Opinion ID: 1577621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Necessary Purpose

Text: Indeed, Union Pacific's primary challenge to the expropriation proceeding is its claim that ExxonMobil has not separately shown that the at-grade crossing it desires serves a necessary purpose. Union Pacific argues the district court made a factual finding that the desired route sought by ExxonMobil was not necessary, ostensibly because other routes to the valve site were possible. However, we do not interpret the district court's reasoning as a factual finding that the servitude over the rail tracks did not serve a necessary purpose, and to the extent that the district court may have done so, we find the record evidence does not support such a finding. In challenges to the necessity of a taking, the landowner must prove that the legislatively-authorized expropriator exercised its large discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith. Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fredericks, 566 So.2d 79, 83 (La.1990). Whether the expropriator's purpose is public and necessary is a judicial determination that will not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. Calcasieu-Cameron Hosp. Serv. Dist. v. Fontenot, 628 So.2d 75, 78 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0168 (La.3/18/94), 634 So.2d 854. In the context of expropriation, necessary refers to the necessity of the purpose for the expropriation not the necessity for a specific location. Calcasieu-Cameron Hosp. Serv. Dist., 628 So.2d at 78. Once public necessity is established, the extent and the location of property to be expropriated are within the sound discretion of the expropriation authority and determination of same will not be disturbed by the courts if made in good faith. Id. The criteria to be considered by the expropriator in determining the location and extent of the property to be expropriated includes factors such as costs, environmental impact, long range area planning, and safety considerations. Red River Waterway Com'n, 566 So.2d at 83 (citing U.S. v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 67 S.Ct. 252, 91 L.Ed. 209 (1946)). The amount of land and the nature of the acreage taken must be reasonably necessary for purpose of the expropriation, but it is not necessary to show actual, immediate, and impending necessity for the expropriation. City of New Orleans v. Moeglich, 169 La. 1111, 126 So. 675, 677 (1930). The suitability of the property for expropriation is primarily a question of fact on which the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous. Board of Com'rs of New Orleans Exhibition Hall v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 625 So.2d 1070, 1073 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-3088, 93-3100 (La.1/28/94), 630 So.2d 802. By statute, expropriation of property for common carrier pipe line purposes may include  the real estate, rights of way, pipe in line, telephone and telegraph lines or other communication systems, tank facilities ... necessary for the proper conduct of its business as a common carrier, all fixtures, equipment and personal property of every kind owned, controlled, operated, used or managed, in connection with, or to facilitate the transportation, distribution and delivery of petroleum through lines constructed of pipe.  La.Rev.Stat. 45:251(3) (emphasis supplied). In this case, ExxonMobil's Senior Staff Right of Way and Claims Agent, Paul Saltaformaggio, testified regarding the necessity of periodic access to the valve assembly for federally-mandated inspection and testing. There is no dispute that such access was necessary to comply with federal regulations. Mr. Saltaformaggio also testified that he rejected building a road from LA Hwy 1 to the valve site for a variety of reasons, and instead selected a route through property owned by Georgia Gulf and across the tracks owned by Union Pacific, the latter consisting of a 50 feet by 30 feet parcel. First, he believed that such a road coming from LA Hwy 1 would not meet the wetland requirements of the Corps of Engineers, and he believed that there were wetlands along that route, noting there was standing water up to the knee of his hip-boots and the ground was muddy. While ExxonMobil itself did not order a wetlands assessment, a fact Union Pacific cites as indicative of arbitrariness, Union Pacific in advance of trial did commission such a delineation, and wetlands were determined to exist along the so-called alternate route and that they would or could be impacted by the building of a road. Although much of the evidence put on by Union Pacific was to the effect that any wetlands impact could be mitigated and that the Corps of Engineers would possibly approve the building of a road, the fact remains that additional mitigation of wetlands was almost certain to be required in order to build a road from LA Hwy 1, while impacted wetlands along the route selected by ExxonMobil had already been mitigated when the pipeline extension was permitted and constructed. Thus, Mr. Saltaformaggio did not act arbitrarily in citing wetlands delineations as a consideration for not locating the route from LA Hwy 1. Furthermore, Mr. Saltaformaggio testified that the access road would necessarily cross two ditches or drainage canals, requiring the building of bridges or other crossings and possibly affecting drainage patterns by the addition of foreign fill consisting of clay and rock. He also testified that the pipeline company does not build roads on top of pipelines, citing safety reasons, and that a road along this route would necessarily involve building the road above ExxonMobil's pipeline and possibly other companies' pipelines that traverse that corridor. Although a road can cross a pipeline at a 30-degree angle or more, he explained that the company never builds a road above and parallel to a pipeline because it could exert dangerous loads on the pipe itself and prevent inspection, usually done from the air, for releases of petroleum and damage. No evidence or testimony contradicted his testimony. Indeed, Union Pacific's civil engineering expert agreed that pipeline companies do not allow the building of roads above their pipelines, and he conceded that, while building a road from Hwy 1 was doable, he would probably not recommend that route to ExxonMobil were he consulted by ExxonMobil. Additionally, Mr. Saltaformaggio testified that physical access from LA Hwy 1 would entail specific safety issues. First, it would require permitting for the building of a driveway off of the highway, which he believed would not be permitted by the Department of Transportation so close to a bridge. He further explained that stopping an 18-wheeler on a busy highway to off-load a 40,000-pound cherry picker at that location would require, at a minimum, closing down the highway for some period of time. He further discounted using as an access Shell Oil Company's property situated at the highway, citing his concerns that an 18-wheeler assembly could not turn-around on that property and that off-loading the cherry picker in that location could present safety issues. Union Pacific presented no evidence that such concerns were unreasonable or arbitrary. Indeed, although Union Pacific's witness opined that these concerns could be alleviated, no witness testified that they were unreasonable considerations. Finally, Mr. Saltaformaggio testified that a route from LA Hwy 1 would entail seeking additional servitudes for the building of the road from no less than four property owners, as well as permission from other pipeline owners, to expand its right of way to accommodate a road and corresponding bridges. ExxonMobil's existing servitudes, which ranged from 10 to 30 feet, were entered in evidence, and support this witness's testimony. On the other hand, ExxonMobil had already negotiated a servitude for a road along that portion of the new pipeline extension with Georgia Gulf, such that the route selected by ExxonMobil would require seeking a servitude only from Union Pacific. As the district court observed, ExxonMobil's selected route was absolutely more convenient and probably less costly. On this record, we find ExxonMobil has established that the private, at-grade crossing over Union Pacific's rail tracks was for a public and necessary purpose. Additionally, we find that Union Pacific failed to establish that ExxonMobil was arbitrary or capricious in the selection of the route chosen. The record evidence shows that ExxonMobil acted in good faith in both selecting the route ultimately proposed to Union Pacific and in attempting to negotiate an agreement with Union Pacific. [2]