Eminent domain: Is it unjust in Texas?

Four Republican lawmakers have proposed legislation that would bring big changes to Texas eminent domain laws, providing greater protection for landowners but driving up costs for consumers.

The value of the trade-off is in the eye of the beholder. Will Texas be known for protecting private property rights or for supporting the energy business?

Texans for Property Rights, a lobbying group representing landowners, is touting the legislation filed by Reps. DeWayne Burns of Cleburne, Trent Ashby of Lufkin, Kyle Kacal of Bryan and Justin Holland of Rockwall.

The group says the bills will fix the unfair advantage that pipeline and transmission companies have over landowners in eminent domain cases. Supporters include the Texas Farm Bureau, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, the Texas Wildlife Association and 23 other organizations.

“This legislation is a tremendous step toward fixing a faulty process that places landowners at a huge disadvantage when navigating the eminent domain process,” Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association President Richard Thorpe said.

No one denies that eminent domain authority is neces-

sary for economic development. Since 95 percent of Texas is privately owned, the government must condemn private property to install the infrastructure that makes modern life possible, such as roads, pipelines and transmission lines.

What irks Texas landowners is how the government delegates that authority to private forprofit companies. A small landowner who wants to negotiate how his or her property is used, or how much compensation he or she receives, frequently feels powerless against a major corporation with a team of lawyers and governmental powers.

Meanwhile, the companies that build these facilities are in many cases dealing with hundreds of landowners to piece together a complex rightof-way puzzle with little room to maneuver. One charismatic landowner with an activist ally can cause a lot of trouble, as seen in the demonstrations against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.

The first bill would make it easier for landowners to fight a company in court by allowing them to recover legal bills if they win significantly higher compensation from the judge than what the company had offered before the lawsuit.

Under the second bill, a judge will be allowed to discover how much a company promised other landowners in private contracts to determine how much other a landowner fighting in court should get paid.

Another measure would require companies to spell out exactly what they will do with the land when they make a bona fide offer, so there will be no surprises later.

Also, companies using eminent domain authority would have to post a bond for the landowner’s payment so it can’t escape compensating the landowner later by declaring bankruptcy.

“As lawmakers, we have to ensure that private property owners are given a fair shot when they negotiate a deal for the use their land,” Ashby said.

All of this seems like common sense, but then again, this is Texas, where the energy industry reigns supreme. All of these measures would likely increase the compensation for landowners, and higher costs are always passed on to consumers through higher energy bills.

Lawmakers have proposed similar measures before, and they’ve gotten no where. But we live in a new political climate where individual rights count more. Many Republican leaders are now willing to demand that corporations give a little on social issues when making economic decisions.

The energy industry will lobby against these bills, and they will do it quietly to avoid attracting attention. It’ll be fascinating to see if any these measures make it out of committee with at least a fighting chance of becoming law.