Tag Archives: Landowners

$9 Billion Highway Funding Boost Includes $620 million for Austin Projects

07 Friday Apr 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

$620 million of a $9 billion spending plan passed by the Texas Transportation Commission will fund four Austin city congestion relief projects. The plan is the latest development in Texas’ unified transportation plan, which, updated yearly, instructs the state’s highway, maritime, and aviation spending.

Loop 360, referred to as Capital of Texas Highway, will receive $204 million in State funding. This project will construct overpasses along the Loop beginning at Westlake Drive North. The overpasses will allow drivers to circumvent traffic lights.

Interstate 35 will receive $162 million and $133 million for two separate projects. The $162 million project will improve overpasses, ramps, and pavement conditions between Holly Street and Oltorf Street. The $133 million project will add flyover bridges near the I-35 and U.S. 183 interchange.

U.S. Highway 183 will receive $120 million. This project will add additional lanes to sections of the highway between MoPac Boulevard and Ranch-to-Market-Road (RM) 620. The funds will be combined with $46 million raised by the City of Austin.

Taken together, the investments will produce a noticeable increase of infrastructure-related construction activity. Landowners in affected areas should be mindful that such projects may require the use of eminent domain to obtain the land necessary to satisfy project needs.

Texas Supreme Court Pipeline Ruling Sets back Texas Land Owner Rights

03 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by in common-carrier status, Denbury, Environmental Permitting, Landowner Rights, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, Supreme Court, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, applications of the eminent-domain power must be for public use. Jurisdictions have developed legal and administrative structures which allow private interests limited uses of the power. For Texas pipelines, the granting of eminent-domain authority can only take place when a project fulfills certain requirements. Chief among these is the ability to prove that the pipeline has a public use, meaning it is not being built exclusively for and used only by the entity condemning the land. Statewide, the common-carrier definition, and the derivative test determining whether the definition can describe a given pipeline, is used to establish and enforce the public use requirement.

In the recently decided Denbury Green Pipeline – Texas, LLC v. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., the Texas Supreme Court clarified the access conditions for common-carrier status. In 2015, an appellate court established two additional barriers to common-carrier status. First, it held that a pipeline’s common carrier status must result from an examination of the intent of the constructing party to use the pipeline for public benefit at the onset of the project’s contemplation. Second, the pipeline’s use must serve a “substantial” public interest. The Supreme Court decision reversed these two holdings, the first on the grounds that it misinterpreted case law, and the second because it proceeded beyond the limits of precedent. The Supreme Court also held that Denbury’s post-construction product transportation contracts with third parties, and the fact that certain third parties would retain product title, was sufficient to evidence public use and therefore common-carrier status after the pipeline is built. This opinion is a significant blow to Texas landowner rights.

Tesoro Logistics Responsible for Recent Oil Spill, Landowner to Receive Compensation for Damages

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in JMEH Law News, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Texas-based oil company discovered a leak in one of its pipelines in North Dakota after a local farmer reported it to ND officials on Sept. 29, but the oil company did not spill this news until 11 days after discovering the pipeline rupture that released an estimated more-than 20,000 barrels of crude oil.

State officials initially reported a 750-barrel spill that the company in question, Tesoro Logistics LP, did not publicize because of the smaller initial estimate and what it considered to be a lack of environmental damage.

Kris Roberts, an environmental geologist with the North Dakota Health Department, was quoted in a New York Times article stating that Tesoro officials reported the spill to the state within 24 hours of first discovery and that the state does not have to release information of all oil spills publicly.

While Tesoro responded to the spill promptly, the cleanup process could take a couple of years and will cost an estimated $4 million. The local wheat farmer, Steve Jensen, who notified the State Department of Health of the oil spill after seeing crude oil coating the wheels of his combine, will also receive compensation for damages to his field that could keep his wheat crops out for a couple of years.  He and Tesoro are negotiating a settlement in regards to this matter.

The spill seems to have originated from a hole — about a quarter-inch in diameter — in a segment of the 20-year-old pipeline originally built by BP in 1993 but purchased by Tesoro in 2001, according to Reuters. The pipeline runs 35 miles within the state.

Many people have criticized Tesoro for not detecting the spill of about 20,600 gallons over 7.3 acres, or the equivalent of seven football fields according to the NYT, and the spill comes during an oil boom for the state following its 1951 discovery of oil. This spill surely will not help mitigate those concerned about the much larger Keystone XL pipeline expansion that will cross international borders and include 1,700 new miles of pipeline if approved. The Keystone Pipeline did not see its day in Congress during the debt-ceiling debates, and a decision on its expansion will likely not come until 2014.

TransCanada, the company heading the Keystone project, Tesoro Corp. and other pipeline owners cannot afford to slack on detecting leaks under the current political climate. These companies must employ vigilance and preemptive measures to mitigate environmental concerns and to protect landowners like Jensen whose income depends on the land surrounding oil pipelines.

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Note: Tesoro Logistics LP is a partnership formed by Tesoro Corp. 

To read more about the spill, please click here.

Land Battles Rise as U.S. Eyes 450,000 Miles of New Pipe

04 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in Pipelines, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“It’s increased at a level I’ve never seen in the past 10 years.”

To read the full article, please visit Bloomberg.com

As the United States endeavors to leverage its economic and energy independence, a rising tide of private companies advocating for miles of pipeline to the moon and halfway back leave many landowners between a rock and a hard place. Since the famous 2005 Kelo decision where eminent domain rights were granted to a private corporation for private gain, Texas courts have taken small efforts in increasing the volume of the landowner’s voice. With about 95% of eminent domain cases settling outside of court and every state exemplifying its own set of guidelines to regulate and standardize these proceedings, landowners are finding new ways to challenge the existing modus operandi. In Texas, this has led to the 2011 requirement that condemners provide a “good faith offer” to landowners along with full appraisal reports indicating the derivation of the offer. Additionally, a greater emphasis has been placed on respecting the landowner. Still, there is a lot of work to be done to ensure just compensation.

Texas Man Attempts to Take a Personal Stand Against Keystone XL Pipeline

28 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by in Pipelines, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Energy experts like Amy Jaffe from UC Davis see oil and its consumption as a lifestyle that we have adopted. In order to maintain this lifestyle, energy infrastructure is vital for the public good. Landowners facing an eminent domain battle with TransCanada and its Keystone XL pipeline don’t exactly agree, especially when the infrastructure costs them their homes. David Daniel owns a 20-acre plot outside of Winnesboro, Texas whose defense has taken extraordinary heights. Eight stories high, in the trees that surround the condemned land, is Daniel’s platform for a last stand. As a carpenter, Daniel did what he knew best. His “airborne fortress” is a series of seven treehouses connected by cables and ropes spanning 500 feet. TransCanada’s daily aerial surveys caught Daniel in action and sued him, eventually forcing a settlement in favor of the company.

Although Daniel’s action was in some ways like Custard’s Last Stand, Texas property owners are not without some remedy to stop pipelines made solely for private use. The Texas Supreme Court has allowed landowners a “Denbury” challenge, which, if successful, could potentially shut down an entire pipeline. Or, at the very least, allow landowners like Daniel to test the pipeline’s right to be on their property. Texas eminent domain law is unique and it is very important for landowners to consult with attorneys who focus in this area.

To read more about Daniel’s fight, please click here..

Image