## Facts

- A nonprofit owned riverfront land in Bern Township intended for a public recreational trail segment.
- A private developer planned a 219-unit residential subdivision on adjacent land and required water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater facilities.
- The planned utility route required an underground corridor crossing the nonprofit’s land.
- The municipal water authority sought a 50-foot-wide easement consisting of (1) an authority-owned water main and (2) an adjacent drainage easement for sewer and stormwater lines that would be privately owned and privately maintained and would serve only the developer’s project.
- The authority’s condemnation resolution stated it was acting at the developer’s request to enable the subdivision and required the developer to handle the proceedings and pay all costs and compensation.
- After negotiations failed, the authority filed a declaration of taking; the property owner filed preliminary objections under the Property Rights Protection Act (PRPA), asserting the taking primarily benefited a private enterprise.
- The trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the taking; the intermediate appellate court reversed and allowed the condemnation.

## Issues

1. Whether condemning an easement for privately owned and maintained sewer/stormwater facilities serving only a private residential subdivision is a taking “for the use of or benefit of any private enterprise” barred by the PRPA.
2. Whether a municipal authority may rely on the PRPA’s limited exception for condemnations by regulated “public utilities or common carriers.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the declaration of taking.
- The court held the condemnation violated the PRPA because the drainage component was structured to serve solely the private developer and would remain privately owned and maintained.
- The court rejected the argument that the municipal authority qualified for the PRPA exception applicable to regulated public utilities, emphasizing the authority was not subject to comprehensive public utility regulation.
- Generalized public benefits (such as housing or tax revenue) did not satisfy the PRPA where the taking was arranged primarily to accommodate a private enterprise’s infrastructure needs.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PRPA, a condemnor may not take private property “for the use of or benefit of any private enterprise,” absent a statutory exception.
- A taking is prohibited when the record shows its sole or primary purpose is to facilitate a private development through infrastructure that is privately owned, privately maintained, and not available for general public use.
- PRPA’s exception for condemnations by “public utilities or common carriers” is limited to entities subject to comprehensive regulation; municipal authorities are not treated as regulated public utilities for this purpose.
- Incidental or indirect public advantages cannot validate a condemnation that is structured chiefly to benefit a private enterprise.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the municipal authority’s condemnation because the easement’s drainage function was designed to be privately owned and maintained for the exclusive benefit of a private subdivision, and the authority could not invoke PRPA’s regulated-public-utility exception.


Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass’n, 100 A.3d 572 (Pa. 2014)