Opinion ID: 2595592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did Basin Comply With Condemnation Statutes

Text: [¶ 32] The condemnation process is governed by statute. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-503 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 1-26-503. Public use required; other acquisitions. (a) Nothing in this act requires that the power of eminent domain be exercised to acquire property. Whether property necessary for public use is to be acquired by purchase, other means or by eminent domain is a decision left to the discretion of the person authorized to acquire the property. (b) Subject to any other statute relating to the acquisition of property, any person or public entity authorized to acquire property for a particular use by eminent domain may also acquire the property for the use by grant, purchase, lease, gift, devise, contract or other means. [¶ 33] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-504 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 1-26-504. Requirements to exercise eminent domain. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the power of eminent domain may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed use only if all of the following are established: (i) The public interest and necessity require the project or the use of eminent domain is authorized by the Wyoming Constitution; (ii) The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and (iii) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. (b) Findings of the public service commission, the interstate commerce commission and other federal and state agencies with appropriate jurisdiction are prima facie valid relative to determinations under subsection (a) of this section if the findings were made in accordance with law with notice to condemnees who are parties to the condemnation action and are final with no appeals from the determinations pending. [Emphasis added.] [¶ 34] Wyo. Stat. Ann § 1-26-509 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 1-26-509. Negotiations; scope of efforts to purchase. (a) A condemnor shall make reasonable and diligent efforts to acquire property by good faith negotiation. (b) In attempting to acquire the property by purchase under W.S. [§]1-26-510, the condemnor, acting within the scope of its powers and to the extent not otherwise forbidden by law, may negotiate and contract with respect to: (i) Any element of valuation or damages recognized by law as relevant to the amount of just compensation payable for the property; (ii) The extent or nature of the property interest to be acquired; (iii) The quantity, location or boundary of the property; (iv) The acquisition, removal, relocation or disposition of improvements upon the property and of personal property not sought to be taken; (v) The date of proposed entry and physical dispossession; (vi) The time and method of payment of agreed compensation or other amounts authorized by law; and (vii) Any other terms or conditions deemed appropriate by either of the parties. [Emphasis added.] [¶ 35] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-510 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 1-26-510. Preliminary efforts to purchase. (a) Except as provided in W.S. [§]1-26-511, an action to condemn property may not be maintained over timely objection by the condemnee unless the condemnor made a good faith effort to acquire the property by purchase before commencing the action. (b) Negotiations conducted in substantial compliance with W.S. [§§]1-26-509(b)(i) through (vi) are prima facie evidence of good faith under subsection (a) of this section. [Emphasis added.] [¶ 36] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-515 (LexisNexis 2005) provides: § 1-26-515. Abandonment, nonuse or new use. Upon abandonment, nonuse for a period of ten (10) years, or transfer or attempted transfer to a use where the transferee could not have condemned for the new use, or where the new use is not identical to the original use and new damages to the landowner whose property was condemned for the original use will occur, any easement authorized under this act terminates. [¶ 37] The Bridle Bit Group contends that Basin did not locate the transmission line in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Wyo. Stat Ann. § 1-26-504(a)(ii). This is based on Basin's admitted decision to avoid public lands in favor of private lands as one factor used in selecting the route ultimately chosen. Other routes were available to Basin that used somewhat more public land, but Basin chose a route that included only a small amount of public land. The Bridle Bit Group asserts that this decision by Basin was arbitrary and capricious, as well as an act made in bad faith and constituted an abuse of its discretion with respect to the location of the transmission line. [¶ 38] The Roush Group contends that Basin failed to demonstrate that public interest and necessity require the project at issue and that Basin's proposed route does not comply with the requirement that the project be located so as to do the greatest public good and the least private harm. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-504(a)(i) and (ii). Those landowners contend that the project is designed solely for the benefit of PRECorp so that it can provide electricity for CBM development, but that there is no evidence that the public interest and necessity require the project. They also iterate the Bridle Bit Group's contentions concerning the greatest public good and the least private harm. Further, the Roush Group asserts that Basin failed to negotiate in good faith as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-509. This argument is premised on a theory that Basin selected the route it wanted and, thus, for all intents and purposes the route was not negotiable once the process of acquiring the necessary land got underway. They also contend that Basin refused to negotiate the term of the easements and insisted on easements that were perpetual in duration. [¶ 39] Basin contends that the route was chosen after considerable thought and study, and that it listened to the concerns of landowners. Basin considered the following factors in selecting the route now at issue: (a) Tie-in or connections to the existing electrical system infrastructure; (b) physical limitations, such as topography, railroad crossings, existing improvements, and dry lakebeds; (c) landowner concerns; (d) costs of construction; (e) reliability and safety matters (e.g., avoiding paralleling existing high power transmission lines); (f) minimizing the number of landowners being crossed; (g) minimizing impact to government property; (h) minimization of visual impact; (i) environmental concerns; (j) avoidance of archeological sites; and (k) avoidance of cultivated property. Basin ascertained that, given that the transmission line was necessary, the proposed route (and the bottom line is that it had to pick a route) was the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Basin asserts that no evidence to the contrary was brought to bear by the landowners. Furthermore, Basin contends that its evidence establishes that public interest and necessity do require the transmission line project. Without it, Basin asserts, it cannot meet its projected demands from its users (including mineral developers, farmers and ranchers). Basin also maintains that it enjoys considerable discretion in selecting an appropriate route. Basin contends that the landowners have marshaled no evidence that Basin abused the discretion accorded it by the eminent domain statutes. Basin acknowledges that it endeavored to avoid public lands, but ultimately was unable to do so. Thus, that matter became a non-issue because Basin was required to complete an Environmental Assessment in order to obtain access to both Forest Service and BLM lands. Finally, Basin claims that it negotiated in good faith with all landowners. [¶ 40] The standard of review applicable to these arguments has been articulated with clarity. In the case, Conner v. Board of County Commissioners, Natrona County, 2002 WY 148, ¶ 8, 54 P.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Wyo.2002) we set out that standard: Eminent domain proceedings are authorized by constitutional and statutory provisions and governed by W.R.C.P. 71.1. The district court determines all issues arising on the complaint for condemnation including notice, the plaintiff's right to make the appropriation, plaintiff's inability to agree with the owner, the necessity for the appropriation, and the regularity of the proceedings. W.R.C.P. 71.1(e)(2)(A). Only the issue of compensation may be tried before a jury. W.R.C.P. 71.1(j). When we review the district court's determination of issues required by Rule 71.1(e)(2), we uphold the judgment if there is evidence to support it, and in doing so we look only to the evidence submitted by the prevailing party and give to it every favorable inference which may be drawn therefrom, without considering any contrary evidence. Town of Wheatland v. Bellis Farms, Inc., 806 P.2d 281, 284 (Wyo.1991). Where the district court's ultimate conclusions decide questions of law, we afford no deference to its decision. See Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves, 603 P.2d 406, 410 (Wyo.1979); see also Homesite Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs of Laramie, 69 Wyo. 236, 240 P.2d 885, 889 (1952). Wyoming Resources Corporation v. T-Chair Land Company, 2002 WY 104, ¶¶ 7-8, 49 P.3d 999, ¶¶ 7-8 (Wyo.2002). [¶ 41] The Conner case also iterated: When a condemnor seeks to establish the requirement of necessity in an eminent domain proceeding, it need only show a reasonable necessity for the project. As explained by one court, the term necessity, when used in the context of an eminent domain proceeding, means reasonably convenient or useful to the public. City of Dayton v. Keys, 21 Ohio Misc. 105, 252 N.E.2d 655, 659 (1969). A showing that the project will increase public safety is sufficient. See Greasy Creek Mineral Company v. Ely Jellico Coal Company, 132 Ky. 692, 116 S.W. 1189 (1909). Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County v. Atter, 734 P.2d 549, 553 (Wyo.1987). And further: To comply with W.S. [§]1-26-504(a)(ii), the [board] needs to present evidence that it has planned or located the project in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. The district court then reviews the evidence and decides whether the [board] has met its burden. Once W.S. [§]1-26-504(a)(ii) has been complied with and the landowners still wish to contest the action, the burden shifts to them to show that the condemnor acted in bad faith or abused its discretion as to that particular determination. Town of Wheatland v. Bellis Farms, Inc., 806 P.2d 281, 283 (Wyo.1991) (footnotes omitted). Before filing an eminent domain complaint, a condemnor must make reasonable, diligent, and good faith efforts to negotiate with the condemnee. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-509 (LexisNexis 2001). Efforts made in compliance with the statutes constitute prima facie evidence of the condemnor's good faith. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-510 (LexisNexis 2001). 54 P.3d at 1282-83. [¶ 42] In Wyoming Resources Corporation v. T-Chair Land Company, 2002 WY 104, ¶¶ 13-14, 49 P.3d 999, 1003-04 (Wyo.2002) we held: The taking of private property for a private way of necessity is recognized as valid in Wyoming because [t]here is a public interest in giving access by individuals to the road and highway network of the state as a part and an extension thereof for economic reasons and the development of land as a resource for the common good, whether residential or otherwise. Hulse v. First American Title Co. of Crook County, 2001 WY 95, ¶ 30, 33 P.3d 122, ¶ 30 (Wyo.2001). [T]he right to condemn a way of necessity under constitutional and statutory provisions is an expression of public policy against landlocking property and rendering it useless. Id.; see Coronado Oil Co., 603 P.2d at 410. The legislature has enacted the eminent domain and private road establishment acts so that access will be available to permit mineral estate owners to realize the full benefit of their property ownership and landlocked property will not be rendered useless.