quote:

It's not a one-sided transaction as both parties have to agree to the terms of the easement or you end up in court with an eminent domain case.

Ah, yes, but this was an attempt to exercise eminent domain. It failed (as all too rarely happens in Texas and elsewhere), but that was precisely what Tarrant was attempting to do.

I would also point out that Bennett seemed to be working on development rather than keeping a ranch intact. Pipes underground don't preclude, say, crops. Pipes underground running (as I read it) at an angle across the corner of developed property might allow the use of the surface as an amenity, but it precludes the use of land for water management or something that would be higher-value-added like a private home, a building that serves the development, or (most) commercial uses. Bennett had to surrender some options himself in order to defeat the attempt to put the pipes in, but at least he could exercise some choice as to what and where he assigned uses to the land.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

It's not a one-sided transaction as both parties have to agree to the terms of the easement or you end up in court with an eminent domain case.

Ah, yes, but this was an attempt to exercise eminent domain. It failed (as all too rarely happens in Texas and elsewhere), but that was precisely what Tarrant was attempting to do.

Your response makes zero sense. It was first an offer from a landman for an easement (i.e. my point that obtaining an easement is not a one sided transaction), but the offer was rejected and the courts were involved for condemnation via eminent domain.

From the link you posted:

quote:

The Water District offered the Lazy W $169,218 for the easement, and when the offer was rejected, petitioned for condemnation in the district court.

You also selectively quoted me and left out some of the possible reasons this was settled out of court.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Don't forget in the video both the c*nt and the councilman stated they would likely lose in court. Non-standard things like drilling wells on a water pipeline connecting a lake to DFW and asking for a permanent easement 3x wider than normal make it harder to win as it would not look like the water district negotiated in good faith.

In my oil & gas experience, landowners have become much more sophisticated (or at least have access to competent counsel) and sneaking in multiple line rights and fiber optic cable as part of an easement are a thing of the past.

Tarrant's plan (once the offer was rejected) was to exercise eminent domain. That plan failed, but that's what they were trying to do. The easement they would've exacted had they succeeded would have been considerably different from the easement they would have gotten had Bennett been willing to negotiate with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Tarrant's plan (once the offer was rejected) was to exercise eminent domain. That plan failed, but that's what they were trying to do.

The ranch is owned by a water district, a government entity. There is a question whether the property of a government entity can be taken by eminent domain.

Read the opinion Il Cattivo linked to. The rancher organized a water district, put the property in that.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Read the opinion Il Cattivo linked to. The rancher organized a water district, put the property in that.

I did. Lazy W also put a cemetery on there to make it harder for them to have a successful condemnation process.

In case you can't tell, people who work with me and/or for me have obtained thousands of acres of easements. Been waiting on land men to buy land or obtain oil & gas easements for over 20 years, and during that time I've read several hundred easements. I've also been on the receiving end of governments wanting to put roads and pipelines across our property (I'm an engineer & project manager so my involvement is costs, schedule, helping quantify risks of roads around our equipment, and relocate our equipment), and unfortunately I've also been involved with attorneys and land men to establish eminent domain and obtain property and easements via the condemnation process.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Tarrant's plan (once the offer was rejected) was to exercise eminent domain. That plan failed, but that's what they were trying to do. The easement they would've exacted had they succeeded would have been considerably different from the easement they would have gotten had Bennett been willing to negotiate with them.

I'm an engineer not an attorney so I don't care about the intricacies of the written language, but we're saying the same thing. I'm just saying it in plainer language spread out over multiple posts.

Land man approaches owner with a proposed easement, and if one or both sides is unreasonable it ends up in condemnation hearings in court based on eminent domain (the plaintiff has to actually establish eminent domain). Details are fuzzy if one or both parties were unreasonable at the negotiation phase for the easement, and then the water district went for the gusto (e.g. 3x normal width of permanent easement) with what they were requesting from the condemnation hearings. Landowner was no rube and mounted a sophisticated and expensive strategy (e.g. establishing cemetary, lobbying Austin, supporting candidates in Tarrant County and Dallas, etc). The water district blinked first and they settled out of court.