Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Environmental Quality Council March 31, 2000 2 of 3 Pages Consequently, there is a lot of negotiating between the utility company, environmental experts, engineers and the various landowners concerning where to best route the line, and whether it is feasible. As you might guess, the proposed route may come down to picking one coulee over another. If coulee 'A" is picked, it may upset the landowner who owns that specific coulee. However, that choice may be the most buildable and environmentally sound route to follow and will tie in with the neighboring landowners' desires. Routing a line involves engineering and environmental sciences, certainly. However, those sciences are used to reach compromise. The clear and convincing standard is not applicable in this type of situation. There may not be a clear and convincing choice in terms of the environment or engineering. However, it may be a reasonable, requisite and proper route when all of the factors are considered, including the desires of adjacent neighbors. It is all too easy for a condemnee to stand up in court and point to an alternate route because there are always a number of routes that can possibly be used to get from point A to point B. Under the current law, we do know this: 1. A condemnor must prove that the public interest requires the taking. 5 70-30-206(2). 2. It must prove that the use is authorized by law. 5 70-30-1 1 l(1.); 3. It must prove that the taking is necessary (reasonable, requisite and proper). 5 70-30-1 11 (2). Montana Power v. Bokma (1 969), 153 Mont. 390, 399, 457 P.2d 769, 775. 4. If the land is already appropriated to a public use, the condemnor must prove that this is a more necessary one. 5 70-30-1 1 l(3). 5. The condemnor must prove that it made a written offer that was rejected. 5 70-30-1 11 (4). 6. If a condemnor fails to consider alternate routes, the greatest public good and the least private injury then this action is arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Shara v. Anaconda Co. (1 980), 198 Mont. 377, 386, 610 P.2d 132, 137; Montana Power Co. v. Bokma (1969), 153 Mont. 390, 399, 457 P.2d 769. 7. 'The condemnor must take only the minimum necessary interest and the court has the power to limit that interest. 55 70-30-203(6) and 70-30-206(1)(b), MCA. -1 06- Volume Ill: Public Comment
Environmental Quality Council March 31, 2000 3 of 3 Pages Speaking as an attorney who has represented condemnees and one condemnor, in my opinion, the eminent domain laws do not require change. They are fair in terms of the procedures used, the ability to appeal any issue and in the award of just compensation and attorney fees to the landowner. .Applying the clear and convincing standard does not work in a case where a desired route may have been picked as a result of compromise between such competing interests as regulatory requirements, landowners, environmental considerations, specialists, adjacent landowners and the condemnor. TDG:jl cc: Mike Stahly EQC Eminent Domain Study -1 07-
Page 1 and 2:
Public Benefits and Private Rights:
Page 3 and 4:
Helena Public Hearing. December 1.
Page 5 and 6:
The Eminent Domain Subcommittee (Su
Page 7 and 8:
The location of the right-of-way of
Page 9 and 10:
land to locate the pipeline. She ad
Page 11 and 12:
in a case in Illinois a pipeline wa
Page 13 and 14:
REP. MCGEE questioned who would pay
Page 15 and 16:
PUBI-IC COMMENT - BILLINGS Dena Hof
Page 17 and 18:
use the power of eminent domain sho
Page 19 and 20:
were no answers provided. 'The Legi
Page 21 and 22:
telecorr~munication lines, and rail
Page 23 and 24:
EMINENT DOMAIN DRAFT STUDY REPORT P
Page 25 and 26:
certain criteria for State and Fede
Page 27 and 28:
Exhibit 6 from last meeting -- Requ
Page 29 and 30:
circumstances, which is exactly wha
Page 31 and 32:
ight to all of the surface damage p
Page 33 and 34:
I support eminent domain reform. I
Page 35 and 36:
of Property" should also be rejecte
Page 37 and 38:
that only a very few condem~iations
Page 39 and 40:
approved use, the bill should requi
Page 41 and 42:
While we don't believe this legisla
Page 43 and 44:
projects delayed it is the citizens
Page 45 and 46:
the subcommittee have been clear th
Page 47 and 48:
Cenex supports the findings and rec
Page 49 and 50:
up front. State and federal governm
Page 51 and 52:
Cenex supports the findings and rec
Page 53 and 54:
draft legislation, which does the f
Page 55 and 56:
-The "Necessity/Public Interest" is
Page 57 and 58:
I support eminent domain reform. I
Page 59 and 60: e used as a guide to better underst
Page 61 and 62: MEIC's testimony at the December 1,
Page 63 and 64: Northern Plains Resource Council Ma
Page 65 and 66: BROWN LAW F w P.C. Page 2 April 1 1
Page 67 and 68: BROWN hw P.C. Page 4 April 1 1, 200
Page 69 and 70: Page 2 March 3 1. 1000 3. Yearly fe
Page 71 and 72: Montana Environmental Quality Counc
Page 73 and 74: The five eminent domain reform bill
Page 75 and 76: Lee, Krista From: 3ent: To: Subject
Page 77 and 78: mlt~ Montana Independent Telecommun
Page 79: THE .. *I& i k end o* CQALITBON Jan
Page 82 and 83: knowledgeable buyer will pay and a
Page 84 and 85: volume gasoline pipelines at the ti
Page 86 and 87: January 23, 2000 Krista Lee Environ
Page 88 and 89: 3. The land value be based on whate
Page 90 and 91: NFW SECTION, Section 1. Limitation
Page 92 and 93: Memorandum TO: Aaron Browning FROM:
Page 94 and 95: MEMORANDUM MONTANA DEP~TMENT OF '+
Page 96 and 97: v 6 - c U :Preferable, maybe. Desir
Page 98 and 99: Public water supply wells susceptib
Page 100 and 101: Lee, Krista From: Alan Roiston [ala
Page 102 and 103: 11. Whether a condemning corporatio
Page 104 and 105: BULL MOUNTAIN LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATIO
Page 106 and 107: APR- 3-00 MON 1145 PM THE PRINTERY
Page 108 and 109: . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Page 112 and 113: Northern Plains Resource Council Ma
Page 114 and 115: These examples illustrate that clea
Page 116 and 117: is not already appropriated to some
Page 118 and 119: Schoro v. Anaconda Co., 187 Mont. 3
Page 120 and 121: the abuse. But the changes being co
Page 122 and 123: DM1 ASPEN BOWER - COLORADO SPRIIUq
Page 124 and 125: HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Page 126 and 127: Environmental Quality Council April
Page 128 and 129: GOVERNOR SI.ARC R\CICOT HOCSE SIESI
Page 130 and 131: ROCKER SIX CAlTLE CO. HC 84 BOX 205
Page 132 and 133: Hi Krista, This letter is in regard
Page 134 and 135: NA COAL COUNCIL 01 COLONIAL DRIVE H
Page 136 and 137: 03/31/00 FRI 11:18 FAX 1 406 761 83
Page 138 and 139: BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN,
Page 140 and 141: EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee-Pub
Page 142 and 143: No matter what. No criteria is appl
Page 144 and 145: On the issue of the use of taken la
Page 146 and 147: 3UDcommlttee-Pu blic Hearing WALLAC
Page 154 and 155: h.VC Lvl~ll~ent Oun~will Subcummitt
Page 156 and 157: 1. hcgv Conservation. (Using less e
Page 158 and 159: In conclusion, it is important to r
Page 160 and 161:
changed. Thosc who seek to condemn
Page 162 and 163:
EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee-Pub
Page 164 and 165:
*.I - EQC Eminent Domain Subcommitt
Page 166 and 167:
ights-of-way along with other uses,
Page 168 and 169:
STANDARD CORM 199 Pr*9c*bd by DOz/U
Page 170 and 171:
Other exemptions, waivers, or reduc
Page 172 and 173:
-168- Volume Ill: Public Comment U.
Page 174 and 175:
Ensuring just compensation: In most
Page 176 and 177:
company by statute, in order to obt
Page 178 and 179:
Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Pi
Page 180 and 181:
Mitigation Measures #2 (State and F
Page 182 and 183:
Burden of Proof EQC Eminent Domain
Page 184 and 185:
EQC Eminent Domain subcommittee May
Page 186 and 187:
TABLE OF CONTENTS . Section Page 10
Page 188 and 189:
PROPOSED MASTER MITIGATION POLICY.
Page 190 and 191:
DRAFT, 4/9/8 5 Indirect .land loss,
Page 192 and 193:
DRAFT, 4/ 9/8 5 (5) Impacts During
Page 194 and 195:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 the possibility of es
Page 196 and 197:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 21) LARRS requests th
Page 198 and 199:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 11 impacted communiti
Page 200 and 201:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 13 appropriate . agen
Page 202 and 203:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 ( 2 Strict speed limi
Page 204 and 205:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 (5) A program of nois
Page 206 and 207:
DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 b, Local. ambulanc
Page 208 and 209:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 21 tion and operation
Page 210 and 211:
DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 23 ces . These per
Page 212 and 213:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 (a) quality (b) formi
Page 214 and 215:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 27 tify new winter ra
Page 216 and 217:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 29 of these individua
Page 218 and 219:
DRAFT, 4/9/85 2. Topsoil should.. b
Page 220 and 221:
DRAFT, 4/ 9/8 5 33 district ;would.
Page 222 and 223:
DRAFT, 4/ 9/ 8 5 - and/or operation
Page 224 and 225:
EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee May
Page 226 and 227:
Miles City Fish Hatchery Impact Ana
Page 228 and 229:
Impact Analysis Studies and Propose
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
'. ATTACHMENT A 'VIBRATION AND IMPA
Page 240 and 241:
Study Plan Page 2 . As a condition
Page 242 and 243:
Study Plan Page 4 Lab Tests -Target
Page 244 and 245:
Study Plan Page 6 Information neede
Page 246 and 247:
Study Plan Page 8 Rcfcrcnce List Be
Page 248 and 249:
United States Department of the Int
Page 250 and 251:
Bobbi Keeler, FA Coordinator 3 Idea
Page 252 and 253:
EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee DEP
Page 254 and 255:
Robert Ochsner April 5, 1994 Page 3
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
. Robert Ochsner April 5, 1994 Page
Page 262 and 263:
Memo--Marylee Norris, John North Fe
Page 264:
EQC Eminent Domain Subcommittee May
show all

Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?