National Eminent Domain Blog : Eminent Domain Lawyer & Attorney : Ackerman Ackerman & Dynkowski : Michigan and Washington, DC

 DENVER (AP) — The Army's plan to expand a southeast Colorado training site is facing another obstacle now that Gov. Bill Ritter has signed a measure barring the use of state land for the project that is opposed by ranchers.

Ritter approved legislation Tuesday that prevents the state from selling or leasing land to the Army to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver site. About 20 percent of the land the Army wants for the site is state-owned.

The Army first announced its plans more than three years ago, saying it needed to expand the 370-square-mile site to about 525 square miles to accommodate new weapons, tactics and soldiers. But neighboring ranchers united to fight the effort, picking up support from state lawmakers and members of Congress.

They also filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Army of not carefully considering the environmental impact of the expansion on the arid, short-grass prairie landscape. Judge Richard Matsch is scheduled to hear arguments in that case in Denver on Wednesday.

Ritter said the bill was not anti-military, as Colorado's two Republican congressmen suggested. He said it doesn't resolve the issue but will provide farmers and ranchers with a safety net while negotiations continue with the Army.

"This legislation says to landowners that their state government is listening. It also reaffirms our commitment to work with all stakeholders to find a mutually agreeable path forward, a path that protects private property rights and allows the military to effectively train this nation's fighting force," Ritter said.

What this Governor is really saying is that he wants your vote.  The reality is that  the United States can acquire the property if the public need is there to expand the facility.  What the State of Colorado has to say would be irrelevant because the Constitutional delegation for the military needs of the United States of America will prevail over local desires!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

NECN

Some residents of Warwick, Rhode Island have begun the fight against a runway expansion plan at the state's largest airport, T.F. Green.

Federal officials have endorsed a plan to extend the main runway at T.F. Green Airport by 1,500 feet.

A runway extension would accommodate jets with larger fuel loads -- such as those making nonstop flights to the West Coast and Europe.

But the expansion would come at the expense of 11 homes, 10 businesses and athletic fields, which would be demolished in order to obtain the necessary space for a longer runway.

Other property owners living close to the expansion could elect to sell their land under a voluntary program.

Airport officials have tried to expand T.F. Green's runway for a decade but met resistance from local residents who could lose their homes.

The airport intends to buy the land necessary for its expansion in private deals with owners, but it could ultimately use eminent domain laws to take the land and compensate the owners.

This is serious business.  Airport takings are like few others.  The impact of past activity is relevant to the existing values.  The diminutions created by the existing runway must be appropriately dealt with in this Rhode Island eminent domain proceeding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Harvard Law Record

President Barack Obama '91's plans for energy and climate-change policy could alter the balance of power between the federal and state governments, according to Adam White '04, an Associate at Baker Botts LLP who specialized in energy litigation.

White spoke on Monday, April 20 at an event co-sponsored by the Harvard Federalist Society and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

White, who clerked for Judge David Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit after his graduation from HLS, described his job- litigating constitutional and regulatory issues specific to the energy industry, particularly at the appellate level-as "the most interesting job in energy law."

According to White, pursuing President Obama's goals for energy and climate-change reform will require making choices about the allocation of power between the federal and state governments, creating tension that White described as having been "strangely overlooked."

Because energy infrastructure often crosses state lines, the federal government may seek to pre-empt state regulations. Most statutes, however, give the states "out-and-out vetoes" over federal projects, White said.

This can create a set of complex interactions that White referred to as "the Adam White full-employment plan." "When Congress thinks its making things easy, it usually isn't making things easy," White said. "Congress needs to make clear what they are doing with state and federal power."

Realistically, there are two conflicts at hand with the proposed power line expansion. First, is the potential for conflict between federal and state decision making processes. The second conflict arises out of the fact the utility companies are for profit entities all the while using the cloak of 'public use' to condemn private property. This problem is exacerbated by a complete lack of state utility public service commission restraint and review.      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks