Opinion ID: 2606242
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: taking or damaging property

Text: Article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution provides, Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. A claimant must possess some protectible interest in property before that interest is entitled to recover under this provision. Colman alleged that the Utah Division of State Lands and Forestry granted him, as part of a lease with the state, an easement for the maintenance and operation of the canal. It has always been accepted in this state that even an implied easement is a property interest protectible under article I, section 22. Utah State Road Comm'n v. Miya, 526 P.2d 926, 928-29 (Utah 1974); Hampton v. State ex rel. Road Comm'n, 21 Utah 2d 342, 345, 445 P.2d 708, 710 (1968); Dooly Block v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co., 9 Utah 31, 37, 33 P. 229, 231-32 (1893). An express easement, such as that alleged by Colman, is also private property for the purposes of article I, section 22. See Whiterocks Irrigation Co. v. Mooseman, 45 Utah 79, 79-80, 141 P. 459, 460 (1914); Utah Code Ann. § 78-34-2(2) (Supp. 1989). Nichols on Eminent Domain states, An easement is an interest in land, and it is taken in the constitutional sense when the land over which it is exercised is taken; but if it is only destroyed and ended, a destruction for public purposes may also be an appropriation for the same purpose. 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 5.14, at 5-186 (3d ed. 1989) (citing United States v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333, 339, 30 S.Ct. 527, 54 L.Ed. 787 (1910)). A lessee holding under a valid lease also has a property interest protected by the takings clause of the constitutional provisions: It has been judicially established that lessees for years or from year to year, holding under a valid devise, grant, or lease, have such an interest in property as to be classed as owners in the constitutional sense, and to be entitled to compensation for the taking of their interest... . 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 5.06, at 5-97 to 101 (3d ed. 1989). We conclude that Colman has alleged a property interest protectible under article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution. We emphasize again that we regard the allegations of the complaint as true. We do not look to evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing. Colman cannot recover if the State proves that in fact there was no canal or that Colman had no legal rights in the canal. Colman can only recover for the taking of property to the extent that property exists and to the extent he has legal rights in that property.
Article I, section 22 of the Utah Constitution provides, Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. This Court has previously outlined what constitutes a taking and what constitutes damage under this constitutional provision. In State ex rel. State Road Commission v. District Court, Fourth Judicial District, 94 Utah 384, 78 P.2d 502 (1937), the Court stated that a taking is any substantial interference with private property which destroys or materially lessens its value, or by which the owner's right to its use and enjoyment is in any substantial degree abridged or destroyed. 94 Utah at 394, 78 P.2d at 506 (quoting Stockdale v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co., 28 Utah 201, 211, 77 P. 849, 852 (1904)); see Hampton v. State Road Comm'n, 21 Utah 2d 342, 347, 445 P.2d 708, 711-12 (1968). This Court has also defined the term damage for the purpose of article I, section 22 and for the purpose of the eminent domain statute in Board of Education of Logan City School District v. Croft, 13 Utah 2d 310, 373 P.2d 697 (1962). In that case, the Court cited article I, section 22 and stated: Damages to land, by the construction of a public or industrial improvement, though no part thereof is taken as provided for under 78-34-10(3), contrary to the rule for severance damages, is limited to injuries that would be actionable at common law, or where there has been some physical disturbance of a right, either public or private, which the owner enjoys in connection with his property and which gives it additional value, and which causes him to sustain a special damage with respect to his property in excess of that sustained by the public generally. 13 Utah 2d at 313-14, 373 P.2d at 699; see State ex rel. Road Comm'n v. Williams, 22 Utah 2d 331, 334, 452 P.2d 881, 883-84 (1969); Twenty-Second Corporation of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Oregon Short Line R.R., 36 Utah 238, 247, 103 P. 243, 246 (1909) ([T]o bring the case within the damage clause of the Constitution, there must be some physical interference with the property itself or with some easement which constitutes an appurtenant thereto.). The Court went on to explain that such damage requires a definite physical injury cognizable to the senses with a perceptible effect on the present market value. Croft, 13 Utah 2d at 314, 373 P.2d at 699. The Court listed various types of injuries that would be compensable as damage under the constitutional provision. These included drying up wells and springs, destroying lateral supports, preventing surface waters from running off adjacent lands or running surface waters onto adjacent lands, or depositing of cinders and other foreign materials on neighboring lands by the permanent operation of the business or improvement established on the adjoining lands. Croft, 13 Utah 2d at 314, 373 P.2d at 699-700. In our recent case of Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 784 P.2d 459 (Utah 1989), we stated: Plaintiffs alleged that damages [from the flooding] resulted from a temporary, one-time occurrence and not a permanent, continuous, or inevitably recurring interference with property rights usually associated with and requisite in a compensable taking. 784 P.2d at 465 (citing Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 149, 44 S.Ct. 264, 265, 68 L.Ed. 608 (1924); Accardi v. United States, 220 Ct.Cl. 347, 356-57, 599 F.2d 423, 429 (1979); Miotke v. City of Spokane, 101 Wash.2d 307, 334, 678 P.2d 803, 818 (1984)). See also Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 428, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3172, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). Colman alleged in his complaint that the breach would result in the total destruction of at least a 300-foot segment of the canal. He also alleged that the breach would create such turbidity in the area of the canal that the remaining portions of the canal would be filled with sediment over much of its course. Colman alleged that the breach would require that he move the canal and pumps to another location free from the current caused by the breach. We conclude that Colman has alleged a permanent or recurring interference with property rights. Thus, Colman has alleged sufficient facts to constitute a taking or damage under article I, section 22.
The State suggests that because the breach of the causeway was a valid exercise of the State's police powers, it is not liable for the damage caused to Colman. However, in Utah State Road Commission v. Miya, 526 P.2d 926 (Utah 1974), we plainly stated, The constitutional guarantee of just compensation for the taking or damaging of private property for public use is in no way affected by the fact that the expropriator ... exercis[ed] the police power. 526 P.2d at 928. The State seems to have misled itself on this point by relying on isolated language from discussions of a related but different issue. It is true that the courts will not disturb the legislature's judgment in the exercise of the general police powers as long as it does not violate constitutional limits. Salt Lake City v. Young, 45 Utah 349, 355, 145 P. 1047, 1048-49 (1915). The police powers are not, however, beyond the limitations established by the constitution. Bountiful City v. De Luca, 77 Utah 107, 125-26, 292 P. 194, 202 (1930). The emphasis the State places on the police powers is often made when there is a close issue that turns on the difference between a taking or damage under article I, section 22 and mere regulation of property and activities on property. Many statutes and ordinances regulate what a property owner can do with and on the owner's property. Those regulations may have a significant impact on the utility or value of property, yet they generally do not require compensation under article I, section 22. Only when governmental action rises to the level of a taking or damage under article I, section 22 is the State required to pay compensation. Previous cases of this Court have wrestled with the issue. In Bountiful City v. De Luca , the Court stated: Broad and comprehensive as are the police powers of the state, still we think it may not successfully be contended that the power may be so exercised as to infringe upon or invade rights safeguarded and guaranteed by constitutional provisions ... . The cases are numerous to the effect that ... the state may without compensation regulate and restrain the use of private property when the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public requires or demands it; ... that the exercise of proper police regulations may to some extent prevent enjoyment of individual rights in property or cause inconvenience or loss to the owner, does not necessarily render the police law unconstitutional, for the reason that such laws are not considered as appropriating private property for a public use, but simply as regulating its use and enjoyment, and if the owner through a lawful exercise of the power suffers inconvenience, injury, or a loss, it is regarded as damnum absque injuria, provided always, that constitutional mandates have not been invaded by a confiscation, destruction, or deprivation of property, unless it is per se injurious or obnoxious or a menace to public health or public safety or morals or general welfare, or unless under conditions similar to tearing down a building to prevent spreading of a conflagration; but however broad the scope of the police power, it is always subject to the rule that the Legislature may not exercise any power expressly or impliedly forbidden by constitutional provisions. 77 Utah at 119-121, 292 P. at 199-200 (emphasis added). In Salt Lake City v. Young, 45 Utah 349, 362, 145 P. 1047, 1051 (1915), we held that a landowner cannot complain because he is inconvenienced in the use of his property, where such inconvenience arises out of the proper enforcement of the police power to protect the public health, and where such enforcement does not amount to a taking or destruction of his property. Here, Colman argues that the State's actions were not a mere regulation of property, but constituted an actual physical taking. It is not relevant that the State's action in this case was a valid exercise of its police power. Rather, the issue is whether sufficient facts were alleged to show a taking of property. It is not alleged that Colman was causing a nuisance on the property. Thus, the case does not fall into the exception for the abatement of nuisances.
The State argues that no liability should be imposed on it because the breach destroyed the canal to avert an overwhelming destruction of property. Colman argues, however, that that principle only applies when the plaintiff's property would have been destroyed by the emergency condition irrespective of the governmental action. Colman correctly states that many of the cases involve situations where the plaintiff's property would have been destroyed by the emergency even if there had been no governmental action. See United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., 344 U.S. 149, 73 S.Ct. 200, 97 L.Ed. 157 (1952); Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 149, 44 S.Ct. 264, 265, 68 L.Ed. 608 (1924). Colman argues that the emergency created by the higher lake waters did not affect the operation of the canal. However, the trial court must determine whether Colman's canal would have been in danger without the breach. Other cases dealing with emergencies and eminent domain can be distinguished because they involve questions of proper regulation and the use of the police power as discussed above. See Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 48 S.Ct. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928); Teresi v. State, 180 Cal. App.3d 239, 225 Cal. Rptr. 517 (1986). These cases do not involve a direct physical taking, as is alleged in this case. However, all of the cases dealing with this emergency doctrine cannot be distinguished on these bases. The State argues correctly that in some cases there is no liability where property is destroyed by a governmental entity to prevent imminent public catastrophe. The privilege to take or damage private property without compensation arises from the necessity of sacrificing some property to prevent overwhelming damage or loss of life. This privilege is based on the privilege of any individual to take immediate action that harms property so as to prevent loss of life or great destruction of property. City of Rapid City v. Boland, 271 N.W.2d 60, 65 (S.D. 1978). This exception to the general requirement of just compensation for property taken is explained in 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain §§ 1.43[1] and 1.43[2]: More closely allied to the power of eminent domain is the power of destruction from necessity. In the case of fire, flood, pestilence or other great public calamity, when immediate action is necessary to save human life or to avert an overwhelming destruction of property, any individual may lawfully enter another's land and destroy his property, real or personal, providing he acts with reasonable judgment. ... . If the individual who enters and destroys private property happens to be a public officer whose duty it is to avert an impending calamity, the rights of the owner of the property to compensation are no greater than in the case of a private individual. The most familiar example of the exercise of this right is seen in case of fire. The neighbors and fireman freely trespass on the adjoining land, and houses are even blown up to prevent the spread of the conflagration. The danger of flood or the existence of a pestilence may call for equally drastic action. However, the permanent appropriation of private property without the payment of compensation therefor cannot be justified under the power. 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain §§ 1.43[1], 1.43[2], at 1-841 to 843 (3d ed. 1989) (footnotes omitted). This exception only applies where there is an extreme, imperative, or overwhelming necessity. Mere expediency is insufficient. Boland, 271 N.W.2d at 66. There must be circumstances of imminent necessity. Srb v. Board of County Comm'rs, 43 Colo. App. 14, 18, 601 P.2d 1082, 1085 (1979), cert. denied as improvidently granted, 199 Colo. 496, 618 P.2d 1105 (1980). This exception must be narrowly construed. Almost every act of taking property under the eminent domain powers involves some degree of public necessity. This exception could overcome the rule of just compensation if it is not limited to only the most extreme emergencies. In McKell v. Spanish Fork City, 6 Utah 2d 92, 305 P.2d 1097 (1957), this Court outlined how a governmental entity or any riparian owner could protect itself against extraordinary floods without liability: However, it is generally recognized that riparian owners may embank and protect their lands against the overflow of extraordinary floods, even though damage to the lands of others is caused thereby. An extraordinary flood is one which is not foreshadowed by the usual course of nature, and is of such a magnitude and destructiveness as could not have been anticipated or provided against by the exercise of ordinary foresight. McKell, 6 Utah 2d at 95-96, 305 P.2d at 1099 (emphasis in original). McKell involved an extraordinary flood. Here, it is a question of fact whether the rising water level constituted an extraordinary flood and whether there were otherwise circumstances of overwhelming necessity. These questions cannot be decided on the basis of the pleadings and will have to be decided at trial. Also involved in this case is the State's role in creating the emergency. Colman alleged that Southern Pacific is the owner of a right-of-way granted by the State over the bed of the lake for the construction of the causeway. It appears that the State played some role in the construction of the causeway, and the causeway seems to be the major factor in causing the emergency the State is now claiming. It is more difficult to find an emergency of overwhelming necessity when the State played a part in creating the circumstances causing the emergency. See McKell, 6 Utah 2d at 96-97, 305 P.2d at 1099-1100. Nichols on Eminent Domain makes clear that the permanent appropriation of property without compensation does not fit into this exception. 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 1.43[2], at 1-843 (3d ed. 1989); see Short v. Pierce County, 194 Wash. 421, 435-36, 78 P.2d 610, 616 (1938). In this case, Colman alleges a permanent taking of his property. This is another question of fact for the trial court to determine. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the emergency exception applies in this instance. To fall within this exception, the trial court must find that the flooding created a situation of extreme, imperative, or overwhelming necessity. In addition, the exception is not applicable if the State played a foreseeable role in causing the emergency.