I do not own land which has subsequently been used for a pipeline ROW; so, I won't speak as though I'm an authority on the arrangement. That said, a couple thoughts:Burdizzo said:Sooper Jeenyus said:Separate issue.Burdizzo said:Sooper Jeenyus said:I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I agree it is safer than rail or highway.
My problem is the abuse of ED and the unavoidable kick in the groin to property rights.
Eminent Domain (assuming that was your reference ) is a double-edged sword. We all want the things those rights-of-way provide but no one wants their individual property rights infringed upon.
Separate but not unrelated. The issues are intertwined. Property owner is forced to encur a devaluation of his property and be compensated in today's dollars for an encumbrance that can last in perpetuity. No one has a crystal ball to know what the property will be worth in several generations (assuming it does not leave the family), but if future generations continue to own familial land there is no way they can get compensated for lost property value appreciation.
I have always felt like easements for things like energy utility ought to have additional conditions:
1. An expiration date that forces the user and fee owner to renegotiate periodically like a lease.
2. A value placed on the commodity that travels through the easement (ie. $/MCF, $/bbl, $/acre-ft, $/KW-h). That way the property owner gets a beneficial compensation for the long term over the forced encumbrance. This too should be required to be renegotiated periodically.
1. The property owner is not necessarily forced. I'm guessing (I don't have the data) most property owners enter into a voluntary agreement for the land use and are not subject to ED.
2. Is the property actually devalued?
3. The property owner does reap a financial gain by allowing the ROW to cross their property. And, this agreement can be in the form of a termed lease, can it not?
4. Future value goes both ways (re: property and commodity being transferred). If I agree to allow my land to be used today for X fee, future generations are out of luck. They're lucky to beneficiaries of the land inheritance.
I agree the issues are intertwined and I'm certainly open to being educated on the subject. But my original point is still prescient. We all want the things the ROWs provide: transportation, communication, energy, etc. I don't want my property rights usurped any more than the next guy. But, let's assume your proposed expiration date condition is in effect. What happens when, after 100 years have passed and thousands (or maybe millions) of people/entities are reliant on a ROW, one property owner decides they no longer want to renew the lease? Is the greater good reason enough to justify ED on the one property owner? Or, do individual property rights prevail?
Again, double-edged sword. Not a fan of it, but do you believe it's EVER justified?