## Facts

- Muskogee County initiated condemnation actions to obtain easements across multiple landowners’ properties to construct three water pipelines.
- Two pipelines were designed to exclusively serve Energetix, L.L.C., a privately owned proposed electric generation plant.
- A third pipeline would provide water service to Rural Water District No. 5 and rural residents; Energetix was contractually obligated to construct this third line only if the County successfully obtained the easements.
- The County justified the project as an economic-development initiative expected to create jobs, increase tax revenues, and spur local growth by supporting Energetix.
- The landowners objected, alleging the condemnation was an unconstitutional taking for private use under Okla. Const. art. 2, §§ 23 and 24.

## Issues

1. Whether the Oklahoma Constitution permits eminent domain to take private property to support a privately owned project based solely on anticipated economic-development benefits.
2. Whether inclusion of a third pipeline serving rural residents converts condemnations largely benefiting a private entity into a constitutional public use.
3. Under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24, what role courts must play in determining whether the character of a proposed use is public or private.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the condemnations unconstitutional under Okla. Const. art. 2, §§ 23 and 24.
- The Court ruled that economic development alone is insufficient to satisfy the state constitutional public-use requirement where the direct beneficiary is a private entity.
- The Court concluded the third, rural-service pipeline did not cure the constitutional defect because the predominant and direct benefits of the easements were for Energetix, and the public-serving component was contingent on the private-benefit condemnations.
- The Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion, reversed the district court judgment that had approved the condemnations, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holding.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Oklahoma Constitution, private property may not be taken unless the taking is necessary to accomplish a lawful public purpose; courts examine whether the asserted public purpose is genuine.
- “Public use” and “public purpose” are treated as synonymous in Oklahoma, but indirect public benefits do not transform a taking whose primary character is private into a public use.
- Okla. Const. art. 2, § 23 bars takings for private use except for limited textual exceptions; this restriction limits condemnations intended to benefit a private enterprise.
- Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24 makes the character of the use a judicial question, requiring independent judicial review rather than deference to a condemnor’s labeling of a project as public.
- State constitutional takings protections may be more restrictive than federal takings doctrine; Oklahoma does not treat economic-development objectives, standing alone, as sufficient public use.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Muskogee County’s attempt to condemn easements primarily to serve a private power plant, holding that anticipated economic-development benefits and incidental or contingent public components do not satisfy Oklahoma’s constitutional requirement that eminent domain be exercised for a genuinely public use, as independently determined by the judiciary.


Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Muskogee Cnty. v. Lowery, 136 P.3d 639 (Okla. 2006)