Court Opinion

ID: 9770594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:11:22.863532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:18.680335
License: Public Domain

Minor. W. Millweb, Justice, dissenting in part. I agree with the conclusions reached by the majority on all points except the second where it is held that the Commission did not abuso its discretion in fixing the width of the right-of-way at 250 feet. While the Commission is vested with a broad discretion in such matters, this court is committed to the sound and well-recognized principle that no more property of private individuals can be condemned under the doctrine of eminent domain than is absolutely necessary for the public use. Young v. Gurdon, 169 Ark. 399, 275 S. W. 890; Selle v. City of Fayetteville, 207 Ark. 966, 184 S. W. 2d 58. An abuse of the power vested in the Commission by the taking of property from a citizen in excess of that reasonably required for the public improvement contemplated is a danger that must always be guarded against. It is clear from the testimony that in the beginning the Commission felt that a 200-foot right-of-way was all that could reasonably be required. The principal reason for relocating the highway was the difference in costs of procuring a right-of-way over the present route of the road and that of the proposed route. In a determination of this differential all costs estimates were made on the basis of the 200-foot right-of-way. It is clear from the testimony of the planning engineer of the Highway Department that plans for a 250-foot right-of-way were finally submitted only because the American Association of Highway Officials recommended such width as being “desirable’ ’or “preferable”. The witness admitted that the association allowed “a leeway between 150 and the desirable width of 250” and it is undisputed that federal road authorities would readily approve a 200-foot right-of-way. The reason given for taking the extra 50 feet was that it would provide a more convenient source of material for making fills for the second section of a four-lane highway in the event that the State might at some time in the unpredictable future be in position to build such a road. The proposed route traverses valuable farm lands and the evidence discloses that the lands are fairly level and that very little fill would be required over most of the route. The planning engineer who made up the approved plans and is experienced in such matters emphatically stated that, “talking personally”, he preferred a design with a 200-foot right-of-way without the additional 50-foot width to obtain a more convenient source of material for fills. The majority mentioned the testimony on behalf of appellants to the effect that a 100-foot strip would be adequate for the proposed improvement. An engineer with wide experience in such matters testified that the extra 50 feet of right-of-way was not needed, that the Highway Department would not maintain it, but would allow it to grow up in weeds and not permit the landowners to cultivate it. A careful reading of all the testimony convinces me that any taking in excess of 200 feet is grossly excessive and unnecessary for the improvement contemplated. The decree should be modified to this extent.