Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass'n
50 A.3d 255
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- RAWA condemned a 50-foot-wide easement across the Greenway land for water, sewer, and storm water facilities to serve Fortune’s Water’s Edge Village.
- The Declaration of Taking described a 133-foot-long easement running across Greenway property and under the Schuylkill River.
- RAWA Resolution 2009-2 authorized eminent domain for water, sewer, and storm water purposes with Fortune to bear condemnation costs.
- Reading City Council Resolution 91-2009 authorized acquisition of an easement to accommodate sanitary sewer and storm water facilities in addition to RAWA water lines.
- The Greenway (record owner) and the Township (equitable owner) challenged the taking as excessive and benefiting private enterprise; RAWA defended the taking as within its public purpose to provide water and related utilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RAWA had authority to condemn for water, sewer, and storm water facilities. | RAWA argues statutory authority under the Municipal Authorities Act and council resolutions authorize the project. | Greenway/ Township contend the taking exceeds statutory scope or is not for a public use. | RAWA had authority; the taking served public water/sewer/storm water purposes. |
| Whether the taking for sewer and storm water facilities serves a public use despite private benefit to Fortune. | The public benefit of providing water and utilities overrides private gain. | Private beneficiary (Fortune) undermines public use. | Taking constitutes a public use/public purpose; private benefit does not defeat public character. |
| Whether the size of the easement (50 feet) is reasonably related to RAWA’s public purpose. | Larger easement necessary to accommodate multiple facilities. | Excessive size should be limited to public needs. | Fifty-foot easement is not excessive given combined water/sewer/storm water purpose. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Bell Atlantic/Beaver Falls standards. | Lower court misapplied cases restricting private gain. | Those cases show improper scope of public purposes. | Trial court misapplied authorities; proper framework supports public purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of O’Hara, 676 A.2d 1255 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (easement use not within original water-supply scope; unrelated private use cannot arise under an existing easement)
- In re Condemnation by the Beaver Falls Municipal Authority, 960 A.2d 933 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (excessive taking beyond project’s necessary land prejudice; stockpiling soil case)
- In re Condemnation of Land Along Woodside Road, 151 Pa.Cmwlth. 438 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992) (rejected private gain framing; endorsing public purpose)
- Bear Creek Twp. v. Riebel, 37 A.3d 64 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (eminent domain not authorized for private recreational/private enterprise benefit)
- Washington Park, Inc. Appeal, 425 Pa. 349 (Pa. 1967) (public use versus private benefit; strong presumption of valid public purpose)
- In re Bruce Ave., 438 Pa. 498 (Pa. 1970) (eminent domain power to acquire land for public purposes including utilities)