### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11200
T E XA S M ID S T R E A M G A S S E R V IC E S L L C , P l a i n ti ff

- A p p ell a n t v. C ITYO F G R A N D P R A IR IE ; R O B A R D , i n hi s of f i ci alcapaci t y as C h i ef B u ild in gO ffic ia l o f th e C ityo f G r a n dP r a ir ie ; R O N M C C U L L E R , in h is of f i ci alcapaci t y as D i rect or of P u bl i c W orks of

t h e C i t y of

G ran d P rai ri e; R O M IN K H AVA R I, i n hi s of f i ci alcapaci t y as C i t y E n gi n eer of t h e C i t y of G r a n dP r a ir ie ; J O E S H E R W IN , in h is o ffic ia l ca p a c itya s F lo o d p la in A dm i n i st rat or of

t h e C i t y of

G ran d P rai ri e,

D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o . 3 :08 -cv -1 7 2 4 -D
B e fo r e G A R Z A , D e M O S S , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . D eM O S S , C i rcui tJu dg e: Thi s a ppe alc o nc e r ns m uni c i pa lre gul at i o n of t he si t i ng, c o ns t r uc t i o n, a nd operati on o f

ana t ur alg as c o m pr e s s o rs t at i o n. W e w e i gh j ur i s di c t i o nala nd j u ri sp ru d en ti a l c o n cern s be fore a d d ress i n g th e m erits, w h i ch i m p l i ca te fe d e r a l i s m a n dt h e i n t e r p l a yb e t we e n s t a t e a n dl o c a la u t h o r i t yu n d e rT e x a s l a w. W e a f f i r m t he j udg m e nt o f t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de nyi ng i nj unc t ive r e l i e f i n pa r ta nd gr a n ti n g re l i ef i n pa rt. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 1, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

2 I. Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l antTe xa s M i d s t r e am G as Se r vi c e s LLC ( “ TM G S” ) i s i n t he b u s i n e s s o f

i n s t a l l i n ga n do p e r a t i n gn a t u r a lg a s p i p e l i n e fa c i l i t i e s . I ti s k n o wn as a“ m i ds t r e am g as g at he r e r . ” Gra nd Pr ai r i e , Te xa s ( “ G r an d Pr ai r i e ” o r“ t he C i t y” ) i s a hom e- r ul e c i t y. I n 2 00 7, TM G S a nno unc e d p l ans t o c o ns t r uc tana t ur alg as pi pe l i ne a nd c om pre ss or st at i on i n G r and Prai r i e. C om pre ss ors t at i ons ar e ne ede d t o c l ean a n dcom p ress n a tu ra lga s after ex traction i n an ti ci p a ti on o f i ntersta te tran sp ort. T M G S a c q u ir e dla n dfo rth e s ta tio n a n de a s e m e n ts fo rth e p ip e lin e . A p p a r e n tly c o nc e r ne d b y t he pr o s pe c tof a co m pr e s s o rs t at i o n wi t hi n c i t y l i m i t s , t he G r and P rai ri e C i t y C ou n ci l am en ded t h e C i t y’ s U n i f i ed D evel opm en t C ode ( “ U D C ” ) on J u ly1 , 2 0 0 8 , to co v e rn a tu r a l g a s co m p r e s s o rs ta tio n s . G RAND P RAIRIE , T EX ., U D C a r t. 4 , § 1 0 (2 0 0 8 ) (“S e c tio n 1 0 ”). S e c tio n 1 0 re q u ir e s aS p e c ific U s e P e r m it ( “ SU P” ) f

r o m t he C i t y t o bui l d a nd o pe r at e ana t ur alg as c o m pr e s s o rs t at i o n ( “ t he S U P re q u ir e m e n t” ). I d. a r t. 4 , § 1 0 .1
. Itre q u ir e s , in tera lia , th a t co m p ressor station s com p l y w i th setb a ck ru l es (“t h e se tba ck req u i rem en t”) ; h a ve a n eigh tf o o ts e c ur i t y fe nc e ( “ t he s e c ur i t y fenc e r e qui r e m e nt” ) ; e nc l o s e e qui pm e nta nd
s o u n da tt e n u a tio n s tr u c tu r e s w ith in ab u ild in g ; co n fo r m t o c e r ta in a e s th e tic
s ta n d a r d s ; a n dp a v e m e a n s o f v e h ic u la ra c c e s s . I d. art . 4, §§ 10. 2-
. 6. Sec t i on 10 al so prohibi t s c om pressor st ati on s f ro m e m itt i n g n oi se i n excess ofpred e v e lo p m e n t a m b ie n t le v e ls
. I d. a r t. 4 , § 1 0 .5
. V io la tio n s a r e p u n is h a b le b yciv il p e n a ltie s o f u p to $ 2 ,0 0 0 p e rd a y . G RAND P RAIRIE , T EX ., U D C a rt. 2 1 , § 1 1 (20 0 8 ). TM G S s ue d Gr andPr ai r i e a nd c e r t ai n Ci t y o f f i c i al s f o rde c l ar at o r y and inju n c tiv e r e lie f. T M G S a v e r r e d , in tera lia , t hat Sec t i on 10 w as pr ee m pt ed by t he Pi pel i ne Safet y Act( “ PS A” ) , 49 U
. S. C
. §§ 60101– 60137, and t hatSec t i on 10 i m pi n ged on T M G S ’ s s t ate- confer red em i n en tdom ai n pow ers. TM G S requested a tem porary i nj u n ct i on againstenfor cem en tof Secti on 10 du ri n g t h e pen den cy Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

TMGS al so sou ght via a separate state-court l awsuit to compel City offici als to i ssue 1 the permits nece ssaryto preparing the stationsitefor construction.

3 o f t hi s ca s e , and a pe r m ane nti nj unc t i o n up o n i t s c o nc l us i o n. Af t e rc o ns i de r i ng 1
u n di spu t ed evi den ce, t h e di st ri ctcourt granted i n part an d d en i ed i n part i nj u n ctive reli ef. T h e cou rt he l dtha t t h e P S Apr ee m p tedpa rt of the secu r i ty fen ce requ i rem en t , bu tt h e rem ai n der of Secti on 10 w as l aw f u lan d severable. T h e cou rt t h u s enj oin ed on l y th e se cu ri ty fen ce re q u i rem en t. T M G S f i l e dt h i s i n t e r l o c u t o r ya p p e a l
. T M G S c h a ll e n g e s th ed is t r ic tc o u r t ’s fail ur e t o e nj o i n t he s e tba c k r e qui r e m e ntb e c aus e i ti nf r i nge s TM G S’ s e m i ne nt d om a i n ri gh ts a n dis p ree m p tedb y th e P S A
. T M G S say s th e p ree m p tedpa rts ar e no ts eve r abl e f

r om t he r em ai nderof Sec t i on 10, and t her ef or e, Sec t i on 10
m u s t b e e njo in e din to to . Af t e rf i l i ngi t s n o t i c e o f

ap p e a l , TM GS a p p l i e d“ un d e rp r o t e s t” f o ra n SUP. B ec ause t he c om pre ss ors t at i on w oul d be i n an ar ea zo ned agri c ul t ural , a 300- f ootsetback app l i ed. TM G S asked f or a 250-f

ootsetback f

rom t h e south l otl i n e. The Ci t y Counc i l gr ant e d t he e xc e pt i o n and i s s ue d t he SU P o n J ul y 7, 2 00 9. The d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s s ta y e dp r o c e e d in g s p e n d in ga p p e a l. II. W e f i r s tno t e t hatw e ha ve s t at ut o r y j ur i s di c t i o n o ve rt hi s a ppe alpur s uant t o 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1292 ( a) ( 1) , w h i ch confer s j u ri sdi ct i on i n the courts of ap pea lover

“ [i] nt er l oc ut or y o r der s of t he di st r i c t c our t s . . . gr ant i ng, c ont i nui ng, m odi f yi ng, ref u si n g or di ssolvi n g i nj u n ct i on s. ” G ran d P rai ri e d oes not argu e t h at s t atutor y j uri sdi c t i on i s abs en t, bu tr at her , s ays w e l ac k A r t i c l e I I I c ons t i t ut i onal j u ri sd i cti on be ca u se th e issu a n ce of an S U P h a s ren d ere dthis a p p e a lm oo t. G r a n dP r a ir ie r e a s o n s th a tb e c a u s e t h e a p p e a l s e e k s to e njo in S e c t io n 1 0 ’s
s e tba c k r e qui r e m ent , f o rw hi c h a n e xc e pt i o n was g r ant e d, ar ul i ng o n t he vali di t y of

t h i s partof

Secti on 10 w ou l d be an ad vi sory opi n i on . TM G S coun t ers t h a tth e s t a t i o n h a s n o tb e e n b u il ta n dth a tT M G S c o u ld c h a n g e th e s t a t io n ’s Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

4 d esign an dl oca ti on . M ore ov er, T M G S sti l l ch a l l en ge s G ra n dP ra i ri e’ s au th ority t o ena ctSecti on 10, an d seeks to enj oi n t h e m easu re al t ogether. A. Mo o t n e s s i s aj u r i s d i c t i o n a lma t t e rw h i c h c a n b e r a i s e df o rt h e f i r s tt i me o n a p p e a l. S ee Harri s v. C i ty of Hou st on , 1 5 1 F .3d 1 8 6 , 1 8 9 n .4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h is re q u ir e m e n t, th e s o -c a lle d“d o c tr in e o f s t a n d in gs e t in atim e fr a m e ,”
m an da t es t h at l i t i gan t s r et ai n a “ persona l i n t erest” i n a di spu t e at i t s i n cepti on a n dth r o u g h o u t t h e litig a tio n . Mot i ent Corp. v. D on d ero , 52 9 F
. 3 d53 2 , 53 7 ( 5 th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Ariz o nansf o rOf f i c i alEngl i s h v
. Ar izo na , 520 U
. S
. 4 3 , 68 (1 9 9 7 ))
. “[ I] f a n ev en t occu rs w h i l e a ca se i s p en d i n g on a p p ea l th a t m a k e s it i m po s s ibl e f

o rt he c o ur tt o g ran ta ny e f fe c t ualr e l i e f

w hat e ve rt o apr e va i l i ng p a rty, th e a p p ea lm u st be dism i sse d
. ” K ar ahaBoda s Co. v . Pe r us aha an Pert am ba nga n Mi nyak D an G as B u m iNegara , 335 F. 3d 357, 365 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Ch u rch of S ci entology v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 0 6 U .S . 9 , 1 2 ( 1 9 9 2 )). Acla im is m o o t if “t h e is s u e s p r e s e n te da r e n o lo n g e rliv e o rth e p a r tie s la c k ale g a lly cog n i za b l e intere st i n the ou tcom e.” I d. (cita tion om itted ). T h is a p p e a l i s n o t m o o t. T M G S h a s a r g u e dfr o m th e in c e p tio n o f th is a c t io n th a tG r a n dP r a ir i e la c k s a u t h o r it yto r e g u la t e th e c o m p r e s s o rs t a t io n ’s sit i ng, c ons t r uct i on, orope r at i on. T M G S st i l lsee ks dec l ar at or y and i nj unct ive r e l i e f ag ai ns t e nf

o r c e m e nto f

a ny pa r to f

Se c t i o n 1 0. I f

TM G S ha d o nl y s o ugh t t o c o m pe li s s uanc e o f an SU P w i t h a m o di f i e d s e tba c k, i tw o ul d a r gua bly l ac k a “c o g n iz a b le le g a l in te r e s t” in th is a p p e a l. S ee i d. ; cf. B ayo u Li be r ty A s s ’ n, I nc. v. U
. S
. A rm y Corps of

E ng’ rs , 21 7 F
. 3 d39 3 , 39 6 (5 th C ir
. 20 0 0 ) (“W h en a p a rty seeks an i nj u n ctio n to h al ta const ructi on proj ectt h e case m ay becom e m oot w hen a s ubst ant i alpor t i on o f t hatpr oj ec ti s c om pl et ed. ” )
. TM G S co nt ends t hat G ran d P rai ri e’ s ef

f ort s t o regul ate s etback s and ot h er m att ers are per s eille g a l. Itm ak e s no di f

fe r e nc e t hat TM G S has ap pl i e d f o r an SU P ( “ unde r pr o t e s t” or ot h erw i se) , or t h at an S U P ha s i ssued
. T h e se even t s do not r en der i l l u sory Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

5 T M G S ’ s eff

ort to k i l lS ection 10 on ce a n dfor a l l
. T h e sta ti on h a s n ot be en bu i l t, a n dT M G S cou l dm od i fy i ts plan s i n the a b s en ce of the setb a ck req u i rem en t. M o r e o ve r , vi a Se c t i o n 1 0, G r andPr ai r i e a s s e r t s r e gul at o r y aut ho r i t y pur s uant to its p o lic e p o w e r s . O n c e th e s ta tio n is o p e r a tio n a l, T M G S w ill h a v e to co m p ly
w i t h m yri ad C i t y ordi n an ces, vi ol ati on of w h i ch ca n s u b jectT M G S t o f i n es of $ 2 ,0 0 0 p e rd a y . T h e s e a r e n o t t r iflin gco n c e r n s . R e lie f fr o m S e c tio n 1 0 w o u ld p a lp a b lya ffe c t T M G S ’ s o p e r a tio n s . S ee K ar ahaBoda s , 335 F. 3d at365- 66. C o n s e q u e n t ly , it is n o t “ im p o s s ib le fo rth e co u r t t o g r a n t a n ye ffe c tu a l re lie f.” S ee Mo t i e nt , 529 F. 3d at537. B ef ore argu m en t , G ran d Prai ri e f i l ed a bri ef pu rsuan tt o F ederalR u l e of A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 2 8 (j) to a le r t u s to an e w S u p r e m e C o u r t o p in io n . S ee A lva re z v . S m ith , 1 30 S. Ct
. 5 76 ( 20 09 )
. I n A l varez , t h e C ou rt gran t ed cert i orari on “ w het herI l l i noi s l aw pr ov i d es a s uf f i c i ent l y s pee dy o ppor t uni t y f oran i ndivi dua l , w ho s e c aro rc as h po l i c e have se i z e d w i t ho uta w ar r ant , t o c o nt e s tt he l a w fuln ess of th e se i zu re.” I d. at 578
. Th e pl ai n t i f fs w ere s i x i n di vi du al s w h ose p rop erty h a d b ee n seized
. I d. a t5 79
. H o w e ve r , pr i o rt o t he Cour ta ddr e s s i ng t he m er i t s, al lpl ai nt i f fs ei t herr ec eived t hei rpr ope r t y or conc ede d t hati tw as properl y confi scat ed; “ t h e re w as no l on ger an y di spu t e abou tow n ershi p or p oss ess i on o f th e relev a n t pro p erty . ” I d. at580. I n l i ghtof

t hi s, t he appea lw as an “ abstractdi spu t e abou tt h e l aw , un l i kely t o af fectthese pl ai n t i f

fs anym ore t han i t af

fec t s ot her I l l i noi s c i t i ze ns. ” Id. As s uc h, i tno l o nge ri m pl i c at e d a con sti tu ti on a l l y re q u i red “case ” or “con trov ersy . ” I d. a t 5 8 0 -8 1
. G r a n dP r a ir ie assert s t h at “ [ u ] n der A l varez , t h e p r o c e s s - b a s e di nj u r i e s u p o n wh i c h T M GS bas ed it s C om pl ai nt a re i n the pas t , and i t s c l ai m s f orpr os pec t ive i nj unct ive rel i ef are m oot . ” N otso. TM G S d oes n ottak e is sue w i t h the C i t y’ s procedures o rd i l i g e n c e i n e v a l u a t i n ga n S UP a p p l i c a t i o n . TM GS c o n t e n d s t h a ta n S UP
r e quir e m e nti n ge ne r al , and t he s e tba c k r e qui r e m e nti n pa r t i c ul ar , i s r e pug nant t o st ate and federall aw . Pr o p e rly fram ed, T M G S does not al l ege a “proc essCase: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

6 b a sed ” gri evan ce, bu ti n st ead a concret e, ong oi n g i nj u ry i n ha vi n g t o shou l der t h e y oke of

G ran d P rai ri e’ s regu l ator y bu rden s. Th e i ssuan ce of an SU P does not ch a n ge this cri ti ca lfa ct. T h i s ap p ea li s n ot m oo t. B. W e add ress one m ore proc edu ralw ri n kle bef ore w ei gh i n g t h e m eri t s. P e r h a p s co n v in c e dth a t it s m o o tn e s s a r g u m e n t w a s aw in n e r , G r a n dP r a ir ie d id
n otbri ef

t h e m erit s of

t h i s c ase. A targu m en t , coun sel of fered no exp l an ati on f or t hi s om i ss i on. I n so m e i nst ance s, t hi s w oul d l ead us to conc l ude t hata par t y had fo r fe ite d its o p p o r tu n ity to p r e v a il o n th e m e r its
. See , e . g. , F ED . R. A PP . P. 28(b) (r e q u ir in gth e a p p e lle e ’ s b r ie f to co n ta in , in te ra lia , arg u m en t f or it s c o n t e n t i o n s ); Un itedS ta tes v. W h itfi eld , 590 F
. 3d 325 , 370 ( 5th C i r. 200 9 ). H ow ever, w e ret ai n di scr et i on t o consi der m att ers n otb ri efed, esp eci al l y w h en th e yim p lic a te s u b s ta n tia l p u b lic in te r e s ts . Se e Uni t e d St at e s v . Mi r anda , 248 F. 3d4 34 , 4 43
- 44 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)
. Addi t i o nal l y, w he n t he d e r e l i c tpa r t y i s t he ap pel l ee, w h o m ay rel y on a favorab l e rul i n g by the tr i alcourt , i tm ak es s en se to co n s tr u e th e “r u le ” o f fo r fe i t u r e m o r e le n ie n tly
. SeeSh e l lOf f s hor e , I nc. v. D i r e c t o r, Of

f i c eof Wo r k e r ’

s Co mp . Pr og r a ms , 1 2 2 F .3d 3 1 2 , 3 1 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); L ai t r am Cor

p. v . N ECCor p. , 11 5 F. 3d 94 7, 95 4 ( Fed
. Ci r . 19 97 )
. W e can als o preserve j u di ci alres ou rces an d avoid p i ecem eall i t i gati on by ad dressi n g i ssues s o o n e rra th e rth a n la te r . S ee S h el lOf f shore , 122 F. 3d at317. In t h i s c ase, itm ak es s en se t o proceed t o t h e m eri t s of t h e di spu t e. Th ere i s as ubs t ant i al pub l i c i nt e r e s t i n r e s o lvi ng m at t e r s i m pl i c at i ng fe de r al i s m a nd st ate l aw qu est i on s. Thedi s t r i c tcourt ’ s t h orough an d w el l

- reasoned opi n i on al so g iv e s u s am o r e t h a n a d e q u a t e b a s is fo rr e v ie w in gth e m e r it s o f G r a n dP r a ir ie ’s po s i t i o n. Fi nal l y, t he r e i s l i t t l e s e ns e i n de c l i ni ng t o a ddr ess th e m e r i t s a nd
r em andi ng f

orf urt herpr oc ee di ngs. T M G S so ught dec l ar at or y and i nj unct ive reli ef. T h e d i stri ct cou rt he l dtha t, asid e from th e s e c u ri ty fen ce re q u i rem en t, T M G S w a s u n lik e lyt o p r e v a il o n th e m e r its
. T h is h o ld in g , if a ffir m e d , w o u ld Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

7 foreclose m ost form s of rel i ef T M G S cou l dplau sibl y se ek i n th e d i stri ct cou rt. W e r e we t o d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s a tt h i s t i me , we c o ul d c o nf

r o ntane ar - i de nt i c ala ppe aldo w n t he r o ad
. W e w i l lex erci se o ur di sc r et i on t o pr oc ee d to the m er i t s of thi s appeal
. H ow eve r , w e e m phasi ze t hat coun sel ’ s am ateuri sh t act i caldeci si on t o add ress onl y G ran d P rai ri e’ s m oot n ess argu m en ti s an egregi ou s l ap se i n coun sel ’ s du t y t o bri ef al lpert i n en ti ssues. III. W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f inju n c tiv e re lie f fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Nich o ls v. A lcat elUS

A , I n c. , 5 3 2 F .3 d 3 6 4 , 3 7 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); V R CL L Cv. C i ty of D al las , 460 F
. 3d 607 , 611 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. Q u est i on s of l aw , i n cl u di n g w h et h er s ta te la w is p r e e m p te db yfe d e r a l la w , a r e re v ie w e dd e n o v o . Nich o ls , 532 F. 3d a t 3 7 2 ; VRC , 4 6 0 F .3 da t 6 1 1
. If ad e c is io n to g r a n t o rd e n yinju n c tiv e re lie f is g r o u n d e d in le g a l e r r o r , o u rre v ie w is d e n o v o . K ar ahaBoda s , 335 F. 3d at363. “Aplain ti ff

see k i n g a p reli m i n a ryinj u n cti on m u st e stab l i sh th a t h e is l i k ely to succeed on the m eri t s, tha th e is likely to suff er i rreparabl e h arm i n t h e absen ce of pr el i m i nary r el i ef, t hatt he bal ance of eq ui t i es t i p s i n h i s favor , and t hatan i nj u n c tio n i s i n the pu b l i c i n teres t. ” Wi n t er v. Natural R es. D ef
. Cou n ci l, I

n c. , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 36 5 , 37 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ). If a sta tu te i s ex p ress l y p ree m p ted , a fin d i n g w i th
r e g a r dto lik e lih o o do f s u c c e s s fu lfills th e re m a in in gre q u ir e m en ts. S ee VRC , 460 F .3d a t 6 1 1 (cita tion s o m itted ). I V. T M GS f i r s ta r g u e s t h a tt h e s e tb a c k r e q u i r e me n ti s v o i du n d e rTe x a s l a w. TM G S s ay s i t s e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e r“ s upe r s e de s a se tba c k r e qui r e m e nti n a zoning ordi n an ce, un l ess t h e obj ect i n g pa rt y— h ere, t h e C i t y— can show t h at use of t h e em i n en tdom ai n pow er i s u n reasona bl e or arbi t rary. ” T h e di st ri ctcourt r ej e c t e dt h i s p o s i t i o n a s c o n t r a r yt o T e x a s l a w . We a f f i r m. A. Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

“A gas or electric corporationh as the right andp ow ert o en ter on, conde mn, and 2 app ropriateth e lan d, right- of -way , ea se me nt, or otherpropertyto anyp er so nor corp oration .” T EX . UT IL . C O D E ANN . § 181
. 00 4 (Ve r no n 201 0). Itis undispute d th at TMGS i s a ga s corporation with eminent domainpower. 8 T e x a s l a w p r e s u m e s t h a tz o n in go r d in a n c e s a r e v a li de x e r c is e s o f a c it y ’s p o lic e p o w e r s . C ity of Ph a rrv. Tipp itt , 6 1 6 S .W .2 d1 7 3 , 1 7 5 -7 6 (T e x . 1 9 8 1 ). A c hal l engerm ust“pr ove thatthe or di nance i s arbi t r ar y orunre as onabl e i n t hat i tbe ar s no s ubst ant i alr el at i ons hi p t o t he heal t h, s afet y, m or al s orge ner al
w elfa re of the com m u n i ty. ” I d. a t1 76
. TM G S d oes n ota r gue t hatG r and Prai r i e’ s se tbac k r equi r em enti s fac i al l y i nval i d. Rathe r , TM G S i nsi st s t hat , by vi r t ue of

it s s t at e - c o nfe r r e d e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e r , i ti s i m m une f r o m t he s e tb a c k re q u ir e m e n t u n l e s s th e C ityca n s h o w T M G S ’ s u s e o f th e la n dis
u n r e a s o n a b le o r a rb it r a r y . T h e is s u e b o il s d o w n t o w h e t h e r G r a n d P r a i r i e ’s 2
zo ni ng pow eri s subs ervi entt o TM G S’ s em i nentdom ai n pow er , orvi c e- ver sa . Se ve r alT e x a s c a s e s e x p l o r ethe i nt e r pl ayb e t w e e n l o c alz o ni ng r e gul at i o ns ande m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e r s . I n t he a bs t r ac t , ne i t he rpo w e ri s unb r i dl e d: Em i n e n td o m a i n i n v o lv e s t h e d e p r iv a t i o n o f t h e r i g h to f

t he property ow n er t o keep hi s propert y w h en itis n eeded forp u bl i c use. Zo ni ng r e gul at i o ns , de r ive d f r o m t he po l i c e po w e r s , d eprive t he pr o pe r t y o w ne r o f t he us e o f hi s pr o pe r t y c o nt r ar y t o st an dar ds p r o m u lg a te dfo rth e h e a lth , s a fe tya n dw e lfa r e o f th e p u b lic gener al l y. B ot h pow er s ar e i nhere nti n st at e g ove r nm entand m ay be deleg a t ed f

orappr opr i at e pur pos es . N ei t herpow eri s an u n bri dl ed on e; i n short , t h ere m u stnot be an a bu se of t h e pow er. Port er v. S w . P u b. S erv. Co. , 4 8 9 S .W .2 d3 6 1 , 3 6 3 (T e x . C iv . A p p .— A m a r illo 1972, w r i tr ef

’ d n. r . e. ) (c i t i ng Lom ba r do v . Ci ty of D al las , 73 S. W
. 2d 475 (Tex. 193 4) )
. Th e Port er c o u r ta s k e d“w h e t h e ro n a b s t r a c tp r in c ip le ap u b li c u t il it y ’s pow erof

em i nentdom ai n i s super i ort o t he z oni ng or di nance of a hom e- r ul e c i t y. W e h old th a t i t i s n ot . . . . ” I d. at 362
. In t h at ca se , h o m e o w n e rs sued S ou t h w est ern P u bl i c Servi ce C om pa n y(“S P S ” ) t o rem ove a sub st ati on w h i ch
v io la te da n A m a r illo z o n in go r d in a n c e . I d. at362
- 63
. SPS ar gue d t hat , t o t he Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

9 ext entt he o r di nance c onf l i c t ed w i t h SP S’ s em i nentdom ai n pow er , i tw as une nf o r c e ab l e . The c o ur to f a ppe al s di s ag r e e d, a nd h e l d: T h e r i ght o f e m i ne nt do m ai n ad va nc e d he r e i s o ne de r ive d f r om a gener algr ant and doe s not exe m pt SP S f r om t he zo ni ng aut hor i t y. T h e ci t y, t o w h i ch the st ate ha s s peci f i cal l y en t rusted t h e pol i ce po w e r s , ha s t he po w e rt o i nquir e i nt o t he r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he m a n n er b y w h i ch em i n en t do m a i n i s to be ex ercised w i th i n i ts c o r p o r a te lim its
. It s p la n n in go r d in a n c e s a r e p r e s u m e dto b e v a lid u n t i l t h e c o n t r a r y i s s h o wn , a n d o n e s e e k i n g a n e x c e p t i o n ha s t he b u rd e n of p ro o f. I d. a t3 65
. Si m i l ar l y, i n PortA rt h u r In d ep end ent S chool D i st ri ctv. C i ty of G roves(“ G roves ” ) , 376 S
. W
. 2d 330 , 334 (T ex. 196 4) , t h e courthel d that a sc h ool di st ri ctha d to com pl y w i t h l ocalbu i l di n g codes, notw i t h st an di n g i t s s t ateconfer red m an da t e t o establ i sh an d m ai n t ai n p u bl i c school s. In the absen ce of c om pre hensive st at ew i de re gul at i ons fors c hoolbui l di ngs, a l oc alaut hor i t y c an e x e r c is e its p o lic e p o w e rto p r o m o te th e p u b licw e lfa r e . I d. a t 3 3 4 -3 5
. W hi l e c i t i es have di sc r et i on i n exe r c i si ng pol i c e pow er s, c i t i es m ay notbar o ut r i ghtt he r e as o nab l e e xe r ci s e o f e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e r s . I n A u stin Ind epend ent S ch o o l D ist ri ctv. C i ty of S u n setV

alley(“ S u n setV

alley ” ) , 502 S
. W
. 2d 670 , 671 (T ex. 197 3) , a ci t y att em pted t o “ proh ibi tt h e l ocat i on of sc h ool f acilit i e s w ith in its b o u n d a rie s.” T h e co u rt h e ldth a t th is u n re a so n a b ly im p i n ged
u p o n th e s c h o o l d is tr ic t’s e m in e n t d o m a in p o w e r . I d. a t 6 7 2
. T h i s w a s in contrastt o G roves , w h i ch i n vol ved a m ore c i rcum scr ibed exerci se of pol i ce p o w e r s . Se ei d. at 673 ( “ T h e enfor cem en tof hea l t h an d safet y regulat i on s i s not be f o r e t he c o ur ti n t he i ns t antc as e . W hati s b e f o r e t h e c o ur ti s az o ni ng o rd in a n ce of th e C ityw h ich w h o ll ye x c lu d e s th e sc h o o l fa cili ties inissu e .”)
. M oreover, t h e S u n setV alleycou rtem ph asi zed t h at the schoold i st ri ctcou l d n ot

“ actw i t h i m pu n i t y, ” na m el y, i tcoul d n ot bu i l d i n a given spoti f t h e ci t y show ed th a t t h e ch o ic e o f lo c a tio n w a s u n r e a s o n a b le o ra rb itr a r y . I d. a t 6 7 4 ; accord F

ort W ort h & D
. C. Ry. Co. v . Am m o ns , 215 S. W
. 2d 407, 410- 11 (Tex. C iv. Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

The eminent domain entity (therailro ad) woninboth Ammonsan d Whi te . However, 3 “neithercase expressed theopinion that as an abstract principle the right of e minent domain is superior to the police p owers represented by zoning regulation s.” Porte r , 489 S.W.2d at 364
. 10 A pp . — A m ari l l o 194 8, w ri tref ’ d n
. r. e. ) (h ol di n g t h at c i t y zonin gc o u ld n otst op e xp ans i on of r ail r o ads i di ng ab s e nts ho w i ng t hatr ai l r o ada bus e d e m i ne nt do m ai n po w e r , b utr e c o gni z i ng t hatr ai l r oad ha d t o c o m pl y w i t h c i t y buil di ng c o d e ); G u lf, C
. & S .F
. Ry . Co . v . W h ite , 281 S. W
. 2d 441, 450 (Tex. C iv. A p p .— D a ll a s 1 9 5 5 , w rit re f’ dn .r. e .) (sa m e ). 3 W he n b o t h z o ni ng ande m i ne ntdo m ai n a ut ho r i t y i s v e s t e d i n ac i t y, t he c itym a ym a k e re a s o n a b le e x c e p tio n s to z o n in go r d in a n c e s . S ee C i ty of L u bbock v . A u stin (“L u bbock ” ) , 6 28 S. W
. 2d4 9, 5 0 (Tex
. 1 98 2)
. I n L u bbock , the ci ty c o n d e m n e das t r i p o f t h e p l a i n t i f

f ’ s l a n di n o r d e rt o i m p r o v e a n i n t e r s e c t i o n, w h ic h d e p r iv e dth e lo t o f th e c i t y - m a n d a te dte n -fo o t s e tb a c k
. Id
. at4 9. The p la in tiff

a r g u e dth a t t h e cit yw a s p o w e r le s s to ta k e s u c h am e a s u r e . I d. at49- 50. T h e courtdi sagreed, hol di n g t h at “ a ci t y exerci si n g i t s em i n en tdom ai n po w er i s not b o u n d by i t s ow n zoni n g ordi n an ce un l ess t h e obj ect i n g pa rt y can show th a t t h e con d em n a ti on i s u n rea son a b l e or a rb i trary . ” I d. at50. B. W e r ej e c tTM G S ’ s arg um e ntt hati t s e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e rt r um ps t he
s e tb a c k r e q u i r e me n to f S e c t i o n 1 0
. Ev e n a n e mi n e n td o ma i n e n t i t yl i k e T M GS
m u s t c o m p lyw ith g e n e r a llya p p lic a b le z o n in gre q u i r e m e n ts . S ee G roves , 376 S .W .2 da t 3 3 4 -3 5 ; Port er , 489 S. W
. 2d at 365. TM G S has nots how n t hatTexas in t e n d e dto e x e m p titfr o m z o n in go rs e tb a c k r e q u ir e m e n t s , o rth a tT e x a s ’s
r e g u la tio n s h a v e s u p p la n te dG r a n dP r a ir ie ’ s p o lic e p o w e r s in th is fie ld
. S ee G roves , 376 S. W
. 2d at334- 35. There f or e, TM G S’ s onl y r ec our se i s t o s how t hat G r a n dP r a ir ie ’ s s e tb a c k re q u ir e m e n t is u n r e a s o n a b le o ra rb itr a r y . S ee Tipp itt , 616 S. W
. 2d at175- 76. Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

11 TM G S ha s no ta t t e m pt e d t o de m o ns t r at e t hatt he s e tba c k r e qui r e m e nt fai l s t o prom ot e pu bl i c heal t h , safet y, or w el fare. I n st ead , T M G S says un der L u bbock , i t s “ e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e rs upe r s e de s as e tba c k r equ i rem e nti n a zo n i n g ord i n a n ce.” Iti s tru e th a t L u bbock in vo lve da s etb a ck w h i ch yiel d ed to t he e xe r c i s e o f

e m i ne ntdo m ai n. H o w e ve r , i n L u bbock , th e fact tha t t h e cit y s upe r s e de d i t s s e tba c k was no tl e ga l l y de t e r m i nat ive . Bot h po l i c e po w e ra nd e m in e n t d o m a in a u th o r ityw e r e v e s te db yth e s ta te in o n e e n tit y . Itw o u lds tr a in l o gi c t o s ugg e s tt hatac i t y c anno tm ak e e xc e pt i o ns t o i t s o w n zo ni ng l aws. The L u bbock c o ur tdr e w a n a nal o gyb e t w e e n t he de fe r e nc e a c c o r de d ac i t y w hen l egi sl ativel y overri di n g i t s ow n ordi n an ce, an d the i m m u n i t y of t h e st ate f

rom l oc alor di nances . 628 S. W
. 2d at50 (c i t i ng C i ty of New ark v. Un i v. of D el. , 304 A .2 d3 4 7 , 3 4 9 ( D e l. C h . 1 9 7 3 )); seealso S u n setV alley , 5 02 S. W
. 2da t6 74 (c i t i ng New ark )
. Suc h c i r c um s t anc e s ar e no t pr e s e nt i n t hi s di s pute. Res t at e d, L u bbock he l d t hatw h en po l i c e a nd e m i ne ntdo m ai n po w e r s a r e v e s t e d i n a si n gl e enti t y, t h e e n titym ay m ak e reasonab l e excepti on s t o i t s pol i ce pow er r e gul at i o ns . I ti s w r o ng t o r e ad L u bbock as i m pl i c i t l y abr ogat i ng, s uper se di ng, o rre pud i at i ng t he pr i nc i pl e s e l uc i da t e d a nd a ppli e d i n Port era nd G roves , w h i ch c o n c e r n th e in te r p la yb e tw e e n n o n -u n ita r yp o lic e p o w e ra n de m in e n t d o m a in en t i t i es. TM G S i s un w arran t ed i n concl u di n g t h at, af t er L u bbock , e m i ne nt dom ai n enti t i es are per s eexem pt f rom setback requi rem en t s. U n der T exas l aw , a ci t y m ay n otun reasona bl y exerci se i t s p ol i ce pow ers to z o n e o u te m in e n t d o m a in a u th o r itie s a lto g e th e r . S ee S u n setV alley , 502 S. W
. 2d at671- 7 2
. H ow ev er, G ra n dP ra i ri e’ s setb a ck req u i rem en t m anif es t ly has no s uc h pu r po s e o ref fect . TM G S s ugg e s t s t hati ti s unr e as o nab l e f o rz o ni ng r e q u ir e m e n t s t o in c r e a s e t h e m i n i m u m f o o t p r i n tr e q u i r e df

o ra ne m in e n t d o m a in pr oj e c t . TM G S r e l i e s o n T ennga sco G a s G a th eri ng Co. v. Fi scher , 653 S. W
. 2d 469 (Tex. A pp. — C or pus Ch r i st i1983, w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) , w hi c h recog n i ze d t hat e m i ne ntdo m ai n e nt i t i e s ha ve “ t he r i ghtt o de t e r m i ne t he l o c at i o n a nd a m o unt Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

12 of l a n d s th eyn ee dto carry ou t i n go od fai th th e bu sine ss th eyare ch a rtered to ca rryon . ” I

d. at 476 (c i t i ng A rcola Suga r Mi l ls Co. v. Hou st on L igh t i ng & Pow er Co. , 1 5 3 S .W .2d 6 2 8 , 6 3 3 (T e x . C iv. A p p .— G a lve sto n 1 9 4 1 , w rit re f’ dw .o.m .) ). Fi schera nd A rc o law e r e l and o w ne rcha l l e nge s t o ac o nde m nat i o n a s fai l i ng t he

“ pu bl i c use” requ ire m en t . Th ese c ases do not f orbi d a m u n i ci pa l i t y f rom i n fl uenci ng w her e an i m pro vem ent i s sit ed, or how m uch l and i s need ed to c o mp l ywi t h z o n i ngr e q ui r e me n t s . I tma yb e c o s t l yo ri n c o n v e n i e n tf o rT M GS t o a c qui r e e no ugh l andt o e ns ur e t hati t s c o m pr e s s o r s t at i o n c o nf o r m s t o G r and P ra i ri e’ s req u i rem en ts. B u t t h ese are n orm a l con seq u en ces o f com p l yin g w i th l ocalzoni n g l aw s. TM G S ’ s i n si st en ce t h at iti s exem pt f rom al lsetback requ i rem en t s f

i n ds n o sup port i n l aw an d w ou ld u n rea sona bl y com prom i se G ran d P rai ri e’ s ef

f ort s t o prom ot e i t s c i t i zens’hea l t h an d w el fare. TM G S has no ts ho w n t hati ti s e xe m ptf r o m G r andPr ai r i e ’ s z o ni ng r e g u l a t i o n s o rt h a tt h e s e tb a c k r e q u i r e me n ti s u n r e a s o n a b l eo ra rb i t r a r y . T M GS
m u s t t h e r e fo r e co m p lyw ith th e re g u l a t i o n s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n gits e m in e n t d o m a in po w e r s . TM G S ha s fail e d t o s ho w a li keli h o o d o f s uc c e s s o n t he m e r i t s , a nd t h eref ore i s not en t i t l ed to i nj u n ct ive rel i ef on thi s basi s. V. T M G S n e x t a rgues that t h e P S Apreem pts t h e setback requi rem en tof S e c t i o n 1 0
. W e h o l d t h a t t h e s e tb a c k r e q u i r e me n t i s c o n s o n a n twi t h fe d e r a ll a w. A. C on gress pa ssed the P S Aof 199 4 to recodi f

y, w i t h ou tsubstantive cha n ge, t he N at ur alG as Pi pe l i ne Sa fe t y Acto f 1 96 8 ( “ N G P S A ” ) a n d t he H az ar do us L iq u id s P i p e l i n e S a fe tyA c t o f 1 9 7 9 (“H L P S A”). S eePu b. L. N o. 103- 272, 108 S t at. 745 , pream bl e. T h e P S A i s i n t en ded t o “ provi de adequ ate pr o tect i on ag ai ns tr i s ks t o l i fe a nd p r o pe r t y po s e d b y pi pe l i ne t r ans po r t at i o n a nd p i pe l i ne fac i l i t i e s . ” 49 U
. S. C. § 601 02 ( a) ( 1)
. W i t h e xc e pt i o ns no tr e l e va nthe r e , t he PSA exp ress l y preem pts st ate “ safet y st an da rds f or i n t erst ate pi pel i n e faci l i t i e s or Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

13 i n tersta te p i p eli n e tran sp orta ti on . ” I d. § 6 01 04 (c )
. The PSA al s o dir e c t s t he S ecret ary of

T ran sport ati on t o “p resc ribe m i n i m u m safet y st an da rds” f or p ip e lin e in s ta lla tio n , o p e r a tio n , a n dm a in te n a n c e . I d. § 6 0 1 0 2 (a )(2 ); see49 C. F. R. § § 1 92
. 1– 19 3. 29 17 , 1 95
. 0– 19 5. 58 9. I ti s undi s put e d t hatt he r e gul at i o ns c o v e rT M G S ’ s co m p r e s s o rs ta tio n . P e r tin e n t t o th is a p p e a l is 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 9 2
. 1 6 3 (a), w h i ch rea d s i n pa rt: [ E ] ac h m ai n co m pressor bui l di ng of a c om pre ss ors t at i on m ustbe l oc at ed on pro per t y u nderthe c ont r olof t he o per at or . I tm ustbe far e no ugh a w ayf

r o m a dj ac e ntpr o pe r t y, no tund e rt he c o nt r o lo f t he op era tor, to m i n i m i ze the po ssibil i ty of fi re b ein g com m u n i ca tedto t he c om pre ssor bu i l di ng f r om s t r uct ure s on adj ac entpr ope r t y. T h ere m u stbe e n ou gh open space aroun d the m ai n com pressor b u i l d i n g to a l l ow the f ree m ov em en t of

f i re-f i gh ti n g e q u i p m en t. TM G S s ay s t he s e tba c k r e qui r e m e ntc o nf l i c t s w i t h t hi s r e gul at i o n. C o n g r e s s m a y p r e e m p t s ta te la w in th r e e w a y s . Itm a yd o s o b ycle a r ly a n de x p r e s s lya r tic u la tin git s d e s ir e to p r e e m p t a n a r e a . E mpa cad ora de Carn es d e Fres n i l lo, S
. A
. d e C
. V
. v. C u rry , 476 F
. 3d 326 , 333 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)
. C on gress m a y a l so p ree m p t st a te la w i m p l i ci tl y b y e i th er “d i rectly con fli cti n g w i th i t” (c o n flic t p r e e m p tio n ) o rb y“o c c u p y in ga f ie lds o p e r v a s iv e lya s to n a tu r a lly e x c l u d e it” (fie ldp r e e m p tio n ). I d. O u r t ask i s t o “ ascert ai n t h e i n t en tof C on gr ess . ” Id
. ( quot i ng Cal. F ed. S av. & L oan v. G u erra , 479 U
. S. 272, 280 ( 198 7) )
. C ou rt s presum e t h at “t h e h i st ori c p ol i ce pow ers of t h e States ” are not t o be curt ai l ed byfederall aw un l ess C on gress i n di cat es a “ cl ear an d m an i fest p u rp ose ” to d o so . C ipol lon e v. L igget tG roup , I n c. , 505 U
. S. 504, 516 ( 1992) ( quot i ng R i c ev. S ant a FeEle v at o rCor p. , 331 U
. S
. 218 , 230 ( 194 7) )
. “ C on gress’ enac t m entof

a pr ovi si on def

i ni ng t he pre - em pt ive r eac h of a s t at ut e i m pl i es t hat
m a tters b ey on dth a t reac h are n ot p re-em p ted
. ” I d. a t 5 1 7 ; seealso Medtron i c, I nc . v . Lo hr , 518 U .S . 4 7 0 , 485 ( 199 6) (n ot i n g t h at, i n i n t erpret i n g scope of p ree m p ti on , cou rts m u st a p p l y a “pre su m p ti on ag a i n st t h e p re-em p ti on of state p o lic e p o w e rre g u la tio n s ” a ffe c tin g , in tera lia , “m a tters of h ea l th an dsafety”) Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

14 (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). Fiel d p re e m p ti on requi res a cl ear m an i fest ati on of con gr ess i on a li n ten t. C u rry , 476 F. 3d at334 (c i t i ng G u erra , 4 7 9 U .S
. a t 2 8 1 ). C onf l i c tpr ee m pt i on r equi r es t hati tbe “ physi c al l y i m pos sibl e” t o c om pl y w i th bo t h f e de r ala nd s t at e l aw, o rt hats t at e l aw i m pe de “ t he a c c o m pl i s hm e nta nd ex ecu ti on o f th e fullpu rp ose s an dob j ectives o f C on gr ess . ” I d. (cita tion om itted ). B. T h e P S Aex pressl y preem pts “s afet y st an da rds” forthe faci l i t i es at i ssue. S ee49 C. F. R
. § 60104(c )
. Congre ss has expr es sly i dent i f i ed t he pr ee m pt ed ar ea, so w e w i l l n ot a sk i f oth ers are i m p l i ci tl y c o v e r e d
. S ee Ci po l lo ne , 505 U
. S. at 5 1 7 ; seealso E ngl i sh v. G en. E lec. Co. , 496 U
. S
. 72, 79 ( 199 0) ( “ P re- e m p tion fu n d a m e n ta llyis aq u e s tio n o f c o n g r e s s io n a l in te n t, s e eS c h n e i d e wi n dv . A NR P i pel i n e Co. , 485 U
. S. 293 , 299 ( 19 88 ) , a nd when Cong r e s s ha s m ad e i t s i nt e nt k n o w n th ro u g h ex p li cit sta tu to rylan g u a g e , th e co u rts ’ta sk is a n ea syon e .”)
. T h e q u e s tio n is w h e t h e rth e s e tb a c k re q u ir e m e n t is a“s a fe tys ta n d a r d .” I ti s no t . Al o ng w i t h t he ot he rpr o vi s i o ns of Sec t i o n 10, t he s e tba c k r e qui r e m e nt pri m ar i l y e nsur es t hatbul ky, unsi ght l y, noi sy c om pre ss or st at i ons do notm ar n e ig h b o r h o o da e s t h e t ic s . C it yC o u n c ilr e c o r d s r e v e a l t h a tG r a n dP r a ir ie ’s pri m ar y m ot ivat i on i n adopt i ng Sec t i on 10 w as t o pr es erve nei ghbor hood v i sual c o h e s io n , a v o id in ge y e s o r e s o rd im in is h e dp r o p e r tyv a lu e s . S ee E ngl i sh , 496 U
. S
. at 84 (reco gn i zingtha t m otiva ti on be h in d s tate law i s ge rm a n e to pr e e m pt i o n)
. TM G S po s i t s t hat , r e ga r dl ess of the Ci t y’ s pur po s e i n e nac t i ng Se c t i o n 1 0, s e tba c k r e qui r e m e nt s af fe c tf i r e sa fe t y. Bec aus e § 192
. 16 3 al r e ad y ma n d a t e s t h a tc o mp r e s s o rs t a t i o n s b e s i t u a t e d t o m i ni mi z e f i r e r i s k s , T M GS sa ys G r and P r ai ri e ca n n ot i m pos e am i ni m um s etbac k. W e di sa gr ee . A l oc al
r ul e m ayi nc i de nt al l y af fe c ts af e t y, s o l o ng as t he ef fe c ti s no t“ di r e c ta nd
su b stan ti a l
. ” S ee id
. a t 8 5 ; Sc hne i de w i nd , 485 U
. S
. at 308 ( “ O f course, every st at e st at ut e t hath as som e i ndi r ec tef fec ton r at es an d fac i l i t i es of n at uralgas c om pani es i s notpr e- em pt ed. ” )
. Sec t i on 10’ s se tbac k r equi r em entm ay Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

15 i nci dent al l y af

fect f i r e s afet y if

i tr equi r es a great erdi s t anc e b e t w e e n t he com p re ss or s t ati on an d adj acen tbu i l di n gs t h an w ou l d § 192
. 163 al on e. H o w e ve r , t hi s i n ci dent als al ut ar y e f fe c to n f

i r e s af e t y do e s no tund e r m i ne C on gress’ s i n t en tin p ro m u l gati n g t h e P S A , as i ti s nei t h er di rectnor s u b s ta n tia l. S ee E ngl i sh , 496 U
. S. at85. T M G S coun t ers t h i s i n ference by assert i n g t h at t h e regul ati on s “ ad dress th e location of com p ress or sta ti on s. ” H ow ev er, th e P S Ai tself on l y p ree m p ts safety st an da rds. Sect ion 1 9 2 .163, an adm i n i st rat ive regulat i on , t ou ches on com pressor st ati on loc ati on a s a m ean s of eff ect u ati n g t h i s l egi sl ative di rect ive. A r e gul at i o n pr o m ul ga t e d b y an ad m i ni s t r at ive a ge nc y c anno te xp an d t he
u n a m b ig u o u s lye x p r e s s e dp r e e m p tiv e s c o p e s e t b yC o n g r e s s . S ee Ci po l lo ne , 505 U
. S. a t 51 7. TM G S s ay s a s e tba c k r e qui r e m e nt“ i m pe de s t he a c hi e ve m e nto f t he fu ll p u r p o s e s a n do bje c tiv e s ” o f th e P S A , i
. e. , c o nf l i c tpr e e m pt i o n a ppli e s . But TM G S has nots how n t hatt he s etbac k r equi r em enth i nder s C ongr es s’ s i nt entby
r educ i ng s afet y, n orthati ti s “ physi c al l y i m pos sibl e” to com pl y w i t h Sect i on 10 a n d§ 1 9 2 .1 6 3 (a ). S ee C u rry , 476 F
. 3d at 334. TM G S r ai se s t he pr os pec tt hatan op era tor of a com p ress or sta ti on m a y h a ve to acq u i re m ore l a n d to com p l y w i th b o th re q u ir e m e n ts . T h is m a y c o s t T M G S m o n e y , b u t itd o e s n o t t h w a r t “ th e fu ll p u rp ose s an dob j ectives o f C on gr ess . ” Se ei d. O u r deci si on t oda y i s t h e f i rstt o consi der w h et h er t h e P S Apreem pts a s e tb a c k re q u ir e m e n t fo ra c o m p r e s s o rs ta tio n . H o w e v e r , o u rd e c is io n is consi s t e ntw i t h PSA pr e e m pt i o n j ur i s pr ude nc e f r o m o urc o ur ta nd e l s e w he re. C ases deci ded un der t h e P S A ’ s predecessorst atutes h ave u n i f orm l y i n vali da t ed p a r o c h ia l s a fe typ r o v i s i o n s . S ee A N R P i pel i n e Co. v. I

ow a S t ateCom m erc e Co m m ’n , 8 2 8 F
. 2 d46 5 , 47 2 -73 ( 8 th C i r. 19 8 7 ) (N G P S A) (i n va l i d a ti n g sta te p e rm ittin g , in sp e ctio n , a n den for ce m e n t re g im e o f n a tu ra l ga s p ip e li n e s); Natural G as P i

pel i n e Co. of

A m . v. R
. R
. Com m ’

n of T ex. , 67 9 F
. 2 d51 , 52 -53 ( 5 th C i r. 198 2) ( N G P S A) (i n vali da t i n g st ate l egi sl ati on protec t i n g aga i n st rel ease of Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

Gran d Prairie has not appealed thedistrict court’s determin ation that part of the 4 security fencerequirementis preempte d. 16 h y d r o g e n s u lfid e ); Un i t ed G as P i pel i n e Co. v. T

errebon n e Pa ri sh Pol i ce Ju ry , 319 F
. Su pp . 113 8, 114 0- 41 (E
. D
. L a. 197 0) ( N G P S A) (i n v al i da t i n g ordi n an ce re g u la tin gco n str u ctio n , in sta ll a tion , a n dop e ra tion of n a tu ra l ga s p ip e li n e s), aff’d pe rc ur i am , 4 4 5 F .2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 2 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 1 ); N
. B or derPi pel i ne Co. v. Ja ck so n Co u n ty , 5 1 2 F
. S u p p . 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 4
- 6 5 ( D. Mi n n . 1 9 8 1 ) ( NGPS A) (i nva l i da t i ng r e qui r e m e ntt hatpi pe l i ne b e b ur i e d at l e as t s i x fe e tde e p)
. N o ne of t h ese c ases for ecl ose l aw s pri m ari l y rel ated t o aest h et i cs or non - safet y pol i ce p o w e r s . Se eUni t e d Gas , 445 F
. 2d at 302 ( “W e do n othol d that t h e P ari sh P ol i ce J u r yca n n o t e n a c t a v a lido r d in a n c e re q u ir in gp e r m i t s w ith re a s o n a b le c o n d itio n s .”); cf. AN

R Pi pe l i ne , 828 F. 2d at473- 74 ( eval uat i ng ef fec tof federa l p r e e m p tio n o n “ n o n s a fe typ o r tio n s ” o f r e g im e ; u p h o ld in gfe e s fo rfe d e r a lly
m an da t ed i n spect i on s c arri ed ou tby st ate agency). H ere, C on gress h as spoken cl earl y. Th e P S Apreem pts safet y st an da rds f or naturalgas pi pel i n e faci l i t i es. G ran d P rai ri e’ s setback requ i rem en tis n ota safet y st an da rd i n l et t er, pu rpose, or ef fect . I tm ay rem ai n i n f orce. B ec ause t he se tbac k pro vi si on of Sec t i on 10 i s notpr ee m pt ed, TM G S has
n otshow n i ti s l i kely t o prevai lon the m eri t s. Th e di st ri ct court di d n otabu se i ts discreti on i n fa i l i n g to enj oin the setb a ck req u i rem en t. V I. L astly, T M G S argu es th at t h e preem pted sec ur it y f e nc er e quir e m e n ti s not s e v e r a b le fr o m th e re m a in d e ro f S e c tio n 1 0
. C o n s e q u e n tly , w e m u s t s tr ik e a ll 4
o f Se c t i o n 1 0. TM G S i s m i s t ak e n. S e v e r a b ilityis m a tt e ro f s ta te la w . T ex. Ph arm acy A ss’

n v. Prud enti al Ins. Co . of A m. , 1 0 5 F .3 d1 0 3 5 , 1 0 3 9 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). In T e x a s , if p a r t of as ta tu te is in v a lid , th e re m a in d e rs u r v iv e s , u n le s s th e in v a lidp r o v is io n is “s o co n n e c te din
m e ani ng t hati tc anno tb e pr e s um e d t he l e gi s l at ur e w o ul d hav e pa s s e d t he o ne Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 11200

17 w i th ou t t h e oth er.” R o s ev . D o c t o rs Ho s p. , 801 S. W
. 2 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 4 (Tex. 1990) (ci t ati on om i t t ed). G ran d P rai ri e’ s U D C in di cat es t h at al lprovi si on s are severabl e, an d i f

an y sect i on , parag raph , sentence, cl au se, or ph rase i s decreed
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , s u c h s h a l ln o tc a u s e a n yo t h e rp a r to f t h e UD C t o b e c o me in o p e r a tiv e . G RAND P RAIRIE , T EX . , U D C art . 1, § 9. Plai n l y, i ti s t h e i n t en tof G ra n dP ra i ri e th a t i n va l i d a ti on of on e p rov i sion , the secu ri ty fen ce re q u i rem en t, s hal lno tc aus e ac o ur tt o t hr o w o ut t he ba by w i t h t he b at h wat e r . M o r e o ve r , t he
r e m ai ni ng po r t i o ns o f Se c t i o n 1 0 ar e c ap ab l e o f b e i ng ap pl i e d s epa r at e l y, a nd th e s e d is tin c t p r o v is io n s (g o v e r n in g , in tera lia , bu i l di n g m ater i al s, roof i n g, noi se l e ve l s , a nd l and s c ap i ng) ar e notso cl o s e l y t i e d t o t he s e c ur i t y fe nc e r e qui r e m e nt th a t w e ca n p r e s u m e th a t, w ith o u t it , th e C ityw o u ldh a v e g iv e n u p o n th e w h o le e n te r p r is e . Cf. R o s e , 8 0 1 S .W .2 da t 8 4 4
. V II. T M G S h a s fa ile dto s h o w th a tG r a n dP r a ir ie ’ s s e tb a c k re q u ir e m e n t is c o n t r a r yt o s t a t e o rfe d e r a ll a w. Bec a us e G r a n dP r a i r i e h a s fa i l e dt o s h o w a l i kel i hood o f

s ucc es s on t he m er i t s, t he di st r i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni ed i nj unct ive r e l i e f w i t h r e ga r d t o t hi s r e qui r e m e nt . The j udg m e nti s AFF IR M E D , and t he c as e RE M A N D E D f

orf urt herpr oc ee di ngs as nec es sa r y. Case: 08-11200 Document: 00511128172 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/01/2010