Welcome to the Future!
An Arkansas Landowner alleges that there is no public benefit to Arkansas for a pipleine from Oklahoma to Tennessee. Further, the only benefit is to the private company building the pipeline.
Growing case law supports this position throughout the country to deny common carrier status to interstate transportation of oil, gas, and electricity.
If there is no public use in Kentucky, then a common carrier isn’t afforded eminent domain to build a pipeline in Kentucky according to a Court of Appeals Panel last week.
This growing trend in eminent domain litigation- is the public use occuring within the govenrmental entity that is granting the power of eminent domain.
Over the last year, court rulings have impacted pipelines and transmission lines.
Posted ineasement, legal trend, pipelines/common carriers, private company, private property rights, public use or benefit, transmission lines
The 143-mile Trans-Pecos pipeline will take West Texas gas to Mexico. To get there, it has to build a pipeline through lands owned by Texans. Say you’re a ranch owner, and you’re asked for a 50 foot easement for a pipeline that won’t deliver its goods to the U.S. Did the Constitution contemplate a public use outside the U.S.? A land owner quote from a meeting in Alpine, TX:
Posted ineasement, pipelines/common carriers, private property rights, public use or benefit
States are changing statutes to require that the public benefit/public use for eminent domain occur within the state boundaries. Good news for local projects. Bad news for pipelines and transmission lines that only service out of state customers. Pipeline to Mexico Through Texas Land. Is there a public use?
Trend: Where is the Public Benefit Occurring?