Print đź–¨

The Senate Committee on State Affairs met March 4, 2019, to vote on bills left pending and to take up SB 72 (Nelson et al.), SB 175 (Perry), SB 192 (Perry), SB 212 (Huffman), SB 230 (Perry), SB 234 (Nelson), SB 323 (Huffman), SB 421 (Kolkhorst et al.), and SB 498 (Huffman et al.).

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Votes on Pending Bills

  • CSSB 71 (Nelson)
    • Passed 8-0
    • Not on local & uncontested due to fiscal note
  • CSSB 73 (Nelson)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • CSSB 467 (Nelson)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • CSSB 489 (Zaffirini)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • SB 201 (Huffman)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • SB 341 (Huffman)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • SB 415 (Huffman)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • SB 416 (Huffman)
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested
  • SB 40 (Zaffirini)
    • New committee sub to SB 40 sent up and adopted; Birdwell worked on committee sub.
    • Differs from original in that if a local judge makes a ruling outside their jurisdiction in an emergency situation, the judge from the district will have to approve that ruling.
    • Huffman – Committee sub substantially similar to previous, no need for public testimony.
    • Passed 8-0 to local & uncontested

 

New Bills

CSSB 175 (Perry) Relating to eminent domain reporting requirements for certain entities.

  • No longer have to report if there is no eminent domain activity.
  • Com Sub includes counties and school districts of 25,000 or more in the requirements of the bill.
  • Nelson – Electronic reporting requirement?
    • Perry – If the reporting deadline is missed there is a $1,000 fine.
    • Nelson – How doe sit differ from what is currently taking place?
    • Perry – You would no longer have to report if there was no activity.
  • Committee sub adopted.

 

CSSB 175 passed 8-0 to local & uncontested.

 

SB 192 (Perry) Relating to the transfer of certain probate proceedings to the county in which the executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate resides.

  • Administrator should be able to make venue change to relieve burden of travel and expense.

 

SB 192 passed 8-0 to local & uncontested.

 

SB 230 (Perry) Relating to a landowner’s liability for injuries incurred during certain recreational activities.

  • Add rock climbing to current statue as liability shield for landowners.
  • Brian Tickle, Access Fund – Rock climbing is a growing sport, number of landowners have expressed interest in opening land for rock climbing and want protection from liability. SB 230 provides clear guidance that landowners will be protected from liability the same way they are for hunting and fishing.

 

SB 230 passed 8-0 to local & uncontested

 

CSSB 72 (Nelson) Relating to the establishment and duties of the human trafficking prevention coordinating council.

  • Need to ensure funds for human trafficking are being used efficiently, that agencies are working together, and there are no redundant or duplicated efforts.
  • Committee sub adopted. Adds language allowing council to add members as the council deems necessary.
  • Huffman – This is a great bill, human trafficking has been a concern. People have found it hard to believe this was a problem, raising awareness over the past couple years has been effective.
  • Hall – This is a problem in rural areas just as much as it is in urban areas. Agencies often don’t know what other agencies are doing, this is a necessary bill. This bill should cover rural counties as well as urban counties.
    • Nelson – Understand it is a problem in rural communities because it is easier to hide.
    • Hall – We are also seeing gangs move out of the big cities and being disruptive in rural communities.
    • Nelson – The method of distributing this is the same as the drug channels. Human trafficking is more profitable, a drug can be used once a person can be used over and over again.
  • Lucio Jr. – This legislation concerns everyone in our country. The key is prevention. To me this is a “pro-life” bill.
    • Nelson – Yes it is not only about prevention, also about awareness. Training car rental companies and nail salons how to spot human trafficking.
    • Lucio Jr. – Awareness leads to prevention and saving lives.

 

Invited Testimony

Steven McCraw, DPS Director

  • Very difficult to assess the extent of a problem when victims don’t or won’t report a crime. DPS has changed the way we look at this issue. Texas legislature, governor and first lady has been forward leaning on this issue.

 

Jeoff Williams, DPS

  • Legislative support has helped DPS be successful in a few cases and opened eyes to the scope of the problem.
    • Using call records, identified there was an organized effort to get young women form Guatemala and Honduras into the US for sex trafficking.
    • Have worked with FBI, HIS, Dallas PD and other PDs, and NGOs concerned with sex trafficking.
    • Doll House case in Dallas was a reprehensible situation, rescued 41 women and seized $3.5m in cash from that operation, trafficking is about money.
  • McCraw – We have found that all of these women are victims, which was important for law enforcement to recognize.
  • Lucio Jr. – The 41 rescued victims, where were they from?
    • Williams – They came from everywhere, Honduras Central America, South America, Mexico, United States.
    • Lucio Jr. – Page 45 of human trafficking report, you have had success in setting up initiatives with NGOs and other governmental agencies, this is important to highlight.
    • McCraw – There is no doubt Texas has led the way on this issue. From a law enforcement standpoint, we are committed to it.
    • Lucio Jr. – This is an important bill and I believe it should and will pass this session. If there is another piece of legislation you would like to see passed, what would that be?
    • McCraw – Something we could look at are conspiracy statutes. Often let federal agencies handle cases because the federal conspiracy statutes are strong. Identifying networks and all the players involved is important.
    • Lucio Jr. – Nelson has the control of resources to a certain extent, do you believe that DPS has the resources necessary for this issue?
    • Nelson – In SB 1 we granted every request for human trafficking needs.
  • Zaffirini – To what extent are you working in rural areas and along the border?
    • Williams – We get into rural areas by working with NGOs, we do awareness and training for how to handle cases for local officers.
    • McCraw – We have made this a special agent in every DPS region.
    • Zaffirini – There are a lot of missing persons, many believe they are across the border, do you have any efforts with Mexican law enforcement for those cases?
    • McCraw –
    • Zaffirini – Is this strictly female victims or are there male victims?
    • Williams – Vast majority of victims are females, we are focusing on that. In child trafficking and labor trafficking often, they don’t even know they are victims which makes it difficult.
    • Zaffirini – How do you treat children who have been engaged in sex trafficking?
    • Williams – We treat all of them as victims.
    • Zaffirini – So they are not charged with anything?
    • Williams – No.
    • Zaffirini – What do you do for these victims?
    • Williams – Work with NGOs to help them.
    • Zaffirini – What is the age range of the victims?
    • Williams – Average age is 13, but most are adults or near adult age.
  • Nelson – I know it is hard to cite an exact number of victims, I see here that there are 313,000 victims in Texas, but I remember the number 70,000 form testimony I heard?
    • McCraw – That is a problem, it is difficult to determine how extensive the problem is. One thing we have not touched on is the child pornography problem. It stains the soul when you work these cases.
    • Nelson – We do not talk enough about children in suburban communities, foster children who are potential victims. If we do not do everything we can to address this we are allowing slavery to take place in this state.
  • Nelson – I am prepared to commit all financial resources and other resources I can to this problem. SB 1 contains an additional $60.8m for human trafficking prevention efforts.
  • Hughes – Recent case in Florida involving certain powerful men, where women were taken from China with promises of work in the US and were held against their will in a massage parlor. Important to make sure the victims in this and other cases are treated well. Should we be looking at more serious tools against the customers of these places?
    • McCraw – People need to understand that when they engage in these activities they are contributing to organized crime which is victimizing these women and children.
  • Hall – AG was important in shutting down backapge.com, which was a key use of technology that contributed to this problem. It is important to realize that a lot of these people do not realize they are victims. It is important to help these victims or else it is not really a real rescue. There are a lot of NGOs, charities, churches, and other groups who are working on this problem.
    • Nelson – There are a lot of private organizations, we want to partner with these organizations to help with their missions.
    • Hall – This is just as important as the other parts.
    • Nelson – There is a currently existing state task force that is working on this.
  • Fallon – What percentage of victims are foreign born and are more susceptible due to their immigrant status?
    • McCraw – It is impossible to know that information as to what the percentages are. We have seen that Texas based gangs are in the business of sex trafficking because it is so profitable. We do not have a good handle on how many of those organizations exist.
    • Williams – We have done a number of operations where we would target demand, where we set up as a girl and arrest the man who is soliciting prostitution. It does not matter to the Johns where the girl is form, it might matter to the criminal organizations in terms of profitability.

 

Public Testimony

Jamie Carothers, Senior Staff Attorney for Children at Risk – Support

  • Coordinating council with work with the existing agencies and will cover gaps not currently covered. It is crucial to make sure every dollar is spent wisely and effectively.

 

Allison Franklin, self – Support

  • Was trafficked for 10 years in Houston, now provide services to men, women and children who have been trafficked. Human trafficking is a huge problem. There needs to be a collaborative effort of agencies. Must be a focus on demand, without demand there would be no prostitution and no sex trafficking.

 

CSSB 72 passed 8-0.

 

SB 234 (Nelson) Relating to the right to vacate and avoid residential lease liability following the occurrence of family violence.

  • Due to the nature of family violence many victims live with the perpetrators. SB 234 will allow victims of violence to terminate their lease.
  • Hall –This lets the victim off the lease, it does not terminate the lease for the abuser?
    • Nelson – Correct.
  • David Mince, Texas Apartment Association – Support SB 234. These added protections will make it easier for victims of domestic violence to terminate leases in appropriate occasions.
    • Nelson – Apartment Association has been very helpful in working with us.
  • Christa del Gallo, Texas Council on Family Violence – Support SB 234. Many victims have found they could not find new housing after fleeing a violent situation because they had violated a lease. Current law is crafted to preclude many victims from accessing this remedy. This new bill will help more victims of family violence receive these protections.

 

SB 234 passed 8-0 to local & uncontested.

CSSB 325 (Huffman) Relating to establishing a protective order registry and the duties of courts in regard to the registry.

  • Require the Office of Court Administration to maintain a computerized database of protective orders.
  • Committee sub adds AG child support office to the list of authorized users.
  • Family violence survivor must give permission to be included in the registry.
  • Hall – This is a good bill, how do you get out of the registry?
    • Huffman – Defer to David Slayton.
    • Hall – Want to make sure that if it is a temporary order that it can be removed without an onerous process.
    • David Slayton, Office of Court Administration – Bill provides a method for requesting removal from database, OCA will be required to comply with that request within a certain amount of time. This is mainly for victims. A court could order it vacated or sealed then they would be removed form he public registry. We are changing the law in regard to the victims’ rights to remove their records.
  • Nelson – What would be available to the public after it is removed?
    • Slayton – It would be removed from the public registry side, it would still be available at the courthouse but would not be available over the internet.
  • Huffman – A protective order is only issued after a judge issues it, so there is a judicial process.
    • Agree, people should not have to go through an onerous process when they have done everything to get the order removed.
  • Huffman – These has a fiscal note, is a $350k one-time cost, do you have an idea of a fund other than GR that could be used to pay for this?
    • Slayton – There is a fund for technology projects like this that would have a statewide impact, and I believe this project would qualify.

 

Invited testimony

John Neilson, self – support

  • Daughter broke off relationship with abusive man, man continued to stalk and threaten her. Abuser eventually killed her. Came out that this man had multiple protective orders in multiple counties, after receiving these orders he would move to another county and do the same thing. This information is not being shared between counties and there is no way to look up these people online. A public registry would be useful to law enforcement in these cases.

 

CSSB 325 left pending.

 

CSSB 212 (Huffman) Relating to a reporting requirement for certain incidents of sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking at certain public and private institutions of higher education; creating a criminal offense; authorizing administrative penalties.

  • Bill passed out of Senate 30-1 last session, but “did not make it all the way through the process”.
  • Bill will build upon sexual harassment and assault reporting requirements currently established under Title IX law.
  • Names of victims or perpetrators will be concealed, numbers will be made public. Believe this will empower more victims to come forward.
  • Class B misdemeanor for failure to report and Class A misdemeanor for attempts to conceal by employees of higher education institutions.
  • Birdwell – This is a good bill, but there are pending federal guidelines. Concern would be that if the federal guidelines are opposed to this, is there a mechanism in state law to address this?
    • Huffman – State law con often be more stringent than federal law, I think as a state we can implement any laws that are reasonable and follow due process. I am concerned about the sexual assault victims in the institutions of Texas.
    • Birdwell – I agree with you there and I support what you are doing, question is if there is a mechanism for redress in the interim if there is conflict between state and federal law.
    • Huffman – I can’t imagine the federal government would take away any reporting requirements, the only thing that could be an issue are due process for the accused and I recognize those concerns, but I do not think that will be a problem.
    • Birdwell – I am going to support the bill, if something federally changes while we are not in session.
    • Huffman – Feds move so slowly I am not really worried about it.
  • Fallon – Employee witnesses are required to report to Title IX coordinator, what about law enforcement?
    • Huffman – There are certain statutes already in place. There is a process to make sure the victim wants to proceed, often the victim chooses not to prosecute.
    • Fallon – I domestic abuse instances if the victim does not want to report I believe the police have the discretion to do it without the consent. My concern would be the Sandusky situation in Pennsylvania, where an employee witnessed a crime and should have reported to law enforcement. Reporting to Title IX is fine, but I would prefer if in certain cases it was reported to police.
    • Huffman – There are different laws for child and adult victims. There are also certain employees who are required to report.
    • Fallon – So if there was a witness, under this bill they would be required to report to Title IX and not the police? I think they should be required to report to police.

 

Public testimony

Chris Kaiser, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault

  • Support SB 212. Schools have a crucial responsibility to protect victim’s educational access and make sure they stay in school. Important to have reporting requirements to make sure these cases are reported and are not covered up.

 

CSSB 212 passed 6-0 to local an uncontested.

 

CSSB 498 (Huffman) Relating to a commercial landlord’s or tenant’s remedies regarding certain unlawful activities in a multiunit commercial property.

  • Current statute gives commercial landlord ability to recover property from a tenant if that tenant is using the property for prostitution or trafficking.
  • This bill adds operating, maintaining a massage establishment that does not comply with regulations around prostitution and trafficking.
  • Tenant must provide reasonable basis that another tenant is engaged in unlawful activity in order to terminate lease.
  • Hughes – To make sure I am clear, the law allows a landlord to deal with this if there is reasonable evidence, this bill would allow a neighboring tenant to terminate their lease if they have reasonable evidence this is going on?
    • Huffman – Yes that is correct.
    • Hughes – Story about the Florida massage parlor was in a nice strip mall with an Outback Steakhouse and other establishments, important to make sure other tenants can get out if this is going on.
    • Huffman – Yes, once the landlord rids themselves of the nuisances then the other tenants would not have a case.

 

Public testimony

Allison Franklin, self – Support

  • Sex trafficking often occurs in hotels, strip clubs, massage businesses, and other establishments. The owners of these establishments often financially gained from these activities.

 

Jamie Carothers, Children at Risk – Support

  • There are nearly 700 illicit massage businesses, many of these are close to schools and small businesses. All of these are in commercial leased spaces. This bill is important in providing protections.
  • Hall – You have a list of the businesses?
    • Carothers – Yes, the list fluctuates frequently but we have methods that we believe are accurate to measure this.

 

CSSB 498 passed 5-0.

 

CSSB 323 (Huffman) Relating to the review of ballot proposition language for certain political subdivision elections.

  • Ballot measures are often inadequately described.
  • Bill will provide judicial oversight of ballot language to ensure it is understandable to voters.
  • Birdwell – I will support this bill. This applies to four counties in my district, where political subdivisions are in multiple counties. Is there any thought to if the political subdivision is located in multiple counties, should it be in the county where the county seat is located?
    • Huffman – Bill provides they can choose any one they sit in, it is up to the subdivision.

 

Public testimony

Bill Longley, Texas Municipal League – On

  • Committee sub allows panel to disapprove language and not rewrite the language, which could prevent a city form holding the election at all.
  • Would be beneficial to preclude a lawsuit if the language is approved by judicial review.
  • Huffman – You think it would be better if the judicial panel would be required to submit ballot language? I would think it would be better if they gave cities the option to rewrite.
  • Longley – Think it would be better because it might preclude the election from taking place if the language is disapproved without the language being rewritten.
  • Huffman – I like this idea, will incorporate it into another committee sub. Will leave this bill pending to incorporate this idea.

 

Dwight Boykins, Houston City Council – Against

  • 1st amendment specifically prevents Congress from preventing citizens from petitioning their government against grievances. Texas constitution guarantees similar protections.

 

Marty Lancton, Houston Professional Firefighters Association – Against

  • SB 323 would impose new anti-democratic burdens on voters who otherwise comply with Texas law.
  • SB 323 would provide a city or political subdivision to procedurally run out the clock on a citizens’ petition due to a “poison pill” in the bill.
  • The petitioners should have to option to get a review if they deem it necessary.

 

Ed Johnson, self – For

  • It seems the petitioning group often ends up in court concerning ballot language.
  • Prop B form Houston last year was ridiculous, ballot was 4 pages long. The county had to pay to reprogram ballot machines to display the entire ballot language.
  • Last minute court dates puts counties in a huge bind in mailing out overseas ballots.

 

Tom Glass, League of Independent Voters – On

  • If no action is taken by the appellate court then the election could be denied.
  • Huffman – Yes and that was the earlier comment about the judicial review board sending back language that could be used but does not have to be used.
  • Glass – Yes we would support that as well but may disagree with TML on some specifics.
  • Need to make sure the elections happen on time.

 

Huffman moved to reconsider vote by which CS was adopted, CS withdrawn. SB 323 left pending.

 

SB 421 (Kolkhorst) – Relating to the acquisition of real property by an entity with eminent domain authority.

  • Provide additional protections for landowners going through eminent domain process.
  • Small landowners often do not have adequate protections in the process.
  • The offer made up front should be a real offer, not a low-ball offer.
  • We require more transparency and standards for public entities to take land than we do for for-profit entities.
  • Zaffirini – Mentioned Oil & Gas Association, them and other groups are against the bill. What will your negotiation process be, and will they lead to floor amendments?
    • Kolkhorst – Last session negotiations went until late April, which kills the bill. Rep. Burns has been working on this on the House side. I would like to move this process quickly, and I will make the changes that are necessary.
  • Birdwell – Share many of our concerns, some of my constituents have had problems with eminent domain. Want the bill to pass, but there is a major concern with the bill on page 15, line 16. That section completely inverts the structure of our courts. This would set the precedent that it does not matter what would happen at the higher courts, the lower court decision would stand.
    • Kolkhorst – I am happy to work with you and understand your concerns.
    • Fallon – I would have the same concerns.
  • Hall – This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we need to get done. Both sides cannot get all of what they want out of this, it needs to be balanced and fair. Property rights are fundamental to the country and energy is the heart of America, so there are two extremely important sides to this we have to balance. If we pass this the way it is, it is a set up for litigation.
    • Kolkhorst – This is a litigious environment, my goal is to make this a fair process and I am willing to make changes to ensure it is fair. Oftentimes these companies will go to an elderly person and get that elderly person to agree, then use that as a benchmark. These elderly people often do not know how much they can ask for. Pipeline and powerlines devalue property and make it more difficult to sell.
    • Hall – We have to come up with a good definition of a bona fide offer, or else we are setting this up to go to court.
    • Kolkhorst – This is an emotional issue for many people.
    • Hall – We need to get an equitable process even if we don’t get agreement on it.
    • Kolkhorst – I don’t think you will veer get agreement on it.
    • Hall – Best bill will be where there is an equal dislike of the bill on all sides, but it is equitable. Bill must be equitable, not pleasing.
    • Kolkhorst – If you are a large property owner you already have a more equal footing, we are trying to give those protections to smaller landowners. If we can get a bona fide offer up front then it will not go to court. I am willing to tweak and change this bill to achieve that goal. The defendant in all of these cases is the landowner.

 

Public Testimony

Reed McCoy, self – Support

  • Benefits of pipeline projects will largely accrue to the company’s owners and shareholders, not to the public.

 

Albert Cortez, project manager for Master planned community in Kyle – Support

  • Pipeline will disrupt the development of community.

 

Ben Shots, self – Support

  • Need to dig deeper on what constitutes a public use. It is difficult to understand what public use the new Permian pipeline serves. It serves the use of the companies. Look more closely at the process that allows private companies to obtain eminent domain power.

 

Mark Wiley, self – Support

  • Owns 12.5 acres in Hill Country, pipelines will take up a significant amount of the land. Small landowners have very little power to do anything about it.

 

Joanna Murchison, self – Support

  • Pipeline is proposed to be within 300ft of home. Smaller landowners do not have the means to pay legal fees to protect their rights.

 

Tom Giovanetti, Institute for Policy Innovation – Against

  • Cautious opposition to the legislation. Constitution outlines two requirements for taking land: must be a public use and must be just compensation. Public use does not mean government use. If only government can use eminent domain, that will result in bigger government as only government can use infrastructure.

 

Kurt Souer, self – Support

  • The two parties who need to share the pain are the pipeline owners and the public, the landowners should not share the pain. Landowners are often out $100k or more in legal fees and their land is destroyed, that is not sharing the pain.

 

Steve Bresnen, North Harris County Regional Water Authority – On

  • SWIFT program from TWDB is sensitive to developments of eminent domain. So far have not been many problems but should consider needs of public entities going forward.

 

J.D. Newsom, Big Bend Conservation Alliance – Support

  • Organization formed in response to Trans-Pecos pipeline. Landowners are harmed by eminent domain. Meaningful eminent domain reform is needed.

 

Scott Frazier, Texas Farm Bureau – Support

  • Requiring standard easement terms will provide needed protections to make sure landowners receive fair compensations. Easement terms are currently used as leverage in negotiation process.
  • Bill will disincentivize low-ball offers.

 

Neil Walter, self – Support

  • There are additional requirements that can be put in, but the landowner has to ask for them
  • Understand the need for eminent domain, but landowners need more protections.

 

Bob McKnight, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association – Support

  • Process that is used by private, for-profit companies needs to be fair.
  • Need minimum standards for easement contracts.

 

Jimmy Sisak, self – Support

  • Letters received are very intimidating and threatening. These letters are sent out in hopes that people who don’t know about the process will sign and give away their property for cheap.

 

Colin Chapelas, self – Support

  • Farmers want their land to be protected and to produce agricultural products.
  • Contracts that are initially sent out are not even close to what the fair price would be.
  • Have a public meeting so people can understand what is happening to their and their neighbors’ property.

 

Donald Fox, self – Support

  • Projects should be handled with public hearings, give landowners an opportunity to build relationships with the company.

 

Jim Bradbury, self – Support

  • Works as an ag law attorney, this is a problem statewide in Texas.
  • Most citizens are being unrepresented by counsel in these issues.
  • The 3 main components of easement, compensation, and public meetings should be passed.

 

Julia Rathgeber, Association of Electric Companies in Texas – Against

  • Believe an agreement can be reached on easement and public meeting requirements.
  • Opposed to financial penalties. Costs incurred by transmission line routing are closely reviewed by regulators. Companies believe an objective standard must be met for compensation.

 

Richard Thorpe, self – Support

  • Had a horrible experience with eminent domain.
  • Texas has the worst eminent domain laws in the nation.
  • Private energy companies use eminent domain because they will get the land cheaper and they will profit in perpetuity. Privately negotiated contracts are not permissible in court for eminent domain cases.

 

Mike Stafford, Harris County – Against

  • In opposition specifically to section 5.
  • Impossible to award damages for future expansions of the property.
  • Impossible to quantify something as vaguely defined as “size and visibility”.

 

Lucy Johnson, self – Support

  • Did not receive sufficient notice form Kinder Morgan for a proposed pipeline.
  • Negotiations with Kinder Morgan were unhelpful.

 

Martha Strawn, self – Support

  • Suggest the state does not allow companies to come onto land until the landowner agrees with the company.
  • Pipelines should lease the property from the landowners, give the landowner space to negotiate what they are leasing.
  • Citizens should not subsidize these companies.
  • Landowners should not pay taxes on the land the pipelines are on.

 

Lara Zent, Texas Rural Water Association – Against

  • Provisions of this bill are onerous for non-profit water supply corporations.
  • Bill would increase the price of water service.
  • Water supply corporations use eminent domain only as a measure of last resort.
  • Non-profit water supply corporations should be excluded from the provisions of this bill.

 

Kim Van Dyke, self – Support

  • Initial letter was threatening and did not offer adequate compensation.

 

Chris Wallace, North Texas Commission – Against

  • Supports the existing eminent domain laws.
  • Need to balance protections for landowners with need for economic growth.
  • Process is already in place to provide landowners with adequate compensation.

 

  1. Michael O’Connor, self – Support
  • There are many families without the resources necessary to go through the process.

 

Lisa Kaufman, Coalition for Critical Infrastructure – Against

  • Less than 2% of cases go to special commissioners’ hearings.
  • This bill focuses more on that 2% and incentivizes the other 98% to go to court.
  • This bill as it is written is possibly unconstitutional.

 

Tom Zabel, Texas Pipeline Association – Against

  • Worked with Landowners’ Coalition to get a consensus bill. Thought we had a consensus then Landowners’ Coalition, then they pulled out at the last minute.
  • Current bill was written without input from the Pipeline Association and has many unworkable provisions and would be disastrous to the state.
  • Fallon – In 2017, what caused the impasse after it seemed you had reached consensus?
    • Zabel – We thought we had a consensus bill, we never received explanation why the Landowner’s Coalition pulled out.
    • Fallon – What is different about SB 421?
    • Zabel – What is in there now is so onerous that it would shut down the court system, you would have to have 400-500 meetings held by district courts that are already at their max workload.

 

Lee Parsley, Texans for Lawsuit Reform – Against

  • Provision for penalty for low offer in condemnation case is not good.
  • Any time a statute creates a no-lose opportunity for litigation, litigation will happen.
  • Penalty will not be refunded no matter what happens in the future and must be paid immediately, this raises due process concerns.
  • Kolkhorst – As we work through this we should keep in mind how the defendant who did not initiate the lawsuit is abusing the process. We are acting like the pipelines are the defendants, that is not true. Need to remember this is a different issue than other lawsuits. This is only for private entities, we will clarify that and exclude public entities.
  • Fallon – Are you concerned that the public hearing requirement will increase litigation?
    • Parsley – We are concerned that lawyers will attend these meetings and that
  • Kolkhorst – The public meeting is so that people can understand that their land is being taken, it is not so lawyers can go there.
    • Parsley – The lawyers will react to the identification of a route.

 

Judith McGeary, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance – Support

  • There is an imbalance of power between private companies and landowners.
  • Protections should be the same when a private company uses eminent domain as when the government uses eminent domain.
  • There was a swastika drawn on the pipeline, the only people who could have accessed were the pipeline crews.
  • Fallon – When was this swastika drawn?
    • McGeary – Last week.
    • Fallon – Was the Sheriff contacted?
    • McGeary – Yes.

 

Lavin Cadets, self – Support

  • There are not adequate supports and protections for landowners.

 

Jim Cisarik, Enterprise Products – Against

  • SB 421 would stifle infrastructure growth if passed.
  • Public hearing concept is functionally unworkable.

 

Troupe Gammage, Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company – Against

  • SB 421 will cause additional costs, may reduce the number of wells that would have otherwise been drilled.
  • Public hearing requirements will place undue burden on courts.

 

Chris Ashcraft, South Texas Energy and Economic Roundtable – Against

  • This bill would kill off economic development in Eagleford and other basins.

 

Heather Caramanica, ConocoPhillips – Against

  • SB 421 would place undue burden on the industry.
  • ConocoPhillips values professionalism in relationships with landowners.
  • Legislation will influence whether or not wells will be drilled in Texas.
  • Kolkhorst – Very few people have said they had a good experience with in negotiations. I am willing to negotiate the provisions in this bill. Many of the landmen will prey on the elderly and weak.
    • Witness – My experience has not been that my colleagues prey on the elderly and weak.
  • Fallon – What percentage of people you have worked with would you say were not satisfied with the process?
    • Witness – Maybe 4% were not satisfied.

 

Don Dixon, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom – Support

  • This bill is necessary to get some balance in the system.

 

Tom Byers, Magellan Midstream Partners – Against

  • Opposed to 421, will work with all stakeholders to come up with a solution.
  • Pipelines are the safest way to transport, are crucial for energy security.

 

John Tintera, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers – Against

  • Most members of TAEP are small producers, “mom and pops”.
  • SB 421 will create more complicated and burdensome bureaucratic procedures.
  • Safer and easier to use pipelines than to use roads and railways.

 

Rita Beving, Texas Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform – Support

  • Support major reforms of the bill, including public meetings.
  • Property owners need more protections.

 

James Mann, Targa Pipeline – Against

  • Have worked for 3 sessions in a row and will be willing to work with this one.
  • SB 18 last session was a massive reform and was 100% for the benefit of the landowners.
  • Public hearing requirements are too onerous.

 

Tom Glass, League of Independent Voters – Support

  • Core principle of eminent domain is just compensation.
  • Arriving at just compensation requires negotiation.
  • This bill will create the due course of law that is needed for landowners.

 

Ed Longanecker, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Organization – Against

  • Bill could negatively impact economic growth, severance tax revenues, job growth.

 

  1. David Anderson, Texas Wildlife Association – Support
  • Support a more equitable process for eminent domain.
  • Landowners should not have to hire a lawyer and go through an onerous process just to sell land that he did not want to sell to start with.

 

Tricia Davis, Texas Royalty Council – Against

  • Some wells are being closed due to lack of infrastructure. This hurts mineral rights owners.
  • SB 421 as filed will create unnecessary conflict and will prolong this problem.

 

Todd Staples, Texas Oil and Gas Association – Against

  • SB 421 hurts mineral owners, the permanent school funds, ESF fund, GR funds, etc. because it negatively impacts abilities to get essential services to the state.
  • Want to work with landowners and improve the law, but this bill needs to be workable.
  • Bill will incentivize lawsuits and make the process more adversarial.
  • Kolkhorst – How can you guarantee a good bona fide offer up front without going onto land and sending threatening letters?
    • Staples – It is impossible to give a fair offer without getting access to property. A survey is often what the appraisal is based on. There has to be an objective standard. This bill is well intentioned but does not work.
    • Kolkhorst – We need to get bona fide offers up front, I will work to do this. People need to be up front, transparent and professional.
    • Staples – We are willing to do that. We are happy to have effective landowner meetings, but I do not think this body wants anti-fossil fuel statutes.
    • Kolkhorst – There are some bad actors out there. T. Michael O’Connor met with me in December, he said that while he had the resources to deal with it he wants all the small landowners to have the same opportunity that he had.
  • Huffman – We are voting on this one week from today, I want your commitment that you will make this work.
    • Staples – We have been asking to go over this language since last session.
    • Huffman – The problems are the same as last session. We need to protect landowners while making sure the oil and gas industry can thrive.
  • Fallon – How can we balance landowner protection and the needs of the energy sector?
    • Staples – Creating an ombudsman at the AG’s office would be a valuable resource for smaller landowners. There is a negotiation process when it comes to real estate. If there is a value that is being given not at market value that needs to change.
    • Fallon – How do we define bona fide offer?
    • Staples – Having an objective standard, for example a percentage of CAD would be good if you are not going to give a certified offer up front.

 

Mia Hutchens, Texas Association of Business – Against

  • Bill would prevent businesses from keeping up with the demand of a growing state and economy.
  • Bill would flood and burden courts with new lawsuits.
  • Support a reasonable on transparent process, SB 421 is not there yet.

 

Ron Pack, self – Support

  • Land has been decimated by pipelines.
  • The system is abusive and unfair, this is clear to anyone not influenced by lobbying efforts or propaganda.
  • Magellan is “the most abusive” pipeline company in the business.
  • Lucio – Are the abandoned pipelines abandoned temporarily or forever?
    • Pack – They will not tell you, I spoke to the Railroad Commission and they would not tell me. Two of the companies who built these pipelines are bankrupt, I now have to pay to take these out myself.
    • Lucio – Were you made aware of the fact they would be abandoned?
    • Pack – No.
    • Lucio – What is the law on abandoned pipelines?
    • Pack – There is no law.
    • Kolkhorst – There are some abandoned well issues.
    • Kolkhorst – Do you have to pay for the removal yourself?
    • Pack – yes, we are involved in lawsuits.
    • Lucio – The pipelines should be removed from your property.
    • AG Office staff – If a condemning authority condemns land for eminent domain and does not use them within 10 years then there are certain processes.
    • Huffman – I don’t think anyone here has the expertise, we can get back on this question.
  • Fallon – When did this process begin?
    • Pack – There was a line that came through in 2014, another in 2015.
    • Fallon – The easements existed when you purchased the property, were the pipelines there when you purchased it?
    • Pack – Some of them, not all of them. There have been blowouts, exposures, abandonments, etc.
    • Fallon – What would you do to fix the problem?
    • Pack – the only way they can remediate this problem is if they leave.
  • Kolkhorst – How much have you spent in legal fees?
    • Pack – Almost $150,000 and the offer is $68,000.

 

Tony Bennett, Texas Association of Manufacturers – Against

  • Manufacturing is an important part of the economy.
  • Manufacturing is 30% of overall economy when considering the other jobs that are supported by manufacturing jobs.
  • SB 421 as drafted is a major threat to keeping infrastructure network functioning efficiently.

 

Linda K. Rogers, self – Support

  • There should be a differentiation between public utilities and oil pipelines.
  • Difficult to understand how a for-profit company where none of the profit is going back to the landowners have eminent domain rights.
  • The only reason there are low numbers of lawsuits is because landowners do not know their rights or do not have the funds to hire an attorney.
  • Lucio – Shared a personal anecdote. It is important to protect the people.
    • Rogers – We have concerns about the impact of pipelines on ground water.
    • Lucio – If pipelines or wells are going to be abandoned we should clean them up and return the land to its natural state.

 

Kevin Kolpoys, self – Against

  • If the oil and gas industry does not have the necessary infrastructure it will harm young people trying to get into the industry.
  • Bill will promote a litigious and combative process.

 

David Spencer, self – Support

  • Most of the worst cases of eminent domain are form the oil and gas industry.
  • The companies have no incentive to negotiate when they can use eminent domain.
  • Companies will use false evidence and false filings with county clerks.
  • Kolkhorst – Thank you for making the trip here today. We are looking to hear your voice and it does not fall on deaf ears.

 

Ben Shepperd, Permian Basin Petroleum Association – Against

  • Happy to work on the bill, but as filed it will be extremely harmful to the oil and gas industry.
  • Oil and gas industry has been a huge benefit to the state, evidenced by the ESF.
  • Huffman – Part of that benefit with the ESF and to the state is because so many property owners agree to allow pipelines to run through their property.
    • Sheppard – Clarify that we believe the process should be transparent and equitable for all parties.

 

Brian McLaughlin, self – Support

  • Has experienced eminent domain as an attorney and as a landowner.
  • Larger landowners are better able to handle these issues than smaller landowners. Small landowners are abused.
  • Instead of penalties, could substitute the value to the condemner.
  • Kolkhorst – You are floating some ideas we have not heard in the last five years, I would like to speak with you about this.
  • Huffman – Thank you for offering a different perspective.

 

Arthur Uhl, Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers Assoc – Support

  • Only 2% of cases are contested. That is like saying that only 98% of people who were “robbed at gunpoint did not negotiate the price”.
  • Goal of SB 421 is to increase offers to a fair price. If prices go up more landowners will think they are getting a fair offer and will not litigate, so the litigation will not increase.

 

Dan Gattis, Gattis Law Firm – Support

  • The system will not fall apart if this bill happens.
  • 100% of pipeline stuff uses condemnation, even if it is not officially evoked, the threat of condemnation is still there.
  • There were concerns over the constitutionality of the bill. Under Chapter 2 of the civil practices and remedies code, if the defendant gets less than a certain amount they get their attorneys’ fees paid. It is not a penalty, it is already in law.
  • Kolkhorst – There are people say just help people pay for lawyers, what I want is to give people bona fide offers up front.
    • Gattis – We do not charge people if they come to us and we tell them to take the offer.

 

SB 421 left pending.