In Colorado, the method of setting aside land so that there won’t be preservation of the floodplain hydrogeologics is raising havoc in North Fort Collin, Colorado.  The problem is one in which owners do not understand that if they totally develop the properties, the retention of waters may not occur.  If there is no retention of water, somewhere between their property and owners downstream, either in terms of water flow or simply because the “downstream” owners are at a lower land level, will face a severe flooding issue.  The water still flows downhill, and somewhere along the way, the flow must be limited to the agricultural rate or there will be a problem of flooding downstream.  Communities frequently preserve specific areas in order to protect flooding in downstream areas.  Without such protection, owners will have difficulty in obtaining flood insurance from the federal government.
    This is a tricky process, but the goal of most communities is to make sure that people within the community are safe and flood insurance is available.  

coloradoan.com

On Wednesday morning, those same business owners blasted City Council for considering a water board recommendation to prohibit building within the city's 100-year floodplain, including much of the property along North College Avenue.

Current standards allow for some building with the Poudre River's 100-year floodplain. A 100-year flood is defined as an event that has a 1 percent chance of happening in a given year.
It's very hypocritical that the city would spend millions of dollars to do all these plans to mitigate the floodplain, then turn around to take X number of acres from buildable inventory," said Greg Woods, chairman of the Citizens Advisory Group that helps advise the council on North Fort Collins development issues.

Woods likened it to eminent domain - the seizing of property by a government agency - but without compensation.

    When the City lawyer files a case against the City Council, people really get upset.  The question is “whether the City lawyer is acting as a lawyer for the city in all affairs?”  Does this abridge his rights to represent owners against agencies of the city?  Does information he received at the City Council meetings interfere with his activities?  Does he know what happens at closed sessions?  How divided are his activities?
    It is always a problem to handle cases against the community that you work for.  This is why so many eminent domain lawyers specializing in representation of owners fear representing governmental or utility acquisition agencies.  Unbiased valuation is such a vital aspect of proper client representation that any bias leaves one in fear of hurting other clients in the condemnation setting.

The Times Tribune

Any lawyer who works for a municipal government represents the taxpayers. It doesn't make any difference which agency or branch of the government the lawyer serves; the public and its tax-funded treasury are the common denominators.

So it should be pretty clear to Scranton City Council's lawyer, Boyd Hughes, that he has a choice to make.

Mr. Hughes recently filed a lawsuit against the city government and the Scranton Sewer Authority in behalf of Olde Good Things. The company contends that action by the city in the wake of a 2007 fire further damaged its property, while the city government contends that it's not at fault.

Mr. Hughes also has represented other parties against the city government, including in one active eminent domain case against the Scranton Redevelopment Authority.

City residents have the right to expect that the lawyers in their government's employ will work for that government rather than against it.

Mr. Hughes should decide whether he wishes to work for or against the city government's interests because he can't represent both. No lawyer should be in a position of suing a government while advising that government on policy decisions.

The Texas Eastern Transmission Company has notified residents and businesses in Arkansas that their pipeline representative is about to seek acquisition of their property.  This is being done prior to approval of the environmental assessment by FERC.  Licensing has not been granted.  The utilities are pushing their projects without environmental assessments in order to acquire as much land as possible, thereby signifying the importance and risk they have taken in the project.  You can only hope that the owners understand the seriousness of the easement they are granting.

In many areas along the Texas Eastern project, there is an already existing pipeline, which makes the environmental assessment application easier, but also makes the project potentially less safe.

tradingmarkets.com

If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition
of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled "An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?" is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.     

 

Craig Shields, Editor of 2GreenEnergy.com maintains a different outlook on the power transmission system.  The owners often worry about the harm to the personalized, farming or business operations.  

Mr. Shields insight is probably consistent with the majority in the country, although certainly not those facing the task of retaining a lawyer and fighting a condemnation proceeding. The real question is “By the time you are done with the geothermal, wind and sun, will the environmental costs and fees be as great as what we are using now?”  Without doubt, Mr. Shields would state the answer is “no”.  Others might respond differently.

renewableenergyworld.com

But let's look at the transmission issue on a national or continental scale. I know there are tons of smart people – including Bill McKibben and thousands of other authors – who look to individuals as the solution to the energy problem.  McKibben, for example, sees a future in which there is a "farmers’ market" of energy, where everyone is his own utility, putting his unused electrons back onto the grid.

While it’s hard to disagree with this, there is most definitely a matter of scale. With our growing population of energy-hungry consumers, utility-scale renewables appears to me to be the only way to get this done. Yet renewable resources are localized: the sun shines hottest in the southwestern deserts, the wind blows hardest in the plains, the mountains have the best geothermal resources, etc. And this is where the transmission issue comes in.

    The property owners in Nebraska face an aggressive acquisition utility in Keystone.  The questions raised by the linked article from the Lincoln Journal Star are multiple.
    First, should Keystone start acquiring “within thirty days”, prior to obtaining permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and any other necessary licensing authorities?
    Second, does Keystone understand the effect it may have on the environment in Nebraska?
    Third, do the owners understand they should not expect a million dollars unless there is a million dollars worth of damages?  Just compensation is not a gift but a constitutional right premised upon fairness.
    These issues will play out in an area which has not faced a large number of eminent domain proceedings.  Fortunately, for these property owners, they have a reasonably fair judicial process and outstanding condemnation lawyers in the area such as William Blake in Lincoln, to help them through the fight.

Journalstar.com

"It's gone beyond that," she said of the proximity of family property to the pipeline TransCanada wants to bury from Keya Paha County on through the York area to Jefferson County and beyond. "It's not just that it's in my pasture."

Nonetheless, pipeline matters take on greater urgency for the Condons and others who got letters from TransCanada about July 21. That's because the 30-day timetable cited in the letter before land condemnation proceedings begin is about to expire.

"While we hope to acquire this property through negotiation," said the certified letter sent to Shirley Condon, "if we are unable to do so, we will be forced to invoke the power of eminent domain and will initiate condemnation proceedings against this property promptly after the expiration of this one-month period."

As steadfast pipeline proponents and opponents know so well, Keystone XL is the $7 billion follow-up to the initial Keystone line that began carrying oil shale southward from the tar sands of Alberta this year.

Keystone XL is not a done deal. Among the key hurdles yet to be cleared are approval of the environmental impact statement and issuing of the federal permit TransCanada needs from the U.S. State Department.