Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 7-701 (2026)

Uses for which authorized. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Uses for which authorized. 

Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the right of eminent domain may be exercised in behalf of the following public uses:

1.  Public buildings and grounds for the use of the state, and all other public uses authorized by the legislature.
2.  Public buildings and grounds for the use of any county, incorporated city or school district; canals, aqueducts, flumes, ditches or pipes for conducting water for use on state property or for the use of the inhabitants of any county or incorporated city, or for draining state property for any county or incorporated city, raising the banks of streams, removing obstructions therefrom and widening, deepening or straightening their channels, roads, streets, alleys, and all other public uses for the benefit of the state or of any county, incorporated city or the inhabitants thereof.
3.  Wharves, docks, piers, chutes, booms, ferries, bridges, toll roads, byroads, plank and turnpike roads, steam, electric and horse railroads, reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, aqueducts and pipes, for public transportation supplying mines and farming neighborhoods with water, and draining and reclaiming lands, and for storing and floating logs and lumber on streams not navigable.
4.  Roads, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes and dumping places for working mines; also outlets, natural or otherwise, for the flow, deposit or conduct of tailings or refuse matter from mines; also, an occupancy in common by the owners or possessors of different mines of any place for the flow, deposit or conduct of tailings or refuse matter from their several mines.
5.  Byroads, leading from highways to residences and farms.
6.  Telephones, telegraph and telephone lines.
7.  Sewerage of any incorporated city.
8.  Cemeteries for the burial of the dead, and enlarging and adding to the same and the grounds thereof.
9.  Pipe lines for the transmission, delivery, furnishing or distribution of natural or manufactured gas for light, heat or power, or for the transportation of crude petroleum or petroleum products; also for tanks, reservoirs, storage, terminal and pumping facilities, telephone, telegraph and power lines necessarily incident to such pipe lines.
10.  Snow fences or barriers for the protection of highways from drifting snow.
11.  Electric distribution and transmission lines for the delivery, furnishing, distribution, and transmission of electric current for power, lighting, heating or other purposes; and structures, facilities and equipment for the production, generation, and manufacture of electric current for power, lighting, heating or other purposes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1934–2024 · leading case: Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 619 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 619 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 12× “To condemn such a right of way, the water right owners must proceed under Idaho's law of eminent domain, found in I.C. §§ 7-701 et seq. Article 1, § 14, of the Idaho Constitution permits the power of eminent domain to be exercised only in furtherance of a "public use.”
Telford Lands LLC v. Cain, 303 P.3d 1237 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 6× “” Idaho Code section 7-701 allows the power of eminent domain to be exercised for “pipes for conducting water .”
Ada Cnty. High. Dist. v. Brooke View, Inc., 395 P.3d 357 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 2× “1 By that issuance, ACHD sought to exercise its power of eminent domain under Idaho Code section 7-701 to acquire a fee simple interest in the Taken Property as well as a temporary construction easement on an additional 2,706 square feet of the Remaining Property.”
McKenney v. Anselmo, 416 P.2d 509 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 11× “Anselmo’s property pursuant to I.C. § 7-701 (S) which provides that by-roads leading from highways to residences and farms may be condemned for public use.”
Thomas v. Madsen, 132 P.3d 392 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 2× “Although the Eisenbarth case involved a private condemnation action under Idaho Code § 7-701 (5), its analysis of the reasonable necessity required for the private condemnation of a road is also applicable to the reasonable necessity required for an implied easement by prior use.”
Bob Backman v. James A. Spagon, 210 P.3d 75 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 7-701 provides that the “right of eminent domain may be exercised in behalf of the following public uses: .”
Twin Lakes Canal Co. v. Choules, 254 P.3d 1210 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “In the Amended and Verified Complaint, Twin Lakes seeks: (1) condemnation of the Choules Property pursuant to I.C. §§ 7-701 to -721; (2) a preliminary injunction preventing the Choules from performing earthmoving work that interferes with Twin Lakes' reservoir and canal…”
MacCaskill v. Ebbert, 739 P.2d 414 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “His complaint was grounded in two alternative theories — private condemnation under I.C. § 7-701, and recognition of an easement by necessity.”
Jerry Machado v. Charles L. Ryan, 280 P.3d 715 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “This Court noted that even though "Eisenbarth involved a private condemnation action under I.C. § 7-701(5), its analysis of reasonable necessity required for the private condemnation of a road is also applicable to the reasonable necessity required for an implied easement by…”
Akers v. Mortensen, 205 P.3d 1175 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “Although Eisenbarth involved a private condemnation action under I.C. § 7-701(5), its analysis of reasonable necessity required for the private condemnation of a road is also applicable to the reasonable necessity required for an implied easement by prior use.”
Dengler v. Hazel Blessinger Fam. Trust, 106 P.3d 449 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “Additionally, at oral argument the Denglers asserted that the Trust should have attempted to condemn property in order to obtain access.”
Cordwell v. Smith, 665 P.2d 1081 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “And, of course the reverse is also true, i.e., that he does not intend to render lands retained inaccessible.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 7-701(2) — 2 cases
Telford Lands LLC v. Cain, 303 P.3d 1237 (Idaho 2013). “” Idaho Code section 7-701 allows the power of eminent domain to be exercised for “pipes for conducting water .”
Payette Lakes Water & Sewer Dist. v. Hays, 653 P.2d 438 (Idaho 1982).
— Idaho Code § 7-701(3) — 2 cases
Canyon View Irrigation Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co., 619 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1980). “To condemn such a right of way, the water right owners must proceed under Idaho's law of eminent domain, found in I.C. §§ 7-701 et seq. Article 1, § 14, of the Idaho Constitution permits the power of eminent domain to be exercised only in furtherance of a "public use.”
Telford Lands LLC v. Cain, 303 P.3d 1237 (Idaho 2013). “” Idaho Code section 7-701 allows the power of eminent domain to be exercised for “pipes for conducting water .”
— Idaho Code § 7-701(5) — 8 cases
McKenney v. Anselmo, 416 P.2d 509 (Idaho 1966). “Anselmo’s property pursuant to I.C. § 7-701 (S) which provides that by-roads leading from highways to residences and farms may be condemned for public use.”
Jerry Machado v. Charles L. Ryan, 280 P.3d 715 (Idaho 2012). “This Court noted that even though "Eisenbarth involved a private condemnation action under I.C. § 7-701(5), its analysis of reasonable necessity required for the private condemnation of a road is also applicable to the reasonable necessity required for an implied easement by…”
Akers v. Mortensen, 205 P.3d 1175 (Idaho 2009). “Although Eisenbarth involved a private condemnation action under I.C. § 7-701(5), its analysis of reasonable necessity required for the private condemnation of a road is also applicable to the reasonable necessity required for an implied easement by prior use.”
Dengler v. Hazel Blessinger Fam. Trust, 106 P.3d 449 (Idaho 2005). “Additionally, at oral argument the Denglers asserted that the Trust should have attempted to condemn property in order to obtain access.”
Cordwell v. Smith, 665 P.2d 1081 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). “And, of course the reverse is also true, i.e., that he does not intend to render lands retained inaccessible.”
— Idaho Code § 7-701(7) — 1 case
Payette Lakes Water & Sewer Dist. v. Hays, 653 P.2d 438 (Idaho 1982).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.