Breaking News! Press release about the filing of our petition with the Surface Transportation Board: PROPERTY RIGHTS LOST AS UNION PACIFIC EXPANDS TO NEW MARKETS:Landowners and Farmers Near Bryan‐College Station Seek Federal Oversight of New Union Pacific Rail FacilityWashington, D.C. [or] Houston: October 24--A group of about 50 landowners, farmers, small business owners and residents filed a legal petition today in Washington to block a proposed 1,200 acre Union Pacific railroad facility near the small town of Mumford, Texas, located just west of Bryan‐College Station in Robertson County. The landowners and other members of the community group, calling themselves the Brazos River Bottom Alliance, believe that a comprehensive review by the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) is required under federal law. The filing with the STB seeks to establish the STB’s jurisdiction over the rail project to enable a thorough review of environmental, regulatory, and land use concerns. Under federal law, the STB has jurisdiction to oversee rail projects when the construction of new rail lines enables a rail company to serve new industries and new markets. In this case, Union Pacific seeks to reach the hot new markets related to hydraulic fracking and the burgeoning coal export business. The family of Kathleen Hubbard, a member of the Alliance, owns farmland where the rail facility and some 72 tracks are proposed. Her family’s land has been farmed continuously for three generations, while other long‐term landowners are nearing the 100‐year designation from the Texas Department of Agriculture. The Alliance believes that Union Pacific has chosen the wrong location, and seeks to protect the property rights of its members. According to the Alliance , Union Pacific’s decision to use highly productive cropland for a rail facility, instead of selecting a nearby site with less economic value, is misguided.Says Hubbard: “Our Alliance supports economic development and working with local government officials on a suitable location. But the site Union Pacific has selected would not maximize economic development in our area and instead potentially will destroy the current economic contributions that agriculture and oil and gas drilling make to the local economy.”State officials in Texas estimate that more than two million acres of cropland were converted to other uses in the ten‐year period between 1997 and 2007. This part of Robertson County also has many oil and gas wells. The proposed Union Pacific site would be six miles long by half a mile wide. Alliance members are fearful that Union Pacific will continue purchasing private property and initiate condemnation proceedings soon on those who refuse to sell. As part of its legal filing, the Alliance is seeking to have a formal hearing before the STB. STB jurisdiction over the new Union Pacific project is critical because, otherwise, rights of the Alliance under state law will be preempted. Jim Blackburn is the attorney representing the Alliance. According to Blackburn: “Due to the preemption doctrine that pervades railway jurisprudence, often railway companies get a pass to step all over landowners’ property rights.” Alliance members believe the rail facility has been proposed to enable Union Pacific to transport shale oil and fracking supplies, coal, and imports from Mexico, and to also service the anticipated growth resulting from the expansion of the Panama Canal. The Alliance commissioned a study by R.L. Banks & Associates, a rail consulting firm, to detail the new markets that Union Pacific will reach with the new lines proposed in Robertson County. R.L. Banks confirmed that these new markets are ripe for railroads to enter. Attempts by Alliance members to meet with the company to learn more about the project and to discuss alternate sites have been rebuffed, with Union Pacific officials refusing to meet with more than one stakeholder at a time.Concludes Hubbard: “For more than 60 years, Union Pacific has not been a good neighbor with their existing operations in Robertson County, with trains blocking public crossings for hours at a time. They have not made good‐faith efforts to solve these problems, and they have a below average safety record, so why should we accept them taking valuable farmland to expand further into our community and to also introduce dangerous environmental conditions for the residents?”
Posted on: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:00:53 +0000