From the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram:

After four years of legal battles over a water pipeline designed to run through Monty Bennett’s East Texas ranch, the Dallas City Council voted Wednesday to settle with the Dallas hotel magnate rather than continue with a condemnation lawsuit.

The $2.3 billion Integrated Pipeline Project is being built by the Tarrant Regional Water District. The City of Dallas is a partner in the project that is designed to bring more water from East Texas lakes to both sides of the Metroplex.

Dallas took the lead in negotiations because the disputed section of pipeline that would run through Bennett’s Henderson County ranch would eventually connect with Lake Palestine, where Dallas has water rights.

“A settlement has been reached but the details haven’t been finalized,” said Terry Lowery, interim director of Dallas Water Utilities.

Bennett, founder and chief executive officer of Dallas-based Ashford Hospitality Trust, declined to comment. His company operates the Hilton Fort Worth and The Ashton hotels in downtown Fort Worth.


A resolution passed by the Dallas City Council agreed “to re-route the project south of the property, or alternatively if the re-route is not feasible, agreed to a subsurface lease beneath the property.”

No details were given on how much it would cost to re-route that section of the pipeline.

The TRWD board still must approve the agreement.

“Because this portion of the pipeline impacts Dallas’ access to their water in Lake Palestine, we understand their desire to explore other options,” TRWD General Manager Jim Oliver said. “They have been and continue to be a great partner in this project, so we would certainly be willing to consider any settlement they reach with Mr. Bennett.”


While the Dallas City Council approved the measure, it was met with distaste by Councilwoman Sandy Greyson, who said “it’s just infuriating that if you are rich enough, you can hold the city hostage for years and then get what you want. There’s something really wrong with that.”

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings also expressed frustration.

“We are not taking any property,” Rawlings said. “We were laying pipe and putting the ground back in place. He has been working hard in Austin and in Tarrant County spending an inordinate amount of money getting candidates that he supports to fight us on this.”

Two years ago, Bennett poured in more than $220,000 to support two TRWD board candidates. But this year he contributed just $9,680 on mailers for board member Mary Kelleher, who lost her TRWD seat earlier this month. Dallas residents also poured money into the last two elections for board candidates supporting TRWD’s legal battle against Bennett.

Dallas intervened as a plaintiff in the TRWD condemnation lawsuit last October and the parties agreed to mediation March 23.

Besides the condemnation case, three other lawsuits between Bennett and TRWD are still pending.

The 150-mile pipeline will extend all the way from Lake Palestine to Lake Benbrook when it is completed. It is designed to cover Tarrant County’s water needs for roughly the next 20 years. TRWD, which provides raw water to almost all of Tarrant County, and Dallas have touted saving $500 million in capital costs by working together.

The first phase is scheduled to be completed in 2018, which will bring more water from TRWD’s Richland-Chambers reservoir to Tarrant County. The other phases of the project will be completed as more water is needed.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/n...9.html#storylink=cpy

Like JALLEN, I wondered what this was about and found this article.

The main poin5 seems to be:

quote:

The land owner’s name is Monty Bennett, a Dallas businessman who owns East Texas Ranch LP. He has filed a lawsuit against Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) under Civil Action No. 2014C-0144.

The land was originally purchased by Bennett’s grandparents in 1955. Bennett does not want the pipeline to damage his family land or interfere with the wildlife refuge on it. He attempted to speak directly with the TRWD board, but they refused to see him. In order to protect his land, Bennett has constructed a cemetery on his property. Under Texas Law 711.035 cemeteries are exempt from “taxation, seizure by creditors and eminent domain.”

Bennett has the full support of Henderson County Commissioner Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin who is upset by the project’s burden on his constituents. “First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain,” Geeslin said in an interview with the Athens Review. “The government can come take property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can’t see that being right.”

Geeslin fears that the land owners who have agreed to easements on their property may not be fully aware of the project’s size. “We are not talking about 18-inch pipes. These pipes are a minimum of 84 inches,” said Geeslin. “Residents with waterfront property could end up with mud-front property at Lake Palestine and possibly Cedar Creek Lake. I don’t understand why they have not looked for alternative routes for the pipeline. They could possibly find a route that would not affect so many people.”

I’m not sure what the City of Dallas has to do with any of this except they must plan on benefiting from the rather large pipeline being proposed.

In 2000, the state of Texas divided the state into regions for water management. Mostly, it was tying a metropolitan area to a vast rural area. I believe this is probably the source of eminent domain, in this matter.

Going off that, San Antonio has been very ambitious and avaricious regarding rural water. Water right trades were made, and as a result, Corpus Christi went looking for their own long-term supply. I was at risk of losing my place to a reservoir San Antonio River Authority wanted, but that fortunately fell through.

Corpus Christi made a deal with the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority to purchase water from Lake Texana (near Victoria). Those funds allowed the LNRA to pay off the reservoir costs in full. Additionally, Corpus Christi bought a right-of-way about 80 miles long to move the water. No condemnation occurred. But this area is Red Texas, so we play fair.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
Like JALLEN, I wondered what this was about and found this article.

The main poin5 seems to be:

quote:

The land owner’s name is Monty Bennett, a Dallas businessman who owns East Texas Ranch LP. He has filed a lawsuit against Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) under Civil Action No. 2014C-0144.

The land was originally purchased by Bennett’s grandparents in 1955. Bennett does not want the pipeline to damage his family land or interfere with the wildlife refuge on it. He attempted to speak directly with the TRWD board, but they refused to see him. In order to protect his land, Bennett has constructed a cemetery on his property. Under Texas Law 711.035 cemeteries are exempt from “taxation, seizure by creditors and eminent domain.”

Bennett has the full support of Henderson County Commissioner Precinct 4 Ken Geeslin who is upset by the project’s burden on his constituents. “First off, I am not in favor of eminent domain,” Geeslin said in an interview with the Athens Review. “The government can come take property that may have been in a family for generations. I just can’t see that being right.”

Geeslin fears that the land owners who have agreed to easements on their property may not be fully aware of the project’s size. “We are not talking about 18-inch pipes. These pipes are a minimum of 84 inches,” said Geeslin. “Residents with waterfront property could end up with mud-front property at Lake Palestine and possibly Cedar Creek Lake. I don’t understand why they have not looked for alternative routes for the pipeline. They could possibly find a route that would not affect so many people.”

I’m not sure what the City of Dallas has to do with any of this except they must plan on benefiting from the rather large pipeline being proposed.

Ewwww!!! I'd rather have a water pipeline on my property than a cemetary.

Sounds like the mayor is just as much of a douche by agreeing with her words.

^I'm sure it's intended as a family cemetery, rather than public. And it'll probably never be use, just deeded for that purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

Ewwww!!! I'd rather have a water pipeline on my property than a cemetary.

I'm guessing you never had a water pipeline break under your property. It's followed by weeks of government inaction, flooding, more government inaction, more flooding, then cheap incompetent labor invading your property to dig and repair. Then more flooding. Then lawyers, government inaction, etc.

Dead people just lay there, harming nobody.

I like dead people better than government people.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:
I like dead people better than government people.

Well, there's nothing saying that they can't be one and the same.

I don't even like government people who are so inert that the SEEM dead!

Doing a little 'looking for a followup' and came across this ditty. Great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlOv9RK9mg

We had two major cases of that around here.

A reservoir was built and the land was bought.
Years later they wanted to build another next to the first. They bought most of the land, but one farmer would not sell. The land had been in his family for over 100 years, it was his "familys'" land. Then when they told him they would just take it, they would not give him what he thought it was worth. They did it anyway.

Another case we had was where a huge local car dealer wanted the road made into 4 lanes. Wall Mart said they would build on that road if they changed it to 4 lanes.
A small but ultra busy hamburger place did not want to lose the parking and refused to sell.
They took it to court and lost, but they did win in as far as the price they got for the land. they got 350,000 for about 6' x 20'.

quote:

Originally posted by TexasScrub:
Doing a little 'looking for a followup' and came across this ditty. Great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlOv9RK9mg

"I got the link, and it's bullshit."

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
We had two major cases of that around here.

A reservoir was built and the land was bought.
Years later they wanted to build another next to the first. They bought most of the land, but one farmer would not sell. The land had been in his family for over 100 years, it was his "familys'" land. Then when they told him they would just take it, they would not give him what he thought it was worth. They did it anyway.

Another case we had was where a huge local car dealer wanted the road made into 4 lanes. Wall Mart said they would build on that road if they changed it to 4 lanes.
A small but ultra busy hamburger place did not want to lose the parking and refused to sell.
They took it to court and lost, but they did win in as far as the price they got for the land. they got 350,000 for about 6' x 20'.

Not the same thing as the OP's story.

The OP's story is about a buried 7 foot diameter water line easement (i.e. owner retains ownership and above ground use of strip of property with pipeline easement) versus your stories of the government taking ownership of land.

How about a US Supreme Court unamious decision 9-0 AGAINST these same bunch of North Texas water grabbers? Hang on, I'll link.

This issue is bigger and longer running than you may already know.

For many years North Texas DFW Metroplex, and the Tarrant Water Board have wanted more water. I'm sure they need it. They do. They really do. I sympathize. I have family there. I visit. The DFW metroplex has grown so much, and is still growing, outstripping water resources. I understand this. However, you have to pay for it, or steal it and stealing is not working.

There IS water available for North Texas, but they don't want it. Basically, in a nutshell, there is a 4 state compact to share water from the Red River. Texas is part of this compact. Each State is allowed 25%, but by the time it gets there it's salty. It can be cleaned, purified, etc and used, but that costs money. Texas has this water available but didn't take it. They tried to interpret the Compact to go INTO Oklahoma for water and not FROM the Red River.

BTW Texas wanted 150 BILLION gallons PER DAY. Wow.

As I understand it, Texas has tried, or is trying, to get water from Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and the Country of Mexico.

I don't have time to do a lot of linking. You can google and read "US Supreme Court Texas vs Oklahoma Water" and read for hours.

This is a somewhat complicated subject, but in my opinion, if you want something, you must pay a fair market value to get it. Don't try to bully your way through. Perhaps water rates need to rise to promote conservation and reduce waste?

Here is one such article. I was searching for a fairly written article stating the facts, with no bias, this is the best I could find in my allotted time. I suggest you read more from a google search.
.......


Decision could impact multistate water compacts that are common throughout the West.

Oklahoma Texas water
(Photo: Patrick Dove AP)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Border war with Texas tested multistate water compacts
Justices assert states' rights.

WASHINGTON — With water, water virtually everywhere, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that thirsty Texas counties can't run a pipeline into Oklahoma for more drops to drink.

The decision, which upholds two lower court rulings, is a victory for states' rights over multistate water compacts that are common throughout the West. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

On one side of the dispute was Texas, accused of trying to divert water from Oklahoma under terms of a four-state compact that entitled each state to up to 25% of the water from a segment of the Red River. On the other was Oklahoma, asserting that Texas can get the water from within its borders or elsewhere.

"This is a major victory for Oklahoma, with all nine justices agreeing with our argument that Texas does not have the right to come into Oklahoma and take our water," Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said. "This unanimous decision will affect all western states governed by multistate water compacts."


The battle was being watched closely by other states with interstate compacts similar to the one the two states share with Arkansas and Louisiana. There are more than two dozen compacts nationwide, mostly in the West, and at least nine with similar provisions.

The battle is critical for nearly 2 million residents of the Dallas-Fort Worth area who get water from the Tarrant Regional Water District. The fast-growing area needs far more water than it has; it warns that if it goes dry, other areas reliant on such compacts could as well.

Under the 35-year-old compact, each of the four states is entitled to no more than 25% of the water. The dispute was over where they could go to get it. Because the main stem of the river is salty, tributaries such as the one in Oklahoma that enticed Texas are considered preferable.

The Lone Star State had lost in both lower federal courts, which ruled that Oklahoma can bar such water invasions. Texas contended that the four-state compact, approved by Congress, should trump state laws, and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed.

During oral argument in April, Lisa Blatt, the attorney representing Oklahoma, said Texas' claim was unprecedented. If granted, she said, it would produce "open season for Oklahoma water" and lead to a situation in which "every state could have crisscrossing pipelines into every state."

LINK

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OKCGene,

quote:

Originally posted by Aquabird:
We had two major cases of that around here.

A reservoir was built and the land was bought.
Years later they wanted to build another next to the first. They bought most of the land, but one farmer would not sell. The land had been in his family for over 100 years, it was his "familys'" land. Then when they told him they would just take it, they would not give him what he thought it was worth. They did it anyway.

“Just compensation” does not mean the government gives you what you want, or think the property is worth.

When the government starts condemnation, the land agents contact the owners of the needed property and try to negotiate an agreed sale. If necessary, suit is filed in emminent domain, a decree of taking is adjudicated, so to not delay the public use. While this is going on, the just compensation issue is dealt with. Appraisers prepare and exchange appraisals, negotiations continue, and finally if necessary a trial is held to set compensation. Each side brings their evidence, testimony, exhibits, etc. A judge decides. There can be appeals. This is what happens in CA where I was.

Each state may have variations on this.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
How about a US Supreme Court unamious decision 9-0 AGAINST these same bunch of North Texas water grabbers? Hang on, I'll link.

This issue is bigger and longer running than you may already know.

For many years North Texas DFW Metroplex, and the Tarrant Water Board have wanted more water. I'm sure they need it. They do. They really do. I sympathize. I have family there. I visit. The DFW metroplex has grown so much, and is still growing, outstripping water resources. I understand this. However, you have to pay for it, or steal it and stealing is not working.

There IS water available for North Texas, but they don't want it. Basically, in a nutshell, there is a 4 state compact to share water from the Red River. Texas is part of this compact. Each State is allowed 25%, but by the time it gets there it's salty. It can be cleaned, purified, etc and used, but that costs money. Texas has this water available but didn't take it. They tried to interpret the Compact to go INTO Oklahoma for water and not FROM the Red River.

BTW Texas wanted 150 BILLION gallons PER DAY. Wow.

As I understand it, Texas has tried, or is trying, to get water from Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and the County of Mexico.

I don't have time to do a lot of linking. You can google and read "US Supreme Court Texas vs Oklahoma Water" and read for hours.

This is a somewhat complicated subject, but in my opinion, if you want something, you must pay a fair market value to get it. Don't try to bully your way through. Perhaps water rates need to rise to promote conservation and reduce waste?

If what you're referencing is what I think, Texas cities were simply trying to get what was their due.

About 2000-2011, there was an exceptional drought-supposedly rivaling the drought of the early-mid '50s. Mexico and Texas are supposed to share the Rio Grande water from Falcon and Amistad reservoirs. If those names seem familiar, that where we have some of the DPS gunboats.

Anyway, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas states were in drought to various extents, also. The fuckers took far more than their fair share. They promised to repay. The kicker was, satellite imagery showed farther inland from the border, the rains were normal, and there were full reservoirs. Texas tried to get the federal government to intervene, to no avail. Irrigation companies couldn't sell to Rio Grande Valley farmers due to conserving water for the Valley cities, so the ag industry took a big hit.

After the drought broke ~2012, we got quite a bit of rain, to the extent of flooding. The Mexicans started "repaying" their arrears by not taking as much water. Truth is, there are some massive farms in Mexico exporting produce, and they wanted to insure the viability of these farms and have water for their citizens.

One Story About Mexican Water Debt From 2001

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I wonder what the dispute was over.

Here's the basics as of 2016. The case here doesn't resolve the dispute; it's more about timeliness of an action.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-...e-court/1737905.html

For those who want the "D" Magazine version from September 2016:

http://www.dmagazine.com/publi...tarrant-water-fight/

I would point out that a 150-foot wide easement covering over 11 acres on a corner of the developed property could actually create one hell of a lot of headaches (you can't really build or plant there, for example) and could potentially suck a lot of the value out of the property. From the sound of it, I'm willing to believe that $17,000 an acre for developed property in a major metropolitan area is contemptibly low - farmland in the Valley will sell for that.

OTOH, the owner got his own water district to counter this. OTOOH, this is a longstanding practice in Texas, and water district law in the state is specifically designed to make this an option.

For those wondering about different jurisdictions, this water district that the City of Dallas cut a deal with (not the district being run by the people Dallas is settling with) apparently crosses multiple county lines. It must be a sprawling district, though, to be headquartered in Tarrant County and be located southeast of Dallas.

All of which is swept from my mind in a flash by one thing - the insistence of the City that it's the landowner's fault that the City has spent millions in litigating this.

why not consider the fair cost to be whatever the costs incurred would be without the 'taking'

for example, if it was going to cost the municipality $3,000,000 to provide an alternate source of water if they didn't get their right of way, then the fair value of that land they want to take is $3,000,000

probably peanuts compared to the total cost of the entire project but consider it to be just another permit condition

much like the towns and cities do when they demand that you do off-site improvements and deed them immediately to the town or you don't get your building permits

She is the smug bureaucrat on whom I would love to slap off the scowl.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I wonder what the dispute was over.

Here's the basics as of 2016. The case here doesn't resolve the dispute; it's more about timeliness of an action.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-...e-court/1737905.html

I would point out that a 150-foot wide easement covering over 11 acres on a corner of the developed property could actually create one hell of a lot of headaches (you can't really build or plant there, for example) and could potentially suck a lot of the value out of the property. From the sound of it, I'm willing to believe that $17,000 an acre for developed property in a major metropolitan area is contemptibly low - farmland in the Valley will sell for that.

OTOH, the owner got his own water district to counter this. OTOOH, this is a longstanding practice in Texas, and water district law in the state is specifically designed to make this an option.

For those wondering about different jurisdictions, this water district that the City of Dallas cut a deal with (not the district being run by the people Dallas is settling with) apparently crosses multiple county lines. It must be a sprawling district, though, to be headquartered in Tarrant County and be located southeast of Dallas.

All of which is swept from my mind in a flash by one thing - the insistence of the City that it's the landowner's fault that the City has spent millions in litigating this.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

This ranch is not “developed property in a major metropolitan area,” but out either in the boomies or well on the way to the boonies, between Canton and Corsicana.

No telling what raw land values are, but not the same as developed property in a metro area.