Villages of Eden and Hazelton v. Idaho Bd. of Highway Directors of Dept. of Highways

• Decision Date: 01 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 9006,9006
• Citation: 83 Idaho 554,367 P.2d 294
• Parties: VILLAGES OF EDEN AND HAZELTON, Idaho, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. IDAHO BOARD OF HIGHWAY DIRECTORS OF the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 294

367 P.2d 294

83 Idaho 554

VILLAGES OF EDEN AND HAZELTON, Idaho, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. IDAHO BOARD OF HIGHWAY DIRECTORS OF the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9006.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 1, 1961.

Wm. R. Padgett, Andrew M. Harrington and Ralph R. Breshears, Boise, for appellant.

Kramer & Walker, Twin Falls, for respondents.

Parry, Robertson & Daly, Twin Falls, amicus curiae.

SMITH, Justice.

Appellant is herein sometimes referred to as the State Highway Department, also as the Board.

This appeal involves the validity of a determination by appellant of the location in Jerome County, of approximately 24.8 miles of the proposed federal-aid Interstate Highway 80-N, a four lane limited access freeway. Such portion of Highway 80-N is herein sometimes referred to as the Interstate.

Appellant, in cooperation with U. S. Bureau of Public Roads, after considering ten alternate routes for this portion of the highway, deemed three as worthy of more detailed analyses. Subsequently, during 1958, appellant's planning and traffic division prepared an analysis designed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the three proposed routes.

The plans of the proposed routes are designated 'A,' 'B' and 'C,' respectively. All show identical easterly and westerly termini, i. e., on the west, near the junction of the proposed Interstate which U. S. Highway 95 some seven miles north of Twin Falls, and on the east, on State Highway 25 approximately one and a half miles west of the Jerome-Minidoka county line. Plan 'A' would traverse six miles of desert land and 18.8 miles of rolling farm land; Plan 'B,' six miles of desert land and 19.1 miles of rolling farm land, and Plan 'C,' 19.4 miles of desert land and five miles of irrigated farm land.

Plan 'A' proposes a route to extend from the west terminus southeasterly to a point near State Highway 50 where a proposed interchange would provide access to Twin Falls by way of Hansen Bridge. It then would continue due east past a point two miles south of the respondent Village of Eden, to the east terminus.

Plan 'B' proposes a route coinciding with Plan 'A', extending from the west terminus to the proposed State Highway 50 interchange; at that point it would extend southeast to a point one-half mile south of the Plan 'A' route; then would continue due east for 13 miles parallel to the Plan 'A' route, and then curve one-half mile northeasterly to coincide again with the Plan 'A' route to the east terminus.

Plan 'C' would coincide with Plans 'A' and 'B' from the west terminus for approximately one and a half miles, then would extend due east past a point two miles north of Eden and, after crossing the Northside Canal, would extend generally in a southeasterly direction to the east terminus.

Appellant recommended the adoption of Plan 'A', based upon the following factors:

'1. Effect of the proposed route on existing road systems;

'2a. Benefits to the road-user in the form of savings in distance and time;

'b. Cost to the road-user including construction, maintenance, property damage and right-of-way acquisition;

'3. Safety of operation on the road system; and

'4. Economic loss of farm production.'

and listed the following basic data used in measuring those factors:

'1. Origin-destination traffic surveys;

'2. Volume and classification counts;

'3. Assigned traffic;

'4. Improvement cost estimates;

'5. Accident records; and

'6. Land use and projected development.'

The 'Origin-destination traffic surveys' and 'Volume and classification counts' were actual surveys and counts of traffic on the highways. 'Assigned traffic' is a projected traffic volume figure computed mathematically on the basis of assumed normal traffic increases. The 'Improvement cost estimates' involved a reconnaisance survey, followed by a detailed field inspection to determine the estimated costs of construction. The 'Accident records' used were obtained by applying to traffic figures, previously found through the counts and surveys, certain accident equations to compute the number of accidents that could be anticipated on the alternative facilities. Consideration of 'Land use and projected develpment' was limited to an assessment of the anticipated loss in annual gross farm income, using as a basis an annual crop value per acre in the county as shown by the '1954 Census of Agriculture,' published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. In addition to these factors, appellant's 1958 route analysis contains a chart intended to show the effect of the Interstate on travel distance and travel time between Magic Valley communities. ('Magic Valley' refers to the area in the general vicinity of Twin Falls, and the vicinity intended to be traversed by the portion of Highway 80-N involved herein.)

Using this basic data, the route analysis sets out appellant's major findings, as follows:

'1. Traffic generation in the Magic Valley is mainly local in nature and is centered around Twin Falls and Jerome;

'2. The second major traffic generation in the Magic Valley is also local in nature and is centered around the Rupert-Burley area;

'3. Through traffic generation completely outside of the Magic Valley is of third importance;

'4. The Eden-Hazelton Section of the Interstate Highway will require three interchanges for access to

'a. Eden,

'b. Hazelton, and

'c. Twin Falls;

'5. Local circulation of traffic in the immediate proximity of the Interstate Highway can be maintained by a system of grade separations and frontage roads * * *;

'6. Plans 'A' and 'B' will provide maximum relief for U. S. Highway 30 and State Highway 25;

'7. The Interstate Highway will increase the traffic flow on State Highway 50 with each plan; and

'8. A new bridge will be required across the Snake River north of Hansen on the Twin Falls connection to the Interstate under any plan.'

Appellant, in such route analysis, then concludes:

'Plans 'A' and 'B' have the following advantages over the selection of a route north of Eden (Plan 'C'):

'1. Increased road-user savings in vehicle operating costs more than offset the additional construction cost and loss of farm production incurred with the alternates south of Eden * * *. Benefits to local traffic in reduced travel time and distances between communities * * *;

'2. Increased road-user safety resulting from a higher traffic transfer from the more hazardous existing highways * * *;

'3. Greater net gain to the economy in the amount of $195,000 per year for Plan 'A' * * *. A similar comparison for Plan 'B' would result in $149,000 net gain per year;

'4. Conformance to the criteria established by the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads for the selection of Interstate Routes, i. e.:

'a 'connect as directly as possible the maximum number of cities of various population groups;'

'b 'traverse the most populous band of rural territory;'

'c 'be in accord with the highest traffic volumes in the areas traversed;' 'd 'consideration of topographic features;'

'e 'best serve our national defense.'

'Plan 'A' has a $45,600 net gain per year advantage over Plan 'B' * * *.

'It is concluded from the above comparisons that the advantages of plan 'A' outweigh those of plans 'B' and 'C'.'

On November 24, 25, and 26, 1958, hearings were held at Twin Falls, Hansen, Eden, Hazelton, Kimberly, Murtaugh, Jerome and Burley. Prior to the hearings each such community was furnished with a brochure prepared by appellant outlining the route analysis previously made and its proposed approval of Plan 'A', together with its reasons for approval. The hearings were conducted by appellant's Secretary, as its Hearing Officer. The testimony taken dealt with various anticipated effects reasonably foreseeable from the adoption of Plan 'A', as follows:

1. Damage to business, industry and enterprises in the Villages of Eden and Hazelton;

2. Damage to agricultural lands in the area;

3. Damage to canal systems and to school bus, mail and milk routes;

4. Excessive costs of obtaining the right-of-way;

5. Excessive loss of farm production;

6. The retarding of the development of Eden and Hazelton;

7. The stimulation of the development of Twin Falls;

8. Increased safety and convenience to more highway-users in the area;

9. General benefits, including increased convenience and safety, to the villages of Hansen, Kimberly and Murtaugh.

By its order dated December 3, 1958, appellant recited that it had considered the transcripts of the hearings, together with engineering, traffic and economic studies and preliminary right-of-way appraisals; also determined that Plan 'A' would be of greater benefit to the State of Idaho than the economic loss and damage to the villages and cities concerned. Appellant thereupon adopted Plan 'A' as the route for Interstate Highway 80-N through Jerome county. Appellant submitted such order to the interested cities and villages.

The villages of Eden and Hazelton appealed such decision to the district court, specifying as errors the following:

'a. (Appellant board) Did not consider the relative importance of the highway to cities and villages, existing business, industry and enterprises;

'b. The board did not consider the convenience of highway-users;

'c. The board did not consider the common welfare of the people of the State of Idaho or of the appellant villages;

'd. The board did not consider the natural resources, industry and agriculture of the area in question;

'e. The board did not consider the financial capacity of the State of Idaho to acquire the right-of-way along Plan 'A';

'f. The board did not consider the financial capacity of the State of Idaho to reconstruct and maintain the necessary state access roads;

'g. The proposed route would not be of greater benefit to the State of Idaho than the economic loss and damage resulting to the appellant villages;

'h. A more northerly alternate route commonly designated by the State Highway Board as 'Plan C' would be of greater...