Public Comment. Volume III - Montana Legislature

knowledgeable buyer will pay and a willing and knowledgeable seller will sell for.
In the case of an easement, both parties must know exactly how the property will
be used, what the impacts of that use will have on the easement and on the
adjacent or remainder properties. This has to include knowledge of what
potential impacts of leaks or other accidents etc. could be from the proposed use.
Accidents and the risk of accidents as perceived by the land owners in the area or
potential buyers can severely reduce the value of the easement land, remainder
land and other adjacent lands. Hence, value of the easement land cannot be
determined until both parties know what the potential and expected impacts to
lands would be. Without an analysis, which should be done under MEPA or
NEPA, knowledgeable parties can not exist and no "Fair Market Value" can be
determined. Very few land owners have the resources to do this analysis. It is
done by either the State or the Federal Government on State and Federal lands at
the expense of taxpayers and/or the entity proposing the easement. My
understanding is that under the existing laws, private land owners would not even
have an opportunity to conduct or have the information &om this type of analysis
considered by the courts under the current system. Also, there is no mechanism
to require the entity condemning the land to present detailed information, to the
private land owner, sufficient for an analysis of impacts of the proposal. On
private land, all condemnations should have an environmental analysis preformed
under MEPA or NEPA just like on Federal or State Land. It is unfair, and unjust
for a private land owner to have to absorb the cost and risk to his interest in the
easement lands and the remainder lands of a condemnation for a so called "Public
Use." Usually the condemnation action is nothing more than a private company
wanting the use of private land. At the time the State eminent domain laws were
written the need for condemnation really was for the "public use" but it isn't any
more. The State should conduct the MEPA or NEPA analysis for a
condemnation of private land and charge it back to the entity condemning the
land. No possession of the proposed easement lands should take place until a Fair
Market Value is determined with "all the information available to both parties."
The use of the term Negotiation with regard to eminent domain as it is used
. currently is amisnomer. There is not really any negotiation that must take place.
My understanding of the current system is that the company will present their
standard contract form to the person whose property is to be condemned and tell
them to review it and they will return to discuss the terms later. If after the land
owners review the standard form, they have significant disagreement, the
company can just say no and that is the end of the "negotiations." Land owners
-78- Volume Ill: Public Comment