Associate Chief Justice DURRANT, opinion of the Court:
¶ 1 Appellants, Marion Energy, Inc. (Marion) and the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (the Trust), lease and own oil and gas deposits that lie underneath property owned by the KFJ Ranch Partnership (KFJ). In order to build a road to access these deposits, Marion and the Trust seek to condemn a portion of KFJ's land. To do so, they rely upon a statute that permits the exercise of eminent domain for the construction of "roads ... to facilitate ... the working of ... mineral deposits."
¶ 2 We conclude that the answer to this question is not apparent from the statute's plain language, as is evident from the fact that the phrase "mineral deposits" is defined in some sections of the Utah Code to include oil and gas, but defined in other sections to exclude oil and gas. Because we find that this phrase is susceptible to either of these reasonable interpretations, we conclude that the statute upon which Marion and the Trust rely is ambiguous. When faced with such an ambiguity in a statute purporting to grant the power of eminent domain, we strictly
¶ 3 KFJ is the owner of the KFJ Ranch, which consists of approximately 9,400 acres of land located near Price, Utah. Approximately 6,600 acres of this land are owned by KFJ in fee simple. The remaining 2,800 acres are leased from the state and federal governments.
¶ 4 Marion is the lessee of two oil and gas deposits located in Price, Utah. Marion leased these deposits from the Trust. Both of the leases lie beneath surface land owned or leased by KFJ.
¶ 5 In an effort to exploit its leased oil and gas deposits, Marion wishes to construct two wells on surface lands owned by KFJ. Due to the topography of the land and the proposed well locations, Marion contends that it is "impossible ... to access [its] leases without crossing surface lands owned and/or controlled by" KFJ. To resolve this dilemma, Marion attempted to negotiate an easement with KFJ that would allow Marion to cross KFJ's land to access its oil and gas deposits. KFJ refused these requests.
¶ 6 Following KFJ's refusal, Marion and the Trust brought a condemnation action in the district court seeking to condemn nearly fifteen acres of KFJ's property to construct a four-mile-long road giving Marion access to the proposed well locations. An appraiser hired by Marion estimated that the total value of the land sought to be condemned was $28,000.
¶ 7 In their condemnation action before the district court, Marion and the Trust attempted to invoke what they refer to as the "express rights of eminent domain granted by the legislature and codified as Utah Code [section] 78B-6-501(6)(a)." Section 501(6)(a) permits the exercise of eminent domain for the construction of "roads, railroads, tramways, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes, and dumping places to facilitate the milling, smelting, or other reduction of ores, or the working of mines, quarries, coal mines, or mineral deposits including minerals in solution."
¶ 8 After initiation of the condemnation action, KFJ moved to dismiss based on its contention that section 501(6)(a) does not grant Marion and the Trust the power of eminent domain to condemn land to build a road to access leased oil and gas deposits. In response to KFJ's motion, the district court conducted a hearing to determine whether section 501(6)(a) "provide[s] authority to take lands for roads to access oil and gas deposits."
¶ 9 To resolve this question, the district court began by noting that it was "required to consider the plain language of the statute, to consider that each word has been used advisedly, and to presume any omissions are purposeful." Looking to the statute's text, the court then observed that section 501(6)(a) "lists the substances for which land can be condemned for roads, and [that] oil and gas are not included." Additionally, the court determined that the fact that "oil and gas are specifically mentioned in Utah Code [section] 78B-6-501(6)(d) ... shows [that] the legislature purposefully intended to exclude oil and gas from ... [section] 78B-6-501(6)(a)." Based on this analysis, the district court granted KFJ's motion to dismiss, concluding that section 501(6)(a) "does not provide authority to take land for roads to access oil and gas deposits."
¶ 10 On appeal, Marion and the Trust contend that the district court erred in concluding that section 501(6)(a) does not provide
¶ 11 In contrast, KFJ argues that the plain language of section 501(6)(a) does not authorize Marion to condemn land to build a road to access its leased oil and gas deposits. Alternatively, KFJ contends that section 501(6)(a) is ambiguous and that we must strictly construe this ambiguity against Marion—the party seeking to exercise the power of eminent domain. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to section 78A-3-102(3)(j) of the Utah Code.
¶ 12 "We review questions of statutory interpretation for correctness, affording no deference to the district court's legal conclusions."
¶ 13 In relevant part, section 501(6)(a) of the Utah Code provides that the right of eminent domain may be exercised for the building of "roads ... to ... facilitate the... working of ... mineral deposits."
¶ 14 It is well settled that when faced with a question of statutory interpretation, "our primary goal is to evince the true intent and purpose of the Legislature."
¶ 15 When the "`meaning of [a] statute can be discerned from its language, no other interpretive tools are needed.'"
¶ 16 For instance, because the exercise of eminent domain results in the derogation of a property owner's right to use and enjoy his land, we have stated that any ambiguity in statutory language purporting to grant the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner and against the condemning party.
¶ 17 Given this rule of strict construction, Marion is authorized to condemn KFJ's land to build a road to access its leased oil and gas deposits only if such authority is expressly granted or clearly implied by the plain language of section 501(6)(a).
¶ 18 When interpreting statutory language, we generally seek to "read each term according to its ordinary and accepted meaning."
¶ 19 In Carrier, this court was asked to determine whether a zoning ordinance's use of the phrase "mineral extraction" encompassed gravel pit operations.
¶ 20 Like the term "mineral," the phrase "mineral deposit" may be "used in many senses" and is "susceptible to limitation or expansion according to the intention with which it is used." Thus, to determine what the phrase "mineral deposits" actually incorporates in any given situation, we must look to the context in which the phrase is used. Unfortunately, the context in which the phrase "mineral deposits" is used in section 501 does not indicate whether the Legislature intended the phrase to encompass oil and gas deposits. Indeed, looking at the text of section 501(6)(a) and its accompanying subsections, we are persuaded that reasonable arguments can be made in favor of defining "mineral deposits" so broadly as to include oil and gas, or so narrowly as to exclude oil and gas.
¶ 21 In examining the text of section 501 as "a whole,"
¶ 23 In reaching this conclusion, we also find relevant that other sections of the Utah Code specifically define the phrase "mineral deposits" as both including or excluding oil and gas. For instance, section 53C-1-103(4) of the Utah Code—the School and Institutional Trust Lands Management Act (SITLA)—defines the term "mineral" as including "oil, gas, and hydrocarbons."
¶ 24 In the instant case, both parties have cited to these sections of the code and have argued that these definitions support their respective interpretations of "mineral deposits." But rather than support the proposition that the phrase "mineral deposits" generally encompasses or excludes oil and gas, these statutory definitions merely reinforce the conclusion that whether oil and gas are appropriately deemed mineral deposits depends on the context in which the phrase is used.
¶ 25 In sum, the phrase "mineral deposits" does not have a single fixed meaning. Instead, the phrase may be used in a variety of ways and must be interpreted based on the context in which it is used. Because the context of section 501(6)(a) does not indicate whether the Legislature intended the phrase "mineral deposits" to include oil and gas, and because the Legislature has defined the phrase in other sections of the code as both including or excluding oil and gas, we conclude that the phrase is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations. Based on these competing reasonable interpretations, we hold that section 501(6)(a)'s use of the phrase "mineral deposits" is ambiguous.
¶ 26 In opposition to the conclusion that section 501(6)(a) is ambiguous, Marion and the Trust contend that narrowly interpreting the phrase "mineral deposits" would create an absurd result. We disagree. Generally, when interpreting statutes we seek to avoid interpretations "which render some part of a provision nonsensical or absurd."
¶ 28 While a narrow interpretation of the phrase "mineral deposits" may deprive Marion of one means of accessing its leased oil and gas deposits, Marion still has other available means of accessing and exploiting them. For instance, Part 4 of SITLA—which governs the minerals leased by Marion—provides that "[a] mineral lessee ... has the right at all times to enter upon the leasehold for prospecting, exploring, developing, and producing minerals and shall have reasonable use of the surface."
¶ 29 The same section also provides specific means of gaining access to privately owned property such as "securing the written consent or waiver of the surface owner or lessee"
¶ 30 Because Marion has alternative avenues of access to its leased mineral rights, we do not believe that it would be absurd to interpret section 501(6)(a)'s use of the phrase "mineral deposits" as not encompassing oil and gas. In further support of this conclusion, we also note that we do not think that such a narrow interpretation would create a "result ... so absurd that the legislative body which authored the legislation could not have intended it."
¶ 31 Given our conclusion that section 501(6)(a) is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, and that neither of these interpretations would create an absurd result, we must turn to other rules of statutory construction. As discussed above, because the exercise of eminent domain results in the derogation of a property owner's right to use and enjoy his land, we strictly construe any ambiguity in statutory language purporting to grant the power of eminent domain in favor of the property owner and against the condemning party.
¶ 32 In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that Marion and the Trust have advanced public policy arguments in support of their interpretation of section 501(6)(a). But
¶ 33 In interpreting statutory language, our primary goal is to give effect to the legislature's intent. To accomplish this goal, we begin by looking to the statute's plain language. When the language of a statute purporting to grant the power of eminent domain is ambiguous, we strictly construe all ambiguities against the condemning party.
¶ 34 In the instant case, we conclude that section 501(6)(a)'s use of the phrase "mineral deposits" is ambiguous because it may be understood to have at least two reasonable meanings: either including or excluding oil and gas. Given this ambiguity, we must construe the statute in favor of KFJ and against Marion. Based on this rule of strict construction, we hold that section 78B-6-501(6)(a) of the Utah Code does not provide Marion with authority to condemn land to build a road to access its leased oil and gas deposits. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Marion and the Trust's condemnation action.
¶ 35 Chief Justice DURHAM, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Associate Chief Justice DURRANT's opinion.
Justice LEE, dissenting:
¶ 36 As the court today indicates, the statutory term "mineral deposits" is sometimes used narrowly to refer to solid mineral ores and sometimes used broadly to encompass oil and gas reserves. The question presented in this case is which of these two meanings to ascribe to that term as it appears in the eminent domain statute, UTAH CODE SECTION 78B-6-501(6). I respectfully dissent from the court's resolution of that question on the basis of a "canon" of narrow construction of eminent domain provisions. Instead of falling back on that canon, I would decide which meaning of "mineral deposits" is reasonably conveyed by the term as it appears in this particular statute, and would hold that the term in that context encompasses oil and gas and not just solid ore.
¶ 37 In my view, we should not interpret eminent domain statutes "narrowly" with a thumb on the scale in favor of private property owners or "liberally" in favor of the condemning authority (as courts have also sometimes suggested). We should interpret them fairly and reasonably in an attempt to find the precise balance of these competing interests that was adopted by the legislature. When courts resort too hastily to substantive canons, they run the risk of substituting their own policy views for the balance struck by the legislature. It seems to me that the majority's canon does just that. I respectfully dissent from the use of the canon and would find that the statutory text here favors the condemning authority by authorizing the construction of roads to facilitate the mining of oil and gas.
¶ 38 As the majority indicates, this court and others have sometimes indicated an inclination to read eminent domain statutes narrowly.
¶ 39 The "canon" embraced by the majority is not of this ilk. There is no reason to expect that the common, ordinary usage of language regarding the eminent domain power is typically exaggerated, necessitating a "narrow" construction to determine its true meaning. Presumably, the legislature meant what it said when it prescribed the terms of the eminent domain authority to build roads to access "mineral deposits." If so, we undermine the reasonable reliance interests of the parties regulated by the statute if we read it narrowly, just as we also invalidate legislative intent on the matter.
¶ 40 I recognize that this and other courts have sometimes "canonized" other principles of construction that have nothing to do with identifying ordinary usage or meaning. Such canons are substantive, in that they seek to advance values or principles exogenous to the goal of identifying legislative intent.
¶ 41 I do not mean to suggest that all substantive canons are inappropriate. Such canons are least problematic when they advance policies that emanate from some other source of positive law like the Constitution. When courts narrowly construe federal statutes that impinge on traditional state functions,
¶ 42 The canon embraced by the majority is not such a canon. Though "this rule of strict construction [is] supported by our precedent," supra ¶ 16, our cases also identify a counter-canon. In Monetaire Mining Co. v. Columbus Rexall Consolidated Mines Co., this court stated that "it is generally agreed that where the right of eminent domain is
¶ 43 The "liberal construction" canon endorsed in Monetaire Mining and Utah Copper has never been overruled and has been cited in other jurisdictions.
¶ 44 The majority responds by suggesting that the Monetaire Mining rule "does not apply to ambiguous eminent domain statutes," but instead "applies only when a statute 'clear[ly] and explicitly] ... grants the right of eminent domain for [a particular] purpose.'" Supra ¶ 16 n. 14. Thus, according to the court, "these two rules are designed to resolve entirely distinct issues," and do not "conflict with one another." Id. This strikes me as untenable. It seems to me the majority has adopted an arbitrary interpretive regime—one in which we broadly construe unambiguous eminent domain statutes, while narrowly construing ambiguous ones. But the notion of broad construction of unambiguous language makes no sense to me. The rule of lenity prescribes the narrow construction of ambiguous penal laws against the state, but we would never broaden unambiguous penal laws, throwing an extra couple of months onto a convict's sentence for good measure. If the language is clear, express, and unambiguous, there is no reason to resort to a broad or narrow construction.
¶ 45 Nor is it correct to suggest that the Monetaire Mining rule applied only where a statute is clear and express. In Utah Copper, the court was faced with the question whether a natural "gulch" was a "ditch, flume, aqueduct, or tunnel ... within the meaning of the [eminent domain] statute." 31 P.2d at 627. Though the parties presented a number of "[c]ases and authorities" in favor of and against this construction, the Utah Copper court held that "we do not find it necessary to enter into a discussion concerning the meaning of those terms or to take sides in that controversy; for, so far as the present point is concerned, the case may be decided without reference to any of those terms." Id. We then declared that an eminent domain statute "must be construed, wherein it may require construction ... with as much liberality as its language may permit." Id. Thus, the Utah Copper court found the statute to be clear only after resorting to its broadening canon of construction, not vice versa.
¶ 46 Rather than creating a unified interpretive regime, it seems to me that the rule in Monetaire Mining and the one announced in Bertagnoli are precisely at odds with each
¶ 47 Even assuming that the rule of strict construction in Bertagnoli is now settled, I think it important to clarify what it settled. Cases like Monetaire Mining recognize that "the object and end of all government is to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community by which it is established; and it can never be assumed, that the government intended to diminish its power of accomplishing the end for which it was created." Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 547, 9 L.Ed. 773 (1837). Under this rationale, courts have held that "[w]hile the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget, that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and well-being of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation." Id. at 548. The Bertagnoli court balanced these interests differently, concluding that strict construction of eminent domain statutes is required because eminent domain operates "in derogation of the rights of individual ownership in property." 215 P.2d at 628.
¶ 48 The choice between the Monetaire Mining and Bertagnoli canons is purely a matter of policy—of whether to favor communitarian governmental interests on the one hand or private property interests on the other. That choice falls squarely in the legislative domain. We have no proper say in the matter, except to interpret and apply the balance of these interests as codified by the legislature.
¶ 49 Thus, it strikes me as incongruous to foreclose the parties' "public policy arguments" in light of our "eminent domain canon of interpretation." See supra ¶ 32. This canon, like so many other so-called "substantive canons," is nothing but policy.
¶ 50 The point is not that Monetaire Mining had it right and Bertagnoli got it wrong. Both are wrong in that they arrogate to the courts the power to weigh competing policy interests and to select winners and losers. This is a legislative and not a judicial function.
¶ 51 In any event, the canon of interpretation employed by the majority is ultimately incoherent when applied to a case like this one, where the interests of two private property holders are at issue. The court justifies its strict construction canon by noting that "`[t]he right of eminent domain, being in derogation of the right of individual ownership in property, has been strictly construed by the courts so that no person will be wrongfully deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property.'" See supra note 13 (emphases added) (quoting Bertagnoli, 215 P.2d at 627). This rationale seems to juxtapose
¶ 52 In my view, the fact that reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of a statutory question cannot be enough to justify our reservation of judgment as to "whether the Legislature intended for the term to encompass oil and gas deposits." Supra ¶ 25. That is the question of interpretation presented for our review, and it is our responsibility to decide it even if we deem it a close call. If reasonable arguments on both sides were enough for us to find ambiguity, most all of our statutory cases would become a free-for-all, in which the statutory text is no longer the guide and the court may "`seek guidance'" not just from substantive canons of construction but also "`from legislative history and relevant policy considerations.'" Supra ¶ 15 (quoting Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. Ogden City Sch. Dist., 927 P.2d 159, 167 (Utah 1996) (Durham, J., dissenting)). We ought to be wary of seeking such "guidance," as it treads dangerously close to (if not crossing) the line that separates our limited role of interpreter from the legislative role of policymaker. But at a minimum, it seems to me that before we look to such sources of "guidance" it is our duty to determine the best interpretation of the statutory text in light of its surrounding linguistic and legal context.
¶ 53 Granted, the meaning of the term "mineral deposits" is "`largely contextual.'" Supra ¶ 19 (quoting Carrier v. Salt Lake Cnty., 2004 UT 98, ¶ 32, 104 P.3d 1208). But in my view the relevant context cannot be limited to the acknowledgment of reasonable, competing arguments from the structure of the statute or from alternative uses of the statutory terminology in parallel provisions. The relevant context is broader, encompassing the linguistic and structural considerations examined by the majority as well as practical implications that the court dismisses under the misplaced notion that they do not constitute an "absurd result." Supra ¶ 30. I read these relevant contextual cues
¶ 54 I agree with the majority that the phrase "mineral deposits" in Utah Code section 78B-6-501(6)(a) is susceptible of two alternative interpretations—one that excludes oil and gas and one that does not. Each interpretation coincides with a definition commonly found in dictionaries. First, a "mineral" may be defined as "[a] naturally occurring, homogeneous inorganic solid substance having a definite chemical composition and characteristic crystalline structure, color, and hardness."
¶ 55 Second, a "mineral" may also be defined as "[a] subsurface material that is explored for, mined, and exploited for its useful properties and commercial value."
¶ 56 The question presented in this case is which of these two definitions to impute to the term "mineral deposits" in the eminent domain statute. Neither definition is inherently "narrow" or "broad." They are simply contextual. Our role in this case is to decide which one is reasonably conveyed by the language, structure, and context of the eminent domain statute.
¶ 57 I believe that a reasonable person familiar with the linguistic and legal context of the statute would understand the statutory term "mineral deposits" to be used in its mining or property rights sense, not in its scientific classification sense. The statute is, after all, a property rights provision. It accords an owner of mineral deposits the right to condemn land to build a road to access those deposits. In this context, a party acquiring a valuable mineral right would reasonably understand his right to include the statutory right of condemnation, regardless of whether the resource is in solid, crystalline form or in the form of liquid oil or natural gas.
¶ 59 Thus, when a party acquires a mineral right, it reasonably understands that its rights extend to all valuable natural resources under the ground in question. The seller of such a right would hardly be heard to contend that oil and gas reserves were not conveyed because they are not solid, crystalline substances and thus do not satisfy the scientific definition of "mineral."
¶ 60 Because the eminent domain statute effectively allocates property rights in mineral deposits, the statutory term should be interpreted the same way it would be in a contract. This court has previously said as much, indicating that "where we find the terms `mines and minerals' used in grants or in reservations, in instruments of conveyance, in statutes or Constitutions, under the modern construction, the former is not limited to mere subterranean excavations or workings, nor is the latter limited to the metals or metalliferous deposits." Id. at 56 (emphasis added).
¶ 61 The mining or property rights notion of "mineral" is confirmed by the language of the eminent domain statute. Under the statute, land may be condemned to build a road to "facilitate the milling, smelting, or other reduction of ores, or the working of mines." UTAH CODE ANN. § 78B-6-501(6)(a) (2008). The statute is aimed at facilitating the extraction of minerals for commercial purposes. And it refers to a number of processes by which "subsurface material" is "exploited for its useful properties and commercial value."
¶ 62 I also find the structure of the eminent domain statute instructive. As I read the subsections of section 501(6), it seems apparent that subsection (a) addresses condemnation for the purpose of accessing various natural resources while subsections (b) through (f) deal with condemnation for the purpose of storage and transportation. These two sets of provisions use different terminology to refer to the types of natural resources to be accessed, stored, or transported, but I see no reason to read subsection
¶ 63 Under subsection (a), eminent domain may be exercised for the construction of "roads, railroads, tramways, tunnels, ditches, flumes, pipes, and dumping places to facilitate the milling, smelting, or other reduction of ores, or the working of mines, quarries, coal mines, or mineral deposits including minerals in solution." UTAH CODE ANN. § 78B-6-501(6)(a). In context, it seems to me that the reference to "mineral deposits" is broadening, not limiting. The provision expressly authorizes condemnation for roads for "the working of mines, quarries, [and] coal mines." Surely that would encompass the kind of solid ore that the majority deems "mineral deposits" to be aimed at. So it seems to me that "mineral deposits, including minerals in solution," reasonably would be understood in context to extend beyond solid ore to include liquid oil and gas reserves.
¶ 64 For me, the statutory scheme thus confirms that the legislature was using "mineral deposits" in its mining or property rights sense, not by way of limitation to a particular scientific classification based on the state of the mineral's matter. In fact, the statutory context seems to eschew any limitation based on a mineral's material state. We know that "minerals in solution" are included, so at least some forms of liquid resources are covered by the statute. UTAH CODE ANN. § 78B-6-501(6)(a). And I assume that even the majority would deem tar sand to be covered, as it is in solid form and thus presumably counts as a mineral even under the definition based on scientific classification.
¶ 65 Ultimately, then, the statute cannot reasonably be read to foreclose condemnation in this case simply on the material state of the natural resource in question. If some liquid resources are covered (as the "minerals in solution" provision indicates), then it would seem arbitrary to exclude a liquid resource like oil. And if tar sand counts, any exclusion of oil is even more arbitrary. It makes much more sense in context to treat "mineral deposits" to encompass any valuable natural resource under the ground, regardless of how it might be scientifically classified based on its material state.
¶ 66 It is true, as KFJ and the majority note, that subsection (d) makes express reference to oil and gas in authorizing the use of eminent domain to build "gas, oil or coal pipelines, tanks or reservoirs." Supra ¶ 21 (citing UTAH CODE ANN. § 78B-6-501(6)(d)). But I cannot see how this express reference to oil and gas is any indication that "the Legislature did not intend for oil and gas to be provided for in subsection 6(a)." Supra ¶ 21. Rather than limiting the expanding term "mineral deposits," it seems to me that the specific reference to gas, oil, and coal in subsection (d) simply limits the kinds of pipelines, tanks, and reservoirs that may be the proper subject of the power of eminent domain under that provision. I see no inconsistency, and no reason to read the specific reference to oil and gas in subsection (d) to imply their exclusion in subsection (a).
¶ 67 The statute's adoption of the mining or property rights notion of "mineral" is
¶ 68 The majority suggests a possible explanation for this supposed dichotomy: "[T]he Legislature could reasonably have intended to require parties to use means less intrusive than building a permanent road to transport oil and gas across private property—such as ... condemning a smaller portion of land to build pipelines." Supra ¶ 30. But if condemnation of land for a pipeline is permitted, there is no reason to expect that the construction of the pipeline would involve the condemnation of "a smaller portion of land" than that required to build a road. I would think that the opposite would ordinarily be the case, particularly given that most any pipeline would presumably require the construction of a road (not just for construction but also for access and maintenance). If so, it makes little sense to presume that the legislature would endorse condemnation for oil and gas pipelines but not roads.
¶ 69 The majority's response to this is its conclusion that this result is not "so absurd that the legislative body which authored the legislation could not have intended it." Supra ¶ 30 (quoting State ex rel. Z.C., 2007 UT 54, ¶ 13, 165 P.3d 1206). But this conclusion conflates two separate rules of construction related to absurdity. We have, at times, relied on the so-called "absurdity" doctrine in cases where we consider whether to reject the otherwise "plain meaning" of statutory text. State ex rel. Z.C., 2007 UT 54, ¶ 13, 165 P.3d 1206.
¶ 70 At other times, where a statute is susceptible of two interpretations, we have used the absurd result of one interpretation as evidence that the other interpretation ought to control.
¶ 71 If subsection (a) said "solid mineral ores" instead of "mineral deposits," then the text would not be capable of two reasonable interpretations. If the statute said that, I would agree that the legislative judgment to forbid condemnation for roads to oil and gas reserves while allowing it for oil and gas pipelines would not be "so absurd" that the legislature could not have intended it.
¶ 72 But that is not the question in this case. Instead, as the majority acknowledges, the question is the proper meaning of the general, ambiguous term "mineral deposits"—a term that is "largely contextual" and could reasonably be understood to include or exclude oil and gas reserves. In such a case, the practical implications of either reading are not just relevant to the extent they tell us whether a certain outcome is "so absurd that the legislative body ... could not have intended it."
¶ 73 The question is not whether one construction or the other reaches the extreme level of absurdity, but whether one is a more reasonable explanation of the legislative scheme in light of the practical realities at stake. And we have said that where two meanings are plausible or linguistically permissible in a given context, and one interpretation leads to an absurd result, then we favor the other interpretation. See supra ¶ 70 n. 24. To me, it seems more consistent with the social, linguistic, and legal conventions implicated by this case to conclude that the legislature would have intended to authorize both roads and pipelines for oil and gas reserves.
¶ 74 I see no need to resort to a canon of construction where the ambiguity in the statutory text can be resolved with traditional tools of construction. Because the legal and linguistic context of the eminent domain statute points persuasively to a mining or trade definition of "mineral rights" that encompasses oil and gas, I would reverse.
