Real Estate & Property Law

Columbia Gas may be called for a foul ball that is in the field of play

By Alan Ackerman

Cumberland Times

To Flintstone resident Billy Joe Mathis, the tactics employed by Columbia Gas Transmission and its efforts to find additional storage capacity for natural gas progressed to demands, intimidation, threats and outright lies.
An Oct. 29 letter to Mathis continues from previous correspondence that 'as you are aware, (the company) plans to conduct seismic testing, in part to determine the feasibility of increasing the storage of its Artemas (Pa.) storage field.'
An undated letter with the signature block of Larry Smith, permit agent for Geokinetics USA Inc., said the company is requesting a seismic permit for 'seismic surveying and/or geophysical testing ... We are covering approximately 27,961.6 acres in Bedford County, Pa., and Allegany County, Md. We are sending you this permit asking for your permission to cross your property for a temporary amount of time. We need your urgent consideration because we are starting our test soon.'
The letter, with land agent Beth Reed's signature block at the bottom, claims that statutory law grants Columbia Gas Transmission the 'right to complete the seismic testing on your property in the absence of a signed permit. "

    In this situation, Columbia Gas is being called a 'liar' for something that it may not be lying about.
    In order to ascertain whether Columbia Gas Transmission may enter property to perform testing, one needs to look at two possible authorities that can be utilized.
    Before discussing the issue of authority, one must recognize that FERC does not have to first approve a project for the testing to be initiated.  Rather, the whole notion of testing is to determine whether there is a need for the property and whether the physical attributes of the property, in this case gas storage, falls within the gambit of the need.
    The utility may look to one of two jurisdictions for authority.  First, the subject proposed acquisition is about to occur in Maryland.  As such, the utility may arguably look to state law to determine whether state statutory provisions allow entry prior to taking.  Most states have such provisions, with a specific caveat that any damage caused by the entry prior to the condemnation must be paid for.  In the alternative, the utility may look to the FERC regulations, which may provide the authority before investigation entries.
    The reality is that the utility needs to figure out how to get its public relations working in a way that it does not make owners feel like it is a steamroller with complete control of individual rights.  Maybe the utility has a right, and they want people to think people have no rights.  However, in the long run, we own our utilities via legislative constraint and fair Public Service Commission and FERC regulatory process.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on November 09, 2009 (boomark / email).