For all of you across the country who live in states that do not have a “Buy the Farm” option, and that’s all of you anywhere but here in Minnesota, send our “Buy the Farm” to your state legislators and tell them you need it. The relevant text is below, and if you click on it, you’ll get the Legislative Revisor’s site for the whole Minn. Stat. 216E.12.
Filed under:Buy the Farm — posted by admin on August 18, 2014 @ 7:52 am
Here are some photos I took yesterday of the CapX 2020 transmission project being constructed at White Bridge Rd. over the Zumbro River — UGLY UGLY UGLY, it’s ugly wherever it goes.
From KAAL-TV, filmed yesterday near Pine Island and Oronoco:
A long-time energy activist recently called “Buy the Farm,” Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4, MY statute. And in a way, it is… For at least 15 years now, since the Chisago and Arrowhead Project, its been a constant mantra. I’ve been raising “Buy the Farm” in the administrative dockets, the courts and the legislature. If I had a dollar for every “Buy the Farm” flyer I’ve handed out at transmission line meetings and hearings, every mile driven across Minnesota, every hour greeting attendees, every legislator hounded, I’d never have to work again.
In 1999, World Organization for Landowner Freedom went to the Appellate Court after Minnesota Power filed for an exemption of its Arrowhead Transmission Project at the Environmental Quality Board and the exemption was granted by the EQB. Minnesota Power requested this exemption because the line was so short it was exempted from a Certificate of Need, so what the heck, let’s try to get it exempted from Power Plant Siting Act’s Routing requirements as well… and they did. One “unintended consequence” was that because it was exempted from the Power Plant Siting Act, landowners affected by the project were not able to elect “Buy the Farm” because it is part of the Power Plant Siting Act. But of course, I don’t think that was “unintended” at all.
What did the court say to our argument that the landowners didn’t receive notice that exemption would mean they couldn’t elect Buy the Farm? Well, can you spell “raspberries?”
Ja, tell that to the landowners under the 345 kV line… (and btw, sufficiency of notice WAS raised).
In 2001, when the legislature changed the definition of “High Voltage Transmission Line” to a transmission over 100 kV, utilities realized it would mean lines such as the SE Metro line or the Chisago Transmission Project would be affected, so they went to the legislature to get the threshold for Buy the Farm raised to 200 kV. There was strong resistance, we stormed the Capitol, showed up and testified, but they won, lined up their toady legislators and got it through. The result? Landowners under all of these 69 kV “upgrades” to 115 kV and 161 kV are not able to elect the “Buy the Farm” option, despite it now being categorized as “High Voltage Transmission.”
Then the utilities began their transmission build-out, and massive it is. Having to comply with “Buy the Farm” would greatly increase their construction costs, though they are required to sell BTF land acquisitions within a few years. And over a decade later, in the St. Cloud area, with the first of the CapX 2020 projects to wind through the courts for condemnation, Xcel fought kicking and screaming against landowner elections of Buy the Farm and demands for relocation compensation. Jerry Von Korff led the charge for landowners and No CapX 2020 and United Citizens Action Network filed an Amicus brief. Xcel lost:
That decision, for the landowners fighting for their right to elect Buy the Farm and for an award of relocation expenses, was a big slap upside the head for those utilities trying to limit landowner compensation — Xcel fought it through the Appellate Court and all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court — losers again:
This decision establishes yet another point on the “Buy the Farm” line showing that landowners do have rights, and can elect the Buy the Farm option.
What’s particularly important in this case is that the judge recognized that it’s NOT about the substantive issues of EMF, that causation is not at issue in an eminent domain condemnation proceeding (anymore than it is in an administrative permitting proceeding, but see Power Line Task Force v. Public Utilities Commission (2001) for the appellate view on EMF and the PUC’s responsibility for safe electricity), that experts are utterly irrelevant and should be disregarded and really, shouldn’t have been admitted — that framing by Xcel is distraction:
If only the Public Utilities Commission and the Administrative Law Judges working these cases would get that message.
The trend continues… Buy the Farm is the law in the state of Minnesota. Utilities, get used to it. If you want to take land, pony up.
Will Xcel challenge this District Court decision? We shall see, and if they do, we’ll have Amicus “pen” in hand to again join the fracas in support of landowners.
Filed under:Wisconsin — posted by admin on July 31, 2013 @ 8:17 pm
Thanks to Block RICL for sending this around, this is such good news I can hardly stand it!
The issues the court looked at:
(1) At what point in a Wis. Stat. § 32.06 condemnation proceeding must a property owner raise an uneconomic remnant claim?
(2) Were the Wallers left with an uneconomic remnant after ATC took two easements on their
property?
(3) Are the Wallers entitled to litigation expenses?
(4) Are the Wallers “displaced persons,” entitling them to relocation benefits?
Filed under:Buy the Farm — posted by admin on May 29, 2013 @ 2:38 pm
Today we had a rulemaking Advisory Committee meeting about Public Utilities Commission rules for Certificate of Need proceedings. More on that later, because at 10:00 a.m. the Minnesota Supreme Court decision on Buy the Farm was released, and oh what a decision (Buy the Farm, Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4, is a statutory provision where landowners can force a utility to condemn their whole parcel, rather than just a narrow easement and let them get out from living under a transmission line). Kudos to Jerry Von Korff, who was at the rulemaking meeting, and his cohort Igor Lenzner, also Michael Rajkowski and Sarah Jewell, the attorneys who brought the appeal, plus Rod Krass/Kirk Schnitker and yours truly on Amicus. It was a win for landowners, homeowners, farmers, business owners, for everyone who has transmission condemnation/eminent domain cases pending, this one’s for YOU!
Bottom line on minimum compensation? Landowners are entitled to minimum compensation:
Appellants who elected to require utilities to condemn their entire properties in fee pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 216E.12 (2012) are entitled to minimum compensation under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 (2012) as owners who “must relocate†because on the date of the taking, the utilities took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties.
… and …
Accordingly, we must determine whether appellants were required to relocate at the time their properties were taken. Because NSP initiated quick-take condemnation proceedings, the time of the takings with respect to appellants’ properties was when title to and possession of the property passed to NSP. See Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth., 789 N.W.2d at 874 (explaining that “the date of the taking†in a quick-take condemnation proceeding is when “the transfer of title and possession†occurs, which is “well before the commissioners file their awardâ€). It is undisputed that by the time title to and possession of appellants’ properties passed to NSP, appellants had made their elections under Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4, which by operation of the statute, automatically converted the easements sought into fee takings. See Minn. Stat. § 216E.12, subd. 4 (explaining that at the time the property owner makes an election, “the easement interest over and adjacent to the lands designated by the owner to be acquired in fee . . . shall automatically be converted into a fee takingâ€). It follows that, at the time of the takings, NSP took title to and possession of appellants’ entire properties in fee. Therefore, we conclude that appellants were owners under Minn. Stat. § 117.187 who, at the time the takings occurred, “must relocate.†Accordingly, they are entitled to minimum compensation.
Bottom line on relocation benefits? Landowners are entitled to relocation benefits:
Because appellants are “displaced persons†under federal law, they are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56 (2012).
… and…
Because appellants are required to relocate permanently, they do not fall within the exemption in 49 C.F.R. § 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(D). Therefore, because we conclude that appellants satisfy the definition of “displaced persons†under 42 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(A)(i)(I) and do not fall within any exemptions to that definition, we hold that appellants are entitled to relocation assistance under Minn. Stat. §§ 117.50-.56.
The decision was written by Justice Alan Page (photo from StarTribune www.startribune.com):
Yes, when he’s not wearing a football uniform, he’s the guy who is ALWAYS seen wearing one of his many classic “Jacobsen” bow ties, standing up for the public interest and the people of Minnesota. For him to be in the spot where he is, to do the work he’s doing, a long strange trip for a football player (sort of like it was for a truckdriver, eh?), with some good mentoring along the way.
This decision is something I’ve been working for, and toward, since I first got involved with the Chisago Transmission Project so long ago, and folks, that’s 17 years now…
Now and then, some event rates an “OH HAPPY DAY!” and this is the best of all, so this time from Aretha… OH HAPPY DAY!!!
The decision by the state’s highest court overturns a Court of Appeals decision and affirms the ruling by Stearns County District Court Judge Frank Kundrat that had been overturned by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court ruling hinged on whether property owners who chose to require CapX to condemn their property would receive that compensation or whether those property owners chose to move from their property and therefore aren’t entitled to the compensation. (more…)
Filed under:Buy the Farm — posted by admin on May 21, 2013 @ 7:58 pm
It died in conference committee, where it was in the House Environment and Ag Finance bill and not in Senate, and was removed utterly in the conference committee. But surprise, thanks to Sen. Kevin Dahle it was amended into HF 854, the Energy Ominous (Omnibus) bill, and it passed, 49-16.
This means so much to each and every one of the thousands of landowners affected by CapX 2020 and all the other big transmission projects coming down the pike. THANK YOU!!!
Please send a note to Sen. Kevin Dahle (sen.kevin.dahle@senate.mn) and Rep. David Bly (rep.david.bly@house.mn) for all their hard work on this and for persistence over the long haul and fighting to the very end, making it happen!!!
And pay attention to who voted against it — utility toadies all — in the Senate:
Filed under:Laws & Rules — posted by admin on April 29, 2013 @ 12:48 pm
Good news from our friends the Minars, of Cedar Summit Farms — “Buy the Farm” is in the House Ag Omnibus Bill!
HUGE HOLLERS OF CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO REP. DAVID BLY FOR GETTING THE “BUY THE FARM” CHANGES INTO THE HOUSE ENVIRONMENT AND AG FINANCE OMNIBUS BILL! Let him know you appreciate his effort: rep.david.bly@house.mn
Now, QUICK, get on the Senators on the Bill’s conference committee to do the same:
Here’s a proposed message from the Minars (and a few edits) for the Senators:
I’m calling about the Environment and Ag Omnibus Finance Bill. As a member of the conference committee, I urge you to include language that restores the original intent of the “Buy the Farm†law. This is about justice. Family farmers didn’t have a choice about the CapX 2020 high voltage lines cutting across their land — it was forced upon them. The provisions in section 52 of the House bill would require that a utility taking land from farmers and landowners as part of the CapX transmission project to fully and promptly reimburse them for their land, and pay relocation expenses and lost business. Please include these provisions in the final version of the bill. It’s time for corporations to pay their fair share to landowners carrying the burden of transmission lines.
And next contact the House Ag Omnibus conference committee members — urge them to fight to keep Section 52, “Buy the Farm,” in the Omnibus bill, HF 976:
Xcel Energy has been spreading more than their share in their “acquisition” of land for their CapX 2020 transmission project. They’ve been lowballing landowners, and worse, when landowners elect “Buy the Farm” under Minn. Stat. 216B.12, Subd. 4, Xcel Energy is claiming that they’re not entitled to “minimum compensation” and ” relocation” under Chapter 117 eminent domain laws, and in some cases they’re even saying that their “Buy the Farm” elections are not valid.
Corrective bills have been introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate:
Contact the House Energy Committee members and ask them to pass the bill out of committee — landowners need these changes to Buy the Farm NOW! As members of the Energy Committee it’s their job to represent all of us in Minnesota, it’s their job to protect our Constitutional Rights to just compensation!
District Courts have been siding with landowners, and Xcel Energy has gone to the Appellate Court, which sided with Xcel, and so now it’s at the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Oral Arguments are scheduled for April 3, 2013.
Sen. Kevin Dahle has introduced SF 183, a bill that addresses the problems landowners are encountering with our good friends at Xcel Energy when they attempt to elect the “Buy the Farm” option. See Minn. Stat. 216E.12, Subd. 4. Buy the Farm gives landowners the option of requiring condemnation of their entire parcel, which means they can get out from under the transmission line. Xcel Energy, on the other hand, is doing everything it can to prevent landowners from electing Buy the Farm (click here for prior “Buy the Farm” posts).
Then send emails and call the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it’s been sent for its first committee hearing — there’s only 8 members so it won’t take long:
