Telford Lands LLC v. Cain
303 P.3d 1237
Idaho2013Background
- Ranchers sought to condemn an easement across Cain property to place two buried pipelines serving groundwater irrigation.
- Ranchers built pipelines to Blaine Canal so water would not suffer 35–40% conveyance losses in Moore Canal.
- Cain contended Ranchers had oral permission but protested; Cain later damaged the pipeline and demanded a high easement price.
- District court granted partial summary judgment for condemnation and dismissed other claims; value for condemnation set at $500 token; judgment entered September 30, 2011.
- Appeal followed challenging condemnation, the necessity finding, standing of Telford Lands, counterclaims for trespass, and attorney-fees decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional due process in eminent domain | Cains say possession antes judgment violated §14 article I | Ranchers acted under color of law; possession before judgment is permissible | No reversible error; condemnation allowed despite prior possession |
| Reasonable necessity for condemnation given Moore Canal | Moore Canal losses render it insufficient; pipeline necessary | Alternative transport exists via Moore Canal; necessity not proven | There is a reasonable necessity for the pipeline; canal not reasonably adequate |
| Standing of Telford Lands to pursue condemnation | Telford Lands had water lease and participation in project; standing valid | Telford Lands not required for condemnation; lack of standing | Telford Lands has standing for condemnation; remand to adjust scope per duration of water lease |
| Counterclaim for trespass and related attorney fees | Counterclaim should not have been dismissed; trespass issues ongoing | Condemnation judgment foreclosed trespass claim; fees should follow outcome | Dismissal of counterclaim vacated; case remanded for trespass issue; fees await final resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Big Lost River Irr. Co. v. Davidson, 21 Idaho 160 (1912) (constitutional taking for public use; conveyance of water rights)
- Boise Valley Constr. Co. v. Kroeger, 17 Idaho 384 (1909) (implied contract to pay compensation for taken property; waiver mechanics)
- Blackwell Lumber Co. v. Empire Mill Co., 29 Idaho 421 (1916) (trespass and eminent domain interplay; recovery options)
- Canyon View Irr. Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 101 Idaho 604 (1980) (public use of irrigation rights; scope of condemnation authority)
- Connolly v. Woods, 13 Idaho 591 (1907) (liberal eminent domain policy for irrigation and development)
- Reno v. Richards, 32 Idaho 1 (1918) (irrigation; beneficial use and conveyance efficiency)
- Reynolds Irr. Dist. v. Sproat, 69 Idaho 315 (1948) (policy to reduce waste; justifying improvements to increase flow)
- Marsh Mining Co. v. Inland Empire Min. & Mill. Co., 30 Idaho 1 (1916) (necessity standard for eminent domain; abstractly reasonable necessity)
- Poole v. Olaveson, 82 Idaho 496 (1960) (maximizing and least-wasteful use of water resources)
- Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. Drummond, 77 Idaho 36 (1955) (approach to pipeline right-of-way without forcible entry)
- Acarrequi (Ada Cnty. Highway Dist. By and Through Fairbanks v. Acarrequi), 105 Idaho 873 (1983) (reasonableness of administrative conditions in water rights)