DONLEY AND NANCY DARNELL

Perspective

Like 27 other ranching families in Weston, Niobrara, Converse and Campbell counties, we are threatened with having a significant amount of our private property taken against our will by a private, for-profit, foreign-owned corporation in the name of "economic development."

The condemnor has not had to make any showing to the federal or state government that its use of our land is a greater benefit than its current use as a provider of food to this nation. The condemnor has not had to make any showing that its proposed use of our private land is the only way its project can be built and, in fact, have testified to the contrary and stated that its use of our land is simply the cheapest and most efficient way to maximize its corporate profits for the new project. The condemnor has now sought permission from the courts to access our private lands to begin its survey activities, even though it has not attempted to negotiate with many of us for such access for over eight years.

Wyoming's statute gives condemnors the ability to access someone's private land - absolutely free - if they can show that they have sent several letters of notice to the landowner. They don't have to show the court what the landowner wanted or said, and the only recourse to the private property owner is to hire a lawyer to begin defending his or her private property rights.

The easiest response for folks watching this situation and reading different news stories is to call us NIMBYs - Not In My Back Yarders. It's easiest to dismiss our voices of opposition because to do otherwise forces one to make some very difficult judgment calls about how we are going to treat private property rights in Wyoming.

Eight states, including North Dakota, just passed ballot initiatives that limit the right of any private entity to condemn private land and restrict the rights of condemnation solely for public use. Only 13 states in the entire country, including Wyoming, even allow private entities to condemn another's private land.

It is important for legislators and the public to know that it is not our position to argue that this project should just go on someone else's land. It is our position that decisions are being made in corporate headquarters about economic development and corporate progress in Wyoming that do not take into consideration the true costs - and repercussions - of that development. As long as our state laws allow private landowners to be forced into selling their property for less than the actual costs that they will incur from the taking, and as long as federal and state laws do not require a comprehensive analysis of the cost-benefit consequences of a threatened taking, corporations are allowed to determine what is the highest and best use of land - not private property owners.

This is against the grain of every fiber of people who believe that a key part of America's strength is based on our forefathers' vision of the power of private property rights. We were the first country to ever introduce that concept - and it has served us well. We are not a country that has our government dictate how every acre of land will be used, or how economic development should occur. Our forefathers left those decisions to the free market. But with lax eminent domain laws, these market forces are skewed in the favor of corporate condemnors. The free market isn't at work when the very basis of "willing buyer/willing seller" has been removed.

We understand the need for condemnation for projects that absolutely have to be built to keep this nation moving and growing and vital. But we oppose the right for condemnation for entities that simply want to improve their own corporate profits.

What is "the rest of the story"? This particular condemnor is DM&E Railroad, which proposes to ship more coal out of Wyoming from the Powder River Basin. There is an implicit belief that railroads shipping coal is, on its face value, a public good that has to be allowed through powers of condemnation. The fact that federal regulators have determined that there is existing capacity on the two railroad lines that already ship coal to these Midwest markets, and there is no indication that another rail line will promote more coal mining, cheaper shipping, or more electrical generation, seems to go unnoticed.

We don't argue that there will be an economic benefit eventually created from another competing railroad - but who will enjoy that economic benefit? Will it drive down the price of electricity generated by this coal for customers in Wyoming? Will it increase the wages of current workers in our coal mines or on the current railroads? If federal regulators are correct and it won't cause the need to mine more coal, will the new business create new tax revenue for the state, or just redistribute the existing amount of tax currently paid to ship this coal by the two existing shippers? The answers to each of the above questions is no. What it will do is create an opportunity for a foreign-owned corporation to take some of the market share away from two other railroads, and it may create some competition to allow coal mines to increase their profits by reducing their shipment costs.

Now, tell us again, where is that benefit to the Wyoming private property owner who must forcibly give up land to make this happen? It is easier just to call us NIMBYs.

Donley and Nancy Darnell live in Newcastle.