Texas

Energy and Environment Reporting for Texas

Law of the Land: How TransCanada Will Leave Its Mark on Texas Property Rights

Photo by Terrence Henry for StateImpact Texas

TransCanada wants to seize land to construct part of a pipeline over Julia Trigg Crawford's farm in Lamar County, Texas.

Texas politicians love giving lip service to the sanctity of private property. They also talk a lot about the benefits of the state’s robust oil and gas industry. But what happens when those two things come into conflict?

Some run for the hills, some pick sides, and sometimes laws are changed.

You’d be forgiven for being a little confused as you hear about the legal battles unfolding between Texas property owners and the pipeline company TransCanada. After all, Governor Rick Perry just signed legislation strengthening private property rights last year.

In fact, after vetoing similar legislation in 2007, he made it an emergency issue during the legislative session.

“I don’t suppose there’s anything that’s more important than our private property rights in the state of Texas,” he told Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples at the signing ceremony for Senate Bill 18.

That bill, and an earlier law passed in 2005, were part of a shift among states in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision called Kelo Vs. The City of New London. It held that governments and authorized private companies could seize private land for economic development. Many states, including Texas, reacted by strengthening their laws in favor of landowners. The reforms in 2005 said that eminent domain can’t be used solely for economic development in Texas. Last year’s law says government can’t seize land for any reason other than public use.

But it’s not quite that simple.

Loopholes and Lobbying

Photo by Dave Barer

Lynn Blais is an expert in property law at UT's School of Law.

“Senate Bill 18 exempted common carrier pipelines from all of those [eminent domain] restrictions. So they don’t apply,” Lynn Blais, a professor of property law at UT Austin’s School of Law told StateImpact Texas.

A “common carrier” is a business that is available for hire to transport people or property. In this case it means pipelines that agree to carry oil, natural gas or other substances for energy companies. In Texas, if pipeline companies are designated as common carriers, they have the power to seize land much like a public utility.

And just how did they get that power?

Blais thinks it’s the same reason an exemption was included that allows Cowboy Stadium to exercise eminent domain.

“I think it’s lobbying. I mean it’s basically the power of a particular interest group to get their exception into this bill,” she said.

In all, there are at least 13 broad categories which are exempted from restrictions in the new eminent domain law (the sections and subsections of exceptions may leave the final number open for interpretation). Those include exemptions for projects that most people would not be surprised by, like “transportation projects,” to exemptions that may prove more controversial like a “sports and community venue,” “underground storage operations” for natural gas, and “waste disposal” projects.

Necessary Evil?

While all those exceptions have raised the ire of property rights activists, others say they are part of a system that allows important infrastructure to be built in America.

Photo by Mose Buchele for StateImpact Texas

James Mann is a lawyer who works for pipeline companies in Texas.

“There was actually never very much controversy in the legislative process with respect to what I would call the traditional users of condemnation,” James Mann said during an interview the other day in his office.

Mann is a is a self-described “pipeline lawyer” who does a lot of work for the The Texas Pipeline Association. He does not work for TransCanada. His office window offers an enviable view of the Texas Capitol, where the recent eminent domain legislation was drafted.

“I’ve always said the reason we condemn for roads, and the reason we condemn for pipelines, is so the people that are against it will be able to put gasoline in their cars and drive down to the road so they can protest it,” said Mann.

But those protestors don’t always drive to the capital. Sometimes they drive to the courthouse. And that’s where the story of eminent domain laws in Texas begins to get complicated.

An Uncommon Carrier

Within months of Governor Perry’s signing of Texas new eminent domain laws, the Texas Supreme Court made its own foray into how pipeline companies can seize land in Texas.

In the case Texas Land Rice Partners Vs. Denbury Green Pipeline, the company Denbury Resources was sued by landowners after it tried to use eminent domain to build a carbon dioxide pipeline to use in the extraction of natural gas. The court sided with the landowner, and in doing so threw into question the whole way pipeline companies go about calling themselves “common carriers” in Texas.

“I’ve always said the reason we condemn for roads, and the reason we condemn for pipelines, is so the people that are against it will be able to put gasoline in their cars and drive down to the road so they can protest it.” – James Mann.

“In Denbury Green, what you have is an acknowledgment by the Supreme Court that if a common carrier pipeline is going to have eminent domain power unrestricted. That is more power than local governments to exercise eminent domain. There has to be some process as to who is designated a common carrier,” said UT’s Lynn Blais.

Property right advocates like to say that before the Denbury decision, all pipeline companies had to do to gain eminent domain authority was simply check a box on a form. Lawyer James Mann believes that’s an oversimplification, saying the act has far-reaching consequences. But the court’s decision called the process “a gaming of the permitting process to allow a private carrier to wield the power of eminent domain,” and called for a more thorough process to award common carrier status.

“[The decision] also allows that issue to be litigated repeated up and down a pipeline route,” says Mann.

Which brings us to Transcanada’s Pipeline.

The Law of the Land

Photo by Mose Buchele for StateImpact Texas.

John Pieratt , one of the lawyers representing Julia Trigg Crawford against TransCanada, thinks now is a good time to argue in favor of property rights.

“I’d like to believe what’s happening is that TransCanada is simply acting contrary to the law at this time. Wishing it were a different way,” said lawyer William Pieratt Demond, sitting in a conference room with his father, and partner, John Pieratt.

The father-son team is representing Lamar County farmer Julia Trigg Crawford in her lawsuit against the Canadian pipeline Company. Crawford is one of the landowners fighting TransCanada’s efforts to condemn her land. She’s become an icon for property-rights activists in the state, and her legal case could be the impetuous for further developments in how land can be seized in Texas.

Pierrat Demond says he doesn’t expect the case will go all the way to the State Supreme Court, but if it does it would clarify existing law.

“One of the questions that would be presented, that the Supreme Court would probably answer, would be at what stage in the process does [TransCanada] have to meet the burden [of proving they're a common carrier] . They clearly said in Denbury that it is their burden to meet,” said Pieratt Demond.

And there may be no better time to bring a property rights case before the state’s highest court.

The Denbury decision is not the only one that the Court has issued in the last year that favors private property owners. In February, the Court found in favor of ranchers who had sued their local groundwater authority over limits to how much water they could pull form their land. Then the next month the Court found in favor of a landowner who challenged the Texas Open Beaches Act.

“It’s a re-awakening of the private landowner,  that we do have rights and that eminent domain is a very powerful tool that can be misapplied,” said John Pieratt.

For it’s part, TransCanada argues that it has nothing to fear from a legal challenge because it’s acting well within it’s rights.

“We qualify as a common carrier,” Jim Prescott, a spokesperson for TransCanada told StateImpact Texas.”And we’re very confident that the gulf coast project [the new name for the pipeline that is planned through Texas] meets the definition under the law of the state of Texas as a common carrier pipeline.”

If the Courts agree, as attorney James Mann thinks it will, pipeline companies will breath a sigh of relief right at a time when an unprecededented amount of oil and gas infrastructure is being proposed for Texas.

If the Courts find in favor of Trigg Crawford, and set more limits on common carrier status in the state, the decision will mark another victory, and powerful legal precedent, for those who would further limit the power of eminent domain.

Or the high Court could chose a third way. It could look at the law and punt the whole thing back to lawmakers in Austin.

“They’re not going to tell the legislature what to do, but they’re going to say what appears to be happening now isn’t working,” said Blais.

Any way you cut it, the conflict between some landowners and TransCanada will have left its legal mark on the landscape of Texas property law.

Comments

  • Ebrian

    We can be certain that if this dispute ever reaches the Texas Supreme Court it will result in another big win for the Oil & Gas Industry.  Most people had heard something about “contracts being sacred” but that rule went by the way back in the 70s when it came to the oil and gas industry having to live up to the contracts it had signed to provide natural gas at certain prices….Your contract may be sacred, but not it the oil and gas industry does not want it to be….We can expect a similar ruling in these landowner rights cases.

  • Prairiecreekranch1

    A question for Lynn Blais, professor of property law. I have a land grant Patent that has been brought forward to the present. Filed a Declaration of Land Patent, and a Declaration of Rural Homestead and followed every step to claim my private property: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/10/10081701.pdf  the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land right?

    My question is, why is it not being honored?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/33QI2RKDIX5JSXVMZFKQHULIME Jim

    If the pipeline is so great, Transcanada should have to prove not only that it is a common carrier but that the pipeline is for the public good and the company should pay a lot more for it plus indemnify the landowner against harm. In fact, to ensure that there are assets to pay for harm, the company should buy the homeowner an insurance policy against damage and make its officers and board members provide personal guarantees.  (Even if the company says it can’t get insurance, it can–the company just might not like the price.) 

    The company should also pay for the time it disrupts the families lives in putting the pipeline through.

  • brain out

    ‘Eminent domain’ has to be defined clearly. You have statutes and case history and law and ‘common’ meaning. Classic example of a freeway needing to go through your property. Presumption is that THOUSANDS of people are DAILY benefitted, not to mention the building cost savings if it goes through your house. And you are the little one person holding up progress. Implicit is that YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS by the thousands are benefitted. Right?

    Okay, so where is that classic idea here? Who receives the oil once it goes to the Gulf? If TransCanada’s threat if bucked, that it will build instead across British Columbia with CHINA as the customer — sorry, charlie, that’s not eminent domainable. Thousands of US citizens are not getting the oil, nor are they benefitting on behalf of the customer. And surely, a southern route would make that oil too expensive for China Customer. So who else is benefitting?

    This argument about WHO BENEFITS would have to fit within the classic parameters of this comment’s first paragraph — not to mention, the ‘common carrier’ definition doesn’t seem to be met by TransCanada/Keystone XL — in order to even justify HEARING a brief or claim of ‘eminent domain’. Right?

    Eminent Domain is a DOMESTIC BENEFIT ISSUE, at heart. The benefit of MANY of your FELLOW CITIZENS versus ‘you’. So if that criterion isn’t met, and it should be quantifiable — then ooops, sorry, no can do.

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Economy
Education