Bill would require permit approval prior to eminent domain talks

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony Jan. 30 on a bill that would address concerns about the eminent domain process used by companies for obtaining voluntary land use agreements.

LB152, introduced by Fullerton Sen. Annette Dubas, would require the condemner to have all necessary permits and approvals from involved agencies prior to beginning negotiations with the condemnee.

The bill also would require agencies to approve a present plan and public purpose prior to exercising eminent domain.

Dubas said her concern over eminent domain was sparked by TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is intended to carry crude oil from Canada to Gulf Coast oil refineries. Many landowners were “astonished” that a private foreign company could legally acquire their land, she said.

“The very nature of [eminent domain] creates angst and tugs at something we all hold very dear: our property rights,” she said. “This bill would ensure that individual landowners’ property rights are protected.”

Donna Roller, a landowner near the proposed Keystone pipeline route, testified in support of the bill, saying she witnessed “total disregard” for landowners’ property rights by certain corporations.

“I support this bill,” she said. “Our farms and our ranches are our heritage, our income and our future and we need legal protection.”

Gerald Vinduska, a farm owner near Gretna, also testified in support of the bill. It should be common sense that landowners are treated fairly, he said, but corporations have been unabiding.

“The citizen feels like he is fighting with a short stick when he is dealing with a corporation like TransCanada,” Vinduska said. “That is why this [bill] is needed so bad—so the citizens feel like they have equal footing.”

Ben Gotschall, a member of the Nebraska Easement Action Team, also testified in support, saying all permits should be in place before companies can legally threaten eminent domain.

“TransCanada owns easements against properties for a pipeline which they have never had a permit for,” he said. “If companies were required by law to accurately portray their purpose, landowners would not feel deprived and pressured to sign easements.”

Lee Hamann, Nebraska legal counsel for TransCanada, testified in opposition to the bill, saying the current process allows for public hearings and governmental oversight. The bill weakens original provisions put in place to protect landowners and diminishes the opportunity to educate landowners prior to signing easements, he said.

Union Pacific Assistant General Attorney Madeline Roebke opposed the bill, saying Union Pacific negotiates with landowners and rarely uses eminent domain. The bill would reduce early contact with landowners and limit Union Pacific’s ability to revise its plans based on landowner feedback, she said.

Furthermore, Roebke said, it is unclear how companies would proceed using eminent domain in instances in which a permit is not required.

Gary Krumland, assistant director for the League of Nebraska Municipalities, also testified in opposition to the bill, saying it would impact city projects eligible for federal funds. Such projects require that property be acquired prior to obtaining a permit, he said.

“There are some things that may interfere with what cities do for basic services that need to be addressed [in this bill],” he said.

The committee took no immediate action on LB152.