Federal district court order in the case of United States Ex Rel. T.V.A v. Two Tracts of Land, Etc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division

Taylor, Robert L.

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

Federal District Court Order in United States Ex Rel. T.V.A v. Two Tracts of Land, Etc., No. 7428

Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School

Boston College Law SchoolDigital Commons @ Boston College Law SchoolSnail Darter Documents The Snail Darter and the Dam6-10-1974Federal District Court Order in United States ExRel. T.V.A v. Two Tracts of Land, Etc., No. 7428Robert L. TaylorUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern DivisionFollow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/darter_materialsPart of the Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Planning Commons, and the Water LawCommonsThis Judicial Decision is brought to you for free and open access by the The Snail Darter and the Dam at Digital Commons @ Boston College LawSchool. It has been accepted for inclusion in Snail Darter Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College LawSchool. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu.Digital Commons CitationTaylor, Robert L., "Federal District Court Order in United States Ex Rel. T.V.A v. Two Tracts of Land, Etc., No. 7428" (1974). SnailDarter Documents. Paper 102.http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/darter_materials/102387 F.Supp. 319 (1974)UNITED STATES of America upon the relation for the Useof the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITYv.TWO TRACTS OF LAND Containing a Total of 146.4 ACRES,MORE OR LESS, IN LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.Civ. A. No. 7428.United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, N. D.June 10, 1974.On Motion to Reconsider June 26, 1974.*320 Robert H. Marquis, Gen. Counsel, Beauchamp E. Brogan, Associate Gen.Counsel, Beverly S. Burbage, senior trial atty., Tennessee Valley Authority,Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.J. Granville Clark, Russellville, Ky., W. P. Boone, Dougherty, Knoxville, Tenn., fordefendants.ORDERROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge.This is a condemnation proceeding under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of1933, 16 U.S.C. §§ 831-831dd, in which T.V.A. seeks to condemn defendants'property for use in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the TellicoDam and Reservoir project.Defendants contend in their answer that (1) the property which TVA seeks tocondemn will not in fact be used for the Dam and Reservoir project, (2) that thetaking by T.V.A. is unconstitutional and (3) T.V.A. has abused its discretion and"is acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and in bad faith in said proposed taking." Thecase is presently before the Court on plaintiff's motion for judgment on thepleadings or for summary judgment. It is the opinion of the Court that defendants'contentions with respect to the propriety of this taking are without foundationeither in law or fact. See generally, Environmental Defense Fund v. TennesseeValley Authority, 371 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.Tenn.1973), aff'd, 492 F.2d 466, 468 (6thCir. 1974) (multi-purpose project, including shoreline development). See alsoUnited States v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 553-554, 66 S.Ct. 715, 90 L.Ed. 843 (1946)(the authority may condemn "all property [it] deems necessary"); Berman v.Parker, 348 U. S. 26, 33, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954); Tennessee ValleyAuthority v. Kinzer, 142 F.2d 833 (6th Cir. 1944); Goodpasture v. Tennessee320Valley Authority, 434 F.2d 760, 763 (6th Cir. 1970); Illinois Central R. R. v.Tennessee Valley Authority, 455 F.2d 308 (6th Cir. 1971).Accordingly, it is ordered that plaintiff's motion be, and the same hereby is,granted.ON MOTION TO RECONSIDERORDERBefore the Court is defendants' motion for the Court to reconsider and vacate itsprevious order of June 10, 1974 granting plaintiff Tennessee Valley Authority'smotion for summary judgment.In defendants' original answer, he contended that:1. The property Tennessee Valley Authority sought to condemn was not intendedto be used in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Tellico Dam andReservoir.2. There exists no authority under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act for plaintiffto take private property for purposes not set forth in the Act.3. Tennessee Valley Authority's acquisition and condemnation program wastantamount to "rural renewal" — a program, defendant claims, which is analogousto "urban renewal" and one that Tennessee Valley Authority has no statutoryauthority to effect.4. Tennessee Valley Authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its taking.5. Tennessee Valley Authority's taking in this instance is without statutoryauthority.Defendants in their brief have reduced their contentions to two: First, *321 thatthere exists judicial authority for the proposition that TVA's authority and purposein condemning a parcel of land is subject to judicial review. United States v.Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 66 S. Ct. 715, 90 L.Ed. 843 (1946); United States v. Carmack,329 U.S. 230, 67 S.Ct. 252, 91 L.Ed. 209 (1946), and secondly that TVA's taking inthis particular instance is arbitrary and capricious since, under defendants'contentions, TVA proposed to condemn defendants' land presently and ultimatelyresell the same at a later date to private persons. Defendants contend that anyprofit realized in this condemnation and subsequent resale procedure would beused to defer the costs of the Tellico project. Defendants further contend that thisresale is not incidental to the public benefit and, therefore, distinguishable fromBerman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954), where theSupreme Court concluded that:". . . Once the object is within the authority of the Congress, the meansby which it will be attained is also for Congress to determine. Here oneof the means chosen is the use of private enterprise for redevelopmentof the area. Appellants argue that this makes the project a taking from321one businessman for the benefit of another businessman. But themeans of executing the project are for Congress and Congress alone todetermine, once the public purpose has been established." 348 U.S. at33, 75 S.Ct. at 103.The Court has carefully examined the facts and law before it and concludes that,while defendants are correct in their proposition that TVA's action is in factsubject to judicial review, it cannot say that TVA is presently acting in an arbitraryand capricious manner simply because the property presently being condemnedmay ultimately be resold to a private party at some future date.The Court, having sat in previous review of this project, cannot conclude that theindustrial development of the region surrounding the Tellico flood-line is soremote from the project's purpose as to be designed for profit making purposesalone. See generally, Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority,371 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D. Tenn.1973), aff'd, 492 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1974). Contraryto defendant's argument and his supporting affidavit Congress' object in itsacquisition and resale program was founded upon public purpose:"The plan to acquire key lands for industrial and recreationdevelopment and resell them as demand for such property increasesreflects the public purpose of the project in meeting the serious needfor measures to speed growth in employment in this part of easternTennessee."While defendant argues that industrial growth is not needed in this region, it isnot this Court's position to reappraise the wisdom of congressional policy in thisregard. "The role of the judiciary in determining whether that power [of eminentdomain] is being exercised for public purpose is an extremely narrow one."Berman, supra, 348 U.S. at 32, 75 S.Ct. at 102. Cf. United States v. 544 Acres ofLand, 314 F.Supp. 273 (E.D. Tenn.1969).Accordingly, it is ordered that defendants' motion be, and the same hereby is,denied.

Federal District Court Order in United States Ex Rel. T.V.A v. Two Tracts of Land, Etc., No. 7428

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School