Proposed Power Lines Would Run Through East Portion of Worth County

A proposed new transmission line running from Orient (IA) to Denny (MO) to Fairport (MO), north of Maysville, would run through the eastern half of Worth County somewhere between Grant City and Allendale. 

The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which handles regional energy for the area, has determined that they need more power to the portion of the national grid that they manage. MISO is responsible for planning new transmission lines. They serve part of Missouri and 15 other states. In order to meet demand growth and to prevent blackouts like what have happened recently in California and Texas, they have decided that they need a new transmission line by 2030. In July 2022, MISO’s board approved the Orient-Denny-Fairport project.

MISO does not own transmission or distribution infrastructure, but is entrusted by the entities that own the infrastructure to manage it. Their task is to match electricity generation with electricity consumption.

NextEra Energy, based in Virginia, is bidding to build the Missouri portion of the transmission line. Mid-American has already gotten the Iowa portion of the line and will build the line to the Missouri border. On Wednesday, Stantec, a Virginia-based Company contracting for Next Era, conducted a town hall regarding the proposed transmission lines at Hundley-Whaley in Albany with Worth and Gentry County landowners. They have begun the process of contacting landowners. Landowners may be contacted by other companies seeking to build the Missouri portion of the transmission line between now and May. 

The proposed transmission line is a 102 mile long project consisting of 345 KV transmission lines that will connect the Denny substation to Associated Electric Cooperative’s Fairport substation. The Iowa portion will be owned and operated by Mid-American, while NextEra would own the Missouri portion.

The lines would have a 150 foot easement for lines. Farmers would be allowed to graze their cattle on the easement portion as well as raise their crops. Existing fences would not have to be moved. They cannot build buildings or plant trees within the 150 foot easement area. Under the easement rules, NextEra personnel would have access to the land for the purpose of maintaining their lines. The transmission lines would be 120 feet tall. There would also be a fiber line running three feet deep parallel to the power lines. It would not be used to hook up to the Internet, but it would only be used for the utility’s private use.

Farms may be sold by landowners after an easement is signed, but the easement would still exist for the new landowner. Who would receive the easement payments would be between the buyer and the seller. 

Bids are due by May 2023. In October 2023, the MISO board will award the project. After that, the project will be subject to regulatory approvals, which must be obtained before construction can begin. The target date for completion of the project is June 2030.

Environmental and cultural factors have to be considered as well as homes and farms. In the last 20 years, Bald Eagles have made a comeback in the area in the last 20 years, and nests have to be taken into consideration. During nesting season, which runs from May to July, construction cannot come within 500-600 feet of a Bald Eagle nest.  

Dan Blaha of Stantec gave an hour long presentation Wednesday morning, answering questions from landowners from Worth and Gentry Counties regarding the logistics of the project.

While the project itself has nothing to do with wind or solar power, Mr. Blaha said wind or solar farms could input their power into the line. The poles would be directly embedded into the ground. There is a 900 to 1000 distance between each utility pole. 

Currently, NextGen is in the process of offering landowners $3,000 per parcel and $2,000 for the first year for an easement option. Landowners would get an option payment of $2,000 each year for up to six years until awarded. Crops or hay fields that are damaged during construction will be compensated for. If NextGen does not get the bid, the money will be the landowner’s to keep. Stantec is in the process of contacting 150 landowners with land along the lines.

NextGen would pay local property taxes for the power lines. Since they are a state assessed utility, the state would tell local assessors how to assess the lines. 

If people don’t sign the easement option, then Stantec and/or NextGen will come back and negotiate at a later date. As a last resort, eminent domain could be used. In the last few years, following construction of the Grain Belt Express line, there was a lot of talk in the Missouri Legislature about banning eminent domain by private entities. However, a compromise proposal signed by Governor Mike Parson that was endorsed by both farm organizations and Invenergy, the company pushing the Grain Belt Express, required that landowners be paid 150% of fair market value for land taken through eminent domain for electrical transmission projects.

The law signed by Governor Parson last year also requires that developers start construction within seven years of getting easements or lose their rights to the property. A court appointed commission would determine fair market value of a farmer’s land during eminent domain proceedings; the commission must include a farmer who has lived in the area for at least a decade. An amount of power proportional to the length of the line must be made available to residents.

Proposed Missouri Ballot Initiative would Restrict Eminent Domain

A proposed Missouri ballot initiative would restrict eminent domain by government entitles. It would amend the Missouri Constitution to allow only government entities to use eminent domain, prohibit its use for private purposes with certain exceptions for utilities, require that eny taking of property be necessary for a public use while continuing to provide "just compensation," require that the intended public use be declared at the time of the taking, and permit the original owners to repurchase the property if it is not so used within five years or if the property is offered to a private entity within 20 years. According to the cost estimate provided by the Secretary of State's office, the total cost or savings to state or local governmental entities is unknown. the estimated costs, if any, could be significant.

The group Citizens for Property Rights is pushing the petition. It says on its website that private use of eminent domain is "one of many types of corporate welfare" that they say is being practiced by the state. On their website, they say that eminent domain, as practiced by certain governmental entities, amounts to nothing more than the theft of small businesses for the benefit of gigantic corporations. For instance, they cite the case of Homer Tourkakis, a dentist who was sued by the City of Arnold, who wanted to take away his dental building so that they could build a huge department store that they said would bring in more revenues.

As quoted by Citizens for Property Rights, Tourkakis said:
I have no objection to development, but I feel it’s wrong to take my property for the benefit of another private party. Over the last three years, I have spent a vast part of my life and a whole lot of money fighting for my constitutional right to keep my property. I would not wish this on anyone. This process is a travesty of justice and needs to be stopped. I don’t take kindly to the idea of having my hard work and property taken away. I could not reproduce what I have here anywhere else. I have a prime location and it has been excellent for my business. But city officials don’t care—they’re too fixated on the increased sales tax revenues the new retail establishments will bring in.

In March 2008, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that smaller and larger cities have the authority to condemn properties and turn them over to private developers. Eminent domain battles of this nature have been fought throughout the state.

According to a fact sheet from the Missouri Ombudsman of Property Rights summarizing RSMo 523.350, the Landowner Bill of Rights in Missouri, at least 60 days before the filing of a condemnation action seeking to acquire an interest in real property, the condemning authority shall provide the owner of record with a notice. Among other things, the notice is required to state the legal description, the purpose or purposes for which the property is to be acquired, and advising the owner of their rights.

Property owners have the right to seek legal counsel, make a counteroffer and engage in further negotiations, obtain one's own appraisal, have just compensation determined by court-appointed condemnation commissioners and by a jury, seek assistance from the office of Ombudsman of Property Rights created to help owners help understand the process, contest the right to condemn, and exercise the right to request vacation of an easement.

The Missouri Municipal League opposes efforts to prohibit the use of eminent domain to rehabilitate blighted areas according to their most recent policy statement available online. They have litigated in the past against previous attempts to restrict eminent domain. "Eminent domain is indispensable and is most often used as a last resort for revitalizing local economies, creating much-needed jobs, and generating revenue that enables cities to provide essential services. Eminent domain is a powerful tool; its prudent use, when exercised in the sunshine of public scrutiny, helps achieve a great public good that benefits the entire community. Economic policies and incentives supported by the Governor and adopted by the General Assembly will have little effect in encouraging business to expand or relocate in Missouri to support the economic vitality of the state if land cannot be assembled through the power of eminent domain if necessary," said the statement.

In another section relating to municipal acquisition of land, the Municipal League stated in the same policy paper that they opposed any requirement to pay property damages to nearby property owners when a municipality purchases or condemns land for public purposes. They also oppose attempts that would encourage property owners to challenge, risk-free, condemnation settlements "offered in good faith."

One of the main problems is that "blight" is a very subjective definition; the Municipal League maintains that most cases of eminent domain are exercised to combat "blight." However, the Ombudsman for Property Rights posted a whole section of well-kept houses that were targeted for condemnation because they were deemed to be "blighted."