Enrolled Bill Summary

House Bill 2006	House Author:  Woolley et al.
Effective:  Vetoed	Senate Sponsor:  Janek

            House Bill 2006 enacts a number of provisions relating to the power of eminent domain. Among other provisions, the bill requires the comptroller, not later than January 1, 2009, to identify all public and private entities with eminent domain authority and to make recommendations to the governor and legislature regarding changes. 

            The bill amends the Government Code to define "public use" and to prohibit the taking of private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking is not for a public use.  It sets out procedures required to initiate an eminent domain proceeding and adds court costs relating to an eminent domain proceeding to the lists of district and statutory county court fees and costs. 

            The bill amends the Property Code to:

• require an entity with eminent domain authority to make a bona fide offer to a property owner in order to acquire the property, specify what constitutes a bona fide offer, and specify court actions that may be taken on making a determination that an entity did not make a bona fide offer
• change the price at which an owner or the owner's heirs, successors, or assigns are entitled to repurchase property acquired through eminent domain if the public use is canceled from fair market value at the time of cancellation to the price paid to the owner by the governmental entity
• revise requirements relating to the disclosure and production of information during condemnation proceedings by entities that have eminent domain authority and are not subject to the state public information law
• revise provisions relating to the determination of fair market value
• require, rather than allow, certain governmental entities to provide relocation advisory services and pay certain moving expenses and relocation costs to an individual family, a business concern, a farming or ranching operation, or a nonprofit organization in accordance with federal law as a cost of acquiring real property through a condemnation proceeding

            The bill amends the Natural Resources Code to set out procedures for a condemnation proceeding initiated by a common carrier and amends the Water Code to authorize certain water and sewer utilities to acquire, by condemnation, only easements or lesser property interests necessary to comply with federal and state regulations relating to sanitation.

            Reason Given for Veto: "House Bill No. 2006 contains two provisions that would vastly expand the cost to Texas taxpayers of public projects to the point where they grossly outweigh the bill’s benefits.

            "It is important to balance the rights of Texas landowners whose land is acquired through eminent domain against the needs of the greater taxpaying public. However, two amendments were added in the 11th hour to House Bill No. 2006 that would send the cost of public projects spiraling beyond the amount Texas taxpayers should reasonably be required to pay. Estimates indicate the price tag would easily exceed $1 billion above and beyond what is reasonable for state and local taxpayers.

            "In essence, the state and local government would be over-paying to acquire land through eminent domain in order to enrich a finite number of condemnation lawyers at the expense of Texas taxpayers.

            "I am greatly concerned that taxpayers will suffer and needed public projects will be dramatically delayed if we promote increased litigation by creating a new category of damages after a property has been condemned and property owners have already been paid fair market value for the land taken. Virtually every major city, county and highgrowth area of the state asked me to veto this legislation because of the prohibitively high costs for future road construction and safety improvements and new schools that would be caused by these amendments.

            "Specifically, I find extremely problematic the provision that would expand damages a landowner can recover to include any diminished access to the roadway from remaining property when a portion of a landowner’s property is condemned. Currently, a landowner is appropriately entitled to have reasonable access to their property maintained when a portion of their property is condemned. However, the provision contained in this bill would require large payments of taxpayer dollars for properties that continue to have reasonable access to the road but where that access has been only altered in some fashion. This is an unreasonable burden to place on taxpayers.

            "The second problematic provision would greatly increase the cost taxpayers would pay to compensate an owner for the land which is left after some of the property is acquired through eminent domain. It would allow the recovery of damages for factors such as changes in traffic patterns and visibility of the property from the road. Texas courts have long disallowed this practice because it would make public projects that benefit the greater population prohibitively expensive to build.

            "With plenty of time left in the legislative session, I asked the bill author in the House of Representatives and the bill sponsor in the Senate to work with my office to address these concerns and find a compromise. The Senate sponsor agreed while the House author did not.

            "While I am firmly committed to ensuring increased fairness for Texas landowners, amendments added to an otherwise good bill very late in the process were done to enrich condemnation lawyers and place a disproportionate burden on Texas taxpayers who pay the bill in condemnation cases. Taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of legislation designed so that condemnation lawyers can exploit a new category of damages for their own personal gain. I encourage the legislature to continue to work to strike a balance that allows Texas landowners to be treated with fairness and respect for their property rights while simultaneously asking their neighbors to pay only so much in taxes as is reasonable and necessary. I pledge to work with the legislature toward this goal."