The court rejected this argument because this problem was within the city's control. The court's reasoning is persuasive. Unlike Regents , appellant here has proposed and designed a project. Moreover, there is no demonstration that condemnation of respondent's land affects whether completion of the project is attainable. Although there may be some question as to whether appellant may complete the project in its present form, either other avenues of obtaining the neighboring land exist or modification of the existing plan is within appellant's control.
Federal law pertaining to condemnation of tribal land is immaterial.
The proper focus is respondent's land. 160.04, 163.11 empower appellant to expand the existing roadway as directed by the county board. A plan has been approved. To hold otherwise would enmesh the courts in an endless series of reviews of the practicability of executive and legislative plans and decisions and would be contrary to well-settled principles of eminent domain. Because of our ruling on the condemnation issue, we need not reach appellant's additional arguments.