9th Circuit: Private Utilities Do Not Constitute a "Federal Agency" Under the Relocation Act
Posted in Court Decisions

Both California and federal eminent domain laws set forth obligations on "public entities" or the "government."   When these specific terms are used, do the statutes also apply to public or private utility companies exercising the power of eminent domain?

One example is found in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, which allows a landowner to seek reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees when a condemnation action instituted by a "federal agency" is abandoned by the "United States."  (42 U.S.C. 4654.)  If a utility company institutes an eminent domain action pursuant to the authority of a federal agency, does the statute equally apply to the utility company?

According to a recent 9th Circuit opinion, the answer is apparently no.  In Transwestern Pipeline Company v. 17.19 Acres of Property, a private utility company obtained permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct a natural gas pipeline across about 900 acres of property.  When one landowner aggressively fought the eminent domain action, the utility company changed the alignment to avoid that property and essentially abandoned the condemnation.  When the property owner sought recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees under the above Relocation Act statute, the court concluded that the private utility company was not bound  by the statute, and therefore the owner was not entitled to an award of costs and fees.

While the Transwestern Pipeline case only addresses one particular statute in the Relocation Act, the holding could arguably be applied more broadly.  For example, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.025 requires a "public entity" to offer to pay up to $5,000 for the property owner to obtain an independent appraisal.  A literal reading of the statute suggests this requirement does not apply to utilities exercising the power of eminent domain, but the issue has not been decided by the courts.  In the future, utility companies could point to the Transwestern Pipeline case in support of this interpretation in an effort to avoid paying the $5,000 appraisal reimbursement.

Jump to Page

Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain. We cover all aspects of eminent domain, including condemnation, inverse condemnation and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts and report on all major eminent domain conferences and seminars in the United States.

Stay Connected

RSS RSS Feed

Categories

Archives

View All Nossaman Blogs

Nossaman LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek