Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass'n
100 A.3d 572
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Reading Area Water Authority (RAWA), a municipal authority, sought to condemn a 50-foot utility easement across land owned by Schuylkill River Greenway Assn. (Greenway) to run a water main and adjacent sewer/stormwater outfall serving a private developer’s proposed 219-unit subdivision (Water’s Edge Village).
- Developer initiated and agreed to fund the condemnation; RAWA’s resolution stated the easement would be provided to Developer and Developer would pay costs and compensation. The City of Reading approved RAWA’s action.
- The taking described a single 50-foot underground utility corridor divided in practice into a water easement (about half) and a drainage easement (about half) for private sewage/storm discharge tied to Developer’s private treatment/retention facilities.
- Greenway and Bern Township objected, arguing PRPA (26 Pa.C.S. §204(a)) bars condemning property to be used for private enterprise and that the drainage portion exceeded RAWA’s lawful needs; the trial court sustained objections and dismissed the declaration of taking.
- Commonwealth Court reversed, holding RAWA had statutory authority and the project served a public purpose; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review focused on whether PRPA and constitutional limits permit the condemnation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greenway/Township) | Defendant's Argument (RAWA/Developer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the drainage easement was a permissible public taking | The drainage easement was condemned chiefly to enable private development and is for private enterprise, violating PRPA | The taking serves public needs (water/sewer access); incidental private benefit does not destroy public purpose; developer funding is permitted | Held: The drainage easement is condemned to be used for private enterprise and is prohibited by PRPA §204(a) |
| Whether RAWA may condemn more land than needed for its water function to accommodate private drainage | RAWA exceeded its authority by taking easement area unnecessary for RAWA’s water supply purpose | The combined utility corridor (water + drainage) is integrated and serves public purposes; prospective needs justify size | Held: The overall easement exceeds what RAWA is entitled to; RAWA is not entitled to relief (size excessive) |
| Whether constitutional public-use analysis controls over PRPA | Plaintiff: Even if some public use exists, PRPA imposes stricter statutory limits preventing takings "to use it for private enterprise" | Defendant: Constitutional public-use suffices; incidental private gain is acceptable (Washington Park; Heim) | Held: Court need not decide constitutional issue; PRPA independently prohibits this condemnation because it is to be used for private enterprise |
| Whether exception for public utilities saves RAWA’s condemnation | Plaintiff: RAWA is not a public utility and cannot claim statutory exception | Defendant: Public interest in water/sewer provision justifies condemning drainage alongside water | Held: Exception for regulated public utilities does not apply to municipal authority RAWA; Legislature excluded municipal authorities, so PRPA applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Park, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 425 Pa. 349 (Pa. 1967) (taking with incidental private benefit upheld where public purpose predominated)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (economic-development takings may qualify as public use under federal law)
- Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607 (Pa. 2007) (condemnation invalid where land taken substantially exceeded what was needed)
- Winger v. Aires, 371 Pa. 242 (Pa. 1952) (taking enjoined when size exceeded reasonable necessity)
- Denes v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n, 547 Pa. 152 (Pa. 1997) (standard of appellate review in eminent domain matters)