queso1 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Now you're getting into corridor valuation, which in the appraisal world, is a term of art and has a very specific meaning. In these cases, I can't see how any individual landowner wouldn't meet the definition of having a corridor. Plus, this was already tried in Exxon v. Zwahr, and WestTex v. Bulanek, and it failed.

---

I've litigated cases on compensation. I haven't yet litigated a corridor case, so I'm not too deep into it. Maybe we could talk one day? I'd like to hear your thoughts, because I have some. My email is above if you are interested in talking shop.

---

I work mostly on the condemnor side as an appraiser, so if you're looking for advice on appraisal theory, I can help.

Yeah, I just wanted to talk. My email is above if you are interested

Sent.

Coming from someone who is duly invested in the pipeline industry, I dont like to hear ED stories like some of these. Most pipeline operators are very safety conscious & take great care to operate these lines safely, but know they will have to resort to ED if they are ever going to get the oil/gas to market.

I am not an attorney but have been through ED on a small farm north of Dallas that I had previously platted as a rural subdivision....just in case the subdivision laws changed. Thank goodness I did. A large natural gas pipeline came through about 15 years ago. The easement was about 1.5 acres in area. Here is how things went:

1. Pipeline company offered myself and my neighbors about $20,000 an acre which was about twice the going rate at the time. 95% of my neighbors were tickled to death and accepted the offer. I genuinely felt there were damages to the remainder that were not being considered.

2. The pipeline listened and increased my offer to a final best offer of $60,000....twice their original offer of $30,000.

3. I hired an ED attorney and went to the commissioners hearing. Incurred about $20,000 in fees and our expert claimed damages of about $200,000. Pipeline claimed about $40,000. Important to know that remainder was about 80 acres.

4. Commissioners court established an amount of $140,000.... which of course doesn't settle things as either party can then have an actual trial if they don't come to agreement.

5. Shortly after the hearing, the pipeline company agreed to $120,000 plus my legal/expert fees of about $20,000 for a total of $140,000. They also routed it to have minimal impact and even tunneled 200 feet at a 20 foot depth to ensure no problems from future roads.

6. Sold the land about ten years later in five tracts. I would estimate now that the pipeline easement had almost zero impact on the sales prices of the tracts. I was very fortunate, but believed at the time that the potential impacts would be material.

I still think the process is not fair and that the compensation should be greater in theory. I would encourage folks not to just accept offers like my neighbors did. However if you have small acreage, the process is very unfair because there is no legal mechanism for recovering your fees if the pipeline is being unreasonable. That is what most needs to be fixed and what the legislature tried to fix in 2006....like 45 other states have fixed this issue of fees which forces the pipeline to be reasonable/fair in those states.

HarleySpoon said:

---

I am not an attorney but have been through ED on a small farm north of Dallas that I had previously platted as a rural subdivision....just in case the subdivision laws changed. Thank goodness I did. A large natural gas pipeline came through about 15 years ago. The easement was about 1.5 acres in area. Here is how things went:

1. Pipeline company offered myself and my neighbors about $20,000 an acre which was about twice the going rate at the time. 95% of my neighbors were tickled to death and accepted the offer. I genuinely felt there were damages to the remainder that were not being considered.

2. The pipeline listened and increased my offer to a final best offer of $60,000....twice their original offer of $30,000.

3. I hired an ED attorney and went to the commissioners hearing. Incurred about $20,000 in fees and our expert claimed damages of about $200,000. Pipeline claimed about $40,000. Important to know that remainder was about 80 acres.

4. Commissioners court established an amount of $140,000.... which of course doesn't settle things as either party can then have an actual trial if they don't come to agreement.

5. Shortly after the hearing, the pipeline company agreed to $120,000 plus my legal/expert fees of about $20,000 for a total of $140,000. They also routed it to have minimal impact and even tunneled 200 feet at a 20 foot depth to ensure no problems from future roads.

6. Sold the land about ten years later in five tracts. I would estimate now that the pipeline easement had almost zero impact on the sales prices of the tracts. I was very fortunate, but believed at the time that the potential impacts would be material.

I still think the process is not fair and that the compensation should be greater in theory. I would encourage folks not to just accept offers like my neighbors did. However if you have small acreage, the process is very unfair because there is no legal mechanism for recovering your fees if the pipeline is being unreasonable. That is what most needs to be fixed and what the legislature tried to fix in 2006....like 45 other states have fixed this issue of fees which forces the pipeline to be reasonable/fair in those states.

---

Sounds like a win-win for you and the pipeline operator. They paid more but got their ROW, you got minimal impact to future land usage and got paid a nice (not huge) sum.