By Justin Walker
Communications Specialist
Texas farmers and ranchers will meet in Austin this month for Texas Farm Bureau’s (TFB) Leadership Conference Jan. 28-29.
“The purpose of this conference is to inform our members of important issues in the coming year and to help them connect with their representatives and senators,” Billy Howe, TFB associate director of Government Affairs, said.
The top issue for the state’s largest general farm and ranch organization is eminent domain, Howe noted.
“About 95 percent of the state is privately owned, and Texas farmers, ranchers and landowners deserve fairness and transparency when facing eminent domain proceedings,” he said. “That’s why Farm Bureau is working toward eminent domain reform in this legislative session.”
Property owners, Howe said, are not given adequate information to evaluate initial offers from condemnors, putting those individuals at risk of giving away rights for which they could have been compensated or protected.
TFB has three focus areas for eminent domain reform.
Require basic protections in easement terms
TFB believes pipeline and electric utility easement agreements should be required to include a list of basic terms to protect landowners during construction and future use of the easement.
These companies should also be required to use a standard document provided by the Attorney General that include these terms, Howe said.
Provide landowners with information about the project
A public meeting should be held in every county where impacted landowners can ask questions about the project and the company’s eminent domain authority, Howe said.
TFB would also like landowners to be informed of their rights and how the company will calculate fair compensation.
Protect the landowner’s right to receive a bona fide offer
Eminent domain reform should also ensure the landowner receives an initial offer of fair compensation and the information necessary to evaluate whether the initial offer is truly a bona fide offer.
Additional “penalty” payments should also be paid out to property owners who are made offers in bad faith, Howe said.
While eminent domain will be the focus of the conference, other issues of importance for TFB in the Texas Legislature include water, taxes, land use regulation, transportation, animal care, feral hog control and adequate support for the Texas Department of Agriculture.
During the conference, TFB members will meet with lawmakers and their staff to discuss eminent domain and other potential issues that will be addressed during the 86th Texas Legislature.
“The Leadership Conference gives our members a chance to meet with their lawmakers, discuss these priority issues and get updates on the legislative session,” Howe said. “Representatives and senators need to hear from their constituents and how possible legislation can impact rural areas.”
There is a big push to take private property for trails next to streams, for public use. I would be more concerned with this than about than pipelines. As more and more people move from other states, they bring their values with them.
Can any member go? Where is more info?
Will TFB notify residents of each county when they have meetings concerning eminent domain? If so, how will they do that? Thank you.
FYI, Here is my communication submitted to House Rep. Cecil Bell for submitting to the Texas House Land and Resource Management Committee.
BACKGROUND
I have Five (5) Pipelines and Three (3) Utility Transmission Lines across my two properties in Montgomery and Leon Counties of Texas. I Testified in front of the Texas State House Land and Resource Management Committee on May 9, 2018 on the subject of Eminent Domain (ED) and Eminent Domain Abuse and also watched the video of the recent Hearing in Dallas, TX. My property in Leon County is just a quarter mile north of where the Texas Central Dallas-Houston HSR is currently planned to cross and parallel the Utility Corridor heading south through Madison and Grimes Counties. I have negotiated Pipeline and Transmission Line crossings on my property and have also witnessed the years of erosional problems once the soil is disturbed and not property repaired by the ED companies. On a pipeline project in 2014 across my property, the final agreed Easement Value was Four (4) Times the Initial Offer by the Pipeline Company, and I had to spend money for legal support in order to reach an agreement prior to Condemnation by the Pipeline Company. That is a perfect Example of a “Low Ball Offer”.
CURRENT PERSPECTIVE PROVIDED BY THE EMINENT DOMAIN COMPANIES
The Pipeline, Transmission Line and Railroad Companies are consistently attempting to lobby the House Land and Resource Management Committee to believe that: 1) There is no need for any upgrades to ED laws. 2) That they never turn in a Low Ball Offer to Landowners. 3) That they hardly ever use Condemnation Powers against Landowners. 4) That the current State ED Laws provide a fair and equitable balanced deal for Landowners. 5) That Landowners are compensated more than Fair Market Value for use of their land.
MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PRIVATE PROPERTY LANDOWNER
My personal experience, my personal training in advanced negotiating skills, as well as what I am currently seeing being practiced by Magellan Pipeline right now in Grimes County, proves these are Misleading and False Claims to the State House Land and Resource Management Committee by the ED Companies. First, there is absolutely NO WAY that the ED Powers Process may be considered Fair or Equitable from a Landowner perspective. The Condemnation Power weighs on the Landowner from day one and is always in the back of the Landowners’ mind, whether or not it is ever mentioned by the ED entity. Let’s face it, the initial Certified Mailing by the ED Company sent to the Landowner that includes the Condemnation rights along with the Landowners’ Bill of Rights plants that Condemnation Seed very early on in the process. As a trained negotiator, I know that one of the primary steps in a negotiation is to measure the Power by Each Party. Current ED laws do not allow in any way the Landowner to have Equal Power with the ED Entity! No Power in any manner by the Landowner equates to the Forcible Condemnation Power by the ED Company. The Texas State Legislature needs to find a way that as much as possible, equalizes or mitigates that Power over the Landowner.
Remember also that in the case of the Purchase of the land vs. an Easement, a Landowner in some cases have significant harm to the value of the rest of their property. Additionally, should the Landowner have to go on the For Sale open market to replace that property, the Landowner first has to find equivalent land, which is becoming harder every day, and must also convince another party to sell the property which could cause an inflation in the value of the property to be purchased if it was not originally for sale.
PROPOSED EMINENT DOMAIN REGULATION CHANGES
Only significant ED Law changes can Balance the Scale since the Condemning Companies have a Power the Landowners currently cannot match. Consider these:
1. Why not Require a significant Initial Offer to Landowners such as say 150%-175%+ of Fair Market Value? Let’s face it, the scale is tipped a significant amount over towards the ED Company due to the Condemnation Power, so why not start out with tipping those scales back with significant weight for the Landowners? Is the State really wanting to look out for the interest of the Landowner and Private Property Rights or NOT? It is clear that if a Landowner decides his Land
Thank you for sharing. I have 3 properties that will be taken soon. Very anxious.
There needs to be an entity that verifies that an entity truly has eminent domain authority before they approach the first citizen. The Texas State Comptroller has a database but it even states that the entities have not been verified to have eminent domain or they could have had it and lost it. In the case of Texas Central High Speed Rail, they use eminent domain as a bargaining chip to force good people to sell them their land under the disguise of having said authority. This is simply outrageous but it is not illegal (only unethical) for them to state this in the bargaining process. This is no better than me walking into a bank with my hand in my pocket telling them this is a stick up, give me your cash. The only difference is that I would be thrown in jail, for Texas Central their only consequence is getting land at a cheaper price.
I endorse Glenn Mannina’s comments.My experiences are similar. I testified at the house committee on Land use in Corpus Christi2-3 months ago. I would add that ED needs a major revision for pipelines since they are now exporting oil and gas which is only for profit for a private company and not for “public good” Easements should be acquired by negotiations between a willing seller and wailing buyer with no threat of ED. A State commission on ED is needed to vet companies who apply for ED power. This commission should have private landowners on it and not be like the Railroad which h is a political body in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. Another sweetener for sellers of easements would be Royalties on transmitted products.
I am curious as to if the Eminent Domain workshops and/or other discussions on the subject will deal with the Federal Governments use of ED in “taking” private property for the Border wall?
‘
Why not a annual royalty payment to the landowner? Why not reimburse attoreny’s fees to landowner? Why not a limitation in terms of how long the easement will last? Ongoing payment for damages? Landowner has to live with unknown people on the peipeline, livestock getting out due to gates left open, erosion, limited use of land, decreased value of land. The current laws favor the pipeline company or other entity. This is abuse of power and the landowner needs to have more rights.