Here's the latest case involving the TransCanada pipeline, a 2,151 mile petroleum pipline from Hardisty, Alberta in Canada, to Port Arthur, Texas, via Illinois and Oklahoma. In an earlier case (Rhinoceros Ventures Grp., Inc. v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., 388 S.W.3d 405, 408 (Tex. App. 2012), a Texas court of appeals held that the statute delegating eminent domain power to pipeline companies did not limit that delegation only to those operating within Texas. The court rejected the property owner's argument that TransCanada was without power to take its property. See also this ruling by another Texas court of appeals (Ninth District) which also upheld TransCanada's power to take property by eminent domain even though it is not a governmental agency.
Another court of appeals has joined them. In Crawford Family Farm P'ship v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., No. 06-12-00113-CV (Aug. 27, 2013), the Sixth District, echoed those rulings. When TransCanada sought to condemn a part of the Crawford farm, the family objected, arguing that it did not qualify as a common carrier which has been delegated the power of eminent domain because Texas law grants the power only to intrastate pipelines, and the TransCanada pipline spans several states. But as in the Rhinoceros Ventures case, the court held that the pipeline company was a common carrier, and could take the property because the statute does not indicate that the legislative grant of power to pipeline companies was limited to those operating only within Texas.
Crawford Family Farm Partnership v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., No 06-12-00113-CV (Tex. App. Aug....
