Opinion ID: 2647906
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Powers Fairly Implied or Incident to Express

Text: Powers Even though Idaho statutes do not grant the City the express power of extraterritorial eminent domain to construct transmission lines, that power may be “fairly implied in or incident to those powers expressly granted.” Black, 834 P.2d 5 We also reject the City’s reliance on the “in pari materia” canon of construction. See Gooding Cnty. v. Wybenga, 46 P.3d 18, 21 (Idaho 2002) (“Statutes are in pari materia if they relate to the same subject. Such statutes are construed together to effect legislative intent.” (citation omitted)). Given the foregoing analysis, construing these three statutes “together” does not produce a construction favorable to the City. ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS 13 at 310. In determining whether statutes imply this power, “fair, reasonable, substantial doubt[s] as to the existence of a [municipal] power” must be resolved against the City. City of Grangeville v. Haskin, 777 P.2d 1208, 1211 (Idaho 1989). The City argues that its extraterritorial power of eminent domain arises by implication from (1) its general power to own property outside city limits, and (2) the powers expressly granted to it under the RBA to acquire property rights for the purpose of constructing electric utilities outside city limits.6 We disagree.
The City’s general power to acquire and use “lands outside [its] corporate limits” does not fairly imply that the City can use the power of eminent domain to acquire easements there. § 50-220. The City cites no authority to support the proposition that the power to acquire and use real property through voluntary means implies the power of eminent domain. The absence of any authority for the City’s position gives rise to a “fair, reasonable, substantial doubt” that this power can be implied from § 50-220. City of Grangeville, 777 P.2d at 1211. Thus, we must conclude that 6 The City also argues that the extraterritorial eminent domain power can be traced to statutes authorizing the City to buy and sell excess electrical power. However, there is, at best, a tangential connection between (1) the authorization to sell excess electrical power and (2) the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain to construct power lines to facilitate the transmission of that power within the City’s system for the purpose of supplying its customers. The former does not “fairly impl[y]” the latter. Black, 834 P.2d at 310. Moreover, the City does not argue that it seeks to build the North Loop lines for the purpose of buying and selling power from other sources. 14 ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS § 50-220 does not grant extraterritorial eminent domain power to the City.
The City also argues that its extraterritorial eminent domain power can be “fairly implied” from the power the RBA grants it to acquire “by gift or purchase lands or rights in lands” outside the City’s boundaries “in connection with” the construction of transmission lines and other parts of the municipal electrical system. See § 50-1030(a). The City’s argument appears to be that, if the City has the express power to acquire and own property outside its borders for the purpose of constructing components of its municipal electrical system, then it must also be able to use the power of eminent domain (when necessary) to make use of those extraterritorially located components. However, in context, extraterritorial eminent domain power cannot be fairly implied from this grant of power. As discussed, the plain text of the statute reflects a deliberate choice by the legislature not to expand the power of eminent domain beyond the borders of a municipality in the RBA. It would contradict this intent to permit the City to make an end-run around the statutory text by acquiring property outside of its boundaries, then implying the power to use eminent domain to facilitate the City’s desired use of that property. Implication of such power under these circumstances could not be considered “fair[].” Black, 834 P.2d at 310. ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS 15
Eminent Domain Power The Idaho Supreme Court adheres to the policy that all “fair, reasonable, substantial doubt[s] as to the existence of a [municipal] power” must be resolved against the City. City of Grangeville, 777 P.2d at 1211. Even if the foregoing analysis does not compel the conclusion that Idaho statutes do not grant the City the power it seeks, it at least raises such a doubt. And, under City of Grangeville, the existence of that doubt compels the conclusion that the City must be denied the power. If the City has no other option for providing sufficient electricity to its growing population, then it should ask the legislature—not the courts—to expand its eminent domain power to accommodate that growth. See Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 208 P.3d 289, 295 (Idaho 2009) (“The arguments . . . provided to this Court would be better targeted at the Legislature, which is empowered to change existing law.”), abrogated on other grounds by Verska, 265 P.3d 502.