Cannon v. State
| Decision Date | 28 August 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 418, 2001.,418, 2001. |
| Parties | Everett Clifton CANNON and Allie Marie Cannon, his wife, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. STATE of Delaware, Upon the Relation of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
John A. Sergovic, Jr., Esquire, Sergovic, Ellis & Shirey, P.A., Georgetown, Delaware, for Appellants.
Mark F. Dunkle, Esquire, Parkowski & Guerke, P.A., Dover, Delaware, for Appellee.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices, constituting the Court En Banc. WALSH, Justice for the Majority.
In this interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order of possession, we address the scope of the condemnation powers delegated to the Department of Transportation of the State of Delaware ("DelDOT"). The appellants/defendants below are the owners of 6.5 acres of land in Sussex County that DelDOT seeks to condemn in order to create a wetlands mitigation site. The wetlands mitigation is required as a condition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit to fill other wetlands in connection with the Route 54 highway reconstruction project in Sussex County. After a contested condemnation hearing, the Superior Court granted DelDOT's request for possession. The property owners have appealed, arguing that DelDOT lacks the authority to condemn land for wetlands mitigation, and, even if it has such authority, it acted unreasonably by failing to explore alternative sites. We agree with the trial court that DelDOT's statutory grant of authority to condemn land extends to wetlands mitigation, and that it acted within that authority in this case.
Appellants Everett and Allie Cannon ("the Cannons") own a coastal farm on the Little Assawoman Bay that is adjacent to the current Route 54 in Sussex County, Delaware. Route 54 serves as an essential hurricane evacuation route for the seashore area but is often rendered inaccessible due to flooding. In recognition of this problem, DelDOT commenced a study in 1992 to determine what improvements should be made to the road. Seven design alternatives for the Route 54 project were considered. The study evaluated each alternative design for its social, economic, and environmental impact on the surrounding area, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. With the exception of the first alternative, to do nothing, all of the designs, to varying extents, would necessarily interfere with the Cannon's property and require the filling of wetlands. Eventually, after public notice and debate, DelDOT chose a design featuring an elevated viaduct and a six foot elevated fill berm to access it. The viaduct will extend across approximately 2,460 feet of the Cannons' land and cross federally protected wetlands.
The Cannons did not dispute DelDOT's plan to condemn the portion of their land necessary for actual highway improvements. The Cannons did, however, refuse to surrender any of their land to accommodate wetlands mitigation necessitated by the project. The Route 54 project will require the filling of 1.87 acres of wetlands and removal of .955 acres of fill for temporary and shading of wetlands. Acting under the authority delegated to it by the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("the Corps") requires a permit to fill wetlands and maintains a "no net loss" policy, which requires wetlands mitigation to accompany any wetland filling operation. 33 U.S.C. § 1344; 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(r). This means, essentially, that DelDOT must create wetlands to replace those lost by the Route 54 improvements. Thus, DelDOT sought condemnation of 6.5 acres of the Cannons' property in order to create the necessary wetlands.
DelDOT cannot build the Route 54 project without a fill permit from the Corps, and the Corps will not issue a permit without acceptable wetlands mitigation. By virtue of a memorandum of understanding between the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps operates under a protocol of sequential review of possible mitigation sites. Under the protocol, the most desirable site is one that is both on-site and in-kind. If the most preferred mitigation site is not practical or feasible, the Corps will consider alternatives in descending order of preference: off-site and in-kind, on-site and out-of-kind, and off-site and out-of-kind. The Cannons' land is both on-site and in-kind, because it is adjacent to the impact area and amenable to the creation of tidal wetlands. In short, the Cannons' wetlands essentially replicate the wetlands to be filled in constructing the road.
DelDOT hired an expert wetlands consultant, Edward Launay, to develop a wetlands mitigation plan that would be acceptable to the Corps. Based on Launay's recommendation, DelDOT offered only one mitigation site to the Corps, the Cannons' property. After the Cannons expressed their opposition to having their land used for wetlands mitigation, DelDOT investigated the feasibility of off-site mitigation sites. Launay reviewed all DelDOT-owned land in Sussex County and concluded that none would be acceptable to the Corps as suitable for the creation of tidal wetlands. The Cannons concede that their land is the best ecological site, but argue that other, less desirable sites could be acceptable to the Corps. Despite the Cannons' opposition, the Corps granted DelDOT's fill permit and DelDOT is prepared to go forward with construction of the Route 54 project. According to the Corps' permit, however, construction cannot begin until DelDOT actually acquires the Cannon property. Although wetlands mitigation is needed before construction can begin, once the highway is built it will play no role in the function of the roadway.
Our standard and scope of review of the Superior Court's interpretation of the condemnation statute is de novo. Public Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale, 735 A.2d 378, 382-83 (Del.1999)
.
The Cannons first argue that DelDOT lacks statutory authority to condemn private land for wetlands mitigation purposes. Although 17 Del. C. § 132(c) does not contain language authorizing DelDOT to condemn land specifically for "wetlands mitigation," DelDOT asserts that the grant of condemnation power is broad enough to encompass this purpose. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the taking of the Cannons' land is "necessary for a proper, public purpose," because, as a practical matter, DelDOT cannot make the improvements to Route 54 without providing wetlands mitigation.
We agree with the Superior Court that 17 Del. C. § 132 grants DelDOT the authority to condemn land for wetlands mitigation, if necessary to advance the underlying purpose of construction and maintenance of the State's roadways. It is beyond dispute that as a sovereign governmental entity, the State of Delaware retains the power of eminent domain and that it may delegate that power to agencies charged with furthering some public good. Thomison v. Hillcrest Athletic Ass'n., 5 A.2d 236, 238 (Del.Super.1939). The statute granting DelDOT the power of eminent domain provides that, in furtherance of the construction of a comprehensive and permanent system of state highways, DelDOT may: "[a]cquire by condemnation or otherwise any land, easement, franchise, material or property, which, in the judgment of the Department, shall be necessary therefor...." 17 Del. C. § 132(c)(4). The General Assembly further granted DelDOT the power to do "whatever is incidental and germane to the scope of the duties and powers conferred on it by law." 17 Del. C. § 132(d).
Statutes that vest the power of eminent domain in an agency must be strictly construed, however, because, by their operative nature, they subjugate the rights of private property owners to the greater public need. State ex rel. Sharp v. 0.6878 Acres of Land, 105 A.2d 205, 206 (Del.Super.1954). Despite the strict construction we must accord 17 Del. C. § 132, our overriding goal is to determine the intent of the legislature. In this vein, we note that the Superior Court has construed the statute to allow DelDOT to condemn property for the purpose of building a toll plaza and an administrative building, which the court deemed "necessary for the construction and use" of a state highway. State v. M. Madic, Inc., C.A. Nos. 96C-11-192, 96C-11-193, 96C-11-196, 96C-11-197, slip. op. 17-19, Quillen, J. (Del.Super.Jan. 24, 1997). Ultimately, the court reasoned, the property owners' proffered interpretation of the statute would "hamstring DelDOT's efforts to construct any state roadway, and Title 17 is not so restrictive." Id.
Courts in other states have also concluded that environmental mitigation is a practical necessity for public construction projects and have allowed state agencies to condemn private land for wetlands mitigation. See State v. Trap Rock Industries, Inc., 338 N.J.Super. 92, 768 A.2d 227, 231 (2001)
(); Dare County Board of Education v. Sakaria, 118 N.C.App. 609, 456 S.E.2d 842, 845-46 (1995) ().
The same rationale is applicable here. Were the Cannons' very narrow construction of the statute to be accepted, DelDOT would be substantially hampered in its efforts to fulfill its statutory mandate to establish a comprehensive system of state highways. 17 Del. C. § 132(a). Whenever a proposed roadway interfered with federally protected wetlands, and the property owner refused to sell, DelDOT would be forced to abandon the project, no matter how "necessary" and compelling would be the public need. We do not believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manning v. Energy, Minerals, 28,500.
...framers selected just compensation as their specific remedy for enforcement of that right. See generally Cannon v. State, 807 A.2d 556, 566-69 (Del.2002) (Holland, J., dissenting) (discussing the early origins of the Takings Clause and the purpose behind its incorporation into the Bill of R......
-
O'Neill v. Town of Middletown, C.A. No. 1069-N (DE 1/18/2006)
...under the discrimination legislation cited above. 105. Accord 3 Pierce, supra note 70, § 17.9. 106. Cf. Cannon v. State, 807 A.2d 556, 564-65 (Del. 2002) (Steele, J., dissenting) (explaining that, where no statutory standards for administrative decision and no agency-adopted substantive or ......
-
Hall v. Coupe
...31. Section 6517. 32. Pls.' Reply Br. ¶ 27. 33. Atlantis I Condo. Ass'n v. Bryson, 403 A.2d 711, 713 (Del. 1979). 34. Cannon v. State, 807 A.2d 556, 564 (Del. 2002) (alteration in original). 35. Atlantis I Condo. Ass'n, 403 A.2d at 713. 36. 29 Del. C. § 10112(b)(4). 37. See Atlantis I Condo......
-
State v. Teague, C.A. No. 08C-09-065 JAP (Del. Super. 4/3/2009)
...Court to resolve this question. 2. Response, ¶11. 3. Id., ¶¶ 9, 10. 4. 17 Del. C. §132 (a). 5. 17 Del. C. §132 (c)(3). 6. Cannon v. State, 807 A2d 556 (Del. 2002). 7. 58 Del. Laws c. 413. 8. Id. The preamble to the legislation recites that "continued eligibility of the State of Delaware for......
-
A divided court in more ways than one: the Supreme Court of Delaware and its distinctive model for judicial efficacy, 1997-2003.
...856 (Del. 1999); Shelton v. State, 744 A.2d 465 (Del. 1999); Quarles v. State, 696 A.2d 1334 (Del. 1997). Civil Cases: Cannon v. State, 807 A.2d 556 (Del. 2002); Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140 (Del. 2002); Colonial Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 772 A.2d 177 (Del. 2001); Dugan v. Delaware Harness Racing......
-
What property rights: the California Coastal Commission's history of abusing land rights and some thoughts on the underlying causes.
...enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government."); Cannon v. Delaware, 807 A.2d 556, 567 (Del. 2002) ("Prior to the American Revolution, property ownership became identified with the preservation of political liberty"). JAMES ......