Opinion ID: 876844
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the department of highways

Text: Plaintiffs contend that an EIS is required on the abandonment of U.S. Highway 91. This issue arose because the Permit 41A area is bisected by old U.S. 91. The highway itself is not included in the requested permit area, but is bordered by the permit area on each side. At the time Permit 41A was applied for, Anaconda had in process a petition to abandon U.S. 91. The evidence presented at the trial of this matter indicates that the State Highway Commission had not yet made a decision whether to abandon the highway. No evidence of the abandonment was before the trial court. On February 1, 1978, the Highway Commission entered an order of abandonment on the 3.2 miles of U.S. 91 that passes through the Permit 41A area, upon payment by Anaconda of $1.8 million. This occurred after judgment on this matter had been entered by the District Court. At the time this case went to trial, no final decision had been made by the Highway Commission concerning the abandonment of U.S. 91. Courts will not ordinarily administer judicial remedies while the matter is pending in administrative proceedings. This deference on the part of courts is generally applied when the Court believes that considerations of policy recommend that the issue be left to the administrative agency for initial determination. Grever v. Idaho Telephone Co. (1972), 94 Idaho 900, 499 P.2d 1256, 1258. Here the District Court was correct in ruling this issue to have been prematurely submitted for review. It is a sound policy that courts will not interfere with an agency proceeding until there is final action by that agency on a particular matter.