The message below was sent to Landmark Field Service, which was contracted to acquire a right of way for a Energy Transfer natural gas pipeline through DISH, TX over a year ago . As you can see below, they treated the citizens here horribly, please remember this when signing an easement. Also, this can give you some idea, of how long the assault on our rights, and the suffering has been going on.Mr. Craig,
This is in response to our telephone conversation on Saturday, June 27, 2008, regarding the pipeline that is currently being installed inside the corporate limits of the Town of DISH, TX. More specifically, the conversation pertained to several instances where your company, Landmark Field Services, Inc. (Landmark), acting on behalf of Energy Transfer, has failed to meet its obligations to the citizens of the Town of DISH, and the property owners who are being violated by Landmark.
The citizens of the community have several issues with your industry as a whole; however, I wish to only discuss the issues that pertain to your company. Please note that these issues at some point or the other have been brought to the attention of others in your organization, and have been ignored. Further, in my three plus years serving as an elected official in this community dealing with your industry, I have been told the same excuses time and time again. Therefore, I would request that you not insult my intelligence nor waste my time with lies and excuses.
I will give you my expected response from you, that others in your industry have used, and comment on the expected response from my position, and therefore, take a step out of the process of getting some action for the citizens of this community. Many of the items below are seen firsthand, while others have been reported to me by property owners, and citizens.
#1
The first issue pertaining to the current pipeline being installed is that your company failed to obtain the required permit to install this pipeline, prior to work beginning. The fine for these actions would have been several thousand dollars; however, in the spirit of cooperation, the town chose to only issue a double permit fee, which saved your company thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees. That is the way good neighbors act Mr. Craig, in case you were wondering.
Typical response:Landmark was unaware that a permit was required in this instance, or it slipped the mind of the employee whose responsibility it was to get the permit...it is somebody else's fault.
My Response:It is the responsibility of companies that install pipelines inside the corporate limits of a municipality to know what permits are required by the municipality. Short version…ignorance of the law is no excuse for failing to comply. The just of our ordinance, is for the installer to show the town where exactly the pipeline will be going, with a small administrative filing fee, which is well within our rights as a municipality in the State of Texas. However, based on the actions of your company, the town is exploring a much more stringent pipeline ordinance, as many other local municipalities have done. Also, I might point out that your company has installed pipelines in the town before, and therefore should know the process and permitting requirements. This is the first example of how your company treats the municipality and the property owners.
#2
Another issue is the timeline in which your have performed this action. The ground work began on this pipeline in March, next weekend we celebrate our independence for the Fourth of July, and this is only a short stretch of pipeline that is being installed. That is four months, and I don’t suspect that the job will be completed anytime soon. Therefore, you have left this area a construction zone for all of this time. During much of this time there have been open trenches several feet deep left uncovered. This poses a danger to the surrounding property owners, livestock, and further takes away from the growth of this area. Also, prior to this project beginning, you assured the property owner that this project would be completed in October of 2007. However, it will likely be completed more than a year later, and therefore, Landmark lied to the property owners and the town. This is a horrible abuse of the powers given to you by the state and federal government, and certainly not what was intended when you were given this authority.
Typical Response:Landmark is working very diligently to complete this project in the projected timeframe; however, due to situations beyond our control we have been unable to complete the project. Further, the completions of these projects are only an estimate.
My Response:
You should think about things that affect the timeliness of work completion, prior to making promises. Further, it is believed by me that you do not take these items into account, nor are you concerned with the inconvenience you impose on the property owners’. Also, you are not concerned with the people of this community and therefore, this job is a low priority for your company. It is my opinion that if you do not complete the job in the stated timeline the property owners that you should compensate the property owners for the additional inconvenience, which in this case is for several months. In looking at the site recently I found no work going on; however, there were a couple of trucks left running with people sleeping in them at 2:30 PM in the afternoon. This does not give the impression that you and your company are working to finish the task and take away this horrible safety risk.
#3The noise that is omitted during the pipeline construction in very disturbing, and your organization has not taken effective steps to assist those in the area. For example, your company begins work very early on weekends, more specifically Sundays. Which are days that people typically dedicate to family or maybe sleep a little later than usual. Unfortunately, do to construction beginning at the crack of dawn on Sunday morning, this has been taken away.
Typical Response:
The Town of DISH does not have a specific ordinance that would prevent Landmark from working early on Sunday morning. Also, do to the project being several months behind, we have to work seven days a week to complete the project.
My Response:Does the Town of DISH need to implement an ordinance to prevent work and noise on Sundays? And again, it is up to Landmark, not the citizens of DISH to complete the work on time. Also, this shows without a doubt that Landmark does not have any concerns for the inconvenience they impose on the local area. I intend to further highlight this later in this message.
#4This is in regards to the first phase of the current pipeline, which was installed in Summer/Fall 2007. The property that the easement is located is not returned to its original state. For example; your company has crossed a local creek with the pipeline without returning it to its normal state. This has hurt the property owners who owned the easement as well as those who live upstream from this area. More specifically, your company narrowed the creek from its original state and altered the natural flow of the creek. Therefore, in periods of heavy rains, which we have occasionally, several areas upstream are now flooding, hurting homes and livestock, and the water is reaching higher ground than before your company destroyed the natural environment of this waterway.
Typical response:Landmark cares deeply that the property owner’s right are not violated, and have made every effort to satisfy the needs of the property owners’. Also, Landmark cares about the environment and would do nothing to hurt it…everything is exactly as we found it. Actually, Landmark’s Landman assured me that he would take care of this, but has not yet taken any action.
My Response:Landmark has put the environment at risk with its irresponsible actions, and although this is a personal opinion, you have violated people’s rights who live upstream from this location. During periods of heavy rains their land now floods hurting livestock and personal lives, and essentially making the property useless for anything, or “reverse condemnation”. It is further my opinion that Landmark should be held accountable for these actions. I have now brought this to the attention of the Army Corp of Engineers and have found that companies such as Landmark are given a permit that allows them to cross water ways with pipelines without further permitting, as needed. However, this is done with certain stipulations, including returning the waterway to its original state. Unfortunately, Landmark has failed to do that in this case. The property owner has before and after photos of this to highlight these failures. A formal complaint has been filed by me on behalf of the property owners to the Corp.
#5The property owner who now deals with their property flooding, previously had an area of the creek that could be crossed with some machinery, such as tractors, four wheelers, etc, in times of low water. However, since your company has put this pipeline through, they are unable to use this crossing in times when the water is low. So you have managed to flood these people’s property and prevent them from utilizing their property as they were previously able to do.
Typical Response:The same as above on #4, with the additional comment of “Landmark is committed to being a good neighbor and benefit to the area”.
My Response:
No need to further respond.
#6
Both the property owner on those neighboring has reported trespassing and theft from work crews working on the pipeline. Also, there is a vacant house that is located in the area that has been completely stripped of anything of value by these crews.
Typical Response:
All of the crews that work on these lines are fully aware that they are not to act in a manner that would reflect negatively on the company. Further, if any actions are brought to out attention it will handled firmly and quickly.
My Response:
I believe that your company turns your head to actions like this, and “stick your heads in the sand” until the problem goes away. I suspect for the most part you have difficulty keeping people employed on these crews and therefore you will not challenge those who do not act appropriately. This has been highlighted when the trespassing was brought to your attention and denied feverously by your company. Unfortunately, the perpetrator left his wallet at the crime scene. Therefore, as far as I am concerned your company not only condones this behavior, it welcomes it.
#7Your company found it necessary to park their vehicles in close proximity of a home, and congregate there for hours. Further, your crews would stare at the homeowner’s family including his wife and young daughter, making them fearful to leave their home. This also led to the constant disturbing of the homeowner’s normal routines, with the constant starting and running of the vehicles.
Typical Response:I believe with phase II of this project your company has not parked vehicles in this area and pushed the mound of dirt in between the work site and the home site.
My Response:Thank you!
#8For phase one of this project, which took place last fall, a cleaning of the lines, or removing the water from the lines, (I do not know exactly) took place right in the middle of two homes. This area is also close to several other home sites. The noise omitted from this is comparable to a jet engine at take-off power. This was going on until late in the night, it was only when I showed up with threats of citations did the noise not stop.
Typical Response:We have talked to the local property owners and found that they are fine with the noise. We further offered them a hotel room to make up for any inconvenience. Also, the rest of the stuff listed above about being a good neighbor and so forth(this is a lie).
My Response:In speaking with the people who live in this area, they do not want a hotel room, they want you to move the noise elsewhere, not move them. If you take nothing else from this, you may want to thoroughly review the Town of DISH’s noise ordinance, prior to making plans to do this again.
#9
You took a 100 foot easement, with threats of condemnation, 50 feet away from a property line. Therefore, essentially nothing can be located on the easement, and there will not be room on the remaining 50 feet to construct anything. In short you have taken a 150 foot easement and only paid the landowner for 100 feet.
Typical Response:I have never seen this before, so I am unsure what your response will be.
My Response:
In my research into imminent domain and condemnation, this is illegal. It is my understanding that you would either have to purchase all of the land (easement), or move the easement to the property line. I believe if the property owner was knowledgeable and went to condemnation, you would have been forced to move the easement or pay for the dead land, there is a great deal of case law to support this theory. Also, this is in direct conflict with the Town of DISH’s pipeline ordinance, which requires consideration to be given to situations such as this, when locating a pipeline.
I would like to summarize and give Landmark some advice to prevent the escalation of this matter. First and foremost the creek which you destroyed needs to be returned to its original state. I was unaware that this was the cause for the destructive flooding upstream until today. I will now need to further investigate this and notify those affected the reason for the increased flooding. There have been fences, livestock, homes, etc, damaged by this flooding. Also, the crossing needs to be repaired, again back to its original state, as you are bound by law to do. The next item is to complete this job as quickly as possible and move on.
Unfortunately, due to the things you have done here, you will likely not be welcomed with open arms should you need to return, but getting out of here soon would be a good start. Also, accomplish this without running loud machinery at 7:00 AM on a Sunday morning. Have a little respect for people’s lives. They have rights also. And under no circumstance should you plan on have the noise comparable to a jet engine go on for two days again. These things will certainly aid in developing a workable relationship.
Should Landmark not react promptly to these concerns, the Town of DISH is currently looking into legal remedies for these problems; our attorneys are looking into our options at the moment. I also would like to be given contact information for Landmark’s and/or Energy Transfer’s legal representation. The Town of DISH is represented by Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla, and Elam, in Fort Worth, TX. Our legal team is led by Bryn Meredith. Bryn may be reached at (817) 332-2580. Should you need to further discuss anything please feel free to contact me. Also, I would like to request a response that you have received this message.
Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX
(940) 453-3640
"Those who say it can not be done, should get out of the way of those that are doing it"