Court Opinion

ID: 9655907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:25:02.81095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:23.037214
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
concurring.
I am in full accord with the majority opinion herein, but in view of some statements in the dissenting opinion I feel that an additional statement should be made. I agree that judicial interpretation of the term “public use” as applied to the doctrine of eminent domain is a controversial and conflicting area of the law. I suggest, however, that in this case putting the most favorable construction possible on the argument of the dissenters, we still must come to the conclusion that the primary purpose of this condemnation was to take the water of plaintiffs over their protest and turn it over to two large corporations located approximately 6 miles beyond the city limits, for the production of commercial fertilizer for private profit.
The dissenting opinion quotes some dicta from Vetter v. Broadhurst, 100 Neb. 356, 160 N. W. 109, 9 A. L. R. 578, to the effect that the right of eminent domain rests on the right to control of rates by the public. The holding in that case was that the right of eminent domain cannot be exercised for a purely private purpose. That has been and is still the law of this jurisdiction.
The following language from Salisbury Land & Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371, 102 N. E. 619, 46 L. R. A. N. S. 1196, is very pertinent herein: “The acquisition of land under the power of eminent domain to be devoted to private uses has been recently *231considered and discussed somewhat at length. It has been said that the exercise of the power of the State, either through taxation or eminent domain, to take land from one person with the intent of handing it over to another person, is not a public purpose and is contrary to basic and essential principles of free government. Opinion of the Justices, 204 Mass. 607. The underlying objection is that the main end of legislation for this purpose is a private utility rather than the general good. While incidentally it may be an advantage to the public that private persons prosper, if the essential character of the transaction in its direct object is private benefit to individuals, the purpose is not public. In a general sense it is of public interest that the people be well housed, but this does not authorize the State to become the general landlord. That subject is a proper one for the exercise of the police power but not of eminent domain. * * * Private property cannot be taken directly or indirectly for a private end. It cannot be seized ostensibly for a public use and then diverted to a private use. Legislation which is designed or which is so framed that it may be utilized to accomplish the ultimate result of placing property in the hands of one individual for private enjoyment after it has been taken from another individual avowedly for a public purpose is unconstitutional. It would enable that to be achieved by indirection which by plain statement would be impossible. These principles have been expounded at length in early decisions and recent opinions of this court with affluent citation of authorities. (Citing authorities.)”
It seems clear to me that it should not be possible to exercise the power of eminent domain when the purported public use is merely a cloak for an ulterior private use. In Burnett v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irr. Dist., 147 Neb. 458, 23 N. W. 2d 661, we said: “In Forney v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R.R. Co., 23 Neb. 465, 36 N. W. 806, we stated as follows: ‘Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use. 1 *232Bouv. Law Diet., 524. It is the power which remains in the government to resume the possession of property upon making just compensation therefor, whenever the public interest requires it. This right of resumption may be exercised when required for the public good in the construction of a railroad, public road, canal, or other like work. The right of eminent domain, however, does not permit the sovereign power to take the property of one citizen and transfer it to another even for full compensation. Beekman v. Saratoga, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Paige’s Ch., 73. In other words, the right of eminent domain gives to the legislature the control of private property for public uses, and for public uses only. 2 Kent’s Co., 339, and cases cited. This being the rule, the property must be used for the purpose which justified its taking, otherwise it would be a fraud on the owner and an abuse of power, and the authority being in derogation of private right, is to be strictly construed.’ ”
The dissenting opinion argues that when property is held by a municipally owned utility, public use logically should not be governed by the geographic governmental property lines of the municipal corporation owning and operating the utility. I have no quarrel with this statement if it is confined to the sale of excess water. Here, however, the municipality is not selling excess water, but is taking private property to obtain the water it wishes to sell. I cannot agree this is for a public use, because the city apparently has ample water for city purposes. It is a mere subterfuge to obtain water for the specific benefit of two private corporations located 6 miles beyond its geographic boundaries. If it can do this for these corporations, what would prevent it from extending its jurisdiction to the far boundaries of the state? There must be a line where the right of eminent domain ends. I believe that line is properly drawn in the majority opinion. Condemnation statutes are in derogation of general right and of common law modes of *233procedure, and should be strictly construed. Webber v. City of Scottsbluff, 155 Neb. 48, 50 N. W. 2d 533. ■
I support the view of the majority that when the Legislature delegates the power of eminent domain to a municipality, it must be used for the public use of the municipality. In providing water for domestic purposes for the city, and individual users within the city,' it is serving the public purpose as such municipality. When it seeks to secure additional water to serve persons outside the corporate limits of the city, it is not serving a public purpose of the city. The fact that it is permitted to enter into contracts with persons beyond the city limits for the sale of excess water is not, as I view it, an extension of the power of condemnation to secure water in excess of the needs of the city for the purpose of the unlimited extension of its facilities.
The dissenting opinion is wholly concerned with the rights of the city, and the extension of its power to serve private industries outside of the geographical boundaries of the city. It wholly ignores the rights of the landowners whose property is being taken for purposes beyond those necessary for the use of the city and its inhabitants. Those rights in this situation are paramount.