By Julie Tomascik
Editor
A high-speed collision could be headed straight for some counties in the state after the Texas Supreme Court sided with Texas Central in an eminent domain case.
In a 5-3 decision of Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, the court ruled that Texas Central is considered an interurban electric railway with the power to use eminent domain.
“We are disappointed in this ruling,” Regan Beck, Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) director of Government Affairs, said. “Unfortunately, this decision clears the way for another private company to condemn personal property using eminent domain.”
The case revolves around the controversial 240-mile bullet train that would connect Dallas and Houston, getting passengers between the two cities in an estimated 90 minutes.
But the cost for speed is the private property rights of many rural landowners like Jason Miles.
He filed suit after the company attempted in 2015 to secure permission to survey the 600 acre-tract he owns in Leon County. If Texas Central’s proposed route is constructed, it would bisect Miles’ property with a 100-foot right-of-way.
Miles claimed Texas Central cannot use eminent domain since the company is not currently operating a railroad. That means the company doesn’t meet the definition of a railroad company or an interurban electric railway company as described under the State of Texas Transportation Code.
For its part, Texas Central believes it qualifies as a railroad company because it’s engaging in railroad activities with a “reasonable probability” the project will eventually result in trains running on tracks.
“This ruling doesn’t protect landowners from intrusions on their private property rights,” Beck said. “Rather, it could set a precedent and expand the opportunity for private companies to take advantage of Texans’ private property.”
TFB’s policy, developed by farmers and ranchers, opposes concepts like the high-speed rail and the acquisition of additional farm and ranch lands through the state powers of eminent domain for construction of such concepts.
Another eminent domain case
The Texas Supreme Court issued another eminent domain ruling this year in the case of Hlavinka et al. v. HSC Pipeline Partnership, LLC.
The case was brought forward by Terry Hlavinka, a Brazoria County landowner and Farm Bureau member, for a 13,000-acre property with multiple pipeline easements across it.
HSC wanted to install a polymer-grade propylene pipeline across the property, but Hlavinka rejected HSC’s offer for the 30-foot pipeline easement. Because the parties were unable to reach an agreement, HSC filed a condemnation suit.
Hlavinka challenged the condemnation proceedings and offer from HSC Pipeline, as well as argued that his testimony related to the damages and methodology for the easement should not have been excluded from the trial court’s hearing.
He testified that he should be able to use privately negotiated pipeline easement transactions as evidence of market value in condemnation proceedings, and the Texas Supreme Court agreed.
A new trial to determine the market value was ordered.
The Texas Supreme Court, however, did not uphold Hlavinka’s legal challenges to the pipeline’s ability to exercise eminent domain for a pipeline to a single customer.
“In this case, HSC’s pipeline would carry polymer-grade propylene to one single customer,” Beck said. “Mr. Hlavinka argued that this pipeline should not be considered a common carrier line because it does not serve the public, only one customer.”
More information
For more information on eminent domain laws, processes and tools available to ensure property rights are protected, visit texasfarmbureau.org/eminentdomain.