User Rating:  / 0

The corporate opposition to IR 125, the citizens referendum to repeal the new HB 198 eminent domain law, continues to claim that 'the new law is the same as the old law.' Their claim is a textbook example of how to mislead by omission and the careful choice of words. As Paul Harvey use to say, here's "the rest of the story."

HB 198 did, in fact, significantly change Montana eminent domain law because it wrote specific language into statute (Montana's official laws as passed by the legislature) that had never been in statute before. It created a "one stop shopping" mechanism by which private individuals and corporations can all too easily secure the right of eminent domain for private, for-profit projects. 

Under the new HB 198 law, eminent domain and condemnation rights are "automatically" granted to a corporate applicant upon the issuance of a certificate of compliance from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) This certificate is all that's necessary for a corporation to obtain the right of eminent domain and the right to condemn private property.

"One Stop Shopping."

Why is this a problem? It's a problem for three reasons;

First, because it establishes a corporations right of eminent domain for a private project upon the approval of DEQ, instead of having to obtain those rights separately under another Montana statute. HB 198 supporters also cling to what's called the Fondren decision, in which they claim the court conferred eminent domain rights on an applicant under MFSA. Clearly the corporate supporters of HB 198 had so little confidence in their legal positions, and such a compelling interest in obtaining eminent domain and condemnation rights as quickly and easily as possible, that they went to a compliant legislature to create a new "one stop shopping" law instead of making their case in court.

Second, it' a problem because MFSA is essentially a "toothless tiger."

The legislature has torn it apart and weakened it session after session for years. HB 198 supporters like to say that a "public need" must be established under MFSA for a corporation to obtain eminent domain for a private, for-profit project. Sounds good but it's really no obstacle at all, primarily because the public need criteria in MFSA are so broad, general and generic that it would be difficult, maybe even impossible, NOT to find a public need.

In addition, the fact that most new transmission lines really aren't "public need" lines but "market lines," isn't addressed in MFSA .

Because of deregulation, transmission lines are now built first and foremost to market and sell more electricity, (not meet an objectively established "public need" within a regulated service area).

Finally, politics. In practice, the DEQ siting process for major projects isn't a neutral, objective fact finding exercise at all.

It's, at base, a political process in which data is collected and selected to support the findings needed to issue a certificate of compliance.

And how's that? When a governor, any governor of either party, picks up the phone and tells his/her DEQ director, "I want this project,"

Guess what? Game Over. Done Deal. The "public need," the project, the certificate of compliance and the right of eminent domain to condemn private property are all handed to a private corporation, virtually on a silver platter.

The HB 198 eminent domain law is a huge, misguided change, and blaming the supporters of IR 125 for misrepresenting it has gone on long enough. This I know; "Blame is always never enough. It just keeps you in the game, 'till you've only got yourself left to bluff."

John Vincent is a Montana Public Service Commissioner and former two term Speaker of the Montana House of Representatives.