Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

Montana Environmental Quality Council
Re: Eminent Domain
March 23,2000
EQC Eminent Domain
Subcommittee-Public Hearing
March 23.2000
Exhibit 10
Having had personal experience with right-of-way negotiation, I would like
to take this opportunity to relate how those negotiations were handled. We have
one interstate gas line, one REA line, a phone line, and a coun road on our
property. All of these were constructed with easements only. &so ? w2 /: bU og i.6
/ ,-n(fJs.
The use of eminent domain could have been invoked, but as long as these
entities did not demand fee title to my land, I was more willing to agree to the
crossing of my property, thereby avoiding legal expenses for both parties.
My experience hasconvinced me that easements can and should be more
than adequate for any right-of-way, with the exception of interstate highways.. . In
the event of right-of-way abandonment in the future, there would not be a question
of title to the land, as occurred when the Milwaukee Road was abandoned.
* 1
There are numerous lawsuits in the U.S. at present, attempting to establish
true ownership of abandoned railroad right-of-ways. There is also a very real
possibility of a corporation taking full title to a right-of-way, then selling
easements to utilities, and receiving more for the easements than they paid to the
original landowner. This ridiculous situation would be avoided with easements
only.
The landowner should be protected in every case. - whether eminent domain
is invoked or negotiations are successfiil - with a hold-blameless agreement as part
of the contract. The landowner should be properly compensated for loss of
production and any inconvenience or nuisance caused by the right-of-way on an
annual basis, periodically adjusted for inflation.
Thank you,
William F. Gillin
Forsyth, Montana
EQC Eminent Domain Study -1 57-