Hawkeye Land Company v. Iowa Utilities Board
847 N.W.2d 199
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Hawkeye Land owns the right to grant easements across active Union Pacific railroad tracks; ITC Midwest sought to cross three tracks in Franklin County.
- ITC Midwest used Iowa Code section 476.27 pay-and-go procedure, paying $750 per crossing and notifying the railroad; Hawkeye Land refused payment and opposed the crossings.
- IUB preliminarily allowed the crossings and later IUB concluded ITC Midwest could use pay-and-go despite ITC Midwest not being a traditional public utility.
- Hawkeye Land challenged IUB’s interpretation and the applicability of section 476.27, arguing ITC Midwest is not a public utility and Hawkeye Land is not a railroad or successor in interest.
- The district court affirmed IUB’s rulings; the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding IUB had no interpretive authority and ITC Midwest could not use the pay-and-go procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IUB has interpretive authority over 476.27 terms | Hawkeye Land contends IUB lacks interpretive power. | ITC Midwest and IUB contend the Board may interpret the terms to carry out the statute's purpose. | IUB lacks interpretive authority; review is at law for errors |
| Whether Hawkeye Land is a railroad or successor in interest under 476.27 | Hawkeye Land is not a railroad or successor and thus not subject to 476.27. | Hawkeye Land fits within railroad right-of-way or successor in interest definitions. | Hawkeye Land is a successor in interest to a railroad corporation and thus subject to 476.27 |
| Whether ITC Midwest is a public utility under 476.27 | ITC Midwest is not a public utility under 476.1, and thus not covered by 476.27. | The broader 476.27 definition includes ITC Midwest as a public utility for crossing purposes. | ITC Midwest is not a public utility under 476.27 |
| Whether ITC Midwest may use pay-and-go to cross railroad rights-of-way | Pay-and-go is inappropriate for ITC Midwest because it is not a public utility. | Pay-and-go serves public convenience and should be available to ITC Midwest. | ITC Midwest cannot use the pay-and-go procedure |
| Constitutional takings or damages issue remaining unresolved | Pay-and-go takes without full just compensation and seeks fees and expenses. | Damages proceed under 6B if applicable; constitutional issues unnecessary to decide here. | Constitutional issues not decided; case remanded for 6B proceedings if applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johann, 207 N.W.2d 21 (Iowa 1973) (eminent domain authority must be authorized by statute and constitutional)
- NextEra Energy Res. LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012) (limits agency interpretive authority to terms legislatively delegated)
- Hardy v. Grant Twp. Trs., 357 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 1984) (eminent-domain statutes strictly construed)
- State v. Beach, 630 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 2001) (textual interpretation and omission imply exclusions)
- Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010) (interpretive discretion depends on enabling statute; not all acts grant broad interpretation)
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002) (antitrust standing broader than direct purchaser; not applicable to eminent domain)
- State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2005) (avoid constitutional questions when other grounds resolve the case)