Eminent domain decision difficult
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Perhaps you recall the Old Testament story in which two women approached Solomon with one baby, each claiming the baby to be hers. Solomon suggested he draw a sword with which to split the baby in two, knowing the natural mother would forfeit the baby to the other to save its life.
I hope you will indulge my analogy long enough to understand that it is a fitting way to describe my feelings over our eminent domain decision last week. The baby represents the future of Montana. Two opponents each claim to have Constitutional rights to it: landowners’ property rights vs. the right of an entity to cross private property with infrastructure to serve the public. Like it or not, the power of eminent domain exists in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and in Article II, Section 23 of our Montana Constitution. “Just compensation” is further codified in Montana statute. Most folks realize that the railroads, existing power lines and our interstate highway system used eminent domain for completion with obvious benefits to our nation.
This session, legislators were given the responsibility to decide the future after a district court decision halted Montana-AlbertaTie Ltd’s progress toward a 300-MW, 230-kV power line between Great Falls and Lethbridge. According to its website, Montana Department of Environmental Quality granted MATL a certificate of compliance in October 2008; one month later, the U.S. Department of Energy issued MATL a presidential permit authorizing the construction of the 133 miles of line in Montana and a substation near Cut Bank.
MATL has settled on just compensation with more than 220 landowners; yet is stalled over the last couple dozen folks for the right to cross their land with an ugly power line.
All session, this decision has been building like a growing baby. HB 198 clarifying eminent domain had passed the House Federal Relations, Energy and Telecommunications committee 14-2, but the Senate Energy and Telecommunications committee tabled it, where it lay for the last several weeks, becoming ever more demanding.
Tabling the bill was essentially “splitting the baby.” The outcome would have been ugly and no one would have won. The parties would end up in court again – incurring expense that would not make the land any better; nor would build infrastructure with which Montana can export energy.
Knowing that 69 representatives including 51 Republicans voted in favor of the utility, (Knudsen R-Culbertson did not vote); only 30 voting for the landowners, senators reached deep into our souls for wisdom. We brought the bill to the Senate floor for several gut-wrenching hours of debate. We knew the governor wanted the bill to pass for its economic benefits. (He subsequently strategized a sunset clause not to facilitate future projects.) We passed HB 198 28-22, with 12 Republicans in favor. Our decision means those affected landowners – the “natural” mother – will hand to MATL the ability to finish their power line. We trust MATL will nurture this infant so it grows to a fully productive, successful adult.
Thank you for allowing me to stretch this analogy to cover the discomfort and soul-searching I personally suffered the last few weeks over this contentious issue. I hope you can better understand that the decision I made was to honor our Constitution while following two of this session’s conservative agenda goals: facilitating responsible resource development and growing jobs and the economy. Carmine Mowbray, Montana Senate District 6, www.carminemowbray.com.
