742 F.3d 1100
9th Cir.2013Background
- The City of Idaho Falls (IFP) operates a municipal electric utility serving customers inside the city; parts of its generation, transmission, and distribution systems lie outside city limits.
- IFP planned a "North Loop" transmission route entirely outside city boundaries to connect substations and sought easements from out-of-city landowners; some owners (the Alliance) refused to sell.
- The Alliance sued in state court for declaratory/injunctive relief, alleging the City lacked power to condemn land outside its limits for transmission lines; the City removed to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment for the Alliance.
- The district court held Idaho law did not authorize municipalities to exercise eminent domain extraterritorially to build electric transmission lines; the City appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed Idaho law de novo, applying Idaho precedent that municipalities have only powers expressly or fairly impliedly granted, or essential to their objects and purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alliance) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Idaho Falls may exercise eminent domain outside its boundaries to build transmission lines | Cities lack extraterritorial condemnation power absent legislative grant | Article I §14 and Idaho statutes (general eminent domain statutes and the Revenue Bond Act) authorize or imply such power | Held: No; Idaho statutes do not expressly or fairly imply extraterritorial eminent domain for transmission lines, nor is it essential to the city's powers; district court affirmed |
| Whether Article I §14 of the Idaho Constitution alone empowers municipalities to condemn extraterritorially | N/A (Alliance conceded §14 establishes public use but argued it doesn’t authorize extraterritorial municipal condemnation) | City: §14 is self-executing and permits condemnation for public use, so municipal exercise follows | Held: §14 defines public use but leaves procedure and scope to the legislature; it does not itself grant municipalities extraterritorial condemnation power |
| Whether the Revenue Bond Act (RBA) grants extraterritorial eminent domain | N/A | City: RBA authorizes acquiring works within or without the city and allows eminent domain for those works, so it permits extraterritorial condemnation | Held: No; RBA's eminent domain clause references §7-720 and does not expand its scope; RBA’s omission of "condemnation" in purchase/gift list and avoidance of statutory redundancy show no grant |
| Whether extraterritorial condemnation is implied as essential to city’s statutory duty to provide power at "lowest possible cost" | N/A | City: That mandate makes condemnation essential to accomplish municipal purposes when needed | Held: No; "lowest possible cost" does not imply expanding municipal powers beyond those granted—no factual showing it is essential here |
Key Cases Cited
- Caesar v. State, 610 P.2d 517 (Idaho 1980) (municipalities are creatures of the state and have only powers granted by law)
- Black v. Young, 834 P.2d 304 (Idaho 1992) (municipal powers: express, fairly implied, or essential to declared objects)
- McKenney v. Anselmo, 416 P.2d 509 (Idaho 1966) (statutes conferring eminent domain must be strictly construed)
- City of Grangeville v. Haskin, 777 P.2d 1208 (Idaho 1989) (doubts about municipal power resolved against the municipality)
- Bassett v. Swenson, 5 P.2d 722 (Idaho 1931) (Article I §14 establishes the nature of public use)
- Blackwell Lumber Co. v. Empire Mill Co., 155 P. 680 (Idaho 1916) (legislature provides procedure for exercising eminent domain under the constitution)
- Big Sky Paramedics, LLC v. Sagle Fire Dist., 95 P.3d 53 (Idaho 2004) (powers essential to an entity’s purpose can be recognized where factually indispensable)