On March 28, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court filed a decision in the case, City of Surprise v. Arizona Corp. Comm'n, No. CV-18-0137-SA, that addressed the Arizona Corporation Commission's jurisdiction in cases in which a public service corporation is being condemned by a municipality.
In late 2017, the City of Surprise ("City") entered into a letter of intent documenting the City's intent to condemn all of the assets of a privately-held public service corporation ("Company"). The Company's assets included the right to use approximately 4,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Central Arizona Project ("CAP"). Prior to the City stating its intent to condemn, the Company had entered into an agreement with a developer that would have allocated some of that CAP water to the future development. When the developer learned of the City's intent, it asked the City whether the City would honor the Company's commitment to provide that water to the development following the condemnation. When the City indicated that it would have no obligation to provide water to the development, the developer requested that the Corporation Commission enter an order prohibiting the transfer of the Company to the City.
The Corporation Commission opened an investigation and required the Company, which was indisputably subject to Corporation Commission jurisdiction, to file an application pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 40-285 seeking approval of the transfer of the Company's assets. The Company filed the application under protest. The Commission also required the Company to confirm whether or not the City would be assuming the Company's agreement with the developer.
The City filed a Special Action directly with the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the Corporation Commission's jurisdiction with respect to the proposed condemnation. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction in order "to clarify the scope of the Commission's authority over eminent domain proceedings ...." p. 3. The Arizona Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Corporation Commission "has no role to play in condemnations." p. 11. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that the Corporation Commission has no authority under Article 15 of the Arizona Constitution to regulate municipal utilities, in contrast with public service corporations, and that the language and intent of A.R.S. § 40-285 did not support any inference that the Corporation Commission had the implied power to restrict or affect a municipality's condemnation of a utility, whether that condemnation is actively litigated or amicably resolved.
The condemnation of a private utility by an Arizona municipality is a time-consuming and complex process that invokes competing governmental interests. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision provides needed guidance on this topic and will, hopefully, somewhat simplify the process.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Tags: Environmental and Natural ResourcesAbout This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam