Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

Krista, comments from ExxonMobil Pipeline Law follow. Contact me with
any questions. Thanks, Laura
Laura K. Sleevi
Operations Integrity Group
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
Ph: 713.656.3801 // Fax: 713.656.3033
> Without examining the Montana eminent domain statute.(s) prescribing
the standard of proof, or reading the Montana cases interpreting those
statutes, it is not possible to specifically describe how the change
would affect our business. "Clear and convincing" requires a greater
degree of proof than "preponderance of the evidencev. Obviously, as a
potential condemnor, we are opposed to any greater standard of proof.
> Nevertheless, if a change in burden of proof standard is to be
made, applying it to the project as a whole is preferable to
application on a tract-by-tract basis. The appropriate question should
be whether the project is in the public interest, rather than whether
the taking on a particular tract is in the public interest. If the
more stringent "clear and convincing" standard is applied on a tract by
tract analysis, the likelihood of inconsistent results along the rightof-way
is greater; i.e. on some tracts the taking of the particular
tract may be found to be in the public interest, and on other tracts
the particular taking may not be found in the public interest. Asking
a judge or jury to determine that a project is in the public interest
is preferable to asking the same judge or jury whether the taking on
that particular tract (as opposed to some other tract) is in the public
interest. Needless to.say, a continuous pipeline cannot be constructed
on a patchwork of inconsistent eminent domain results. Neither public
interest nor judicial economy will be served.
>
EQC Eminent Domain Study -1 23-