Eminent Domain: Salt Water Disposal Wells

摘要

In the development of the East Texas Oil Field, it was apparent shortly after its discovery in 1930 that substantial quantities of salt water would be produced with the oil. In 1942, the Legislature created the ETSWD to safely dispose of salt water through disposal wells. The ETSWD has drilled many disposal wells and connected them to producing oil wells through some 700 miles of pipeline. In 1985, the ETSWD leases a two acre tract of land for the purpose of operating a salt water disposal well. After several lease extensions, a dispute arose between the parties as to the price to be paid for further lease extensions or an outright sale. In November 2005, the lessors sell the two acres to Laird Hill, which is a competitor to the ETSWD. The ETSWD files a petition in condemnation regarding the two-acre tract. The special commissioners enter an award of $22,000, some $26,000 less than what Laird Hill had paid the lessors. After a four-year hiatus, bom parties file motions of partial summary judgment. The motions are denied and a jury awards Laird Hill $24,700 for the value of the two-acre tract. Held: affirmed. The ETSWD has statutory authority to condemn land for "well wastewater" purposes including the underground disposal of salt water. Tex. Nat Res. Code § 111.401-.404. Laird Hill, however, challenges the procedure by which the ETSWD ostensibly authorized the eminent domain proceeding arguing that only through acts of the ETSWD's governing body can it exercise the eminent domain power, the ETSWD did not follow the usual way of exercising its eminent domain authority through the adoption of a resolution of the board of directors. In this case, the ETSWD president decided that the condemnation was necessary. It was not until after the eminent domain proceeding was instituted that the ETSWD board of directors adopted a resolution. An ex post facto resolution, however, can act as a ratifying event that will relate back to the filing of the eminent domain proceeding. Laird Hill also argues that the ETSWD did not show that the taking was for a public use. Determinations of public use are subject to minimal judicial review in the absence of a showing of fraud, bad faith or arbitrary or capricious acts, none of which exist in this case.