47straight
5/10/2006, 11:16 AM
My heroes.
http://newsok.com/article/1839662/?template=home/main
By John Greiner
The Oklahoman
In a precedent-setting case involving eminent domain, the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Muskogee County plan to take private property to build three major water pipelines for a private electric generation plant.
The plan involves an impermissible taking of private property to benefit a private party, in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution's provisions on eminent domain, the court said.
The court said that "economic development alone (not in connection with removal of blighted property) does not constitute a public use or public purpose to justify" using eminent domain to take property.
Muskogee County commissioners and the attorney representing them were unavailable for comment Tuesday.
Muskogee County began condemnation against landowners to acquire easements for installation of three water pipelines, the court said.
Two pipelines, referred to as the Eagle Pipeline, would serve Energetix, a privately owned electric generation plant proposed for construction in Muskogee County.
By way of the Eagle Pipeline, Energetix's proposed operations would require a maximum of 8 million gallons of water daily for use in cooling towers associated with the operation of an 825-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant, the court said.
The Eagle Pipeline would extend from the plant site to the Arkansas River with one pipeline carrying water to the plant and the other returning the water to the Arkansas River.
The plant was to be near Warner, said Jo Nan Allen of Tahlequah, an attorney for some of the landowners who challenged the plan.
Energetix proposed building a third pipeline on behalf of Rural Water District No. 5 at no cost to the water district as part of the consideration to induce certain property owners to grant private easements for the Eagle Pipeline, the court said.
Landowners in the path of the pipelines sued, claiming the plan violated eminent domain provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and state law.
Muskogee County's primary argument is that the general eminent domain law authorizes its exercise of eminent domain for the sole purpose of economic development -- increased taxes, jobs and public and private investment in the community -- because economic development constitutes a "public purpose" within the meaning of the law and the state constitution, the court said.
The Supreme Court said Muskogee County was urging a broad interpretation of "public purposes" for using eminent domain.
"... We hold that economic development alone does not constitute a public purpose and therefore does not constitutionally justify the county's exercise of eminent domain," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.
The court mentioned a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an eminent domain case that authorized taking property for economic development in Connecticut because the land condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Oklahoma court said its ruling Tuesday is reached on the basis of Oklahoma's own special constitutional eminent domain provisions, which afford private property protection beyond what's guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"In other words, we determine that our state constitutional eminent domain provisions place more stringent limitation on governmental eminent domain power than the limitations imposed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," the court said.
Contributing: Jennifer Mock, Capitol Bureau
http://newsok.com/article/1839662/?template=home/main
By John Greiner
The Oklahoman
In a precedent-setting case involving eminent domain, the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a Muskogee County plan to take private property to build three major water pipelines for a private electric generation plant.
The plan involves an impermissible taking of private property to benefit a private party, in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution's provisions on eminent domain, the court said.
The court said that "economic development alone (not in connection with removal of blighted property) does not constitute a public use or public purpose to justify" using eminent domain to take property.
Muskogee County commissioners and the attorney representing them were unavailable for comment Tuesday.
Muskogee County began condemnation against landowners to acquire easements for installation of three water pipelines, the court said.
Two pipelines, referred to as the Eagle Pipeline, would serve Energetix, a privately owned electric generation plant proposed for construction in Muskogee County.
By way of the Eagle Pipeline, Energetix's proposed operations would require a maximum of 8 million gallons of water daily for use in cooling towers associated with the operation of an 825-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant, the court said.
The Eagle Pipeline would extend from the plant site to the Arkansas River with one pipeline carrying water to the plant and the other returning the water to the Arkansas River.
The plant was to be near Warner, said Jo Nan Allen of Tahlequah, an attorney for some of the landowners who challenged the plan.
Energetix proposed building a third pipeline on behalf of Rural Water District No. 5 at no cost to the water district as part of the consideration to induce certain property owners to grant private easements for the Eagle Pipeline, the court said.
Landowners in the path of the pipelines sued, claiming the plan violated eminent domain provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and state law.
Muskogee County's primary argument is that the general eminent domain law authorizes its exercise of eminent domain for the sole purpose of economic development -- increased taxes, jobs and public and private investment in the community -- because economic development constitutes a "public purpose" within the meaning of the law and the state constitution, the court said.
The Supreme Court said Muskogee County was urging a broad interpretation of "public purposes" for using eminent domain.
"... We hold that economic development alone does not constitute a public purpose and therefore does not constitutionally justify the county's exercise of eminent domain," the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.
The court mentioned a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an eminent domain case that authorized taking property for economic development in Connecticut because the land condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Oklahoma court said its ruling Tuesday is reached on the basis of Oklahoma's own special constitutional eminent domain provisions, which afford private property protection beyond what's guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"In other words, we determine that our state constitutional eminent domain provisions place more stringent limitation on governmental eminent domain power than the limitations imposed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," the court said.
Contributing: Jennifer Mock, Capitol Bureau