country said:

---

I support any landowner who fights for his or her private property rights. Private property is one of the tenants that separates this country from others.

That said, I am always amazed how even highly educated people can fall for the sensationalized information that comes out ...

---

Annnnd thats the Dem party platform in a nutshell.

JSKolache said:

---

country said:

---

I support any landowner who fights for his or her private property rights. Private property is one of the tenants that separates this country from others.

That said, I am always amazed how even highly educated people can fall for the sensationalized information that comes out ...

---

Annnnd thats the Dem party platform in a nutshell.

---

To be fair, not many people are widely educated generalists. Even really smart people are often narrowly focused.

JSKolache said:

---

country said:

---

I support any landowner who fights for his or her private property rights. Private property is one of the tenants that separates this country from others.

That said, I am always amazed how even highly educated people can fall for the sensationalized information that comes out ...

---

Annnnd thats the Dem party platform in a nutshell.

---

Yet people that claim to be staunch conservatives fall for it every day.

country said:

---

IMO the periodic payment has some merit based solely upon how the State of Texas handles infrastructure through land owned by the State. For example crossing University Lands requires a new payment every 10 years. I fail to see why that is appropriate for State owned land but not for the private sector. Perhaps someone could change my mind through debate. But I believe that is my biggest point. If we as a society want to change it, the place to do so is in the debate arena of the legislature. It is not in the judicial system under current law.

---

This is interesting to learn, indeed!

The problem with changing the law ultimately is who will represent the "poor individual landowner" versus the huge pipeline/public utility lobby? It's not a fair fight, so I can't see a pathway to significant improvement through the legislature. What am I missing?

That said, I agree the Legislature is the proper (it's the only) place to change, but I cannot see it change. How did the State end up with a sweetheart deal (relatively speaking)?

country said:

---

That is to say, the O&G industry can and does pay a lot more for many easements than any legitimate appraiser could reach by applying the before and after valuation model of the law.

---

I know the industry can and does, but the problem continues to be that many times they don't, particularly if they are not forced. Some companies are much better than others, in my experience.

Again, the pipeline company's job in negotiating with a landowner is to acquire an easement (i) as cheaply as possible, (ii) as broadly as possible, and (iii) as quickly as possible. I do not fault them for that. It's just business. But, since the weight of law is on their side, that presents a problem.

The landowner's only legal leverage to ensure the pipeline company stays honest is to threaten (and follow through, in many cases) to have the amount of damages determined by the Special Commissioners, and perhaps even by a District Court jury.

I think we'll agree that the issue of remainder damages is where the two sides disagree the most. When the pipeline company disregards those, it's the landowner (and no one else) who eats them.

You mentioned legitimacy among appraisers -- I'm not sure an appraiser who finds little or no remainder damages due to a pipeline taking is any more legitimate than one who finds a significant amount of damages.

In many cases, both sides' appraisers will have high qualifications, generally MAI. And yet, they'll have big differences.

Quote:

---

Huge awards at the commissioner level does accomplish one thing. It makes more money for lawyers, appraisers, and other industry professionals called to be experts in such cases.

---

I agree, but my hope is it does more than that. My hope is that it will reinforce to the company that they should make every effort to make a legitimate, more-than-fair Initial Offer. When you start off your negotiation by low balling a guy, and virtually ignoring his remainder damages, you're showing a very poor negotiating technique in my opinion. From that point on, the landowner is very wary of you, as he well should be. If he's upset enough, he'll get an attorney involved in situations where he normally wouldn't.

Quote:

---

That tells me that commissioners are making punitive awards based upon emotion rather than making awards based upon factual evidence as the legal system asks them to do.

---

I agree completely. The Special Commissioners should not be awarding more than what the landowner is asking for, in an attempt to make some kind of policy/political statement unrelated to the expert evidence presented at the hearing. But, we will all agree that Hays County is something else, and I'm sure KM is having their share of headaches because of it.

That said, your word 'punitive' works both ways. I've been the recipient of what I would consider a 'punitive' offer from a pipeline company. It was absolutely insulting. And I'll tell you what, it pissed me off to have to threaten to haul them to the courthouse to get them to straighten up. But, it was my only leverage.

I'm sure there were a bunch of guys down the same line who just rolled over and took it, and the ROW guys probably got a bonus at their expense.

Quote:

---

We will see how it all ends up when the dust settles. My opinion is that there will be a significant number of district court cases filed and many commissioner awards will be reversed significantly. We will see if time proves me wrong or right.

---

I'm not privy to the facts of those Special Commissioners hearings. Yes, some will be taken to the District Court (or settled outside of court), but with that kind of money involved, the landowner's attorney will be ponying up the sizeable fee for a guy like David Bolton to be the expert witness, and Bolton has a damn good track record all over the state of Texas in having juries in condemnation cases accept his findings.

Maybe there was nothing KM could have done on the front end to make the affected landowners happy. I just don't know. But if the small Initial Offer amounts I've read about are any indication, they really miscalculated. Being cheap is going to cost them big.

What is a legitimate, more than fair offer? I'm sincerely curious. I think you'll find that a legitimate more than fair offer in many people's minds is "more than the last guy got" and really has nothing to do with market value of land or damage to property. And that's fine. As I originally said, eminent domain does not keep you from cutting a fat hog in a negotiation. But once it goes into the court system it is not an appraiser's job, nor a commissioner's job, nor a juror's job to justify whatever the last guy got. It is simply to deal in facts and when the facts presented have discrepancies we must decide which is more credible, or if they are both credible.

David Bolton is probably the most well known appraiser that works for landowners a majority of the time. He has lost more jury trials than he has won and he will tell you as much. But his track record is as good or better than any other landowner appraiser. I guess that is damn good, but it makes my point that when these things get to district court, and the rules of evidence come into play, the evidence favors the condemnor more often than not. I'm not arguing that it's right, I'm just pointing out that it is a measurable fact. The condemning side gets more favorable results than the landowner side in district court cases and it is by a wide margin.

I will also point out that the appraisal industry is no different than graduates of Texas A&M. That is to say every person that holds a state certification shouldn't be considered an ethical expert, neither should every person that has obtained an MAI designation, neither should every person that has obtained an ARA designation. All of those organizations have their con artist that made it through just as A&M has and just as any profession has. That is why you listen to the evidence presented and determine which is more credible.

In this thread I don't believe I have ever stated how much damage is created by a pipeline. I don't believe I've stated whether property owners or condemning companies should receive the benefit of any doubt. I have continuously said that we should listen to factual evidence, determine which of it is credible, and make awards. That is my biggest point. If we do not think the before and after methodology appropriately accounts for just compensation as the courts have found since our founding, then we need to change it at the legislative level. I do not like conservatives legislating from the bench any more than I like democrats legislating from the bench. The awards handed down in Gillespie and Hays Counties will have the highest percentage of district court cases that I have ever seen on a project and it will be by a very large margin. And that is a result of commissioner's leaving the stratosphere if legitimate more than fair and entering the stratosphere of windfall and punitive.

Mas89 said:

---

'' The condemning side gets more favorable results at the district court level than the land owner side and it's by a wide margin".
Well hell yes they do. When the route is selected, the big companies who already have their own legal teams hire the most " influential" law firms in each county with huge retainer fees to "help" represent them in their condemnation cases. These firms make it rain locally with campaign donations. The county judges then pick the condemnation hearing commissioners and then later hear the trails at the district court level if needed. Guess who wins?

In small hill country counties where this is not common practice, there just might be some honest folks elected on the bench who DGAF about how much money Mr K throws at the system.
And there are definitely some land owners who can and will fight the crooked system.

---

I'd like to see some proof of that. Since it's illegal.

And it's the county court at law judges who pick the commissioners, not the constitutional county judge. Most, if not all, of these counties have a CCAL.

Mas89 said:

---

'' The condemning side gets more favorable results at the district court level than the land owner side and it's by a wide margin".
Well hell yes they do. When the route is selected, the big companies who already have their own legal teams hire the most " influential" law firms in each county with huge retainer fees to "help" represent them in their condemnation cases. These firms make it rain locally with campaign donations. The county judges then pick the condemnation hearing commissioners and then later hear the trails at the district court level if needed. Guess who wins?

In small hill country counties where this is not common practice, there just might be some honest folks elected on the bench who DGAF about how much money Mr K throws at the system.
And there are definitely some land owners who can and will fight the crooked system.

---

There is so much to unpack here we should just throw out the entire suitcase.
But to answer your point, landowners losing at the trial court has more to do with the rules of evidence and existing case law than anything else.

Mas89 said:

---

Nothing illegal about accepting campaign contributions. No strings attached of course.

And that goes for the Texas Supreme Court as well. No doubt who is most likely to win if appealed to that level.

We shall see.

You do realize that county court at law judges take campaign contributions also don't you? And their friends, relatives, and former partners in most cases practice law in the same county...

---

Corporations and businesses CANNOT make campaign contributions.

This is campaign finance 101. HTH

Quote:

---

I guess that is damn good, but it makes my point that when these things get to district court, and the rules of evidence come into play, the evidence favors the condemnor more often than not. I'm not arguing that it's right, I'm just pointing out that it is a measurable fact.

---

Did you mean the evidence, or the "results"?

I'm glad to see this thread take the turn away from the technical aspects of this issue, and to the financial aspects. Follow the money!

The point made about the condemner hiring up all the local attorneys requiring landowners to hafta go way off somewhere to get counsel is spot on! It's more than naive to believe they don't pre-buy all the influence they can in every effected county along the ROW. THOSE are the on-the-ground-facts that current legislation do not take into account, and no doubt contribute to these so-called "punitive" awards that slip through the cracks. They are the anomalies that the appeals courts hafta come along and clean up afterwards. It's a system that rewards attorneys and the political class, while the poor, independent landowner is left to pick up the crumbs in a take-what-you-can-get environment that only teases him with the prospect of fairness. $$$$$ talks, and the pipeline companies have a sh/t ton load of it.

Martin Cash said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Nothing illegal about accepting campaign contributions. No strings attached of course.

And that goes for the Texas Supreme Court as well. No doubt who is most likely to win if appealed to that level.

We shall see.

You do realize that county court at law judges take campaign contributions also don't you? And their friends, relatives, and former partners in most cases practice law in the same county...

---

Corporations and businesses CANNOT make campaign contributions.

This is campaign finance 101. HTH

---

But they can hire local counsel, experts, and consultants. Money has a way of finding its way into the hands of "decision makers".

BoerneGator said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Nothing illegal about accepting campaign contributions. No strings attached of course.

And that goes for the Texas Supreme Court as well. No doubt who is most likely to win if appealed to that level.

We shall see.

You do realize that county court at law judges take campaign contributions also don't you? And their friends, relatives, and former partners in most cases practice law in the same county...

---

Corporations and businesses CANNOT make campaign contributions.

This is campaign finance 101. HTH

---

But they can hire local counsel, experts, and consultants. Money has a way of finding its way into the hands of "decision makers".

---

Ok. And Epstein committed suicide.

BoerneGator said:

---

TxAg20 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

wessimo said:

---

Correct, this pipe will be feeding LNG export projects.

As far as societal benefit, the project will support a lot of economic activity (jobs) and allow the USA to expand geopolitical power as an energy exporter. I guess it is a matter of debate whether private land should be taken for that purpose.

---

And that debate ought to center around adequate compensation to property owners who are forced to endure these "utilities" across their properties for some ONE-TIME payment at so-called MARKET value. This practice needs to be reformed and effected property owners need to be more fully compensated, beginning with an annual fee/royalty for as long as the utility (pipeline/powerline) remains. This fee should be passed onto and borne by the consumers/public who benefit directly from the utilities existence.

---

Should you pay the previous property owner an annual fee for as long as you enjoy the property? Would you rather the pipeline operator just have the right to buy a piece of your property rather than an easement?

---

I'm going to assume the "you" in your first question refers to the utility owner (in this case KM pipeline). I say yes, a regular/annual "royalty" fee for as long as the utility/encumbrance remains on the property. The cost is passed along to the consumer, who is enjoying the benefit of this utility. It seems only fair, and addresses the issue of "future damages" addressed elsewhere in the thread.

Your second question puzzles me, in that, that "right" exists now. Albeit, "a willing seller and a willing buyer..."

These "extravagant" awards mentioned by the poster "country" above only serve to further cloud the issue in the minds of many, due to the discrepancies resulting when compared to other awards along the route. I'm seeking fairness for the property owner being imposed upon by powerful companies in the name of progress, while the public gets a big benefit for (relatively) little cost.

---

You in the first question refers to you "BoerneGator" who I quoted. You seem to be of the opinion that an OWNER of an easement which was PURCHASED should also pay rent in the form of an annual fee. I made the assumption that you OWN property of some sort. Under that assumption, I asked if you are paying the previous owner an annual fee as you are suggesting an easement OWNER should do.

If you are suggesting that an OWNED easement is not really OWNED because the fee paid for the easement is not equal to the appreciated value of the land some years later, it would only be right for you to pay the previous owners of any property you OWN an annual fee or for the annual appreciation of the property, if any.

Eminent Domain exists for good reason and you likely enjoy electricity in your house and drive on roads which exist through eminent domain. Owners who lose land or utility of land due to eminent domain are justly compensated. Not compensated on wildly inflated numbers of what the land may be used for at some point in the distant future. You likely bought your property for a just price for the condition of the property, not some wildly inflated price that it may be worth in the future. Why do you believe land take through eminent domain is worth far more than a just price?

No, I "own" property in several counties, and pay a considerable amount of property taxes for that right (which, if I do not pay, "the gov't" will sell said property, pay the tax, and send me the balance)! Does that mean I don't really own the land, and am just renting it from "The government"? Some would say "YES"! And, I have personal experience (likely before you were born-40+ years ago) with this VERY issue.

I obviously missed your cunning sarcasm, and you apparently missed the fact I was suggesting a new paradigm as it concerns this issue of RoW acquisition for "public utilities" utilizing Eminent Domain. Much like what the poster "country" introduced on the previous page that is already in existence.

END thread derail:

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

I guess that is damn good, but it makes my point that when these things get to district court, and the rules of evidence come into play, the evidence favors the condemnor more often than not. I'm not arguing that it's right, I'm just pointing out that it is a measurable fact.

---

Did you mean the evidence, or the "results"?

---

Boerne--I am saying that more often than not, in a district court jury trial where the rules of evidence are in play dealing with facts, juries have found the evidence presented by the condemning authority more credible than the evidence presented by the landowner. I suppose that can be called the "result", but it remains that the decision was based on what evidence they found more credible. Landowner's have had some big wins in jury trials. No question about it. But that is not the norm in the typical case.

I do not believe that condemning companies buying off judges, appellate judges, supreme court judges, as well as 12 member juries is the reason for that. That's a lot of cash to throw around and in the case of the 12 member jury who is unknown to anyone until the day the trial starts, it is a stretch that a bribe could be delivered so quickly in so many cases.

I do believe that condemning companies try to hire people that have the potential to have influence through reputation in the community whether that be attorneys, appraisers, or any other expert that may be called. One aspect of that is regional competency, but I believe another aspect is an attempt to gain influence. That said, those experts are no different than anyone else......there's probably as many members of the 12 member jury that despise them as there are people that love them.

Quote:

---

...juries have found the evidence presented by the condemning authority more credible than the evidence presented by the landowner.

---

At the risk of quibbling, or splitting hairs with my good friend, I can agree with your observation that the condemning authorities enjoy a much better W-L record than do landowners. My cynicism won't allow me to agree with you as to why. My bias is not unlike my attitude towards the pervasive, systemic influence/advantages enjoyed by our burnt orange friends. It's cultural and industry-wide. Urban vs. rural. It's real!

Edit to add: in other words, it's hard to put into words, as it's something I feel in my bones, after decades of experiencing interactions and observations, but the reasons why juries (people) come to the decisions they do are NOT always as obvious as they may appear on the surface. But you are a professional in this very business, and I value and respect your opinion more than others!

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

...juries have found the evidence presented by the condemning authority more credible than the evidence presented by the landowner.

---

At the risk of quibbling, or splitting hairs with my good friend, I can agree with your observation that the condemning authorities enjoy a much better W-L record than do landowners. My cynicism won't allow me to agree with you as to why. My bias is not unlike my attitude towards the pervasive, systemic influence/advantages enjoyed by our burnt orange friends. It's cultural and industry-wide. Urban vs. rural. It's real!

---

Ha! You just brought a laugh to my face, Boerne! Good stuff, and you know full well I don't mind the quibbling with you. I rather enjoy thoughtful debate and wish more people could engage in it without being triggered to the point of no return. I try to have dialogue on message boards the same as I would face to face. I agree on points that are made when they have caused me to think, and I hold my ground on points that I believe are correct. Same as I would sitting around a campfire drinking a cold one with a friend. As one of my mentors once told me, "you have to get out and talk to other people once in a while, otherwise you start to believe your own BS."

"Urban vs rural. It's real!" That is a point we can agree on in many aspects of life my friend. It is infuriating getting run over by the will of the many.

BoerneGator said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Nothing illegal about accepting campaign contributions. No strings attached of course.

And that goes for the Texas Supreme Court as well. No doubt who is most likely to win if appealed to that level.

We shall see.

You do realize that county court at law judges take campaign contributions also don't you? And their friends, relatives, and former partners in most cases practice law in the same county...

---

Corporations and businesses CANNOT make campaign contributions.

This is campaign finance 101. HTH

---

But they can hire local counsel, experts, and consultants. Money has a way of finding its way into the hands of "decision makers".

---

Except for the rarest of cases, condemnors aren't hiring local counsel, primarily because it's such a specialized part of the law that most attorneys don't know well enough. It's also why landowners don't typically hire a local attorney to handle eminent domain cases. Most of that work goes to boutique law firms that specialize in it.

And to further clarify my own position, I do not believe wholesale buying of trial judges, appellate judges, Supreme Court judges, and/or juries. These big companies are much too sophisticated for that, and technology would never allow them to get away with it. Nevertheless, they find ways to influence outcomes, and they are many and varied, to be sure. I expect some of it might even be subliminal!

BoerneGator said:

---

And to further clarify my own position, I do not believe wholesale buying of trial judges, appellate judges, Supreme Court judges, and/or juries. These big companies are much too sophisticated for that, and technology would never allow them to get away with it. Nevertheless, they find ways to influence outcomes, and they are many and varied, to be sure. I expect some of it might even be subliminal!

---

Chemtrails over the Hill Country?

Guilty as charged. Depending on where I am, my country drawl will come out, and it's deliberate on my part.

HTownAg98 said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Nothing illegal about accepting campaign contributions. No strings attached of course.

And that goes for the Texas Supreme Court as well. No doubt who is most likely to win if appealed to that level.

We shall see.

You do realize that county court at law judges take campaign contributions also don't you? And their friends, relatives, and former partners in most cases practice law in the same county...

---

Corporations and businesses CANNOT make campaign contributions.

This is campaign finance 101. HTH

---

But they can hire local counsel, experts, and consultants. Money has a way of finding its way into the hands of "decision makers".

---

Except for the rarest of cases, condemnors aren't hiring local counsel, primarily because it's such a specialized part of the law that most attorneys don't know well enough. It's also why landowners don't typically hire a local attorney to handle eminent domain cases. Most of that work goes to boutique law firms that specialize in it.

---

Excellent point, and one I intended to address earlier. In my own personal case, we had to go to the big city to hire an attorney experienced in condemnation suits. Nevertheless, these "experts" like to hire local attorneys to assist them, but the "best" are often already working for the pipeline company's attorneys. Your point, while accurate, does not preclude the pipeline company from "buying up" much of, if not most, local talent, and the good will/influence that represents.

Ribeye-Rare said:

---

Quote:

---

But if you sell in 20 years the increase in market value could completely overshadow the perceived loss in value today.

---

OK, but in 20 years the odds are that pipe will still be in the ground, and the perception will remain.

Plus, let's say that in 20 years that recreational property is now suitable for building a nice subdivision or could even be put to a commercial use.

Then, I've got to deal with restrictions on where I can place roads, drainage ditches, utility lines, lot size (and shape) planning, etc.

If we want to look 20 years down the road to look at potential values, the real cost of the taking might go way up.

Besides, let's say some drunk plows his pickup truck into your garage on your nice house and gives you the argument that he doesn't need to pay you for your damage, because 20 years from now the increase in value on your property will more than cover that. I'll bet you aren't buying it, nor should you.

---

Conversely, it may go way down depending on economics, land useage, natural disaster, etc.

What if in 20 years there is some technology that supercedes pipelines or the price of oil drops to next to nothing? I am assuming you'd argue that the landowners would then need to write a check to the pipeline company to offset their lose of use on their infrastructure?

And honestly, the idea that a pipeline is 100% negative just doesn't make sense to me. In areas of dense vegetation or trees, having a ROW is a good thing. It is down here anyway - increases grazing land, provides avenues to access land that the owner didn't have to pay for or maintain, provides new recreational uses for land that would ordinarily not be available for use without significant expense. It's not all negative, it's not all positive.

Quote:

---

I am assuming you'd argue that the landowners would then need to write a check to the pipeline company to offset their lose of use on their infrastructure?

---

Not sure if serious. The pipeline company assumes all the risk on any business venture. They stand to make a LOT of $$$$ for taking the risk.

But your argument supports mine for an annual/regular payment rather than a one-time payment, to include a "guessed" amount for "future losses". It's how most everything else works, after all. It's past time for this industry to catch up!

Relevant:
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/hays/conservation-district-joins-lawsuit-over-proposed-natural-gas-pipeline-through-hays-county/

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

I am assuming you'd argue that the landowners would then need to write a check to the pipeline company to offset their lose of use on their infrastructure?

---

Not sure if serious. The pipeline company assumes all the risk on any business venture. They stand to make a LOT of $$$$ for taking the risk.

But your argument supports mine for an annual/regular payment rather than a one-time payment, to include a "guessed" amount for "future losses". It's how most everything else works, after all. It's past time for this industry to catch up!

---

I am. If an argument is made that a ROW cost to XYZ company should include any and all future "losses" due to the fact that the ROW is there because the owner's children decided to turn their cow pasture into a master planned community or mini mall 20 years down the road, it only makes sense of it to work the other way around as well IMO - can't have your cake and eat it too. Conversely, if the value of the land drops for whatever reason - the landowner should have to write a check to the pipeline company for the difference in the value of the land when the pipeline was installed and what the value of the land is in 20 years. Only fair if you are going to try to capture future "what if" values on ROW easement monetary agreements.

I don't disagree that there may be a need to change how the system works - especially given that the state gets a new payment every 10 years (didn't know that to be honest). That would likely be something most people would get behind. I don't have a dog in the hunt, other than I don't want to pay $10 for gas because everybody that has a pipeline through their property thinks they should get a monthly royalty of $5k per linear foot of pipeline because they have PTSD over it either.

i'd argue, however, that those agreements should only apply to original landowners and not second/third/fourth or whatever landowners though. To me, if you buy property with an existing easement with a pipeline or electrical transmission ROW - you are buying as is and knowing what you are buying. Kind of like buying a used car in that respect - can't go to the dealer and expect them to repair for free what the previous owner failed to maintain. Best analogy I could think of quickly.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

I am assuming you'd argue that the landowners would then need to write a check to the pipeline company to offset their lose of use on their infrastructure?

---

Not sure if serious. The pipeline company assumes all the risk on any business venture. They stand to make a LOT of $$$$ for taking the risk.

But your argument supports mine for an annual/regular payment rather than a one-time payment, to include a "guessed" amount for "future losses". It's how most everything else works, after all. It's past time for this industry to catch up!

---

You're back to treating the easement or ROW like rented property. It is bought, not rented. The pipeline company is not asking a landowner to invest in their business venture or bear losses with them. They're buying the right to lay a line in the ground and they're paying a just, or market, value to do so. If the landowner can't make a deal with the pipeline company, the gov't will do it for the landowner through eminent domain, not eminent rental.

BoerneGator said:

---

No, I "own" property in several counties, and pay a considerable amount of property taxes for that right (which, if I do not pay, "the gov't" will sell said property, pay the tax, and send me the balance)! Does that mean I don't really own the land, and am just renting it from "The government"? Some would say "YES"! And, I have personal experience (likely before you were born-40+ years ago) with this VERY issue.

I obviously missed your cunning sarcasm, and you apparently missed the fact I was suggesting a new paradigm as it concerns this issue of RoW acquisition for "public utilities" utilizing Eminent Domain. Much like what the poster "country" introduced on the previous page that is already in existence.

END thread derail:

---

Guess who pays property taxes on those easements they buy and on the line buried in the easement? Not the landowner that sold the easement.

Congrats on not paying your property taxes, I guess. It sounds like you like to learn things the hard way. You likely are older than me, congrats on that as well.

So, in your new paradigm, you suggest the pipeline company simply rent the right to bury their line in the ground? Would that rent adjust at the landowners whim? If the rent adjusts and the pipeline company doesn't like it, should they just lay a new line, maybe even dig up the old one? Do you understand that a common carrier line typically crosses many landowners, maybe hundreds or thousands?

After answering the questions above, do you see why it might be cost prohibitive to rent every landowner a road, pipeline, or electric line crosses? Do you know what your utilities would then cost? How would you drive anywhere if you had to pay a separate toll to, or get permission from, every landowner along a road?

BoerneGator said:

---

Your point, while accurate, does not preclude the pipeline company from "buying up" much of, if not most, local talent, and the good will/influence that represents.

---

So you're saying it provides local jobs? Do you mean 'buying up' local support is actually supporting the local economy? Well, I'll be danged!!

Maybe us Texans DO actually benefit from this whole pipeline gig. Maybe some of us are too stubborn to admit it.

My understanding of contract law is limited, but most, if not all leases are actually a purchase for a term. So, when oil companies take a lease on a property, they are actually "buying it for a term". "It" being a designated acreage covering a specific horizon beneath the surface. That term expires after so many years, or until production ceases, generally speaking. Annual rentals maintain the lease in full force until production begins, and then a minimum annual royalty payment will maintain the lease. Once the company no longer pays tha5 minimum royalty, the lease expires, and the mineral estate returns to the original owner, as before.

A land or easement sale is a contract between a willing buyer, and (usually) a willing seller. In these cases, we do not have willing sellers. It's a forced sale, but even so, the seller's objections can be mitigated with a contract that pays him a regular recurring payment "for his troubles". It would be negotiated, and agreed to, just as now.

I contend this expense will be passed along to the consumer, just as are the "windfalls" now awarded by the current system. It's a departure from the status quo, but much fairer to landowners whose property is literally "taken" for the benefit of the "public". So, let the "public" pay a fair price for their benefit gained. Simple as that.

All of you mocking and snickering at the example given earlier in the thread of the 640 acre tract condemned as a residential subdivision or other commercial property due to the existence of the pipeline along the public road access would have a completely different attitude about it if YOU were the heir/owner of that property! Of that I am certain. It's ALL about whose ox is getting gored. I've revealed my bias, and who I'm advocating for and why. And those stories, while anecdotal, are legion! IOWs, they happen too damn often in America!

I don't mock either of the examples Mass89 presented. I don't have any factual information to form an opinion one way or another. I will say that I believe he is not an expert in valuation due to his confusion of opinion and fact as it pertains to valuation and damage support. I take it from that response that he has made up his mind in the way in which pipeline companies are dealt with in the legal system and there probably is not much room for debate. It goes back to my point of emotion driving the boat more so than fact. The reality is that appraisal is much like the large animal vet industry. All ranchers, including me, have doctored animals so much that we think we are as knowledgeable as a vet. Everyone has bought or sold real estate so they are an expert in all things real estate. Nothing to it.

country said:

---

What is a legitimate, more than fair offer? I'm sincerely curious.

---

Country, I do believe that you are sincere, so here are two things I'd like to see with any Initial Offer.


1. TERMS -- There should be language in the easement grant itself that maximizes the landowner's rights in his (now) servient estate, and limits the pipeline company to only those rights essential to operating and protecting their pipeline.

I shake my head when I'm sent an overly broad one-sided easement agreement. Again, I believe it is poor negotiating technique on the part of the company when they do that, in that it disrespects the landowner right from the start, and makes him question the 'good faith' of the company. And believe me, 'good faith' is very important in a forced-sale situation.

The strange part of it is this -- the company generally agrees to put more landowner-friendly terms in the grant when they are pressed, usually by the landowner's attorney. Why not just do it from the start?

I'm sure most here are aware of the types of terms I'm referring. But, if not, A&M mentions quite a few in its Pipeline Easement Negotiation Checklist:

https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/files/2016/08/Texas-Pipeline-Easement-Negotiation-Checklist.pdf


When I'm negotiating, I make it a point quickly to let the company know that I'm prepared to leave money on the table if we can get the terms right. They are that important.


2. REMAINDER DAMAGES -- The company should, in its Initial Offer, make an effort to estimate remainder damages, include compensation for those damages in the offer, and spell out how they arrived at their figure.

Most Initial Offers I receive are completely silent on the issue, and only mention $$/rod, or something similar. It's almost as though they hope the landowner won't think about such things if they don't discuss it.

Now, if the company believes there are no remainder damages at all, they should state that. If they estimate that the remainder is damaged by 5% of FMV of the parcel as a whole, they should state that. If it's 10%, and so on.

I suspect that in the process of acquiring multiple easements across several counties, the companies don't really have the time to research the financial damage their line might cause to each individual property. Not only are property types and uses different, but unfortunate routing of a line can do great damage to some properties (e.g. - commercial), and little damage to others.

Heck, I'd even accept the company saying 'Mr. Ribeye, we're not sure what the remainder damages should be, so we've included x% in our offer to cover them.' The honesty would be refreshing.

In any case, by putting a figure out there for the landowner to see, the company has given that landowner a benchmark and has demonstrated a willingness to consider the issue of remainder damages, which is, after all, required by the Texas Property Code.

The landowner would then have the responsibility, in the ensuing negotiations, to rebut the company's initial determination. If I were the company, I'd require that the landowner provide some support for that figure, though.

********************************************************

Finally, let me say how much I've enjoyed the civil back-and-forth I've had here with my TexAgs brethren on this issue. I know many of you are in the pipeline business, and I assure you that most folks like me are actually pro-pipeline. But, I'm not an investor in these projects -- if you need my land, fine, take it. But let's do a better job here in the State of Texas of ensuring that I'm paid fully for it without making me perform like a trained seal at the winter carnival to make sure that happens. Fair 'nough?