Thousands of stories have been shared. Issues brought to light. And even more reason for eminent domain reform.
To date, more than 2,000 testimonials have been shared through the eminent domain survey launched by Texas Farm Bureau (TFB), Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and the Texas Wildlife Association.
Even more are needed. Because firsthand evidence influences the Texas Legislature.
“We know there are a lot of stories out there about lowball offers and unfair pressure from property takers,” TFB President Russell Boening said.
Share them through the online survey, which can be found at http://bit.ly/EminentDomainSurvey.
The questions are geared toward the issue of fair compensation, a component lacking from current eminent domain legislation.
Under the current law, landowners must pay attorney fees out of pocket, never allowing them to truly be made whole. Lowball early offers from some property takers—pipeline companies, public agencies, electric utilities and others—often discourage landowners from appealing because of those legal fees.
Legislation to mitigate those lowball offers make a taking of private property a little more fair.
Contact TFB Associate Legislative Director Marissa Patton at mpatton@txfb.org or 512-472-8288 with questions regarding the survey or eminent domain takings.
Besides God , and family I can not think of any thing more valuable .
We live on a small farm on FM 1470 east of Poteet and there is a pipeline across us that was placed in 1949 by Atlantic Pipeline Co. for a R.O.W. fee of $132.50. This easement goes on forever with no relief, and the pipe is currently inoperative because of so many leaks. We have had a leak on our property and I have called the current owners on three different occasions, they have always come out and have acknowledged that it appears to have leaked but that it has been shut down for some time because of other leaks. Each time it has started to leak again when given a shot of pressure to help locate leaks further upstream. This line is a monumental health hazard and should be removed and the R.O.W. relinquished. Our problem is that it would entail very expensive litigation to obtain any relief under current law, so we are up the creek. Thanks for your continued work on our behalf!
TFB:
We need to stop supporting the transmission companies’ out dated means of compensation to landowners. The target should be fair compensation to the landowners through damages paid in the initial take (minimum being the market value of the land) and annual lease payments versus a one-time cash payment.
The lease of right-of-way is the fair way to address use of one’s property. Under the current practice, transmission line owners are making money on the backs of property owners, and are allowed to treat transmission line right-of-way as owned capital. The fair answer is annual lease payments for the use of the land. After the initial 3 year lease period, the utility should be required to renegotiate the lease payment amount and to pay a premium for a lease of a longer than a standard 3 year length of time. The wind farm generation owners pay percentages of kwh sales to land owners with wind generators on their property, and the transmission companies should pay annual lease payments to landowners whose land is encumbered with transmission lines.
In the big picture, this would add very little to the overall cost of electricity but will be a step in the right direction to fairly compensate land owners with transmission lines across their property.
The PUCOT could require transmission companies to pay a minimum annual lease payment based on acreage of land used and add in a component of usage based on the ERCOT matrix of transmission line use. This would cut out the lawyers and give state wide consistency to a process that more fairly compensates landowners.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.