Clarke County Reservoir Commission v. Linda Sue Abbott
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 42
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Clarke County Reservoir Commission formed under Iowa Code ch. 28E with public and private members to plan and build a reservoir for regional water supply; its 28E agreement was amended to include a private 501(c)(6) (Clarke County Development Corporation) and to state the Commission may "acquire by ... use of eminent domain powers or otherwise."
- Commission commissioned engineering studies (2008, 2010, 2014) showing future municipal water shortfalls and voted to pursue a reservoir; it adopted resolutions and served notice to affected landowners.
- Commission filed a declaratory-judgment action under Iowa Code § 6A.24(2) seeking a judicial determination that the proposed taking is a "public use."
- Robins Trust (landowner) moved for summary judgment, arguing the Commission could not be an "acquiring agency" because it included a private member lacking eminent-domain power; the district court denied the motion and later ruled the project was a public use.
- After appeal, private members withdrew from the Commission; the Commission moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Iowa Supreme Court held the appeal was not moot and reversed the declaratory judgment because a 28E commission that includes private members cannot itself exercise eminent domain or be an acquiring agency under § 6A.24(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a ch. 28E commission that includes private members can exercise eminent domain and be an "acquiring agency" under § 6A.24(2) | Commission: the 28E agreement conferred eminent-domain authority on the Commission itself; ch. 28E should be construed liberally to permit efficient joint action | Robins Trust: ch. 28E does not grant new powers; private entities lack eminent-domain power and cannot jointly exercise it through a 28E commission | Held: No — a 28E entity with private members lacks eminent-domain power; the Commission was not a proper acquiring agency when it sought declaratory relief |
| Whether the appeal was moot after private members withdrew postjudgment | Commission: reorganization cured the defect; appeal is moot | Robins Trust: defect existed during critical proceedings and cannot be cured retroactively; judgment must be vacated | Held: Not moot — postjudgment withdrawal does not cure the error; court may and should decide the compositional defect |
| Whether the district court's declaratory judgment remains binding (preclusive) on the public-use issue after reversal | Commission: judgment will bind landowners who litigated public use | Robins Trust: judgment is voidable because plaintiff was not a proper acquiring agency | Held: Reversed — the declaratory judgment must be vacated; reversal defeats any preclusive effect |
| Whether the court should infer eminent-domain power from the 28E agreement or read such power into ch. 28E | Commission: interpret ch. 28E to allow efficient joint exercise, including eminent domain | Robins Trust: statutory delegation of eminent domain must be explicit; cannot be inferred to permit private actors to wield sovereign power | Held: Statutes delegating eminent domain are strictly construed; the legislature did not expressly authorize private members (or a mixed 28E commission) to exercise eminent domain, so the power cannot be inferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardy v. Grant Twp. Trs., 357 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 1984) (eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty and must be expressly authorized by the legislature)
- Bourjaily v. Johnson County, 167 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1969) (strict compliance required when a government entity invokes eminent domain)
- Goreham v. Des Moines Metro. Area Solid Waste Agency, 179 N.W.2d 449 (Iowa 1970) (28E entities exercise powers existing in their members; 28E does not create new sovereign powers)
- Barnes v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 341 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1988) (chapter 28E provides for joint exercise of pre-existing powers, not additional powers)
- Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 847 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2014) (statutes delegating eminent domain are strictly construed; wrong party to invoke eminent-domain procedure requires reversal)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (public-use and just-compensation limits protect against abuse of eminent domain)
- Lewis Investments, Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2005) (mootness considerations in condemnation context; appeal not necessarily moot where property not permanently transferred)
- In re Condemnation of Land for Valley View Park Aquatic/Roadway, 687 N.W.2d 103 (Iowa 2004) (procedural defects and naming of proper parties are critical in eminent domain proceedings)