Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature
Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature
Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE<br />
.. *I&<br />
i<br />
k end o*<br />
CQALITBON<br />
January 24, 2000<br />
JAN 2 5 ma<br />
. . ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
i>usL!n COUNCIL<br />
Dear embers 'of the Interim Committee on Eminent Domain:<br />
On behalf of the Ckkk Fork Coalition, thank you for the opportunity<br />
to submit the following comments on eminent domain refoh. ' The<br />
coaiition is a member-supported conservation group of citizens,<br />
: scientists, business people, and recreationists dedicated to protecting<br />
and restoring water quality throughout the Clark Fork River basin.<br />
Because thestatutes aliow all sorts of private companies to take land,<br />
without proper regard for the waters that flow through them, the .<br />
Coalition's 1,000 members have a keen interest in reforming eminent .<br />
domain law. The-following modifications, in particular, would go a . .<br />
long way toward protecting <strong>Montana</strong>'s waters while balancing its<br />
other public policy gdals.<br />
I .<br />
I .<br />
1 Require industries to minimizeand mitigate environmental<br />
damage on condemned property. Our experience monitoriig the<br />
~ellowstdne Pipe Line's reroute project taught us many lessons . .<br />
about eminent domain. Under the company's proposal, two;. ..<br />
. .thirds of the of the route crosses private lands in the sensitive .<br />
- Clark Fork watephed/ yet for the most pa'd,b mitigation mecys ' . - . .<br />
to proted strehi; @o~d$ater,'qd xeflands donotapply,:p-e - . -<br />
. ' State'shodd-kns*e that the++qqhieGta;! prbte&o@ .&d<br />
I - stat4<br />
.: of-the-art..technologies' required of industries bn public Iai~ds ,..... - -, B~,..<br />
extended to private lands, as well.<br />
' -<br />
.'. -. ,.<br />
2) Strictly define public interest. The key concept behiid emkhnt<br />
domain is that the public interest requires, the taking of private<br />
property. Our YPL experience doesn't bear this out-particularlyif<br />
we ask the question: "Is a petroleum pipeline that cuts through<br />
'<br />
<strong>Montana</strong>ns' backyards to service eastern Washington markets in<br />
this public's.interest?" The concept needs to be better defined.<br />
.. .<br />
I .<br />
."- - . . . .<br />
. . 3) Extend bonding requiiements and indemnification provisions '<br />
to private property owners. Landown'ers should not be liable for<br />
another party's mishaps on seized property. As the law currently .<br />
reads, there are no assurances that they're not. To draw from the<br />
.YPL case again: petroleum spills do happen, and cleanup is<br />
costly-for most landowners; prohibitively costly. The state<br />
should fix this bias. It should protect against.any possible<br />
landowner liability and require bonds for cleanup, as is done on<br />
public lands. '<br />
are . , .<br />
.<br />
PO. Box7593<br />
Missoula, MT 59807<br />
406/542;0539<br />
(fax) 406/542-5632<br />
www.clarkfork.org<br />
.4) Recognize clean water as a public use. Despite the.fact that<br />
clean water is vital to public health, it does not figure into the<br />
law's "public use" comparisons or compensation determinations.<br />
. Is petroleum more valuable to the public than a clean Missoula .<br />
aquifer? The way the law is written, we can't even ask the .<br />
question.<br />
EQC Eminent Domain Study -75-
Change language