Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Coalt Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 20150149–CA,20150149–CA |
| Citation | 2016 UT App 169,382 P.3d 602 |
| Parties | Utah Department of Transportation, Appellee, v. Coalt Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Carlston, Rodney R. Parker, Salt Lake City, and Robert T. Denny, Attorneys for Appellant.
Sean D. Reyes, Brent A. Burnett, and Randy S. Hunter, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee.
1
OpinionROTH
, Judge:
¶1 In connection with the construction of the Legacy Parkway Project (also known as the Legacy Highway), the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) exercised its power of eminent domain to condemn approximately sixty-five acres of property (Parcel 84) in Davis County, Utah, that Coalt Inc. owned. Following a four-day bench trial, the court ruled that UDOT had authority to condemn Coalt's land and that Coalt, although entitled to compensation, was not entitled to any incremental increase in value attributable to the Legacy Parkway Project itself. Coalt argues on appeal that the district court erred in deciding that UDOT had authority to condemn its property. Alternatively, Coalt contends that if UDOT had condemnation authority, then the court erred by not considering any enhanced value attributable to the project in determining just compensation for the taking of Parcel 84. We conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that UDOT's condemnation of Parcel 84 was “a proper exercise of eminent domain.” But we also conclude that the district court should have considered the effect of the Legacy Parkway Project in determining just compensation for the taking. Accordingly, we remand to the district court to redetermine the amount to be awarded to Coalt for the taking.
¶2 Planning for the Legacy Parkway Project began over twenty years ago with the goal of easing traffic congestion between Salt Lake and Davis counties. The Legacy Highway was slated for construction west of the existing interstate, and due to its proximity to the Great Salt Lake and the lake's ecosystem, environmental impacts were a concern from the outset. UDOT began acquiring land, not only to build the highway itself, but also to mitigate the “environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Legacy Parkway.” As part of this process, UDOT, the United States Federal Highway Administration (the FHA), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (the Final EIS) in June 2000. The Final EIS set forth in detail the scope of the Legacy Parkway Project, including identification of the land needed for mitigation of the environmental impacts of the project. Notably, Parcel 84 was not identified as part of the project in the Final EIS, although other parcels of Coalt's land were identified for mitigation purposes.
¶3 In January 2001, the Corps issued a Record of Decision approving the route for the Legacy Parkway along with the necessary federal permits. Just weeks later, several public interest environmental groups (public interest litigants)3 brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, asserting that the Final EIS did not comply with federal environmental law and sought to vacate the permit. See generally Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep't of Transp. , 180 F.Supp.2d 1286 (D. Utah 2001)
. When the court ruled in UDOT's favor, the public interest litigants filed an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, the public interest litigants also filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Tenth Circuit granted. The preliminary injunction prohibited UDOT from “any further action that will disturb the ground or vegetation in the proposed right of way,” essentially bringing the project to a halt. Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep't of Transp. , Nos. 01–4216, 2001 WL 1739458, at *5 (10th Cir. Nov. 16, 2001). In September 2002, the Tenth Circuit ruled that portions of the Final EIS were inadequate and remanded the case for further review. See generally
Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep't of Transp. , 305 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2002). Over the next two years, UDOT, the FHA, and the Corps completed additional environmental reviews and subsequently put out for public comment an updated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in December 2004. Again, Parcel 84 was not identified as part of the project.
¶4 During the public comment period, the public interest litigants asserted that UDOT, the FHA, and the Corps had again failed to comply with federal environmental law, and they threatened further litigation if UDOT did not take steps to resolve the problems that the public interest litigants had identified. In September 2005, UDOT and the public interest litigants began settlement negotiations and eventually reached an “Agreement in Principle” that would “resolve and settle differences over the Legacy Parkway project.” That agreement, among other things, provided for additional environmental mitigation:
The Mitigation Property included the approximately sixty-five acres that comprised Parcel 84. While UDOT considered acquisition of the Mitigation Property to be integral to resolution of the litigation and hence to the viability of the project, neither of the federal permitting agencies—the FHA and the Corps—required such “additional mitigation” as a condition of “Federal approval of the Legacy Parkway Project or the issuance of the necessary Federal records of decisions and permits.” With support from the governor, the Utah Legislature held a special session in November 2005 to approve UDOT's execution of a settlement agreement “to resolve all pending litigation and potential future claims of the [public interest litigants] and allow for the construction of the Legacy Parkway.” The legislature approved the expenditure of more than $1,000,000 for the costs of this resolution, including purchase of the Mitigation Property.
¶6 In January 2006, the FHA issued a Record of Decision approving the Final Supplemental EIS. This Record of Decision contained a section titled, “STATE OF UTAH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,” which began, “After the previous litigation delayed the project, resulting in higher construction project costs and adverse transportation impacts, a compromise to end that litigation and avoid future litigation was desirable.” The Settlement Agreement included “certain design and operational configurations” for the Legacy Parkway, including a “restriction on large trucks,” the use of “noise-reducing pavement,” increasing the “curvature to the roadway” in order to “enhance the parkway setting,” “meander[ing] the alignment of the [parkway's] footprint ... [to] reduce[ ] impacts on wetlands and other sensitive environmental features,” and a maximum speed of fifty-five miles per hour—to the end that “the former [public interest litigants] and other interested parties will not bring suit.” In addition, this section included a subsection titled “Terms Not Specific to the Legacy Parkway Project,” which began, “Although technically unrelated to Legacy Parkway, UDOT will also undertake the following steps pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.” One of those steps was that UDOT would “[o]btain additional mitigation property (121 acres)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Coalt, Inc.
...Legacy Parkway.¶20 Coalt appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court on the issue of UDOT's authority. Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Coalt Inc. , 2016 UT App 169, ¶ 20, 382 P.3d 602. However, it reversed the district court's conclusion that Coalt was not entitled to compensation f......