Eminent Domain Law Paper

Pipeline Eminent Domain Dispute

Eminent domain has always been a controversial issue particularly among property owners. States or state sanctioned agencies and even authorized private corporations may seize private property if they are deemed to be working in the interest of state and the ‘greater good.’ A significant problem with this process is legislating which corporations are state sanctioned and have the power to exercise eminent domain. This has become a serious issue in the state of Texas where the Canadian oil company TransCanada is seizing land through the power of eminent domain in order to build its Keystone XL pipeline. The piece of land in question is a 50 foot strip of land belonging to farmer Julia Trigg Crawford.

TransCanada is seeking to route the pipeline through this patch of Julia Crawford’s farm to which she thoroughly objects. The conflict at hand is due to Ms. Crawford contesting TransCanada’s authority to exercise eminent domain as a private corporation. TransCanada claims that their right to use eminent domain originates from their status as a common carrier which means that the pipeline must carry oil from other companies alongside of its own oil. Under Texas law, companies that meet the conditions for being a common carrier serve the public good through transporting such goods, oil in particular. Ms. Crawford is contesting their common carrier status as it was obtained without scrutiny or examination. TransCanada claimed this status by checking a box on a one page form which was then submitted to the Railroad Commissions of Texas, which is responsible for pipeline regulation in Texas.

The lack of scrutiny and oversight calls into question TransCanada’s right to common carrier status and eminent domain privileges as it already has for the Texas Rice Land Partners. In the case of Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Green their common carrier status was successfully contested in the Texas State Supreme Court. Justice Don R. Willet...