Sauvageau v. Bailey, 973 N.W.2d 207

Brenda and Gene Sauvageau own 7.8 acres in Cass County that will be affected by the Fargo‑Moorhead Diversion flood control project.
Cass County Joint Water Resource District sued in October 2021 seeking to acquire a "permanent right of way easement" by quick take that the complaint describes as covering the entire Sauvageaus’ property and authorizes inundation, removal of structures, subsurface disturbance, and closure of the access road.
The District previously offered $460,000 (the appraised fee‑simple value) to buy either the fee simple or a permanent easement; the Sauvageaus refused; the District notified them they must vacate by March 15, 2022.
The Sauvageaus moved to dismiss, arguing quick take is unavailable because the District is taking more than a right‑of‑way and thus must proceed under the fee‑taking eminent domain statutes (ch. 32‑15); they also sought a preliminary injunction against eviction.
The district court denied dismissal and denied the injunction; the Sauvageaus petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ and obtained a temporary order preventing eviction.
The Supreme Court concluded, as a matter of law on the record and pleadings, the District’s asserted easement effectually takes the entire property (leaving only a worthless reverter) and therefore quick take is not available; the Court granted the writ, vacated the denial of dismissal, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a water resource district may use quick‑take to acquire a "permanent right of way easement" that effectively takes the owner’s entire property	Sauvageau: Quick‑take is limited to true rights‑of‑way; here the District is taking far more and must use fee‑taking procedures under ch. 32‑15	District: Art I, §16 and §61‑16.1‑09(2)(b) authorize quick‑take for rights‑of‑way and incidental uses necessary for the flood project	Court: Quick‑take not available because the asserted easement effects a permanent physical occupation of the whole parcel; district must use full eminent‑domain procedures when taking a greater interest
Whether the district court should have enjoined eviction pending resolution	Sauvageau: Eviction would destroy home and other improvements; injunction needed as likelihood of success on the merits	District: Sauvageau unlikely to prevail; no entitlement to preliminary relief	Court: Did not decide merits of injunction on appeal; issued temporary stay and remanded after granting writ; the principal ruling vacated denial of dismissal (left injunction issue to further proceedings)

Tormaschy v. Hjelle, 210 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1973) ("right of way" may include land necessary for incidental accommodations).
Minot Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hjelle, 231 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1975) (effects of state takings on adjacent easements and how damages may equate to fee taking).
Johnson v. Wells Cty. Water Res. Bd., 410 N.W.2d 525 (N.D. 1987) (quick‑take offers less owner protection and is available only where authorized by legislature).
Cass County Joint Water Res. Dist. v. Aaland, 956 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 2021) (discussing harms from permanent physical occupation of property).
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (permanent physical occupation destroys fundamental property rights).
Sauvageau v. Hjelle, 213 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1973) (property owners entitled to reasonable and convenient access).