Is Eminent Domain destroying Texas valuable landscapes?
Eminent domain is exercisable in Texas, but its legal framework is such that abuses have become more common. Slowly but surely, private property rights notions are degrading. What’s also getting destroyed by the abuse of eminent domain is the natural landscapes and resources that provide supplies to rapidly growing metropolitan areas, like San Antonio and Austin. Private companies are being allowed to take land for economic development, and infrastructure and utility projects are rampantly running across permanently conserved lands. Should this continue, Texas risks losing irreplaceable landscapes.
Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) have unfortunately been one of the greatest abusers of eminent domain. They have sprouted up across Texan rural and suburban areas and have been using eminent domain to take adjacent lands for various purposes, instead of using their own property. MUDs have been using adjacent agricultural lands to dump sewage and pump groundwater without any limitations. MUDs are often defined as political subdivisions, but they seem to be serving the private developers purpose as they are often being used to avoid legal barriers when subdivision building.
It’s vital that people are aware of this and start acting in order to stop the eminent domain abuse that is happening in our state. Three steps that can be taken are excepting conservation easements from eminent domain, removing economic development from the list of reasons where eminent domain can be enforced and reforming the qualifications of which entities can enforce eminent domain. By limiting the type of entity that can use this process, it would be a great improvement into lowering the abuse of eminent domain. The responsibility of this process should be limited to democratically elected government representatives which are accountable towards their constituents.
The Case in favor of Eminent Domain
An argument in favour of exercising eminent domain when talking about economic development and transportation is that private companies are in charge of the costs for this projects, and they are not being financed by the taxpayers. For example, this argument was used when referring to the SH 130 toll road project. This part of the highway was built by a private company, and its receiving part of the toll revenues as part of their repayment. However, the revenues have not been as projected, and now that company is facing bankruptcy. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if it’s really better for the taxpayers for billions of dollars to be spent when there is a bankruptcy outcome.
A possible source of eminent domain abuse
The case of Kelo v. City of New London was a pivotal moment for eminent domain law. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold a decision to take private property for private economic development. Previously, eminent domain could be exercised when the land was to be meant for public use. However, the Supreme Court reworded public use to public purpose, which meant that this decision changed the way that private property was protected in Texas. This new change meant that the exercise of eminent domain could now be used for a much broader area of developments. Instead of it just being for utilities, transportation and pipelines, eminent domain could now be used to construct stadiums, arenas, schools, hospitals and public parks. This new definition puts a lot of private property at risk.
In conclusion, Texas’ future and landscapes are at risk, as eminent domain is now being used recklessly and irresponsibly under the guise of growth and progress.
