Government taking of land through eminent domain can be a messy affair, with landowners often feeling they aren’t adequately compensated for their property. The situation becomes even murkier, as a recent case from Charlotte illustrates, when the issue involves the government use of private property via easement and eminent domain.
In 2003, the city of Charlotte filed an eminent-domain action to lay water lines (8-inch gravity and 16-inch pressurized main) through the property of Steven and Lorraine Long. The city deposited $6,200 as either full or partial compensation to the Longs for a permanent sanitary sewer easement and temporary construction easement across their property.
Complicating matters was that the new pipes would run through the Longs’ existing septic leach field, rendering it unuseable. The city agreed to provide a new septic system, which involved running 400 feet of 2-inch pipe to a wooded area behind the Longs’ house. Unlike the old septic system, which was lower than the house and operated via gravity, the new leach field was at a higher elevation than the house and required an electric pump. The city covered the $16,000 cost of installing the new septic system.
In 2004, the Longs filed a motion seeking additional compensation from the city beyond that for the sewer line easement. They contended that the new leach field and associated 2-inch pipe and pump amounted to an inverse condemnation. Inverse condemnation is “a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.”
A superior court judge found, however, that an inverse condemnation had not occurred in the case. And in a ruling Feb. 7, the N.C. Court of Appeals agreed that the Longs were not entitled to extra compensation.
“Plaintiff’s [the city] installation of the pump, pipe, and field on defendants’ [the Longs’] property did not necessarily flow from construction of the improvement, here the 8-inch sewer line and 16-inch sewer main force,” wrote Judge Ann Marie Calabria for the appeals court.
“The installation was not part of the improvement project, but rather the plaintiff’s subsequent and separate effort to accommodate defendants’ need for a new septic system. In fact, defendants consented to the installation of the new pump, pipe, and field and plaintiff reciprocated by expending $16,000.00 to cover the cost. Defendants incorrectly assert a separate taking has occurred.”
The appeals court also rejected the Longs’ claim that the city should have to pay for the electricity to operate the pump as well as any maintenance and repair bills on the new septic system.
The case is City of Charlotte v. Long, (05-283).
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2006/050283-1.htm
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.