Opinion ID: 2465095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does Section 10 Usurp ACHD's Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Public Rights-of-Way?

Text: ACHD contends that Section 10 usurps ACHD's exclusive jurisdiction over public rights-of-way. ACHD's commissioners have exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of-way within their highway system. I.C. § 40-1310(1). With the permission of the commissioners, Company has the right to construct its electricity transmission facilities within ACHD's public rights-of-way in such manner and at such places as not to incommode the public use of the road, highway, [or] street. I.C. § 62-705. However, Company's right to use the public rights-of-way is permissive only. State ex rel. Rich v. Idaho Power Co., 81 Idaho 487, 498, 346 P.2d 596, 601 (1959). [T]he right of utilities to the use of public thoroughfares is not and cannot be regarded as a permanent property right. Id. If ACHD determines that Company's facilities incommode the public use of any road, highway, or street, ACHD can require Company to relocate the facilities. Id. ACHD contends that by adopting Section 10 IPUC has sought to usurp ACHD's exclusive jurisdiction. Section 10 provides: The Company often locates its distribution facilities within state and local public road rights-of-way under authority of Idaho Code § 62-705 (for locations outside Idaho city limits) and the Company's city franchise agreements (for locations within Idaho city limits). At the request of a Public Road Agency, the Company will relocate its distribution facilities from or within the public road rights-of-way. The Relocation may be for the benefit of the general public, or in some cases, be a benefit to one or more Private Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Section bars a Local Improvement District (LID) from voluntarily paying the Company for Relocations. The Company's cost of Relocations from or within the public road rights-of-way shall be allocated as follows: a. Road Improvements Funded by the Public Road Agency When the Relocation of distribution facilities is requested by the Public Road Agency to make roadway improvements or other public improvements, the Company will bear the cost of the Relocation. b. Road Improvements Partially Funded by the Public Road Agency When the Public Road Agency requires the Relocation of distribution facilities for the benefit of itself (or an LID) and a Private Beneficiary, the Company will bear the Relocation costs equal to the percentage of the Relocation costs allocated to the Public Road Agency or LID. The Private Beneficiary will pay the Company for the Relocation costs equal to the percentage of the road improvement costs allocated to the Private Beneficiary. c. Road Improvements not Funded by the Public Road Agency When the Relocation of distribution facilities in the public road rights-of-way is solely for a Private Beneficiary, the Private Beneficiary will pay the Company for the cost of the Relocation. d. Prior Right of Occupancy When the Company and the Public Road Agency have entered into an agreement regarding a Private Right of Occupancy, the costs of Relocation in such designated area will be borne by the Public Road Agency, or as directed in the agreement. All payments from Private Beneficiaries to the Company under this Section shall be based on the Company's Work Order Cost. This Section shall not apply to Relocations within public road rights-of-way of Public Road Agencies which have adopted legally binding guidelines for the allocation of utility relocation costs between the Company and other parties that are substantially similar to the rules set out in Section 10 of Rule H. First, ACHD states, Through the adoption of Section 10 of Rule H, the IPUC will effectively dictate the policies and procedures of Public Road Agencies regarding electric utility relocations. It does not point to any provision in Section 10 by which IPUC attempts to do so. Next, it asserts that Section 10 will impact the operation of Public Road Agencies in their negotiations and relations with third parties and developers concerning road improvement projects. The contention is that one of the bargaining chips ACHD has in negotiating with developers is the authority to rule upon whether the developer will have to reimburse Company for any of the cost of relocating its electrical distribution facilities. ACHD can get a developer to pay more money to it if the developer does not have to reimburse Company. That ACHD finds that authority useful does not mean it is a power granted to it by the legislature. Next, it claims that Section 10 will regulate and control electric utility relocations by assigning financial liability for such relocations. Section 10 seeks to require a Private Beneficiary to pay all or a portion of the costs of relocating Company's distribution facilities in a public right-of-way if such relocation was for the Private Beneficiary's benefit. A Private Beneficiary would not include ACHD or other entity exercising the police power delegated to it by the State. [1] ACHD does not explain how requiring a third party to reimburse Company for relocation costs enables IPUC to regulate and control electric utility relocations. ACHD only argues that it has exclusive authority to assign financial responsibility for utility relocation costs. It argues as follows: [I]t [Section 10] regulates who pays for utility relocations, including detailed regulations as to whether a private developer is required to reimburse public utilities for their utility relocation costs. Specifically, Resolution 330 [adopted by the ACHD] requires a private developer to reimburse utilities for the cost of utility relocations that result from public road projects made for the benefit of that private developer. However, Resolution 330 provides that the private developer is not required to reimburse a utility, even if the private developer pays for the public road project, if ACHD had already scheduled the public road project to be made within three years after the project was commenced. [Citations to record omitted.] In support of this asserted exclusive authority to determine whether a private party must reimburse Company, ACHD quotes subsections (1) and (8) of Idaho Code § 40-1310, which state as follows: (1) The commissioners of a highway district have exclusive general supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of-way within their highway system, with full power to construct, maintain, repair, acquire, purchase and improve all highways within their highway system, whether directly or by their own agents and employees or by contract. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter in respect to the highways within their highway system, a highway district shall have all of the powers and duties that would by law be vested in the commissioners of the county and in the district directors of highways if the highway district had not been organized. .... .... (8) The highway district board of commissioners shall have the exclusive general supervisory authority over all public highways, public streets and public rights-of-way under their jurisdiction, with full power to establish design standards, establish use standards, pass resolutions and establish regulations in accordance with the provisions of title 49, Idaho Code, and control access to said public highways, public streets and public rights-of-way. [Emphases added by the ACHD.] None of powers granted to ACHD in the above-quoted statutes provide that ACHD can determine whether a third party is required to reimburse a utility for all or a portion of its cost of relocating the utility's distribution facilities that are in a public right-of-way. ACHD contends that such power is an implied power, based upon Idaho Code § 40-1312, which provides: The grant of powers provided in this chapter to highway districts and to their officers and agents, shall be liberally construed, as a broad and general grant of powers, to the end that the control and administration of the districts may be efficient. The enumeration of certain powers that would be implied without enumeration shall not be construed as a denial or exclusion of other implied powers necessary for the free and efficient exercise of powers expressly granted. [Emphases added by the ACHD.] Section 10 provides that when Company is required to relocate its distribution facilities within a public right-of-way for the benefit of a Private Beneficiary, such entity may be required to pay some or all of the costs incurred by Company in doing so. [2] When ACHD determines that a utility must remove or relocate its facilities that are within a public right-of-way, ACHD is not required to bear any of the utility's cost of doing so. Mountain States Tel. & Telegraph Co. v. Boise Redevelopment Agency, 101 Idaho 30, 33, 607 P.2d 1084, 1087 (1980). The utility must proceed with the relocation. Because ACHD does not bear any of that cost, there is no need for it to have the authority to determine whether some third party should reimburse the utility for all or a portion of the cost. Whether some third party reimburses the Company after the relocation has been completed is not an issue of concern to ACHD. The utility is required to complete the relocation regardless of whether it is reimbursed by a third party. Determining whether there will be reimbursement from a third party is simply not necessary in order for ACHD to freely and efficiently exercise powers expressly granted to it. Such reimbursement does not involve any sums that ACHD will incur while supervising, constructing, maintaining, repairing, acquiring, purchasing, and improving its highways or exercising any of its other powers. ACHD's exclusive jurisdiction over its highways and rights-of-way does not extend to matters that do not involve its legitimate interests. For example, in Village of Lapwai v. Alligier, 78 Idaho 124, 299 P.2d 475 (1956), the city enacted an ordinance terminating a waterworks franchise and ordering the franchisees to remove their pipes and apparatus from the city streets. When the franchisees failed to do so, the city sued to force the removal. It was stipulated that the pipes and apparatus were buried under the streets and did not interfere with public travel or use of the surface of the streets. The trial court ordered the franchisees to remove their pipes and apparatus, but on appeal we modified that order. We ruled that because the buried pipes and apparatus did not interfere with the usual use of the surface of the streets, the order should be modified to permit the franchisees to remove them or not at their option. Id. at 130, 299 P.2d at 479. Finally ACHD relies upon that portion of Idaho Code § 40-1312 which provides that the grant of powers to highway districts shall be liberally construed, as a broad and general grant of powers, to the end that the control and administration of the districts may be efficient. It argues: Through Resolution 330, ACHD is able to efficiently regulate the relocation of all utility and sewer companies within the rights-of-way through one single set of regulations. That efficiency is lost if IPUC regulates electric utility relocations on public rights-of-way through Section 10 of Rule H. As an example of the alleged inefficiency that Section 10 will cause, it points to scheduling disputes that may arise as to which entity will relocate its facilities first. It argues: If Resolution 330 governs as to all utility and sewer companies, ACHD can efficiently resolve the dispute. However, if Rule H governs as to Idaho Power, then ACHD can only resolve the disputes involving the other utilities and IPUC has jurisdiction over disputes involving Idaho Power, which may result in scheduling conflicts. Missing from ACHD's argument is any reference to a provision in Section 10 that purports to prevent ACHD from resolving such disputes involving Company, or that purports to have IPUC resolve those disputes, or that purports to regulate electric utility relocations on public rights-of-way. ACHD has not pointed to any provision in Section 10 that infringes upon ACHD's power or jurisdiction.