Last week, Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Hannah Sliva had the privilege of speaking at the April No East Loop BBQ Social in Bryan, TX. The event brought together a full room of landowners and community members to discuss the proposed East Loop project—a 20-mile roadway that could significantly impact properties across Brazos County.
Engaging directly with landowners was the highlight of the evening! We heard firsthand the concerns, questions, and perspectives of those who stand to be affected by this development. Our discussion covered the legal processes involved, the rights landowners have in the face of potential condemnation, and the steps they can take to stay informed and prepared.
Thank you to Brazos Roofs & Ranches for hosting an educational gathering. The strong turnout and active participation underscored the community’s commitment to understanding and asserting their rights.
If your property is impacted by the East Loop project or similar developments, it’s essential to know your rights and options. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us for guidance and support.
About the Trident Intrastate Pipeline The Trident Pipeline project was announced by Kinder Morgan on January 22, 2025. The project will span approximately 216-miles in length. Thousands of acres of property will be impacted across nine counties, with the pipeline route originating near Katy, Texas before extending to the LNG and industrial corridor near Port Arthur, Texas. Upon completion, the pipeline will have the capacity to transport approximately 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas. The Trident Pipeline is expected to be operational by the first quarter of 2027.
The Trident Pipeline is being used to meet the growing demand of energy needed to power LNG exports, artificial intelligence data centers, and cryptocurrency mining. However, Mr. Hodge explains, on Houston Matters with Craig Cohen, that there is “a tension [between meeting energy demands] and people who own private property in Texas such as farmers, ranchers, and other types of commercial properties due to the lines going through their properties and potentially impacting the use of their land.” The massive project will impact property owners in the following counties: Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto, Walker, and Waller County.
Trident Pipeline Proposed Route
Mr. Hodge recommends speaking with an eminent-domain attorney as soon as you are contacted about the Trident Pipeline project, especially if you are offered less than fair market value for the taking of your property. At Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, we represent property owners throughout the condemnation process. Please contact us for a free consultation. 713-609-9503.
Kyle Baum, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on CBS7 news regarding the upcoming DeLa Express Pipeline project crossing the State of Texas. You can watch the full interview here:
Mr. Baum warned “Any documents that landowners are asked to sign were likely drafted by the pipeline company’s lawyers, so they may not be in the owner’s best interest. That’s where an attorney can help evaluate.” He noted that “Property owners will have one opportunity to receive compensation for both the land taken and any changes that affect their property.” Even though landowners generally cannot stop a pipeline project, they are constitutionally entitled to just compensation for the part of their property taken and any reduction in value to their remaining property.
About the DeLa Express Pipeline
The DeLa Express Pipeline project, an approximately 700 mile long natural gas pipeline by Moss Lake Partners, LP, will run from west Texas into Louisiana, making it the longest natural gas pipeline in the state of Texas once built. Thousands of acres of property will be impacted in 30 counties, stretching from Reeves County (west of Odessa) to Orange County (east of Beaumont). If you are a landowner being contacted by Moss Lake Partners, LP, DeLa Express, LLC, or a right-of-way company about the DeLa Express Pipeline project, you need to speak with an attorney about your constitutional rights. It is important not to approve or sign any documentation presented to you without consulting an attorney first. This way, your rights can be fully protected.
On April 15, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission began the review process for the DeLa Express Pipeline project, which will enable the taking of private property by the power of eminent domain. This massive project will impact property owners in the following counties:
Reeves
Loving
Winkler
Ector
Midland
Upton
Glasscock
Sterling
Coke
Runnels
Coleman
Brown
Mills
Hamilton
Coryell
McLennan
Bell
Falls
Milam
Robertson
Brazos
Grimes
Walker
Montgomery
San Jacinto
Liberty
Hardin
Jefferson
Orange
Calcasieu (LA)
It is in your best interest to speak with an attorney as soon as you are contacted about the DeLa Express Pipeline project, especially if you are offered less than fair market value for the taking of your property. At Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, we represent property owners throughout the condemnation process. Please contact us for a free consultation.
Jacob Merkord, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on Fox 7 Austin news regarding the upcoming Matterhorn Pipeline project in Williamson County, Texas. You can watch the full interview here:
Mr. Merkord said Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP clients, “are asking for full market value for what the pipeline wants.” He explained, “A lot of our landowners are not against the pipeline, but what our landowners want to see is that they want to have substantial feedback in the process and be able to decide and work with the pipeline company on the route.” Families in Burnet and Washington Counties, according to Merkord, are also objecting to the route and to the offers that have been made.
About the Matterhorn Express Pipeline
The Matterhorn Express pipeline, a 410-mile pipeline run by Whitewater Midstream, that will connect Upton County (south of Midland) to Fort Bend and Waller Counties (west of Houston). The project will impact landowners in as many as 17 Texas counties. If you are a landowner who has been contacted by Whitewater Midstream or any other right-of-way company about the Matterhorn Express pipeline project, you need to speak with an eminent domain lawyer as soon as possible. Do not agree to or sign anything without speaking to an attorney. This is the only way to fully protect your rights as a landowner.
At Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, our attorneys have significant experience representing landowners facing eminent domain issues across the State of Texas. We understand the law, compensation, damages, and what is necessary to secure the best possible outcome for property owners. Call today and let us explain your legal options.
At the end of February 2022, WhiteWater Midstream submitted a T-4 permit to the Railroad Commission, requesting the right to take private land for their pipeline project. The Matterhorn Express Pipeline will stretch 410.8 miles and will transport natural gas through the following 17 counties:
Austin County
Burnet County
Concho County
Fort Bend County
Glasscock County
Irion County
Lapasas County
Lee County
McCulloch County
Midland County
Reagan County
San Saba County
Tom Green County
Waller County
Washington County
Wharton County
Williamson County
The Eminent Domain Process
When a private for profit oil and gas company decides that it needs to take land for a pipeline project, they file for a T-4 permit with the Railroad Commission of Texas – Texas’ oil and gas regulatory body. Once this happens, there is very little oversight or transparency in the process. Once approved, however, landowners affected will typically receive a letter to request to survey and make an offer to purchase part or all of the property. Such letters will often outline the need to purchase an easement for the pipeline project – in this case, the Matterhorn Express pipeline. The letter may come from WhiteWater Midstream, Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC or another company acting on their behalf.
If the owner does not accept the offer, the owner may attempt to negotiate with the pipeline company for additional compensation, or the owner may reject the offer. If an agreement is not reached or the property owner rejects the offer, then the pipeline company may then file a condemnation lawsuit against the owner. In such situations, courts appoint three landowners to serve as Special Commissioners. The Special Commissioners can consider evidence presented by both parties and issue an “award” of the property value based on the information.
If either party disagrees with the “award”, they may object to the decision. This sends the case to the trial court, where the case proceeds just as any civil lawsuit would.
It is in your best interests to speak with an attorney as soon as you receive a notice about the Matterhorn Express Pipeline, but particularly if you are offered an unfair amount for your property. At Marrs Ellis & Hodge, LLP, we have represented landowners in every stage of the process, including in trial against pipeline companies. Please contact us for a free consultation.
Pipeline Trial Representative Case
Peregrine Pipeline Company, L.P. v. Eagle Ford Land Partners, L.P., No. E200700046, In the County Court at Law No. 2, Johnson County, Texas (2014):
Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge represented a landowner in a jury trial over the disputed value of a pipeline easement. The Plaintiff pipeline company had offered $80,000. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of $1.66 million in the landowner’s favor, the exact amount testified to by the property owner’s appraiser. Peregrine appealed and the jury verdict. The parties reached a settlement while the case was pending on appeal that resulted in $616,943.47 net to the client.
In the interview, Mr. Ellis warned about the impacts of the Matterhorn pipeline to Texas landowners. He explains that, the increased oil and gas production in West Texas is causing increase pipeline construction throughout the state of Texas. Unfortunately for Texas landowners, this means that more and more pipeline companies are filing claims to take their private land for these projects through a process called eminent domain.
About the Matterhorn Express Pipeline
The Matterhorn Express pipeline, a 410-mile pipeline run by Whitewater Midstream, that will connect Upton County (south of Midland) to Fort Bend and Waller Counties (west of Houston). The project will impact landowners in as many as 17 Texas counties. If you are a landowner who has been contacted by Whitewater Midstream or any other right-of-way company about the Matterhorn Express pipeline project, you need to speak with an eminent domain lawyer as soon as possible. Do not agree to or sign anything without speaking to an attorney. This is the only way to fully protect your rights as a landowner.
At Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, our attorneys have significant experience representing landowners facing eminent domain issues across the State of Texas. We understand the law, compensation, damages, and what is necessary to secure the best possible outcome for property owners. Call today and let us explain your legal options.
At the end of February 2022, WhiteWater Midstream submitted a T-4 permit to the Railroad Commission, requesting the right to take private land for their pipeline project. The Matterhorn Express Pipeline will stretch 410.8 miles and will transport natural gas through the following 17 counties:
Austin County
Burnet County
Concho County
Fort Bend County
Glasscock County
Irion County
Lapasas County
Lee County
McCulloch County
Midland County
Reagan County
San Saba County
Tom Green County
Waller County
Washington County
Wharton County
Williamson County
The Eminent Domain Process
When a private for profit oil and gas company decides that it needs to take land for a pipeline project, they file for a T-4 permit with the Railroad Commission of Texas – Texas’ oil and gas regulatory body. Once this happens, there is very little oversight or transparency in the process. Once approved, however, landowners affected will typically receive a letter to request to survey and make an offer to purchase part or all of the property. Such letters will often outline the need to purchase an easement for the pipeline project – in this case, the Matterhorn Express pipeline. The letter may come from WhiteWater Midstream, Matterhorn Express Pipeline, LLC or another company acting on their behalf.
If the owner does not accept the offer, the owner may attempt to negotiate with the pipeline company for additional compensation, or the owner may reject the offer. If an agreement is not reached or the property owner rejects the offer, then the pipeline company may then file a condemnation lawsuit against the owner. In such situations, courts appoint three landowners to serve as Special Commissioners. The Special Commissioners can consider evidence presented by both parties and issue an “award” of the property value based on the information.
If either party disagrees with the “award”, they may object to the decision. This sends the case to the trial court, where the case proceeds just as any civil lawsuit would.
It is in your best interests to speak with an attorney as soon as you receive a notice about the Matterhorn Express Pipeline, but particularly if you are offered an unfair amount for your property. At Marrs Ellis & Hodge, LLP, we have represented landowners in every stage of the process, including in trial against pipeline companies. Please contact us for a free consultation.
Pipeline Trial Representative Case
Peregrine Pipeline Company, L.P. v. Eagle Ford Land Partners, L.P., No. E200700046, In the County Court at Law No. 2, Johnson County, Texas (2014):
Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge represented a landowner in a jury trial over the disputed value of a pipeline easement. The Plaintiff pipeline company had offered $80,000. After a week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of $1.66 million in the landowner’s favor, the exact amount testified to by the property owner’s appraiser. Peregrine appealed and the jury verdict. The parties reached a settlement while the case was pending on appeal that resulted in $616,943.47 net to the client.
Justin Hodge was interviewed on Fox26 news about the Texas Supreme Court’s recent approval of eminent domain for the high speed train between Houston and Dallas, Texas. You can watch the interview here:
The eminent domain project impacts landowners in Harris, Waller, Grimes, Walker, Madison, Leon, Freestone, Limestone, Navarro, Ellis, and Dallas Counties. Texas Central may file condemnation against many landowners in these counties.
To read the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Miles vs. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and Texas Logistics, Inc., please follow this link: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1454463/200393.pdf.
Justice Young explained, “Eminent-domain power has repeatedly been called one of the most “awesome” powers of government. “Scary” is another fitting term. The very words eminent domain and condemnation sound foreboding, and they should. They represent the sovereign’s power to unilaterally strip individuals of property rights—rights that may have been gained at great cost. Condemnation is an extraordinary intrusion that often destroys homes, scars farmland that generations have cultivated, disrupts thriving businesses, and far more. It is an act of force by the government that uneasily coexists with the strong protection of individual property rights that Texas law guarantees. We have described “the fundamental right of property” as being “among the most important [rights] in Texas law.”
On occasion, to serve a public purpose, a citizen’s private property must be taken without his consent. We tolerate such intrusions because society cannot function without roads, schools, military facilities, and other vital infrastructure. Eminent domain also requires “just” or “adequate” compensation, to be sure. U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const. art. I, § 17(a). But the condemnation process is complicated, time- consuming, and sometimes confusing. And no compensation can accurately value the sweat, tears, pride, love, beauty, and history that, for some property at least, is its chief value. A given exercise of eminent domain may turn out to be all for nothing, too. Grand plans can fail. Property may therefore be permanently damaged without purpose . . .
Special thanks to Robert Thomas and Joe Waldo on a terrific conference. Also, thank you to my co-presenters, Bobby Debelak, Kelly Sheeran, Ivy Cadle, and Darius Dynkowski. Great job all around! Finally, thank you to Amy Weinberg for all the organization and hard work for a great conference.
Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Kyle Hlavinka presented on eminent domain at the January 2022 Brazoria County Bar Association luncheon. Brazoria County is one of the fastest growing Counties in the Texas and continues to experience a significant volume of condemnation and eminent domain-cases. You can watch the entire CLE presentation here. Special thanks to Brazoria County Bar Association for the opportunity to speak at the luncheon.
On January 12, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Milton v. United States (The Tropical Storm Harvey Downstream Flooding Cases).
Russell S. Post for the landowners/appellants framed the question as “not whether property owners have a right to perfect flood control, it is whether those property owners held their property in fee simple, not subject to a flowage easement. And assuming so, whether they must bear the cost of the government’s decision to inundate downstream properties as a precautionary measure, not as an emergency action during Tropical Storm Harvey.” Moreover, Mr. Post asserted that the dam was performing properly and that there was no threat of failure when the gates were opened. He urged the Federal Circuit to decide the “property rights question and then remand the other questions for full development.”
Brian C. Toth for the government argued that there is a baseline that the court needs to recognize in terms of the flooding prior to the government’s discretionary decision to build the dam in the first instance. Further, that background principle of a baseline can be used in a lot of different lenses, such as causation and for the property interest. The government also argued that the Federal Circuit should affirm the lower court’s decision based on causation, citing Saint Bernard Parish v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, the Court recognized that in Saint Bernard Parish, there was no government actor consciously raising flood gates and inundating property.
Excellent job to Mr. Post in his defense of Texas property owners in their fight seeking just compensation for the government’s taking!
