Julia Trigg Crawford , in a press release for the Crawford Family Farm Partnership, characterized the court's action as "a clear victory for pipeline opponents and landowners fighting TransCanada's overreach on property rights." As victories go, this one is pretty limited, since all it means is that TransCanada has to make its case to the court. The court could still rule for TransCanada, as lower courts have in the past .
Eminent domain ruling could save the planet, is that ironic?
This is an eminent domain case, not an environmental case. TransCanada used the state's eminent domain law to take land from the Crawford Family Farm (and others from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast) to use as the pipeline route. This corporate use of state power by a private, foreign corporation was allowed by the Texas Railroad Commission, which has an unsavory history of its own. Julia Trigg Crawford has been fighting this issue in court since 2012 , losing peremptorily at the local trial court in Lamar County and again at the 6th Court of Appeals.
As the Crawford Family Farm press release explained it: "At the heart of Crawford's case is the ability of TransCanada, a foreign corporation, to use eminent domain under the state's "common carrier' clause since their pipeline transports 90% Canadian tar sands and 10% North Dakota oil. There is no on ramp for Texas oil therefore violating the definition of a common carrier under Texas law."
According to Texas custom, all one has to do to become a common carrier -- and thereby be able to wield eminent domain power -- is to check a box on a form provided by the Texas Railroad Commission, which then says OK, bud go get "em! No proof required, no evidence requested, no fact check made, no hearing held, no questions asked. Check the box and you're it.
The appeal , formally THE CRAWFORD FAMILY FARM PARTNERSHIP v. TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, L.P., ( docket no. 13-0886 ), argues that: "TransCanada is not a common carrier with statutory eminent domain authority and cannot condemn appellant's property because it cannot subject itself to the provisions of Texas Natural Resource Code, Chapter 111". Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the trial court's orders denying appellant's plea to the jurisdiction and granting TransCanada's motions for summary judgment must be reversed."
The appeal relies in part on a Texas Supreme Court precedent known as "Denbury" (Officially, TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD. AND MIKE LATTA, PETITIONERS, v. DENBURY GREEN PIPELINE-TEXAS, LLC, RESPONDENT, docket no. 09-0901) decided unanimously on August 26, 2011, in which the entire conclusion stated:
"Private property is constitutionally protected, and a private enterprise cannot acquire condemnation power merely by checking boxes on a one-page form. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
