Opinion ID: 2647906
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Express Words

Text: The City argues that two statutes expressly grant it the power of extraterritorial eminent domain: (1) Idaho’s general eminent domain statutes, and (2) Idaho’s Revenue Bond Act.
Idaho’s general eminent domain statutes do not expressly grant the City the power to exercise eminent domain extraterritorially for any purpose. Instead, under those statutes, “[a]ny municipality at its option may exercise the their Constitution had declared what are public uses, it then devolved upon the Legislature to provide a procedure for exercising the right of eminent domain or subjecting lands to such public uses.”); Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Peterson, 88 P. 426, 432 (Idaho 1906) (“Thus by legislative enactment [Article 1 § 14] of the Constitution is made effective.”). 8 ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS right of eminent domain . . . for any of the uses and purposes mentioned in section 7-701.” Idaho Code § 7-720.2 Section 7-701, in turn, specifies eleven different “public uses.” See § 7-701(1)–(11). Relevant here, paragraph (11) authorizes the use of eminent domain for “[e]lectric distribution and transmission lines for the delivery, furnishing, distribution, and transmission of electric current for power, lighting, heating or other purposes; and structures, facilities and equipment for the production, generation, and manufacture of electric current for power, lighting, heating or other purposes.” § 7-701(11). Significantly, neither § 7-720 nor § 7-701(11) outlines where municipalities may use their eminent domain power. Certainly, § 7-720 does not contain any language limiting the exercise of the eminent domain power to within the geographic limits of a municipality. But in the eminent domain context, the absence of such a limitation in a general grant of eminent domain power normally is not construed as an authorization to exercise the power extraterritorially. See 11 McQuillin The Law of Municipal Corporations § 32:76 (3d ed. 2013) (“[A] municipality cannot condemn lands within the state but outside its own corporate limits unless the power has been delegated by the legislature or granted by the state constitution. The legislature may delegate such power, as frequently has been done in express terms.” (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added)); see also 26 Am. Jur. 2d Eminent Domain § 27 (2013) (“It may be provided for by statute that municipalities may condemn land beyond their limits. However, it has been held that a grant of power to municipal corporations to condemn ‘any’ land for ‘any’ municipal or 2 Except where otherwise noted, all citations and references to “section” or “§” are citations or references to provisions of the Idaho Code. ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS 9 public purpose does not include land outside the city limits.” (footnotes omitted)). Consistent with these authorities, the Idaho Supreme Court requires that “statutes conferring the power [of eminent domain] must be strictly construed.” McKenney v. Anselmo, 416 P.2d 509, 514 (Idaho 1966). Moreover, the Idaho Legislature has expressly granted cities extraterritorial eminent domain power for purposes other than constructing electric transmission lines. For example, § 50-320(A) grants cities the power to “exercise the right of eminent domain under the provisions of [Chapter 7]” to acquire “lands not exceeding [80] acres in [1] body outside of the corporate limits” for the purpose of constructing a cemetery. (emphasis added). Likewise, § 21-401 authorizes municipalities to “acquire by . . . condemnation . . . lands either wholly or partly within or without the boundaries or corporate limits of” the municipality “for the purpose of constructing and maintaining aviation fields, airports, hangars and other air navigation facilities.” (emphasis added). These express grants of extraterritorial eminent domain power evidence that (1) the Idaho Legislature knows how to grant extraterritorial eminent domain power to the cities of Idaho and (2) does so expressly and for a specific purpose when it intends that the cities have that power. Therefore, the absence of an express grant of extraterritorial eminent domain power in §§ 7-720 and 7-701(11) evidences that the Idaho legislature did not grant such power in the general eminent domain statutes.
Next, the City argues that Idaho’s Revenue Bond Act (“RBA”) grants it extraterritorial eminent domain power for 10 ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS the purpose of constructing electric transmission lines.3 According to the City, because § 50-1030(a) (“paragraph (a)”) authorizes it to acquire land to construct transmission lines outside the City,4 and § 50-1030(c) (“paragraph (c)”) authorizes it to employ eminent domain “for any of the works, purposes or uses provided by this act,” it may use eminent domain to acquire the property rights it seeks in this case. The text of the statute forecloses this argument. Paragraph (c) only permits cities to exercise the power of eminent domain “in like manner and to the same extent as provided in section 7-720.” (emphasis added). These words of limitation indicate that the legislature did not intend paragraph (c) to augment the scope of the eminent domain power beyond what § 7-720 already permitted. As discussed, § 7-720 does not grant cities extraterritorial eminent domain power, so the language in paragraph (c) precludes the RBA from granting the City that power. Additional statutory text also forecloses the argument. Paragraph (a) lists specific means of acquiring property rights 3 The RBA includes §§ 50-1027 to -1042. See § 50-1027. The City may exercise the powers granted in the RBA, even if the City is not issuing bonds. See Viking Const., Inc. v. Hayden Lake Irr. Dist., 233 P.3d 118, 123 (Idaho 2010) (concluding, based on similar language, that analogous revenue bond act is “not limited to a district issuing bonds”), abrogated on other grounds by Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 265 P.3d 502, 508–09 (Idaho 2011). 4 Paragraph (a) grants cities the power to “acquire by gift or purchase . . . rights in lands . . . in connection [with]” the construction of “works within or without the city.” These “works” include electric transmission lines. See § 50-1029(a) (defining “works” as including “electric systems”); § 50-1029(h) (defining “electric system” to include “transmission lines”). ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS 11 related to the works it describes. Namely, it authorizes cities to “acquire by gift or purchase lands or rights in lands.” (emphasis added). However, acquisition by “condemnation” is not listed in paragraph (a). Therefore, Idaho precedent suggests that we must assume that the legislature excluded “condemnation” from this list deliberately. Idaho Press Club, Inc. v. State Legislature of Idaho, 132 P.3d 397, 399 (Idaho 2006) (“[W]here a constitution or statute specifies certain things, the designation of such things excludes all others.”) (quoting Local 1494 of Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 586 P.2d 1346, 1355 (Idaho 1978)). Supporting this determination, in previous versions of the RBA, paragraph (a) did expressly list “eminent domain” as a means by which municipalities could acquire property outside of its boundaries. See 1965 Idaho Sess. Laws 795. The legislature’s subsequent deletion of the term from the list forecloses the conclusion that § 50-1030 expands the scope of cities’ eminent domain power. Lastly, finding a grant of extraterritorial eminent domain power in the RBA would render redundant the (clearer) grant of such power in at least one other statutory section. Section 21-401 expressly grants Idaho municipalities the power to acquire “lands either wholly or partly within or without [their] boundaries” by “condemnation” “for the purpose of constructing and maintaining aviation fields, airports, hangars and other air navigation facilities.” Similarly, the RBA identifies “airport facilities and air navigation facilities” as “works” for which paragraph (c) authorizes the use of eminent domain. See § 50-1029(a). If paragraph (c) grants extraterritorial eminent domain power to acquire air navigation facilities, then § 21-401 becomes a redundant grant of the same power. Idaho courts avoid such constructions. See Verska, 265 P.3d at 510 (“When 12 ALLIANCE V. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS determining the plain meaning of a statute, effect must be given to all the words of the statute if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Appellants argue that paragraph (c) itself is superfluous if it does not add to the eminent domain powers that § 7-720 already grants. However, this argument incorrectly assumes that paragraph (c) could serve no purpose except for expanding the scope of the eminent domain power. Instead, paragraph (c) makes clear that eminent domain is one means of acquiring “works,” and that cities may finance such acquisitions by issuing revenue bonds. See § 50-1030(c), (e). Without that specific authorization and with the explicit grants of power to acquire by other means in paragraph (a) (namely, by gift or purchase), there would be ambiguity as to whether the RBA authorized cities to finance eminent domain acquisitions by issuing revenue bonds. Thus, paragraph (c) is not superfluous.5