Energy and Environment Reporting for Texas

Farmer Loses Case Against Keystone XL Pipeline

Photo by Terrence Henry/StateImpact Texas

Julia Trigg Crawford has several hundred acres of land in northeast Texas. And the Keystone XL pipeline will likely go through it.

The ruling came by iPhone.

Late Wednesday evening, Judge Bill Harris of the Lamar County Court at Law released his decision in the case of the North Texas farmer, Julia Trigg Crawford, versus the Keystone XL pipeline, owned and operated by the Canadian company TransCanada.

In an email to lawyers involved in the case, the judge announced he was granting TransCanada’s motion for summary judgement and denied Crawford’s plea. The message ended with “Sent from my iPhone.”

After Crawford refused to allow the pipeline on her land, TransCanada used eminent domain last fall to seize her property. She fought back in court, and the case finally came before Judge Harris a few weeks ago. In the meantime, construction began on the southern leg of the controversial pipeline.

“It is absolutely unbelievable to me eminent domain abuse continues in Texas given the revelations made during our court case,” Julia Trigg Crawford says in a statement.

“With every turn we found black holes of responsibility, endless loops of non-accountability, and the cart miles in front of the horse,” Crawford says. “The Texas Railroad Commission says they have no power over eminent domain, yet turns a blind eye when pipelines under their jurisdiction state they indeed get the power from the Commission.”

Much of Crawford’s argument in the case centered around whether or not the pipeline qualified as a “common carrier,” a pipeline that would be in the public interest because it would be available “for hire” for other companies to use.

“So we asked TransCanada to produce their tariff rate schedule, a requirement of all Common Carriers and therefore part of proving the right of eminent domain,” Crawford says in a statement.
“TransCanada’s attorney refused to provide anything, responding in court that tariffs will be provided ‘about the time it gets ready to transport product on the line.’  That means they can’t even produce this proof they qualify as a Common Carrier until after the land is seized and the pipeline built.”

So will Crawford appeal? “It is certainly one of our options, likely a strong one,” she says in an email to StateImpact Texas. “I’m not done…”

“I feel a certain obligation to use what I’ve learned, and how much we’ve uncovered about this flawed process, to continue to champion for property rights,” Crawford tells StateImpact Texas.

TransCanada has not responded to requests for comment at the time of this post.*

Update: TransCanada says in a statement that “this ruling reaffirms that TransCanada has – and continues – to follow all state and federal laws and regulations as we move forward with the construction of the Gulf Coast Project” and says that most of the oil in the southern leg of the project will be from West Texas and Oklahoma as opposed to a “minority” of contracts from the “existing Keystone system.”

In the meantime, construction on the southern leg of the pipeline has begun, and TransCanada legally has the right to start digging on Crawford’s farm.

*Edited to add “at the time of this post.”


  • Me

    You go Girl! This judge just allowed our private property rights to be trampeled. We don’t have the right to protect our properties from theives? This judge made a ruling without any proof. Disgusting! Ruling from the bench…

  • SunQueen

    I am so curious to know why all of you in Texas keep voting for people who champion your rights with their mouths and destroy all of our rights with their legislation. It’s your fault for sucking up to Big OIl and voting for their pet politicians… and you make it harder for those of us who fight for freedom, clean air, and a better world. Think before you vote!

  • How can we help?

  • West Texas Gringo

    SunQueen, as a Texan I keep wondering the same thing………wonder if I could stand Canadian winters? They still seem to believe in freedom and personal rights there.

  • malcolm

    this very morning, i received two identical copies-one snail mail, one registered-from “Gullet &Associates” basically asking for permission to bury an oil pipeline through some property I have partial ownership of, in Harris County.

    Best I can tell, this would NOT be the Keystone XL, as my property is up near Tom Ball, and the Keystone maps I’ve seen show the keystone running east of Tom Ball.

    But do any of y’all know if it’s possible that this proposed pipeline, and the Keystone are one in the same? Like maybe this is an alternate route?

  • paul

    so why are we going to sell it over seas once again the government and the oil company’s leave out the people in witch they say they are going to help and are there other ways in witch to get the oil where it needs to be I bet we have not even explored other options

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 »