Opinion ID: 2595592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did Basin Demonstrate Public Interest and Necessity

Text: [¶ 43] It is evident from the above-described standard of review that this Court has ascribed a broad meaning to the phrase public interest and necessity, and that is consistent with the overall tenor of Wyoming's eminent domain statutes. See 2A Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 7.02[3] at 7-29  7-35 (3rd ed.2004); and 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 29 (1992). Nichols identifies three core criteria for this analysis: (1) That the taking affect a community as distinguished from a single individual; (2) That the use to which the taken property is applied is authorized by law; (3) That the title taken not be invested in a person or corporation as private property to be used and controlled as private property unless the public receives some public benefit as a result of the private possession. 2A Nichols, § 7.02[3] at 7-35. [¶ 44] The evidence presented by Basin plainly demonstrated the need for additional electric power to PRECorp's service territory and that additional power would inure to the benefit of the public in that locality, both in terms of the additional power itself and the reliability of service in the area. The landowners presented no evidence to contradict Basin's comprehensive studies that established the ever-increasing demand for more electric power. The district court's findings that Basin demonstrated that the project was necessary and in the public interest is unassailable and we affirm it here.