Federal agencies begin process of taking Laredo land for border wall

Laredo Morning Times ^ | December 10th, 2019 | Julia Wallace

[BeauBo]

First local landowner receives notice of court action for border wall surveys.

Last week Tony Medina Jr., who owns about three acres (near the Max A. Mandel Golf Course) right off Santa Isabel Creek — at the tip of a horseshoe bend in the Rio Grande — was notified that the government will be filing for the condemnation of his property in federal court, a process where the government seizes private property and compensates the owner.

This is the first such case that has come to light in the Laredo area.

“As of December 2, 2019, we have not received your permission to access the property, and because the Government has an immediate need to enter your property to conduct the necessary surveys, we have determined that it will be necessary to file an action in federal court to allow us to enter for these purposes for a limited period of 12 months,” reads part of the letter Medina received from Customs and Border Protection.

The government anticipates seeking this right of entry in the next 90 days, they write, the pleading for which is called a Declaration of Taking and Complaint in Condemnation. No action has been filed yet, according to court records.

Money to construct a border wall in this area of Webb County has not yet been funded; however, the government has the funding to conduct these surveys.

[WASCWatch]

Just takes good negotiating skills to get a great deal from the government. If they want it bad enough, they will pay a largely inflated value. Key is to not be too greedy.

[BeauBo]

“any discussion about rerouting the river”?

Since the river is the International boundary, it is governed by a ratified treaty.

To accommodate water needs for ranchers, water can be piped to other side of the fence. For farmland, homes or businesses, or even recreational use, gates can be installed with keypad access.

[eastexsteve]

right-of-way generally implies ownership; are you sure you didn’t just give up a pipeline easement?

No, it implies access. They have to have access to it to maintain it. They don't own it. The only thing they own is the pipe in the ground. It's all still part of my deed at the court house.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that the landowner no longer owns the well platform or pipeline. So, much so, that they think they can freely drive down it with four-wheelers or hunt on it just because it's a pipeline or well site. They find out differently the hard way if the land owner, deputy, or game warden catches them on it.

[catnipman]

“No, it implies access. “

in most states, that’s a type of easement; generally, easements are publicly recorded use-rights by one party of a property owned by another party ... utility easements are the quintessential examples of easements in which utility infrastructure is located on someone else’s property along with rights of access for maintenance activities ...