Court Opinion

ID: 9583041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:34:18.821537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:50.305080
License: Public Domain

Justice Lake
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because I believe this decision, while satisfying two of our corporate giants, works a grave injustice upon innocent and powerless people and impairs the law on the taking of private property for a public purpose.
The simple and uncontroverted facts in this case are as follows. The City of Charlotte (the City) is building a pipeline to carry water from an intake center on Lake Norman to a new treatment plant for the purpose of providing the City with additional drinking water. The proposed route crosses defendant Cooks’ family dairy farm. The design calls for the pipeline to be buried as much as forty feet underground, and the pipe is to be only five feet in diameter.
Evidence indicates that city officials knew it was necessary to acquire only an easement across the Cooks’ property in order to install the pipeline and to service it in the future. A deputy city attorney told the City Council, “It is possible that an easement could be used,” and the director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department told the City Council, “it is technically possible” to accomplish the project’s purposes with only an easement. In fact, the initial proposal for the project was to acquire only an ease*228ment, and landowners were so informed by city officials at public hearings.
Interestingly, and perhaps not insignificantly, the Cooks’ property is located in territory which the North Carolina Utilities Commission has assigned exclusively to Crescent Electric Membership Corporation (Crescent). The City would have to buy power for the new plant from Crescent if the City acquired only an easement across the Cooks’ property. However, if the City owned contiguous tracts of land on which the pipeline and plant were constructed, the City would have the right under N.C.G.S. § 62-110.2 to buy electric power from Duke Power Company (Duke Power).
The record evidences multiple Duke Power internal e-mail messages and memoranda reflecting that Duke Power and the City collaborated to have the City acquire a fee simple title to the property in order that Duke Power could provide the power to the plant. These e-mail messages indicate that the mayor pro tempore of the City, an employee of Duke Power, as well as the project director had contact with Duke Power officials and discussed condemning a fee simple interest for the project. The mayor pro tempore chaired the 12 September 1994 City Council meeting where the subject of condemning a fee simple was discussed, and he voted in favor of a fee simple condemnation. In the entire project, the only parcel of land upon which the City settled for an easement instead of a fee simple title was that parcel where the intake structure was to be located- The intake structure is one of the most important sites in the project, and it will have employees working at the location. The pipeline between this intake and the plant, through the Cooks’ property, will merely pass underground. Record evidence establishes that Duke Power has property rights in the land on which the intake structure will be constructed.
It has been the well-settled law in this state for over three-quarters of a century that a governmental body may condemn only the amount of property necessary to achieve the specific public purpose which required the condemnation. In Spencer v. Wills, 179 N.C. 175, 102 S.E. 275 (1920), this Court stated, “Condemnation by right of eminent domain is not allowed except so far as it is necessary for the proper construction and use of the improvement for which it is taken.” Id. at 178, 102 S.E. at 277 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Jennings v. State Highway Comm’n, 183 N.C. 69, 110 S.E. 583 (1922), this Court noted that in a condemnation proceeding, “the well con*229sidered cases on the subject hold that when the Legislature has not defined the extent or limit of the appropriation, the authorities charged with the duty are restricted to such property in kind and quantity as may be reasonably suitable and necessary to the purpose designated.” Id. at 71-72, 110 S.E. at 584 (emphasis added). In N.C. State Highway Comm’n v. Farm Equip. Co., 281 N.C. 459, 189 S.E.2d 272 (1972), this Court recognized that when a condemning authority seeks to take the property of a citizen, “ ‘the power to take private property is in every case limited to such and so much property as is necessary for the public use in question.’ ” Id. at 473, 189 S.E.2d at 280 (quoting Brest v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth., 194 So. 2d 658, 661 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), aff’dper curiam, 202 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1967)). Moreover, in Highway Comm’n, Justice Sharp (later Chief Justice) emphasized that it is unconstitutional for a governmental body to condemn property for private purposes:
“The Legislature cannot under the guise of exercising sovereign power of eminent domain, which can only be exercised for a public purpose, take a citizen’s property without his consent and give it or sell it to another for private use, . . . for to do so would be in violation of the Constitution of the United States Amendment 14.”
Highway Comm’n, 281 N.C. at 473, 189 S.E.2d at 280 (quoting Brest, 194 So. 2d at 661).
These cases stand for three basic principles. First, a condemning authority may take only the amount of property and interest necessary to achieve the public use, not the amount it simply wants or prefers. Second, the property may be condemned only for a public purpose, not for the private purposes of government officials or third parties. Finally, the property taken must be for the direct public use in question, not some other, collateral purpose. The reason for these requirements is the protection of private property under the state and federal Constitutions. See, e.g., Highway Comm’n, 281 N.C. 459, 189 S.E.2d 272; Trustees of the Univ. of N.C. v. Foy, 5 N.C. 58 (1805).
In this case, it is not necessary for the City to have fee simple title to the Cooks’ property. The City has admitted the public use can be achieved fully with a properly drafted easement. It is thus clear that the City simply prefers to have a fee simple title for its own convenience or purpose extending well beyond the public use in question. Governmental convenience is not synonymous with necessity, especially when private property is at stake. The public use in question for *230the taking here is the construction of a water supply pipeline, not the City’s preference for one electric supplier over another. The proper determination of the entity that provides electricity to a water treatment plant is entirely separate from the proper construction and maintenance of a water pipeline.
Had the excellent unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals been affirmed, as it should have been, the practical effect of such decision would be that the City would get an easement to bury its pipeline underground and to maintain it in the future, and the Cooks would still be able to use their property as a dairy farm, as they have since at least the early 1960s. Private property rights would be respected, and the legitimate public use in question would proceed unimpeded. The result of the majority’s decision will be to split the Cooks’ dairy into two separate, disjointed parcels and keep them from using the land even for grazing. The decision will also allow the improper use of the power of eminent domain to circumvent the intent and purpose of the carefully devised statewide legislative plan for settlement of electric service areas between electric suppliers, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 62-110.2.
In light of the law and facts of this case, simple justice and basic principles require that we affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals. However, it appears in this case that, “ ‘Justice is blind.’ Blind she is, an’ deef an’ dumb an’ has a wooden leg.” Finley Peter Dunne, Mr. Dooley’s Opinions (1900), - in The Harper Book of American Quotations 306 (Gorton Carruth & Eugene Ehrlich eds., 1988).