Supreme Court of Ohio, has well said, “is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.”
William A. Lee, J., spoke for the Court in State v. Purcell, 39 Idaho 642, 649, 228 P. 796, 797 (1924), as follows: “One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot be delegated by that department to any other body or authority.”
These and the earlier cited cases clearly pronounce that what the legislature delegated was not a legislative or law making authority, but, an authority to make rules or regulations.
In the case of Marshall v. Department of Agric., 44 Idaho 440, 258 P. 171 (1927), Givens, J., held that: “the authority granted the Department of Agriculture ... was not a delegation of legislative authority.”
The opinion in Chambers v. McCollum, 47 Idaho 74, 272 P. 707 (1928), was authored by Budge, J. There the Court was presented with a question of the constitutionality of the Idaho Forestry Law, and it described the nature of boards and commissions operating under legislatively delegated rule making authority as follows: “Boards and commissions of this character do not exercise any of the powers delegated by the legislature. They do not make any laws.” Justice Budge went on to quote from the language of the Kansas case Schaake v. Dolley, 85 Kan. 598, 118 P. 80 (1911), to enunciate the reason that this delegation of rule making authority had evolved:
It has been well said that to deny to the Legislature the right to delegate the power to determine some fact or state of thing upon which the enforcement of an enactment depends would stop the wheels of government and bring about confusion, if not paralysis, in the conduct of the public business.
In all, save two, decisions of this Court on this issue, the Court has consistently described rules and regulations adopted by agencies pursuant to legislative delegation as at the most having the “force and effect of law.” The Court has never, save in dictum in the case of Higginson v. Westergard, 100 Idaho 687, 690, 604 P.2d 51, 54 (1979), referred to in dictum in Holly Care Center v. Department of Emp. by two Justices of this Court, described any rule or regulation as being equal in dignity or status to statutory law. McFall v. Arkoosh, 37 Idaho 243, 215 P. 978 (1923); State v. Heitz, 72 Idaho 107, 238 P.2d 439 (1951); Idaho Savs. & Loan Ass’n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128, 350 P.2d 225 (1960); Board of County Commrs. of Twin Falls County v. Idaho Health Facilities Auth., 96 Idaho 498, 531 P.2d 588 (1975); Kerner v. Johnson, 99 Idaho 433, 583 P.2d 360 (1978).
Therefore, although this Court has frequently described the rules and regulations in different words and has sometimes ascribed to them an administrative character as well as a legislatively conferred quality, State v. Heitz, 72 Idaho 107, 112, 238 P.2d 439, we have consistently found the origin of this rule making capacity in a delegation from the legislature not a constitutional grant of power to the executive and have consistently held such rules or regulations promulgated thereunder to be less than the equivalent of statutory law.
The Supreme Court of the United States likewise wrestled for a period of time with the nature of these regulations in United *666States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563 (1910), wherein the Court, quoting from an even earlier opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, stated:
“[C]ongress may certainly delegate to others powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself." What were these nonlegislative powers that congress could exercise, but which might also be delegated to others was not determined, for he said: “The line has not been exactly drawn which' separates these important subjects which must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself, from those of less interest, in which a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act upon such general provisions to fill up the details.” (Emphasis in original.)
United States v. Grimaud, 31 S.Ct. at 483.
In the same case Justice Lamar, delivering the opinion of the Court, further described the nature and dignity of rules and regulations as follows:
By whatever name they are called, they refer to matters of local management and local police. Brodbine v. Revere, 182 Mass. 598, 66 N.E. 607 [1903]. They are not “of a legislative character in the highest sense of the term; and as an owner may delegate to his principal agent the right to employ subordinates, giving to them a limited discretion, so it would seem that Congress might rightfully intrust to the local legislature (authorities) the determination of minor matters.” Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 119, 25 S.Ct. 211 [49 L.Ed. 409] (1905).
United States v. Grimaud, 31 S.Ct. at 483.
The courts of other jurisdictions seem likewise to have given a lesser dignity than statutory law to rules and regulations. The Court of Appeals of Kansas held that:
Although administrative regulations and rules may be promulgated to implement statutes and the exercise of delegated authority, and duly adopted administrative regulations and rules have the force of law, administrative regulations and rules do not supplant statutory law nor do they preempt judicial statutory interpretation.
Peoples Natural Gas v. State Corp. Comm’r, 7 Kan.App.2d 519, 644 P.2d 999, 1006, review denied, (1982).
These long held principles of constitutional jurisprudence were encapsulated in Idaho’s Administrative Procedure Act of 19653 (APA). The APA governs the procedures by which administrative agencies adopt rules. Its validity was explicitly reinforced in 1972 when article 4, § 20 of the Idaho Constitution was ratified. This provision reads:
All executive and administrative officers, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive department of the state and their respective functions, powers, and duties, except for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, attorney general and superintendent of public instruction, shall be allocated by law among and within not more than twenty (20) departments by no later than January 1, 1975. Subsequently, all new powers or functions shall be assigned to departments, divisions, sections or units in such a manner as will tend to provide an orderly arrangement in the administrative organization of state government. (Emphasis added.)
In addition to being a proper delegation of power under article 2, § 1, the APA was created in a manner consistent with the enactment clause of article 3, § 1, and the presentment clause of article 4, § 10 of the Idaho Constitution. Section 67-5218 of the APA was likewise properly enacted, presented to and signed by the Governor. It was properly amended in 1985. Thus, both the APA and § 67-5218 were created in the constitutionally mandated manner. See Holly Care Center v. Department of Emp., 110 Idaho 76, 714 P.2d 45 (1986).4
*667HCR-29 is not a law and need not comply with article 4, § 10 of the Idaho Constitution. Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 107 P. 493 (1910); Griffith v. Van Deusen, 31 Idaho 136, 169 P. 929 (1917).
The Board argues that by granting the legislature the power to reject administrative rules, I.C. § 67-5218 violates the doctrine of separation of powers as provided in article 2, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution. It does so, the Board urges, by allowing the legislature to impinge on the executive department’s constitutionally mandated duty to execute the laws of this state.
The Board’s argument is misapplied to this case. Here, the legislative action has not invalidated the executive department’s “execution of law.” Such would be the case, for instance, if the legislature had passed a concurrent resolution to prevent the Attorney General from taking legal action for some violation of a statute. Enforcing the law of this state is a constitutionally mandated executive department function resting in the office of the Attorney General. In such a case no delegation would be involved. Conversely, in this case, the Board’s rule making power comes from a legislative delegation. Rule making that comes from a legislative delegation of power is neither the legal nor functional equivalent of constitutional power. It is not constitutionally mandated; rather it comes to the executive department through delegation from the legislature. This Court, as noted, has consistently found the executive rule making authority to be rooted in a legislative delegation, not a power constitutionally granted to the executive.
The action of this Court over the last fifty years so closely parallels that of the United States Supreme Court in approving delegation of rule making authority to the executive that the arguments of Justice White dissenting in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983)5, are directly applicable and state the case far more cogently than could this author:
Congress is faced with a Hobson’s choice: either to refrain from delegating the necessary authority, leaving itself with a hopeless task of writing laws with the requisite specificity to cover endless special circumstances across the entire policy landscape, or in the alternative, to abdicate its law-making function to the Executive Branch and independent agencies. To choose the former leaves major national problems unresolved; to opt for the latter risks unaccountable policymaking by those not elected to fill that role.
Chadha, 103 S.Ct. at 2793.
The power to exercise a legislative veto is not the power to write a new law without bicameral approval or Presidential consideration. The veto must be authorized by statute and may only negative what an Executive department or independent agency has proposed. On its face, the legislative veto no more allows one House of Congress to make law than does the Presidential veto confer such power upon the President.
Chadha, 103 S.Ct. at 2799.
If Congress may delegate lawmaking power to independent and Executive agencies, it is most difficult to understand Art. I as prohibiting Congress from also reserving a check on legislative power for itself. Absent the veto, the agencies receiving delegations of legislative or quasi-legislative power may issue regulations having the force of law without bicameral approval and without the President’s signature. It is thus not apparent why the reservation of a veto over the exercise of that legislative power must be subject to a more exacting test. In both cases, it is enough that the initial statutory authorizations comply with the Art. 1 requirements.
Chadha, 103 S.Ct. at 2802.
Under the Court’s analysis, the Executive Branch and the independent agencies *668may make rules with the effect of law while Congress, in whom the Framers confided the legislative power, Art. 1, § 1, may not exercise a veto which precludes such rules from having operative force. If the effective functioning of a complex modern government requires the delegation of vast authority which, by virtue of its breadth, is legislative or “quasi-legislative” in character, I cannot accept that Art. 1 — which is, after all the source of the non-delegation doctrine— should forbid Congress to qualify that grant with a legislative veto.
Chadha, 103 S.Ct. at 2804.
Under article I, § 7, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, every order, resolution, or vote which may require the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives (except on a question of adjournment) must be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by the President, or being disapproved, must be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the-rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
The Constitution of the state of Idaho is much more limited. Article 4, § 10 provides:
§ 10. Veto power. — Every bill passed by the legislature shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor. If he approve, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if do not approve, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, which house shall enter the objections at large upon its journals and proceed to reconsider the same bill. If then two-thirds (%) of the members present agree to pass the same, it shall' be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered: and if approved by two-thirds (%) of the members present in that house, it shall become a law, notwithstanding the objections of the governor. In all such cases the vote of each house shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal. Any bill which shall not be returned by the governor to the legislature within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the legislature shall, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall be filed, with his objections, in the office of the secretary of state within ten (10) days after such adjournment (Sundays excepted) or become a law.
Applicant argues that since regulations have the “force and effect of law” they can only be rejected by something of “equal dignity.” The regulations that have the “force and effect of law” did not come through legislative enactment directly, but were adopted by administrators by authority of the legislature embodied in a statute. HCR-29 likewise was adopted pursuant to statutory authority. Idaho Code § 67-5218 confers that authority.
Applicant further suggests that a great mischief could be perpetuated under I.C. § 67-5218 by the legislature passing a bill without provisions that would invite a governor’s veto and later amending regulations enacted pursuant to that bill to include the omitted provision, thus evading article 4, § 10 of the Idaho Constitution.
We deal here only with the rejection of an administrative regulation. The perceived mischief is not present, or possible, in rejection of a rule or regulation. This holding should not be deemed to apply to any situations, set of facts or possible application other than the rejection of an administrative rule or regulation that has been promulgated pursuant to legislatively delegated authority. The use of a Concurrent Resolution, as provided for in I.C. § 67-5218, does not bestow any greater dignity, power or authority on a Concurrent Resolution other than that provided in I.C. § 67-5218 for rejecting a rule or regulation.
The condition enunciated in I.C. § 67-5218 is that the rules which the legislature have delegated the authority to promulgate comply with the legislative intent of the enabling statute. This conditioned grant of authority is consistent with *669the principle of separation of powers as set forth in article 2, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution as these acts relate to the executive department.
B. JUDICIAL POWER
It is further argued that I.C. § 67-5218 violates the principle of separation of powers expressed in article 2, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution, as permitting the exercise of an exclusively judicial function by the legislature, empowering it to review and interpret rules and regulations and determine if said rules and regulations comply with the legislative intent of the enabling statute.
This Court is established as a coequal department of government under the terms of article 2, § 1 of the Constitution of the state of Idaho. Article 5, §§ 2 and 13, of the Idaho Constitution vest all judicial power and jurisdiction in this Court. These provisions are clear that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the law. In re Lockman, 18 Idaho 465, 110 P. 253 (1910); In re Speer, 53 Idaho 293, 23 P.2d 239 (1933); State v. Barnes, 55 Idaho 578, 45 P.2d 293 (1935); Scott v. Gossett, 66 Idaho 329, 158 P.2d 804 (1945); State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 486 P.2d 247 (1971); Holly Care Center v. Department of Emp., 110 Idaho 76, 714 P.2d 45 (1986).
While mindful of the prerogatives of this Court, and remaining ever vigilant in the defense thereof, this Court has consistently acted to protect against encroachment of one department of government on another. State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 240-41, 486 P.2d 247, 251-52 (1971). This Court also must be mindful of the admonition of Justice Jackson concurring in the judgment and opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952):
The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies — such as wages or stabilization — and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.
A judge, like an executive adviser, may be surprised at the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority applicable to concrete problems of executive power as they actually present themselves. Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other. And court decisions are indecisive because of the judicial practice of dealing with the largest questions in the most narrow way.
The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. (Footnotes omitted.)
Youngstown, 72 S.Ct. at 869-70.
Justice Jackson’s observation of “the poverty of really useful and unambiguous authority” remains true.
The Constitution gives both the power and a clear directive to this Court to interpret the law and to determine what administrative rules “do or do not conflict with statutory law.” Holly Care Center v. Department of Emp., 110 Idaho 76, 82, 714 P.2d 45 (1986). This Court must determine the effect of the legislature, by statute, providing for “legislative review of administrative rules (and to empower) the legislature to reject, amend or modify such rules by resolution.” S.B. No. 1086, as amended, 1969 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 48, p. 125-26.
More particularly stated, the determination must be made if the legislature, acting under the authority granted pursuant to *670I.C. § 67-5218, is exercising powers properly belonging to the judicial department.
The conflict to be resolved is between the judiciary’s constitutional authority to determine whether an administrative rule is in conformance with the enabling statute, and the legislature’s statutory entitlement to determine if an administrative rule or regulation fails to reflect the legislative intent contained in the enabling statute.
Idaho Code § 67-5218 makes clear that the legislature has reserved unto itself the power to reject an administrative rule or regulation as part of the statutory process. This reservation is not an intrusion on the judiciary’s constitutional powers.
In sum, I.C. § 67-5218 was created in the constitutionally mandated manner and is substantively proper under the terms of article 2, § 1, in that it does not permit the exercise of power by the legislature in rejecting rules or regulations properly belonging to the executive or the judiciary. Thus, we declare I.C. § 67-5218, as to rescinding rules and regulations pursuant thereto, constitutional. However, we do not suggest that all such legislative statutory reservations or rejections of rules or regulations pursuant thereto are necessarily consistent with the separation of powers principles.
We note that this holding is narrow and does not vitiate this Court’s prior opinion in Holly Care v. Department of Emp., 110 Idaho at 76, 714 P.2d 45 (1986). Holly Care held that the legislature’s affirmation (by inaction) of an agency rule was not binding on this Court’s determination of whether the rule conforms with the enabling legislation but left for another day determination of the question of legislative rejection of a rule.
III. HCR-29 — COMPLIANCE WITH I.C. § 67-5218
In this case, we are not presented with the question of whether the Board’s 1985 rules conformed with the enabling legislation of I.C. tit. 39, ch. 1, but whether the legislature’s actions comply with I.C. § 67-5218. To determine this, we must first examine the relevant language of the text of I.C. § 67-5218. Idaho Code § 67-5218 contains two passages that have a direct bearing on this question. The first passage reads:
If the committee to which any rule shall have been referred, or any member of the legislature, shall be of the opinion that such rule is violative of the legislative intent of the statute under which such rule was made, or, if any rule previously promulgated and reviewed by the legislature shall be deemed violative of the legislative intent of the statute under which such rule was made, a concurrent resolution may be adopted rejecting, amending or modifying the same. (Emphasis added.)
The second provision reads:
The agency shall be responsible for implementing legislative intent as expressed in the concurrent resolution, including, as appropriate, the reinstatement of the prior rule, if any, in the case of legislative rejection of the new rule, or the incorporation of any legislative amendments to the new rule.
We read these passages as creating threshold requirements that the legislature definitively express that the rule being rejected is contrary to legislative intent.
HCR-29 was adopted as follows:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 29 BY REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION STATING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND REJECTING CERTAIN RULES OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND WELFARE RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL/SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.
Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
WHEREAS, the Legislature is vested with authority to modify, reject or amend executive agency rules and regulations under the provisions of Section 67-5218, Idaho Code; and
*671WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Legislature that certain rules of the Board of Health and Welfare, effective October 15, 1985, relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, should be rejected; and
WHEREAS, in promulgating the rules relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, the Board of Health and Welfare did not sufficiently identify risks related to the subject and did not receive sufficient public input regarding the content of the rules; and
WHEREAS, it appears the rules and regulations relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems are designed for areas with milder climates than certain parts of Idaho; and
WHEREAS, certain district health departments improperly interpreted the rules relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems giving the public a false sense of security that they were complying with the rules; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Health and Welfare appeared to not consider such site specific factors as climate, depth of the water table or monetary hardship when promulgating the rules for Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems effective October 15, 1985.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of the Centennial Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Rules and Regulations Chapter 3, Title 1, Rules and Regulations for Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems (ID APA 16.01.3001 through 16.01.-3999) be and the same are hereby rejected, declared null and void and of no force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Health and Welfare is instructed to promulgate the rules and regulations relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems that were in effect prior to October 15, 1985, and those rules shall be deemed to be in full force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Health and Welfare is hereby instructed to begin procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act to promulgate rules and regulations relating to Individual/Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems taking into account site specific factors such as climate, depth of the water table, where the systems will be installed, monetary hardships and other relevant factors.
Conspicuously absent from HCR-29 is any statement that the 1985 regulations aré violative of legislative intent. Without such an expression, HCR-29 does not satisfy the requirements of I.C. § 67-5218 and is a nullity.
We do not address the language of HCR-29 declaring “null and void and of no force and effect” the 1985 Rules, nor the direction that the 1978 rules “shall be deemed in full force and effect.” Whether those passages attempt to enact laws and thus run afoul of article 4, § 10 of the Idaho Constitution is not decided in this opinion.
[W]hen a case can be decided upon a ground other than a constitutional ground, the Court will not address the constitutional issues. Poesy v. Bunney, 98 Idaho 258, 561 P.2d 400 (1977) (“It is well established that a reviewing court will not pass on the constitutionality of a statute unless it is absolutely necessary for a determination of the case.” Citing Swensen v. Buildings, Inc., 93 Idaho 466, 463 P.2d 932 (1970); Nelson v. Boundary County, 109 Idaho 205, 706 P.2d 94 (Ct.App.1985); “However, we will not review the constitutionality of a statute unless it is absolutely necessary to the decision of a case.” Citing Packard v. Joint School District No. 171, 104 Idaho 604, 661 P.2d 770 (Ct.App.1983)); State v. Hightower, 101 Idaho 749, 757, 620 P.2d 783, 791 (1980). Accord Nampa Christian Schools Foundation v. State, 110 Idaho 918, 920, 719 P.2d 1178, 1180 (1986).
Deonier v. Public Emp. Retirement Bd., 114 Idaho 721, 733, 760 P.2d 1137, 1149 (1988) (Bakes, J., dissenting).
*672IV. .STATUS OF DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
We are left with the question of whether the Board has the power to require District VII to comply with the 1985 Rules. Respondents argue that the Supreme Court should deny the application for writs of mandamus because there is no controversy ripe for adjudication. We hold that the Board has the power and that this issue is ripe for adjudication.
District VII has not promulgated its own rules pursuant to I.C. § 39-416. District VII is attempting to embrace as its own rules the 1978 rules and regulations of the Board. This it cannot do.
District VII is mandated, under I.C. § 39-414(1): “[t]o administer and enforce all state and district health laws, regulations and standards.” We view this as a mandatory duty.
On the adoption of HCR-29, this issue was ripe for adjudication. State v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (1981), (stayed, 455 U.S. 918, 102 S.Ct. 1272, 71 L.Ed.2d 458) (vacated, 459 U.S. 809,103 S.Ct. 22, 74 L.Ed.2d 39). Thus, District VII has the duty to enforce the Board’s 1985 rules.6
No costs awarded to any party.
BAKES, C.J., and BOYLE, J., concur.. Legislative Review of Agency Rules in the PostCHADHA Era, 49 Ohio St.L.J. 251 (1988); Doyle, Administrative Law and the Legal Order: A Case Study, University of Washington Abstract.
. General Assembly of New Jersey v. Byrne, 90 N.J. 376, 448 A.2d 438 (1982) (statute requiring submission to legislature of every administrative rule, and allowing veto of any rule by concurrent resolution of both houses):
[Under the challenged provision] the legislature need not explain its reasons for any veto decision. Its action therefore leaves the agency with no guidance on how to enforce the law.
Byrne, 448 A.2d at 443.
Our holding here does not foreclose all legislative veto provisions. Where legislative action is necessary to further a statutory scheme requiring cooperation between the two branches, and such action offers no substantial potential to interfere with exclusive executive functions or alter the statute’s purposes, legislative veto power can pass constitutional muster.
Byrne, 448 A.2d at 448.
State v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45, 687 P.2d 622 (1984) (based on Kansas precedent establishing a case by case analysis based on four factors: 1) essential nature of the powers being exercised; 2) degree of control by one department over another; 3) objective sought to be attained by the legislature; 4) practical result of the blending powers as shown by actual experience over a period of time.)
Opinion of the Justices, 121 N.H. 552, 431 A.2d 783 (1981) (bill under consideration requiring agencies to submit proposed rules for legislative committee approval before filing notice of intended action):
[W]here the Constitution explicitly says that the legislature requires a quorum to act, legislative veto by a small group of legislators "cannot fairly be said to represent the 'legislative will.’ ”
Opinion of the Justices (New Hampshire), 431 A.2d at 788.
Barker v. Manchin, 167 W.Va. 155, 279 S.E.2d 622 (1981) (statute provided for legislative oversight by committee, with power in full legislature to override committee determination by concurrent resolution or by inertia. Statute did not require any review by the full legislature.)
*663State v. A.L.I.VE. Voluntary, Alaska, 606 P.2d 769 (1980) (Alaska Constitutional Convention had dealt specifically with legislative veto):
[T]he express provision in the Alaska Constitution of two specific legislative veto mechanisms supports our view that no implied power to veto agency regulations by informal legislative action exists.
A.L.I. V.E. at 774.
. Title 67, chapter 52 of the Idaho Code.
. This holding in Holly Care was concurred in by two justices with a third justice concurring in the result.
. The United States Supreme Court in I.N.S. v. Chadha, decided that the “legislative veto” in that case was unconstitutional on the basis of Article I, § 1; § 7, clause 2; and § 7, clause 3 of the United States Constitution; and the fact that what was being considered was a one house “veto.”
. I.C. § 39-416, "Regulations adopted by district board — Procedure” states that "[t]he .district board by the affirmative vote of a majority of its members may adopt, amend or rescind regulations, rules and standards as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act ... [and] in a manner conforming to the provisions of chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.” This provision clearly pertains to regulations adopted by the particular district board pursuant to I.C. § 39-413(2) which empowers the directors "[t]o prescribe such rules and regulations, consistent with the requirements of this chapter, ...” and not to rules and regulations promulgated by the State’s Board of Health and Welfare. I.C. § 39-416(4) supports this reading: "This section does not apply to measures adopted in the operation of the district board in its administrative functions and duties, as enumerated in section 39-414, ...”