Can a company construct a pipeline on your land without your consent? You may be surprised at the answer. The concept of eminent domain in Texas real estate balances the rights of private property owners with the authority of businesses asserting a public purpose.
One of the most influential eminent domain cases in recent Texas history, Denbury Green v. Texas Rice Land Partners, involved a clash between a pipeline developer and Texas landowners who challenged whether private companies should have the authority to take land for projects that may not truly benefit the public.
When conflicts arise over land access, easements, or pipeline construction, courts are often forced to weigh economic development against the rights of individual owners.
The Conflict Behind Denbury Green v. Texas Rice Land Partners
The dispute began when Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas LLC sought to build a carbon dioxide pipeline across land owned by Texas Rice Land Partners and claimed it qualified as a common carrier under Texas law. That designation would have allowed the company to exercise eminent domain authority and obtain easements without the landowner’s permission.
Texas Rice Land Partners disputed the assertion, arguing that “stated” public purpose alone should not automatically grant a private company the power of eminent domain. The case went to the Texas Supreme Court. It was a precedent-setting legal dispute over whether the pipeline was truly serving the public and the amount of evidence companies must present before seizing private land in Texas.
The Texas Supreme Court Decision
The Texas Supreme Court has held that pipeline companies do not automatically have the right to exercise eminent domain upon submitting a permit application. Instead, the court said that companies must prove there is a legitimate public use and a reasonable chance that public customers will eventually use the pipeline. In doing so, the decision established a higher standard for private parties seeking to condemn land as a common carrier.
The Denbury litigation became one of the most closely watched property-rights battles in modern Texas history because it addressed a difficult question about pipeline expansion and private land ownership.
The Texas Supreme Court ultimately concluded the following:
- Higher Burden for Eminent Domain Claims: The Texas Supreme Court’s 2012 Texas Rice decision made clear that private pipeline companies do not automatically have the authority to condemn. Instead, they must show a legitimate and realistic likelihood that the pipeline will provide public benefit rather than only benefit the company.
- Definition of a “Common Carrier”: The court explained that a pipeline may qualify as a common carrier if it is expected to transport product for at least one independent third-party customer after the line becomes operational.
- Shift Back Toward Pipeline Authority: While the Texas Rice decision (2012) was interpreted as a win for landowners, the subsequent Texas Rice II decision in 2017 ultimately held that private pipeline companies can still use eminent domain powers if they meet the reasonable probability test.
- Limits of the T-4 Permit: Obtaining a T-4 permit from the Texas Railroad Commission does not automatically prove that a company has lawful common carrier status. Property owners still retain the right to challenge that designation in court.
- Outcome of the 2017 Decision: The Texas Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Denbury Green had sufficiently established common carrier status, allowing the carbon dioxide pipeline project to move forward despite opposition from the affected landowners.
For Texas landowners, the case created both new protections and new concerns. Property owners gained the ability to challenge whether a pipeline genuinely qualifies as a public use project. Still, energy companies also retained a relatively accessible path toward establishing common carrier status.
Protecting Your Property Rights in Texas
When a company seeks access to private land for pipelines, easements, or development projects, property owners may feel pressured to comply without fully understanding their legal rights or options. If you are facing concerns involving eminent domain or unauthorized use of your property, Christman Attorneys can evaluate whether a company has legitimate condemnation authority and help you explore potential
Call Christman Attorneys for Your Legal Needs Today!
Looking for real estate law services in Texas? Christman Attorneys is your premier choice, as we were voted as a Top 3 Law Firm in Denton County. Senior Partner Drew Christman has been named Best Real Estate Attorney in Denton County for several years. With years of experience and a deep understanding of the legal landscape, Drew Christman and our skilled team are dedicated to helping our clients with complex real estate matters. Whether it be mediation, arbitration, real estate contracts, or litigation, trust Christman Attorneys to provide professional and effective representation for all your real estate legal needs.
Please consult an attorney for advice about your individual situation. The material on this website and in this or any blog article we publish is for general informational use only and is not a substitute for professional legal guidance. The attorneys at Christman Attorneys believe in tailoring legal advice and solutions to your own personal circumstances.
We have an unwavering commitment to our clients at each stage of their legal situation.
