Wendy Davis Aims to Restrict Seizure of Private Land for Pipelines -- But Not the Keystone

Categories: Legislature

Thumbnail image for wendy davis.jpg
Sen. Wendy Davis
You'd think in this state, property rights would be the inviolable bedrock around which damn near everything else revolves. You'd think eminent domain, the taking of private property for public use, would be invoked only when the common benefit of a railroad, a highway or a pipeline is so undeniable that the taking proceeds only with grudging solemnity.

So, it's weird that pipeline companies, overseen by the Railroad Commission of Texas, need only check a box to duly affirm with the state their statuses as "common carriers" -- essentially pipelines that transport for the public good or for public hire. The one-page application, called a T-4, is the beginning and the end of the process for common carrier certification. They're taken at their word. Statute doesn't require that the commission determine whether it's actually true. No hearings are required. No notice need be given to landowners who are about to find themselves in condemnation proceedings. In fact, according to Fort Worth Senator Wendy Davis' office, the commission acknowledged that it has never denied a T-4 permit.

Davis' has proposed a bill that would create a little more paperwork. It would require pipeline applicants to notify affected landowners; disclose a list of customers and whether they're affiliated; and list the names and volumes of the substances it will transport. If a landowner chooses to put up a fight, there would be a mechanism for that through the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

It's an idea whose time has long since come. The Texas Supreme Court last fall ruled in favor of a rice farmer who argued that the company seeking to condemn his land intended to build a pipeline for its own use and that of its affiliates.

"[P]rivate property cannot be imperiled with such nonchalance, via an irrefutable presumption created by checking a certain box on a one-page government form. Our Constitution demands far more," the justices wrote.

We checked, and Davis' office says the bill is not intended to address the most contested pipeline in America. "This is not a Keystone bill," Rick Svatora, Davis' spokesman, tells Unfair Park. Nor is the legislation intended to be retroactive. And even if it was, the southern leg of the Keystone XL through Texas -- already under construction -- would still probably qualify as a common carrier under the current definition.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Texans have gone soft - LIMP - in defending their rights. Our Founding Fathers killed a lot of Mexicans to establish a free nation that became a state ten years later. Property rights have always been sacrosanct, as codified in our state Constitution. There was a time when Texans would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with loaded rifles, pistols and shotguns daring a commercial company to "Come and Take It."

If our elected officials continue denying the rights of citizens and giving away our rights to corporations, especially foreign corporations, then one day soon we may find Texans again willing to "Remember the Alamo."

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

I would go one step further.  If a pipeline company wants common carrier status and the accompanying power of eminent domain, then this status should be conferred by the state and there should be a tariff filed with the state.

Additionally, as a common carrier, the tariff would be subject to periodic review for  appropriate return on capital invested and that they are non discriminatory to all shippers.

I think that the box on the T-4 is to indicate whether or not the operator is a common carrier; not to determine whether or not they are a common carrier.

This whole thing stinks to me.

Just my 2 cents.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault