This would not be authorized.
Here's the latest in an issue that found new vitality after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cedar Point affirming that government-authorized physical entry to private property is presumptively a taking.
This is the "precondemnation entry" issue in eminent domain which several courts have addressed:
This is where a condemnor contemplates taking property and wants to get on site to check it out. Do things like surveys, examinations, tests, and sample-taking. Often, the owner of the property doesn't mind: pay me a bit for my trouble, indemnify me in the event someone gets injured, and you can have limited access to do your business and then go on your way, condemner. But sometimes, an owner says no.
In Betty Jean Strom Trust v. SCS Carbon Transport, No. 30317 (Aug. 21, 2024), SCS is planning a CO2 pipeline though South Dakota, and several owners said no to SCS's proposed precondemnation entries. The owners challenged the constitutionality of South Dakota's entry statute, and challenged SCS's power to take, alleging that it was not a common carrier with the delegated power of eminent domain. The trial court rejected these claims.
The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed. The court allowed some precondemnation entries, but held that anything beyond "minimally invasive superficial inspections that, at most, cause minor soil disturbances," would be unconstitutional. The court also concluded that it is premature to conclude that SCS is a common carrier and the property owners should have an opportunity to undertake discovery and make a record about whether "SCS is holding itself out to the general public as transporting a commodity for hire." Slip op. at 1.
The surveys SCS wanted to do involve these activities:
[¶8.] According to SCS, three different types of surveys would be conducted along the pipeline route. The most common would be “minimally invasive, nondestructive inquiries to assess the land . . . involv[ing] the use of ‘hand tools (e.g., spades, shovels, augers)’” that could result in “small soil disturbances at discrete locations.” The second type––geotech surveys—would “assess underlying soil and rock conditions and ‘utilize[] a track mounted drilling rig to create a small diameter hole into the soil to collect samples of subsurface soils and rocks.’” The small hole would be “backfilled with drill cuttings or with a cement/bentonite grout mixture.” However, SCS claims there would be “no impact to normal land use after drilling is complete and the hole is backfilled.”[¶9.] Finally, “deep dig” surveys would be necessary for properties located within a floodplain to search for archaeological sites of cultural significance. These “involve the use of a backhoe to dig trenches typically 7 to 10 feet in length, 2 to 3 feet in width, and 6 to 10 feet deep.” SCS committed that “[o]nce this deep testing survey work is completed, any trenches will be backfilled and the ground will be graded to near existing conditions.” For all three survey types, SCS assured landowners that resulting property damage would be repaired or reimbursed. To this end, SCS obtained a $1 million performance bond, which was later increased to $5 millionSlip op. at 4-5 (footnote omitted).
Check out pages 10-22 for the court's analysis of the factors that go into a determination whether a private entity is a common carrier which can exercise the delegated power of eminent domain, and how this is a fact issue. The court could have stopped there, because if SCS is not a common carrier it cannot exercise the power and enter anyone's land.
But the court viewed the allowable scope of entries as a "purely legal question[]," and decided to resolve the issue "to provide clarify and avoid protracted litigation on remand if SCS is determined to be a common carrier." Slip op. at 22. Good. We wish more courts were not anal-retentive and were willing to resolve such legal issues after full briefing, even if some other intervening action might possibly render a decision unnecessary. Id. ("Thus, we conclude a resolution of these issues will promote judicial efficiency, irrespective of the ultimate resolution of the common carrier issues on remand.").
To construe the statute, the court first applied the special rule of construction for eminent domain statutes: "eminent domain statutes are strictly construed in favor of the property owner." Slip op. at 24. Eminent domain proceedings "must be conducted in strict accordance with governing statutes." Slip op. at 25.
With that in mind, the court concluded that the terms "survey" and "examination" mean some kind of measurement of land and figuring out boundaries. This does not include soil sampling, or any activities that go beyond "innocuous" and "temporary" and which result in "minimal incidental damage, and little, if any, disturbance." Id.
As one court put it, the "right to enter private property for the purpose of examination and survey confers no license to engage in the process of conducting archaelogical digs." Id. (quoting Indiana State Highway Comm’n v. Ziliak, 428 N.E.2d 275, 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)). Indiana Jones, take note.
The court rejected all of SCS's arguments for a wider scope of activities. The court again relied on a canon of statutory construction, concluding that it should strive to avoid interpreting the statute in a way that would render it unconstitutional, and "SCS’s reading of the statute would authorize any number of invasive activities directly at odds with the owner’s right to possess their property." Slip op. at 26.
Here's the holding:
Instead, we conclude that “survey” and “examination,” in the context of SDCL 21-35-31, “cannot amount to other than such innocuous entry and superficial examination as would suffice for the making of surveys or maps and as would not in the nature of things seriously impinge upon or impair the rights of the owner to the use and enjoyment of his property[.]” Kane Cnty. v. Elmhurst Nat’l Bank, 443 N.E.2d 1149, 1154 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982). We will refer herein to such a minimally invasive inspection as a “standard survey.” Accordingly, we hold that the “geotech” and “deep dig” activities, involving heavy equipment for invasive drilling and digging, do not qualify as a “survey” or “examination.”
Slip op. at 26.
Having determined that the statute only allows relatively innocuous entries, the court asked whether this level of interference with the owners' property rights amounts to a South Dakota or a federal taking. The court held no. True, Cedar Point concludes that "many" government-authorized invasions are takings, but not those which are "consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights." Slip op. at 28.
The court first held that the entries are takings. Slip op. at 30. So the question is whether history and tradition demonstrates that excluding innocuous entries are or are not sticks in the owners' bundles of rights. There's a longstanding history of these things. Id. ("pre-condemnation 'standard surveys' are firmly established in the legal tradition of South Dakota in a variety of contexts."). The statute has been around for "at least a century." Id. True, enactment of the law does not automatically mean its a background principle (what we call the "no ipse dixiting rule"). But that must be tempered by a decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court a few years after the statute's adopting that held the statute wasn't a taking. That, and secondary sources such as treatises and Restatements concluded that minor intrusions are not takings.
Here's the holding:
[¶65.] We thus conclude that the right to conduct pre-condemnation surveys is a longstanding background restriction on property rights. However, the scope of such surveys is limited. Indeed, we must “pause” when the proposed survey activities contemplate “a more invasive impact on individual property rights.”
Slip op. at 32. The court also concluded that minor entries do not violate owners' rights under the South Dakota Constitution, even though state law recognizes greater property rights than the U.S. Constitution as long as owners can obtain a jury trial on any invasions that exceed the relatively innocuous entries allowed by the statute.
We expect more courts to address this issue as condemnors increasingly seem to be seeking even more intense entries and owners become even more willing to assert their rights and fight back. Stay tuned.
Betty Jean Strom Trust v. SCS Carbon Transport, LLC, No. 30317 (S.D. Aug. 21, 2024)
