News

Fort Worth Weekly

Jeff Prince

Cows grudgingly rise from mid-morning naps as Billy Mitchell’s Ford F-250 jostles down a dirt road past the oak trees he climbed as a kid. The oaks are massive, some with trunks as wide as his pickup. His parents bought this parcel of land 40 years ago, back when he was 9. The Trinity River runs deep and wide through his 70 acres near Aledo, with a large pasture and a 130-year-old farmhouse that still provides solid shelter. The place is special, and his voice sounds hurt and his face turns red as he talks about how a gas company used eminent domain laws to cut a 25-foot swath across the middle of his property to bury a pipeline, touching off a two-year battle that cost him about $100,000 in legal fees.

“I’m devastated,” he said. “It’s un-American. Private companies shouldn’t be able to take land by eminent domain just so they can make more money for themselves. It makes me sick.”

Mitchell wanted his day in court but agreed to a settlement, citing escalating legal costs and aggressive tactics used by the gas company. Feeling cheated and bullied, the Fort Worth native rented a billboard alongside I-30 near Hulen Street for the entire month of August. Emblazoned in large red letters against a white background, his message was clearly seen by thousands of passing motorists: “Eminent Domain — Stealing What Others Work For.” The billboard lists his name and residence but not his phone number. Still, dozens of people have tracked down his number and called to thank him for pointing out the unfairness of eminent domain.

“These are people facing different issues than gas pipelines — Trinity River development, the Trans-Texas corridor, a lot of different issues — but they still call,” he said.

Cities have long had the ability to take land to build airports, roadways, utility easements, lakes, railroads — even mall parking lots. And they’ve reaped unexpected benefits. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is raking in many millions of dollars from mineral rights that were acquired by the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas in the 1960s and 1970s using eminent domain and the threat of it.

Nowadays, people are getting smarter. They’re playing hardball with developers, natural gas drillers, and city officials who typically want to pay as little as possible when seizing land. They’re encouraging state legislators to make it harder for cities and counties to take land for private commercial development. They’re educating themselves, joining forces, and hiring specialty lawyers.

The first time Jim Vreeland faced eminent domain was in the late 1990s when he learned that his warehouse on Vickery Street was in the path of the planned Southwest Parkway. Knowing the city had a legal right to take his land prompted Vreeland to sell without much of a whimper. He wasn’t angry; he viewed the parkway as a legitimate public works project. He and the city settled on a price amicably. By then, he had purchased a new office building in an industrial district just north of downtown. But before long, he was in the way of another planned project — Trinity River Vision, with its river channel and a small lake expected to create a demand for condos and retail near downtown. City officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers call it flood control, but it doesn’t take a genius to see it’s actually a private economic development project relying on eminent domain powers to obtain land. This time around, Vreeland isn’t as willing to hand over his property without a fight.

“I bought this property under the shade of the Fort Worth skyline for a reason,” he said. “I bought this as an investment. Now somebody else wants to take this and they will realize the increase in value.”

Municipalities have a huge advantage in these types of land seizures. Besides favorable federal, state, and local laws, they also rely on legal help paid for by taxpayers.

“Usually that kind of entity will have better lawyers than the individual landowners,” said Bob Lukeman, another business owner whose property is in the way of the Trinity River Vision.

Even when governments and utilities don’t actually condemn property through eminent domain, it remains a powerful tool for scaring property owners into accepting what they often characterize as low-ball offers. The vast land purchases that made way for D/FW Airport effectively pitted city officials, experienced landmen, and savvy lawyers against hundreds of rural property owners who might not have realized they were signing away mineral rights when they sold out. The cities of Fort Worth and Dallas used the threat of eminent domain or actual condemnation to force land sales, acquiring 16,950 acres between the late 1960s and 1975. Obviously, the airport is a legitimate public works project that has been a long-term economic engine for North Texas, but the cities went beyond taking surface rights. They obtained mineral rights as well by inserting the words “fee simple” into the deeds, a legal phrase that refers to absolute ownership of real property, including minerals.

“None of these documents are going to have a separate listing of mineral rights, none are going to specify that separately because ‘fee simple’ means everything,” D/FW Airport legal counsel Paul Tomme said.

Technology that has made horizontal drilling possible and created the local natural gas boom in the Barnett Shale formation wasn’t around back when the airport land was being acquired. Fair market value was based on surface land values. While it’s doubtful either side anticipated the gold mine that mineral rights and natural gas would one day represent, the cities were smart enough to sweep them up anyway — a move expected to pay off hugely in coming years. When Chesapeake Energy Corporation paid $185 million and promised 25 percent of gas royalties to drill at the airport last year, none of the original property owners shared in the sudden wealth.

George G. Wilkes was Fort Worth’s land manager back then and was responsible for overseeing crews that approached landowners with offers. He retired 20 years ago but still recalls knocking on doors and negotiating with landowners. Few were happy about being ousted for an airport.

“Three out of four didn’t invite us in eagerly,” he said. “There weren’t any really large landowners as I recall. About 15 or 20 acres was the norm, mostly small rural farms.”

Few people back then mentioned mineral rights or asked that the potential worth of minerals be included in the fair market appraisals on which payments were based.

“I daresay, nine out of 10 people wouldn’t even know what you were talking about with mineral rights,” he said.

Morris Matson was assistant city manager during that time. He processed paperwork and attended eminent domain trials when landowners and the cities couldn’t agree on fair market value. Many landowners felt ripped off, but Matson doesn’t recall any of them insisting on keeping their mineral rights. Looking back, he questions whether the city had a real moral basis for taking the subsurface ownership.

“How could you say that condemning mineral rights that are thousands of feet under the ground was necessary to build an airport?” he said. “In my opinion, we had no moral right to condemn those minerals without making sure the landowners were told that we were taking the minerals.”

Grapevine Mayor William D. Tate, an attorney, represented about 20 property owners in the airport land grab and doesn’t recall any of them seeking to keep mineral rights. After all, there were no gas leases, no mining, and no oilfields out there. Still, when the state highway department took land for highways, that agency didn’t seek mineral rights, he recalled.

“Whoever gave up the right of way for the highways still [owns] the minerals under it,” he said.

Those who lost mineral rights might be upset, but he doubts any of them could win them back in a court case.

“It seems very unfair now,” he said. But, “It would be a tough battle 30 years later.”

Lawyers could have a field day battling these issues in court, but most of the time the government wins. Property owners sued the city of Austin and the Lower Colorado River Authority after their land was taken in 1975 to make way for an electric generating plant. Six years later, the city and river authority leased the mineral rights to oil and gas drillers. The property owners sued the municipalities for fraud and misrepresentation, saying they weren’t told of the potential value of the minerals, and claiming the city lied about its right to take the minerals. The Texas Court of Appeals overruled, citing a two-year statute of limitations on suits for fraud damages.

In another landmark case dating back to 1929, the city of Abilene used eminent domain to condemn 56 acres belonging to I.N. and Elma Jackson, to make way for an airport. Many years later, the city abandoned the airport. Elma Jackson later appealed the condemnation, saying the city had no right to fee-simple title under condemnation, but in 1955, the state Court of Civil Appeals ruled in Abilene’s favor.

Much more recently, former landowners in Kentucky sued the federal government on similar charges. They were awarded $32.5 million in 2005, although they haven’t collected any money and the case continues to work its way through the judicial system.

“Right now it’s in a stalemate,” said William T. Griggs of Morganfield, Ky., whose family’s 250-acre farm was taken for a military base during World War II but was later mined for coal.

Griggs was 18 when his family was forced from their farm. Now he’s 83 and one of a number of neighbors who filed the class-action suit, saying they weren’t told they were giving up their mineral rights and shouldn’t have had them taken from them.

“My folks asked them about the mineral rights and they [federal officials] said, ‘We’re not interested in the mineral rights,’” Griggs said.

Those mineral rights bagged the government about $35 million for oil and coal leases.

“You want to think your government will treat you right, but the government will cheat you just as quick as anybody I know of,” he said. “I was in World War II and gave three of the prime years of my life and put my life on the line for this country, and I’d do it again, but it makes you bitter when you realize that they done us like they done us.”

A court dismissed the lawsuit in the 1960s. But they were granted a hearing in a federal claims court decades later. In 2005, Judge Susan Braden awarded them $32.5 million in a preliminary ruling. She encouraged both sides to settle and installed former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to mediate. Those talks have since broken down.

“Our lawyer just said they didn’t have any news for us and as soon as they did, they’d tell us what was going on,” Griggs said. “I’m just as in the dark as you are.”

Fort Worth probably wouldn’t have secured any mineral rights at the airport if the land were being purchased today. Nowadays, owners know better than to give up mineral rights for nothing. Lawsuits in the 1970s and 1980s contested the government’s right to take mineral rights through eminent domain, and municipalities now focus mostly on surface rights, said John Baen, a University of North Texas real estate professor and condemnation expert. Contracts must spell out whether mineral rights are being taken, and, when the subsurface rights are taken, municipalities must pay the fair market value.

Property owners in the path of the Trinity River Vision or the Southwest Parkway will enjoy any profits from the current natural gas boom because they now know to retain their mineral leases. City officials have said they are not seeking mineral rights when buying land for either of those projects, and state officials said the same about land required for the Trans-Texas Corridor, a planned tollway across the state.

These days, when gas drillers or city officials start eying their communities, Fort Worth property owners start holding meetings, discussing options, and forming coalitions. Many of the 95 property owners in the path of the Trinity River Vision have collectively hired Corsicana-based attorney Glen Sodd, who specializes in eminent domain issues and oil and gas law.

“Property owners will drive a harder bargain for themselves based on this knowledge,” Lukeman said. “There is now a track record of what these minerals will yield, and if somebody is going to purchase by force a certain amount of property, they must buy those minerals if the property owner is wise enough to insist on that.”

In many ways the system is set up for the governments and utilities to beat out the little guys. At least for now. But change is looming.

A 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 angered many people who consider private property rights to be sacred. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against gratuitous governmental interference says property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The dispute lies in determining what constitutes “public use” and “just compensation.” Kelo vs. City of New London made it clear that at least five Supreme Court justices didn’t view property rights as sacrosanct.

In that decision, the Supreme Court majority ruled that a government can take property and bulldoze homes and buildings to make way for private economic development. Their reasoning: If the new development results in larger tax bases and more jobs, then it’s for the public good. A majority of Americans have some questions about the fairness of taking someone’s property to build a mall that might or might not succeed.

The decision outraged many, and O’Connor, who was on the Supreme Court but voted in the minority, warned that the ruling bowed to the influential and would embolden local governments to seize land to make way for pet projects. (Arlingtonians, say hello to the Dallas Cowboys.) Justice Clarence Thomas predicted the decision would most affect poor communities and the politically powerless.

“Before the Supreme Court decision, cities already regularly abused the power of eminent domain,” Dana Berliner wrote in Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse in the post-Kelo World. The report was compiled in June 2006 for the Institute of Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm based in Arlington, Va. “But Kelo has indeed become the green light that Justice O’Connor and Justice Thomas warned of in their dissents.”

On the other hand, the decision created a groundswell of opposition that in some cases has led to states passing measures to rein in abuses. Some states already forbid using eminent domain for private development unless it eliminates blight. Texas ain’t one of ’em, as Gov. Rick Perry proved earlier this year when he vetoed a bill designed to give more protections to landowners.

Perry vetoed the bill (HB 2006) after an amendment was added that city and county officials said would increase the cost of acquiring land for roads and highways by at least a billion dollars a year and open the door for condemnation lawyers to file suits — at taxpayers’ expense — for diminished access to properties. “We supported the bill up until an amendment got put in that … could have halted any kind of urban expansion in its tracks,” the governor’s spokesman, Robert Black, said. “Every major city in the state came out and begged us to veto it.”

The amendment was added late in the session, and Perry warned legislators that he didn’t support it. However, the bill’s author, State Rep. Beverly Woolley, a Republican from Houston, wouldn’t remove it, telling a Houston reporter there wasn’t enough time left in the session to change the wording.

Many lawmakers, including State Rep. Phil King, a Weatherford Republican, liked the bill and said it made eminent domain more equitable for property owners.”If that’s what their property is worth, that’s what the government should be paying,” King said. “The government is not supposed to get a discount on these deals.”

Legislators will pass an eminent domain bill next session, he predicted.

“Property rights are one of the most fundamental elements of our way of life, and if the government is going to take property away from you against your will, they better have a really good reason for doing it, a very important matter for the whole public, and they better pay you what it’s really worth,” King said. “As a general rule neither of those things is required [currently].”

Case in point: Billy Mitchell’s fight against Empire Pipeline Corporation.

Mitchell is the Fort Worth native whose acreage near Aledo includes the 70 acres pinpointed by a natural gas driller as an ideal spot to bury a gas pipeline. Mitchell is not anti-drilling. He’s leased his property to drillers, currently has two working gas wells on his property, and has enjoyed the revenues. But a drilling company that had leased his mineral rights in turn leased them to Empire, a company based in Lebanon, Mo. Pipeline companies have eminent domain powers, and Empire decided to cut a swath across the middle of his property. The company offered Mitchell $17,000 for the easement, which Mitchell thought was but a fraction of the worth of the damages he’d be enduring. But he quickly realized that a large company with a staff of lawyers, unlimited resources, and eminent domain powers is pretty near unbeatable.

Empire condemned more land than was necessary, Mitchell said, and then refused to let him build an improved road across the pipeline, effectively cutting him off from half of his property. “They used the tactic of denying me access to half of my property as a negotiating tool to get my land at a cheap price,” he said.

He accused the pipeline workers of purposely leaving his gates open to let his cows loose on public roads. He accused company lawyers of using delaying tactics to run up his legal costs. After two years of wrangling, Mitchell gave up and agreed to a settlement — $117,000. When his lawyers had been paid, however, Mitchell ended up with only $17,000 — Empire’s original offer. Worst of all, he said, the whole ordeal could have been prevented if Empire had simply transported its gas through nearby pipelines owned by other companies. State law allows pipeline companies to use eminent domain to build new pipelines rather than sharing existing lines owned by other companies. Why? To maximize profits for each company, regardless of the inefficiency of running numerous pipelines for the same purpose.

“If landowners had the same powerful lobbyists that pipeline and oil companies do, they would get legislation passed to makes these companies share pipelines,” said Sodd, who represents not only landowners affected by the Trinity River Vision but also those in the path of the Dallas Cowboys stadium, and numerous others who have complained of being gouged by gas drillers and pipeline companies. “It would be cheaper for the companies to all share one pipeline, but they don’t trust each other, and nobody is requiring them to be efficient in the number of pipelines they use.”

Mitchell encouraged Empire to use existing lines or at least bury its new lines in an existing easement. No deal.

“They wanted to blaze a new trail right across my property,” he said. “And they wanted to use me to show other people what happens if you fight them. If we hadn’t have settled, I would have been in bankruptcy.”

Empire officials did not return calls for comment on this story.

New versions of Mitchell’s nightmare are being played out in courts every day. The system is set up to favor the rich, in part, Sodd said, because legal costs and out-of-pocket expenses are not recoverable in condemnation cases.

“It’s hard for most people to go through these fights,” he said. “They are long, drawn out, difficult, and expensive. As a result it’s difficult on people when they receive unfair offers.”

For example, say a company wants to put a pipeline across your property, uses eminent domain to get access, and then offers you a low-ball price of $5,000 for the easement but no revenue from the pipeline. That leaves you two options: Take the offer or go to trial. A trial means spending thousands of dollars on attorneys, appraisers, depositions, and any number of legal necessities. In trial, a jury rules in your favor and you’re awarded $50,000 — 10 times the original offer. But you’ve spent $100,000 in legal fees, meaning you end up $50,000 in the hole — even though you won your case in court.

Sodd has represented property owners in similar cases for the past 35 years and frequently sees government entities make low offers to landowners, even though the law requires paying fair market value. Arlington wanted Evelyn Wray’s house and prime frontage property on Randol Mill Road for the Cowboys stadium, five acres that had been in her family for years. The city threatened eminent domain and offered $375,000, the approximate value based on Tarrant Appraisal District records but far short of its commercial potential. The elderly Wray rejected the offer, hired Sodd, and eventually settled for $2.75 million. But lawsuits involving many other Arlington property owners with smaller parcels are still pending.

“People are expressing those frustrations to legislators,” the attorney said.

That’s no guarantee of change. The state is one of the primary condemners of property, and getting legislators to pass laws making it more difficult for counties, cities, and the state’s own agencies to grab land hasn’t been easy. This year’s session was a landmark in that sense, although reforms ultimately fizzled under Perry’s veto.

“It would make it too expensive for his pet project, the Trans-Texas Corridor,” Sodd said. “Rick Perry is the landowners’ worst enemy in Texas. Rick Perry thinks its OK to cheat landowners and offer them low prices.”

Sodd can’t predict whether reactions over Perry’s veto and local issues such as Trinity River Vision will prompt further legislative pressure. But change seems as likely now as at any time in his long career. “It’s become much more of an issue in the past five years, and the Kelo decision really outraged people,” he said. “Now it’s become a political issue.”

Wise County Messenger

Brandon Evans

In an attempt to encourage religious expression at public schools, the Texas Legislature passed a new law this year called the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act (RVAA).

Districts throughout the state have scrambled to implement the new law before the school year begins.

“Most school districts do the right thing and let kids exercise their religious freedoms and have prayer meetings,” said State Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford). “But some schools have had the ACLU and other left-wing groups protest such events. This law creates a safe harbor that protects school districts against lawsuits.”

The law requires all school districts to adopt a policy by Sept. 1 that roughly follows the state edict. RVAA is not simple to apply, according to the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB).

“This is not a blanket one-size-fits-all law,” said Barbara Williams, TASB spokesperson. “Districts will all draft their own versions based on the guidelines.

“We’ve been encouraging districts to consult with their attorneys to find a policy that is best for their district.”

TASB created a model for districts to use. Decatur ISD superintendent Gerard Gindt said his district has adopted the TASB model.

According to the policy, the “District shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular viewpoint… and shall not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint.”

The policy allows a student to use “his or her own words” when given a “limited forum” at pep rallies, class officer elections and student council elections.

Gindt said the new policy will probably have little effect on the district. It will only change things at the middle and high school level.

High school Principal Melinda Reeves said the policy will work by giving students two times to volunteer each year. Those volunteers will then be allowed to give introductory speeches at events such as pep rallies. Time limits will apply, holding students to about 30 seconds for their unscripted public forum.

Reeves said this law is different because it allows unscripted speech to occur. In the past, school administrators have always reviewed what the students will say.

Football games already include a moment of silence. Also, when students organize graduation ceremonies, they have sometimes chosen to invoke religion.

The policy does put some limits on student speech however. First, the public forum volunteers must be in one of the two highest grade levels at the school and cannot be under any current disciplinary measures. Also, the speech can’t include language that is obscene, lewd or vulgar; would result in “substantial interference” with the school activity; violates the “property rights, privacy rights, or other rights” of someone; contains defamatory statements; or advocates lawless action.

The law also says students can use religious expression in class assignments and can organize prayer groups and religious clubs before, during and after school and will be given the same access to student facilities as other noncurricular groups.

These are also of little change to the district, Gindt said.

“We’ve allowed students to have ‘prayer around the pole’ here and it has never been an issue before,” Gindt said.

Gindt said the law basically sprang up from a district several years ago that forbade a child to hand out candy canes.

In 2004, Jonathan Morgan, an elementary school student in Plano, tried to hand out pens in the shape of candy canes. The pens also included an explanation of their Christian symbolism. Plano ISD officials said it was against district policy. A lawsuit then followed against the district from several parents.

Gindt said the RVAA “will probably be refined over time as individual cases are interpreted.”

Weatherford Democrat

Danie M. Huffman

Responding to certain calls can be difficult if officers do not have the right mode of transportation.

For example, it’s hard to take a patrol unit up or down a hill sloped to a steep grade. Missing persons calls, search and rescues or foot pursuits can be dangerous, if not deadly, without the right equipment.

Weatherford Police will be able to respond with more ease after the recent purchase of an all-terrain vehicle.

A press release stated the department adopted the philosophy of Community Oriented Policing (COPS).

The concept was implemented to send officers into the community to become more familiar with residents in an effort to address the problems they may be experiencing in their neighborhoods and help ensure a safer community.

Weatherford Police Capt. Greg Lance said the concept of COPS is understanding citizens are the eyes and ears of the department to detect and deter crime.

As a result, and to help in their endeavor, the department purchased a Polaris 4WD all-terrain vehicle using funds from seized assets in criminal cases.

“[It] will assist in [an] effort to become closer to our citizens,” Lance said. “We have found in the past, officers driving in a traditional marked patrol car tend to be somewhat isolated from the community they are patrolling. This all-terrain vehicle will allow officers to be more readily accessible to the citizens in the local neighborhoods.”

Lance said the department encourages residents who see officers on the ATV to feel comfortable in approaching them with concern about their community.

Weatherford Police Chief Jerry Blaisdell approached State Representative Phil King several years ago with the proposal of purchasing ATVs, stating they could be driven on public roadways by law enforcement personnel.

King sponsored the bill, which was enacted into law giving police agencies an additional tool to fight and deter crime.

The ATV will be used for patrolling neighborhoods and during community events like the Peach Festival, Christmas on the Square, child and adult search and rescues, missing persons, fugitive apprehensions and weather-related disasters.

“It is very rewarding when we can take money from a drug dealer and use it to reduce crime and make this community a safer place to live,” Lance said.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Aman Batheja

If smokers won’t put out their cigarettes, a new state law will do it for them.

Starting in 2009, all cigarettes sold in Texas will have to meet “fire-safe” standards requiring them to extinguish themselves in most cases if dropped or set aside.

Cigarettes are the top cause of fatal home fires in the United States. In 2002, lighted tobacco products caused an estimated 14,450 residential fires, 520 deaths, 1,330 injuries and $371 million in residential property damage, according to the U.S. Fire Administration.

The change could lead to fewer cigarette-related fire deaths in Texas, but critics, primarily tobacco companies, say it isn’t as dramatic as supporters say and could be dangerous.

Here’s the lowdown on the upcoming change:

What makes a cigarette fire-safe?

Such cigarettes are wrapped in two or three pieces of ultrathin banded paper, which makes them more likely to go out if not smoked for a few minutes.

When does this go into effect?

The new state law takes effect Jan. 1, 2009. Retailers will have to sell any leftover stock that isn’t fire-safe by Jan. 1, 2010. The original version of the bill required it to take effect in September this year. The date was pushed back 15 months because of concerns of tobacco manufacturers that three months wasn’t enough time to make the switch.

Will this increase the cost of cigarettes in Texas?

No. Cigarette makers say the price will stay the same even though making them fire-safe will increase manufacturing costs. Philip Morris spokesman Bill Phelps said that in other states a few brands with low sales were discontinued after the fire-safe mandate went into effect, but he couldn’t say whether that could happen in Texas.

Will this change cigarettes any other way?

Most smokers shouldn’t notice any difference. There have been some anecdotal complaints from smokers in other states that fire-safe cigarettes occasionally self-extinguish while they are being smoked.

How did this law come to Texas?

The bill was sponsored by state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford. It had the support of the State Firemen’s and Fire Marshals’ Association of Texas, the Texas Fire Chiefs Association and the International Association of Arson Investigators.

What does the opposition say?

Tobacco makers say calling any burning material “fire-safe” is misleading and could lead to carelessness on the part of cigarette smokers. Some prefer “reduced ignition propensity” cigarettes (yes, RIP cigarettes). Manufacturers have also said they would prefer a national law over state laws so they could manufacture the same cigarettes for every market.

What have other states done?

In 2004, New York became the first state to require fire-safe cigarettes, and Vermont soon followed suit. A few others, including California, New Hampshire and Illinois, have passed laws requiring fire-safe cigarettes at future dates.

Weatherford Democrat

Special to the Democrat

Parker County Judge Mark Riley has been notified by state officials that Parker County has been included in a Federal Disaster Declaration, in regards to the recent flooding event.

State Disaster Recovery officials along with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials moved into Parker County Wednesday to set up offices and begin assisting those individuals in the Horseshoe Bend and Rio Brazos areas affected by the floods.

“I want to thank Senators John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Congresswoman Kay Granger for the active roles they played in urging President Bush to include Parker County in the federal disaster declaration, it helped tremendously and we are grateful” Riley said. “I also want to thank State Representative Phil King and State Senator Craig Estes for their assistance. This declaration will be a tremendous help for those Parker County residents along the Brazos River affected by this flooding event.”

Both Cornyn and Granger said they were pleased to hear the news and said they would continue to work in assisting Parker County.

“There is still a lot of work remaining to help Texas communities recover from the flooding in recent weeks. This week’s update to the disaster declaration will provide Parker County and other parts of the state much needed relief,” Cornyn said. “I’ll continue working with the Texas Congressional delegation and Parker County officials to press for further federal funding and cut bureaucratic red tape, ensuring assistance will be delivered in a timely manner.”

Granger said she wished the best to those affected.

“I’m pleased that the Administration made the decision to include Parker County in the Federal Disaster Declaration and am proud to have played a role in having the assistance granted,” Granger said. “As the recovery effort continues, I will do all I can to assure that the individuals who have been directly affected receive the help they need to get back on their feet.”

The Federal Stafford Act makes Texans in counties declared a federal disaster whose homes and property were damaged or destroyed by the floods, eligible to receive individual assistance.

Individual Assistance programs, which helps individuals and families who are not covered by insurance, includes financial assistance, temporary housing, tax relief, legal services, crisis counseling and Disaster Unemployment Assistance.

FEMA has set up a tele-registration line at (800) 621-3362 for individuals in need of assistance to call. FEMA will also be in the affected areas placing flyers on the doors of homes with their contact information and is looking to set up a Disaster Recovery Center in Parker County.

Contact Information:
(817)596-8100

Austin – State Representative Phil King (R-Weatherford) heralds significant religious freedom bills that were adopted during the recent legislative session, given the small amount of attention received by the new religious liberty laws.

House Bill 1034, co-authored by Phil King, adds the words, “under God” to the Texas Pledge. The new pledge reads, “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.”

Declaration of Independence signer Dr. Benjamin Rush advocated for the first free public schools in our nation saying, “If you remove the Bible from our classrooms, there would be an explosion of crime.” Echoing this principle, King explains that House Bill 1287 appropriately puts the Bible back into our Texas classrooms. The bill strengthens our shared, traditional Texas values by allowing an elective course on the Bible to be offered in Texas public schools.

A third bill, co-authored by King, House Bill 3678 allows students to voluntarily express religious viewpoints in public schools. The bill ensures that students may add their religious views to art, literature, science, and other subjects of discussion that previously excluded such free expression.

“These three new laws,” King said, “are great victories for religious freedom in Texas.”

Weatherford Democrat

Christin Coyne

Governor Rick Perry vetoed $154 million in health insurance appropriations for faculty and staff of community colleges in a line item veto in the state budget last Friday.

All 50 Texas community colleges will lose employee health insurance funding in 2009, though they will receive funding in 2008.

Weatherford College President Joe Birmingham said the veto means Weatherford College will not be receiving approximately $1.4 million in state funding it had been expecting.

The college now faces an overall decrease in state funding for the 2009 fiscal year when it had been expecting an increase of 3.4 percent over current funding.

A rider in the budget states that employees paid by school revenue other than funding from the state may not receive benefits paid for by state funding.

“Community colleges have violated this provision, using millions of state dollars annually to pay the benefits of non-state paid employees. To get money for these employees, community colleges falsified their appropriations requests,” Perry said in his explanation of the veto.

Birmingham called the statement insulting and disappointing.

“There is no way to describe that [statement] except as patently false. We really take issue on that,” Birmingham said.

Birmingham said Weatherford College will now face several options: Reducing programs and services, increasing tuition and fees far beyond the normal increase, increasing the property tax rate, or some combination. He said the college will not be considering action until next spring.

“We had no knowledge that it was even an issue,” Birmingham said of the veto.

“It’s very, very frustrating. I didn’t find out about it until after the fact,” Representative Phil King said. “It’s particularly frustrating because I had worked very hard with the Higher Education Committee and with Appropriations to try to get additional funding for Weatherford College and … compared to the other colleges they came out well.”

King said to his knowledge no one else knew before the fact, either.

Perry’s proposed budget would have appropriated approximately $205 million for community college health insurance funding.

“Sad thing is, there is really nothing we can really do about it at this point,” King said, because the governor has the authority to line item veto. “If we get called back into special session, we will absolutely file an appropriations rider to try to correct that. Otherwise, lawmakers will have to wait until the next legislative session, which begins in January 2009, to try to restore funding.

Senator Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is on the Senate Finance Committee and is one of five senators on the Legislative Budget Board.

Deon Daugherty Allen, spokesperson for Duncan, said Duncan agrees with the governor that many community colleges did not report their numbers in compliance with the proportionality statute, but the Legislature has allowed them to do it for years. He did not see the veto coming, either.

Duncan does not like the governor’s statement because he believes 23 colleges are in compliance with the statute.

Weatherford College is on the list of schools Duncan believes are complying with the statute.

One possibility Duncan is looking into is having the Legislative Budget Board recommend the governor issue a budget execution order to restore funding to the colleges. The Legislature does not have to be in session for the board to meet.

Perry issued a budget execution order in 2005, which included $295 million for school textbooks.

Steven Johnson, spokesman for the Texas Association of Community Colleges, said the administration has had a legitimate policy disagreement over the proportionality of funding for community colleges, but there have never been claims that the schools falsified information.

Community colleges have been filling out their Legislation Appropriation Requests (LARs) the same way for the past three or four budget cycles, Johnson said, and none of the governor’s concerns were mentioned when educational funding hearings were held last fall.

Each school fills out its own LAR and is a distinct entity when dealing with the state. Johnson said he does not know of any college that falsified information.

Weatherford Democrat

Galen Scott

An omnibus bill that would have changed Texas compensation rules for land seized by eminent domain was among 49 bills Gov. Rick Perry vetoed Friday.

According to a statement released by the Governor’s Office Friday, Perry supported the bill in its original form, but withdrew support after a series of amendments were added during the final days of the legislative session. Perry singled out a pair of provisions he said amounted to “the creation of a new category of damages that are beyond the pale of reason.”

Specifically, Perry was at issue with an amendment expanding landowner damages to include compensation for “diminished” roadway access to property left over after an initial condemnation.

Condemning authorities are already required to provide reasonable access to the remaining land, but House Bill 2006 paved the way for additional compensation by requiring eminent domain commissioners to consider “loss of access” when determining dollar amounts. The bill also provided for the recovery of damages like changes to traffic patterns and visibility of the remaining property from the road.

If House Bill 2006 were to become law, Perry said state and local governments would be overpaying to acquire land through eminent domain in order to enrich a finite number of condemnation lawyers at the expense of Texas taxpayers.

“As someone who grew up in rural Texas, and farmed our family’s piece of land, I am a strong proponent of protecting private property rights,” Perry said in a statement. “But the issue is one of fairness to taxpayers, who will get fleeced in order to benefit condemnation lawyers.”

According to the Governor’s Office, Perry received letters from almost every fast-growth city and county asking him to veto the bill because the cost of constructing state and local projects would increase by more than $1 billion annually.

But up until about 14 years ago, landowners used to get some money for diminished access, according to Ed Small, legal council for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

“The state treasury didn’t go bankrupt prior to 1993 because of this and it wouldn’t go bankrupt if this bill were to become law,” Small said in a statement.

When House Bill 2006 made it through the Legislature, Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples wrote of letter in support of the bill, addressing concerns that diminished access compensation would cost the government too much money.

“It simply restores some of the protections that have been eroded in recent years,” Staples wrote of House Bill 2006.

Perhaps more than any other single group, the The Texas Farm Bureau lobbied for the passage of House Bill 2006. In a statement released Monday the Farm Bureau said the bill amounted to “the most important property rights legislation in more than a decade.”

“With the projected growth of this state, takings will occur much more frequently for roads, reservoirs and other public needs,” the statement reads. “It is imperative that we treat property owners, urban and rural alike, fairly.”

Because the bill was a conglomerate of eminent domain legislation, including contributions from five authors and more than 20 coauthors, a variety of issues were addressed. State Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford), one of the bill’s coauthors, included a number of items he said are meant to stop eminent domain abuse by pipeline companies in Parker and Wise Counties.

More than 18,000 miles of active oil and gas pipelines already exist in Parker County, and with experts predicting exploration in the Barnett Shale will remain cost effective for decades to come, pipeline eminent domain is expected to stay in the limelight.

King’s legislation would have given landowners the right to a notice of the pipeline company’s intent to condemn, fair notice of the scheduled hearing on the condemnation, the right to a reasonable delay to prepare for the hearing and the ability to object to special commissioner appointments they feel represent a conflict of interest. Texas landowners are not currently entitled to any of those provisions.

A few hours before Perry announced his veto, King said he was on the phone with Perry’s legislative assistant, advocating the bill’s final passage.

“[Perry] is getting just tons of pressure from cities, counties and TxDOT to veto it, because of how it increases the cost of eminent domain for roads and highway construction,” King said. “And, of course, it does. But my perspective is, if you’re going to forcibly take someone’s property away, you better pay them reasonably well — at least fair-market value.”

Personally, King said he believes landowners should be allowed to sue for loss of access, but if including those provisions meant killing the bill, he said they should have been stripped in conference committee. According to King, Perry warned the bill’s authors he was under pressure to veto if the amendments weren’t taken out.

“It’s a big, long bill and that was just an amendment that got put on at the last minute by the Senate,” he said of the diminished access provision.

In the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that raised grave concerns about the use of eminent domain to buoy private enterprise, House Bill 2006 would have limited eminent domain use in Texas to “the state, a political subdivision of the state, or the general public.”

The bill also required condemning authorities to hold public meetings and record votes before condemning private property. Water and sewer companies would have been barred from condemning property to gain access to groundwater, an increasingly sought-after resource in North Texas.

Additional requirements were placed on purchase offers made prior to the initiation of condemnation proceedings and landowners would have been allowed to buy back condemned property for the initial purchase price, if the land is no longer in public use after a period of 10 years.

“We’ll just have to do the bill again next session,” King said.

Contact Information:
(817)596-8100

Austin – State Representative Phil King (R-Weatherford) today laid out the following summary to explain the duties and powers of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District would be, if confirmed by the voters of Parker, Wise, Hood, and Montague counties. The district was enabled through S.B. 1983, legislation that passed during the recently concluded 80th Texas Legislative Session. Rep. King was the House author of the bill.

Summary of Composition/Powers and Duties of the Proposed Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District

• Composition of district and board of directors:

o The district will be comprised of Hood, Montague, Parker, and Wise counties.

o An election to confirm the creation of the district by the voters of the district must take place before September 1, 2009, otherwise the district is dissolved.

o The district will be governed by an 8-member board of directors, comprised of 2 directors from each county. The commissioners court of each county in the district will appoint 2 members from their county.

o Directors serve staggered four-year terms, with the term of one director from each of the four counties expiring on June 1 of each odd-numbered year.

• Powers and duties of district:

o Residential wells and wells that are used for the purposes of raising livestock or poultry, that do not exceed 25,000 gallons of usage a day, are exempt from the permitting and fees requirements of the district.

o The district may NOT exercise the power of eminent domain.

o The district may NOT impose taxes upon the residents of the counties within the district’s boundaries. The district is to operate strictly from fees collected from water usage of permitted wells.

o Any well that is completed on or before the date the district adopts the spacing requirements is exempt from the spacing requirements of the district. The district may pull a well’s exemption if said well is modified to substantially change its capacity after the spacing requirements are set by the district.

o The district may require any well, regardless of the use of the groundwater from that well, to comply with the well spacing requirement that they put in place.

o The district may require any well to be registered with the district in order to protect it through minimum well spacing distances for future wells. The district may require a well’s usage, except exempt domestic and livestock wells, to be reported to the district.

o The board is given the ability under current law to set reasonable fees for violations of the district’s requirements. In lieu of, or in addition to the above remedy, the district may impose extra fees it deems to be necessary, in order to discourage unauthorized and abusive groundwater pumping.

o The district may charge fees for water usage from any well that has a permit in the district. Since residential and livestock wells are exempted from permitting, they do not fall under the requirement to pay fees.

o The district may not charge fees to exceed: (1) $1 per acre-foot annually for groundwater used for agricultural purposes; or (2) 30 cents per thousand gallons annually for groundwater used for nonagricultural purposes.

o The district by rule may establish a temporary or permanent discounted fee rate for persons who prepay production fees to the district on or before the dates established by district rule.

Wise County Messenger

Staff

State Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said that one new sergeant and two new commercial vehicle enforcement officers from the Department of Public Safety will be stationed in Wise County this year.

The added troopers are an effort to reduce the number of truck-related fatalities in the county.

“This is great news,” said King. “We’ve (had) so many trucks on the road in Wise County. There’s just no margin for error. We have to reduce these accidents. Wise County has the fourth highest rate of truck related fatalities in the state.”

King met with DPS Director Col. Tommy Davis during the legislative session to discuss the problem. Davis committed to “deploy additional resources,” and King worked with the House Appropriations Committee to obtain funding for the new positions.

The new officers will operate the new weigh station on Texas 114 outside of Bridgeport and conduct safety inspections throughout the country, King said.

Construction of the new weigh station will begin next month.

The new troopers will be stationed at the Decatur DPS office, which now has 20 trooper positions and two sergeant positions.