{"id":1045,"date":"2012-10-03T01:18:20","date_gmt":"2012-10-03T01:18:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1045"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:06","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:06","slug":"texas-court-gives-transcanada-permission-to-build-keystone-xl-pipeline","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/texas-court-gives-transcanada-permission-to-build-keystone-xl-pipeline\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Court Gives TransCanada Permission to Build Keystone XL Pipeline"},"content":{"rendered":"

Monday, October 1, 2012 by Cara Richards
\nThere has been an ongoing battle<\/a> in Texas between landowners and pipeline companies. A large amount of oil in Texas needs to be moved to refineries on the gulf coast and the most effective way of transporting the oil is through pipelines. In order to construct these pipelines, the companies need access to land. \u00a0Recently, one particular pipeline company, TransCanada<\/a>, has worked on plans to build a pipeline which will take heavy crude from Canada sand pits to refineries on the gulf coast. Yet, landowners are resistant to the company\u2019s efforts.
\nWhen it comes to these disputes between property owners and pipeline companies, Texas<\/a> has had many problems<\/a> resolving the conflicts between landowners\u2019 rights and the pipeline industry\u2019s need for land. Most pipeline companies reach agreements with landowners and compensate them for their land so they can then use the land to construct the pipeline. However, sometimes landowners do not accept the compensation offer. When a landowner rejects the company\u2019s offer, the pipeline company can still use eminent domain<\/a> to acquire the land.
\nYet, Texas courts have been reluctant to uphold<\/a> a pipleine company\u2019s use of eminent domain to acquire land. \u00a0In an important case<\/a>, Texas Land Rice Partners vs. Denbury Green Pipeline<\/em>, Texas landowners sued a pipeline company after it tried to use eminent domain to build a carbon dioxide pipeline to use in the extraction of natural gas. The court held that company had not adequately proven their right to eminent domain and thus could not use the land for a pipeline.<\/p>\n

However, the dispute is far from over\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a very recent case, one property owner, David Holland, refused TransCanada\u2019s\u00a0 offer of compensation for $446,864 for an easement across his land because the company refused to accept liability for future disaster and refused to lower the Keystone XL to pass under existing streams and heavy-equipment crossings already existing on his property, making the Keystone XL pipeline more enviornmentally risky<\/a> than other pipelines that had agreed to his terms and held easements across his land.
\nUnable to acquire access to the land through compensation because of resistant landowners, TransCanada then decided to acquire the land through meeting the requirements of eminent domain. TransCanada\u2019s lawyer argued in court and the Texas judge agreed<\/a> that the statutory requirements of writ of possession were met and the judge granted TransCanada\u2019s request to take possession of the land under state eminent domain laws, allowing the company to begin construction of the pipeline. However, the dispute is far from over because the landowners can still challenge TransCanada\u2019s right to eminent domain in court. The judge who decided the case suggested that the best solution<\/a> may actually lie with the legislature because it can set a consistent standard for these cases. If nothing else, a decision of the Supreme Court of Texas will be necessary to clarify and resolve this area of law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Monday, October 1, 2012 by Cara Richards There has been an ongoing battle in Texas between landowners and pipeline companies. A large amount of oil in Texas needs to be moved to refineries on the gulf coast and the most effective way of transporting the oil is through pipelines. In order to construct these pipelines, …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1045"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1045"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1045\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7685,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1045\/revisions\/7685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}