Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund

• Decision Date: 29 February 1952
• Docket Number: No. 35759,35759
• Citation: 236 Minn. 135,51 N.W.2d 808
• Parties: NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. v. OSLUND et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 808

51 N.W.2d 808

236 Minn. 135

NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. v. OSLUND et al.

No. 35759.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 29, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Although lands may not be taken by eminent domain unless such takingappears to be necessary, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that there need be no showing of absolute or indispensable necessity, but only that the proposed tak ing is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of the end in vi e w.

2. By M.S.A. Secs. 222.36, 300.04, this rule of reasonable necessity or convenienc e is made expressly applicable to a public service corporation, which in the e x ercise of a right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its corporate publ ic purpose is required by statute, Sec. 117.07, to establish that its proposed tak in g of land is necessary.

Josiah A. Baker, Mankato, for relators.

Donald Nelson, Minneapolis, Lauerman, Johnson & Gustafson, Olivia, for respondent.

MATSON, Justice

Pursuant to a writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the district court granting to Northern States Power Company (hereinafter referred to as respondent) a perpetual easement and right of way over certain lands in Renville county for the erection of a 230,000-volt electric transmission line.

The order, which is one for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain and report the amount of damages sustained by the owners of the lands taken, was issued pursuant to M.S.A. Sec. 117.07, which authorizes such order only:

(1) If the proposed taking of lands is authorized by law; and

(2) If the proposed taking shall appear to be necessary.

The taking of property necessary to the production and distribution of electric light and power to the public is a taking for a public use which is authorized by law. ¹ Decisions which involve a proposed taking of state-owned lands which have already been dedicated to another specific public purpose--such as a state park--and are actually in use for that purpose are to be distinguished and are not in point. ²

It follows that the only basic issue here is whether the evidence sustains the trial court's finding that the proposed taking is necessary.

1-2. The foundation idea upon which the right of eminent domain rests is public necessity. In re St. Paul & N.P. Ry. Co., 37 Minn. 154, 33 N.W. 701. Although lands may not be taken by eminent domain unless such taking appears to be necessary, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that there need be no showing of absolute or indispensable necessity, but only that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of the end in view. ³ By Secs. 222.36 and 300.04, this rule of reasonable necessity or convenience ⁴ is made expressly applicable to a public service corporation, ⁵ which in the exercise of a right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its corporate public purpose is requried by statute, Sec. 117.07, to establish that its proposed taking of land is necessary. ⁶

We turn to the facts to ascertain whether the evidence sustains a finding that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of the purpose of supplying the public with electric light and power. The taking is for the acquisition of a 125-foot-wide right of way extending from respondent's Black Dog generataor plant near Minneapolis to Granite Falls, Minnesota. This right of way is to be used for the erection of a 230,000-volt bulk power transmission line supported by steel towers spaced about a quarter of a mile apart. Respondent furnishes electricity to an area extending east and west from western Wisconsin to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and north and south from St. Cloud to the Iowa border. The area west of Minneapolis is now served by three feeder lines which relators assert can be increased in voltage capacity to meet all reasonable needs for light and power. The first of these three feeder lines runs from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via St. Cloud and Paynesville and carries a voltage load of 69,000 volts, which is to be increased to 115,000 volts. The second feeder is a 23,000-volt line, of single-pole construction, running from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via Young America and Renville. The evidence indicates that it would not be feasible to convert this second line to 115,000 volts because the right of way is too narrow for the erection of the H type of poles which would then be required. In other words, it would be necessary to obtain a new right of way by condemnation. A third 69,000-volt feeder line, of single-pole construction, runs from Minneapolis to Granite Falls via Franklin. This latter line, which follows railroad rights of way, passes through small communities and could therefore not be widened to accommodate the H type poles. Again, a new right of way would be essential.

The evidence amply sustains a finding that even if it were possible to convert all three feeder lines to 115,00o volts that would not be adequate to supply the needs of the area. In 1949, respondent began a comprehensive study of the entire system to determine its electric production and distribution requirements. This study was made by its own engineers and was subsequently reviewed and verified by engineers from a nonaffiliated company. Service requirements under a variety of conditions were also studied and verified by means of a calculator board, which reproduced in miniature a replica of respondent's electric system. The result of this comprehensive survey is part of the evidence and stands practically unchallenged by any other expert testimony. ⁷ It appears that from 1926 to 1946 respondent experienced an annual expansion rate...