Opinion ID: 2516769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statutory Requirements of Eminent Domain

Text: [¶ 21] The Conners maintain the district court erred in finding the board met all the requirements of the eminent domain statutes: (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. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-504(a) (LexisNexis 2001). In reviewing findings, we have said: 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). [¶ 22] After a two-day trial, [7] the district court announced detailed findings in open court on each of the procedural requirements of W.R.C.P. 71.1 and the substantive requirements of the eminent domain statutes including Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-26-504, 1-26-509, and 1-26-512 (LexisNexis 2001). [8] The findings included the project was in the public interest and necessity because water has special uses and needs wherever people are located; the water benefited many uses in the Alcova Reservoir area accessed by both members of the general public and private individuals; though there might be ways to relocate the water system, at that time its use in place was compatible with the greatest public good; though the board had argued condemnation of the entire twenty-acre parcel would eliminate future disputes, the least private injury would be incurred through condemnation of only the 2.21 acres affected by the existing system and described in the board's Exhibit Z; and, because the board met its burden of proof, the burden shifted to the Conners to show the board's bad faith or abuse of discretion. Although the parties were unable to agree, the court found the board complied with the negotiation requirements of § 1-26-509 through discussions, meetings, proposals, and counterproposals and no bad faith or abuse of discretion was shown. [9] [¶ 23] Our review of the transcripts and exhibits confirms the district court fairly and accurately considered the evidence and issued findings consistent with that evidence addressing all the requirements of the eminent domain statutes. This decision did not unnecessarily impact the Conners because the district court determined a fee simple grant of only 2.21 acres was sufficient to meet the governmental needs. Although the Conners take issue with those findings, the district court is the fact-finder assigned with the task of resolving the conflicts in the evidence. Leavell v. Linn, 884 P.2d 1364, 1368 (Wyo.1994). [W]e cannot retry this case on appeal. Deference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and a reviewing court will not set aside the court's findings merely because it might have reached a different result. The trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh their testimony, and, thus, this Court accords considerable deference to the trial judge's findings. Drake v. McCulloh, 2002 WY 50, ¶ 18, 43 P.3d 578, ¶ 18 (Wyo.2002). The findings were not clearly erroneous or against the great weight of the evidence; therefore, we will not disturb them.