Opinion ID: 2031740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Condemnation of Easement.

Text: The Thompsons argue the City has no authority to condemn their land for a temporary easement. They argue the commission would be unable to assess damages because there was no time specified for the temporary easement nor was a purpose specified. The City claims it has broad powers to acquire by condemnation whatever interest in the land is necessary for the public purpose. Neither the Thompsons nor the City cite any Iowa case where the court authorized condemnation of a temporary easement. The district court found the Thompsons had failed to meet their burden of showing illegality of action by the City. The Iowa Constitution provides [p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made, or secured to be made to the owner thereof. . . . Iowa Const. art. 1, § 18. The constitution also provides The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this state. Iowa Const. art. III, § 38A. In addition, by statute the right to take private property for public use is conferred upon all cities for public purposes which are reasonable and necessary as an incident to powers and duties conferred upon cities. Iowa Code § 471.4 (1985). The Thompsons do not challenge the City's right to condemn their property for construction and maintenance of a grass waterway for surface water drainage over and across their property. Their only objection is to the condemnation of a temporary easement. Unless there is statutory authority that expressly specifies the nature and extent of the estate or interest which shall be taken by eminent domain proceedings, a condemnor takes only the estate or interest in the property condemned that is necessary for the purpose of condemnation. Thus, the common rule is that no greater interest than an easement is presumed to be taken where an easement is sufficient to satisfy the purpose of the use or taking. 30 C.J.S. Eminent Domain § 450, p. 628 (1965). However, the easement acquired by condemnation is not the same as a private easement. It is an easement in gross under the terms used in the Restatement of Property § 454 (1936) since it is appurtenant to nothing. Takers of land under eminent domain receive a peculiar title or property right. As suggested by Justice Holmes in Emery v. Boston Terminal Co., 178 Mass. 172, 184, 59 N.E. 763, 765 (1901), If there is such a thing as a new title known to the law, one founded upon the taking by right of eminent domain is as clear an example as can be found. Although the condemnor is entitled to exclusive use of the land condemned, the owner retains the right to use the property for any purpose not inconsistent with the public right. See Johnston v. Drainage Dist., 184 Iowa 346, 168 N.W. 886 (1918); see also 11 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 32.115 (3rd ed. 1983). The Thompsons express concern the commission would be unable to determine damages for the temporary easement. The City's application for appointment of a commission to appraise damages specifically set out the purpose for which the condemnation was sought, identified the location of the proposed waterway, and provided a 170-foot wide temporary easement for the construction and maintenance of a waterway. Written instructions for the members of the compensation commission are prepared under the direction of the chief justice of the supreme court and distributed to the sheriff. The sheriff then gives a copy of the instructions to each member and they are read aloud to each commission before it commences its duties. Iowa Code § 472.43 (1985). Where only a portion of the property unit is taken, the commission is instructed that the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before condemnation and before it has been affected by the proposed public use and the fair market value of what is left after the taking. We have recognized the condemnation of clearance or obstruction easements to provide a clear zone approach to airports. Dolezal v. City of Cedar Rapids, 209 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 1973). We have allowed condemnation of a 100-foot easement for the erection of electrical transmission lines without imposing a right of access. De Penning v. Iowa Power & Light Co., 239 Iowa 950, 33 N.W.2d 503 (1948). Where the permanent and temporary easement are specifically described and the purpose is clearly stated, the compensation commission can determine the condemnation damage. The condemnation proceedings to secure both a permanent and temporary easement over and across Thompsons' property is not illegal. The district court's discharge of the writ of certiorari was correct. AFFIRMED.