Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enterprises
Decision Date | 02 June 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88-4205-S.,88-4205-S. |
Parties | MID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LARIO ENTERPRISES, INC. and the City of Topeka, Kansas, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
James L. Grimes, Jr., Cosgrove, Webb & Oman, Topeka, Kan., Kristen E. Cook, Mid-America Pipeline Co., Tulsa, Okl., and Leonard J. Johnson and David C. Stout, Morrison, Hecker, Curtis, Kuder & Parrish, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Donald D. Barry, Donald D. Barry, Chtd., and Gerald L. Goodell, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, Topeka, Kan., for Mid-America Pipeline Co.
Edwin P. Carpenter and Stephen P. Weir, Carpenter, Weir & Myers, Chtd., Topeka, Kan., for City of Topeka.
This case is now before the court upon plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction against the further construction and operation of Heartland Park Topeka (HPT), a motor sports racing facility being constructed over pipelines operated by plaintiff. After a hearing upon a preliminary injunction motion, which the court denied, the parties agreed, pursuant to FED.R. CIV.P. 65(a)(2), that the court could consider the evidence presented at the hearing upon the preliminary injunction motion, together with final argument at a subsequent hearing, to determine whether to grant a permanent injunction.
Plaintiff is Mid-America Pipeline Company. Defendants are Lario Enterprises, Inc. ("Lario") and the City of Topeka, Kansas. After considering all the material before the court, the court shall deny plaintiff's prayer for a permanent injunction on the following grounds: plaintiff has an adequate remedy in condemnation or damages; an injunction would place an unfair hardship upon defendants; and, an injunction would not be in the interests of the public. These conclusions are founded upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. There is no dispute as to this court's jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the diversity of citizenship statute.
2. Plaintiff is an interstate common carrier of natural gas liquids. Plaintiff has two pipelines buried at HPT. One of the pipelines was built in 1960. The other was built in 1971. The pipelines were buried at a depth of 30 to 48 inches. The pipelines carry propane and ethane, in liquid form.
3. These pipelines were laid pursuant to easements purchased by plaintiff from Alice E. Boley and Mary E. Zeidler in 1960. The easements provide:
4. Plaintiff drew the easement language.
5. When the easements were purchased, the property was used to grow crops or as pasture. The path of the pipelines was selected by plaintiff to avoid developed property.
6. Plaintiff's officers became aware of the plans for HPT in the summer of 1988. Plaintiff promptly warned defendants of plaintiff's easement rights and objected to the planned construction.
7. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against defendant Lario on August 31, 1988.
8. In October 1988, title to the property below the asphalt tracks was deeded from Lario to the City of Topeka. The City was joined as a defendant in this case shortly thereafter.
9. Currently, four racetrack surfaces approximately 36 feet in width cross over the pipelines. A drag strip approximately 60 feet in width also crosses the pipelines. These surfaces are composed of 7½ inches of asphalt over a 12 inch fly ash/clay base. The base is a mixture of materials designed to set up like concrete. The depth of the cover has been increased over the pipelines in some areas by as much as 12 to 20 feet. It is anticipated that moveable concrete barriers weighing approximately 8,000 pounds apiece shall border the racetrack. Two chain link fences will cross the pipelines in four locations. Additionally, two tram roadways that will also cross the pipelines are contemplated in the future. Spectator seating is not located on the easement property. Indeed, through the use of visual screens on fences, people will be encouraged not to watch races from the easement property. Grandstands and spectator berms are several hundred feet from the pipelines.
10. No pipeline leak or safety problem has developed at the HPT site in the pipelines' history. Recently, however, an explosion caused by a leak from the pipelines occurred at U.S. Highway 75, near HPT. The pipelines at HPT were excavated and inspected in the fall of 1988 after the explosion. No safety problem was detected. The pipelines satisfy federal safety regulations. The construction at HPT will not materially increase the safety risk from the pipelines. The additional asphalt surface hampers plaintiff's biweekly aerial surveillance of the pipelines and interferes with close-interval surveys. These are some of the methods used to guard against leaks or detect leaks in pipelines. Aerial surveillance may spot dead vegetation which could indicate even a small or pin-size leak in the pipelines. Close-interval surveys are conducted across spans of the pipelines at intervals of a few feet to determine the corrosion protection of pipelines. Pipelines may be walked to find signs of small leaks. The pipelines are also computer monitored for major leaks every ten seconds. Asphalt and other obstructions to surveillance exist in hundreds of places in plaintiff's pipeline system. The undisputed testimony from knowledgeable witnesses in this case is that the pipelines are safe and that the racetrack construction will not make them unsafe.
11. If excavation of the pipelines is required in the future, it will be more difficult, time-consuming and expensive to excavate the pipelines now covered by asphalt at HPT. This is because of the asphalt, the fly ash/clay base, and the fill dirt on top of the pipelines. It is unknown whether excavation will be required in the future. Before October 1988, the pipelines had not been excavated. So, the probability of pipeline excavation appears remote.
12. Additional construction of fences and other items, such as utility or sewer lines, may require additional digging near the pipelines. Although excavation activities near pipelines constitute a danger, the pipelines are well-marked at HPT, and there has been no proof of a substantial or unreasonable danger from future construction or excavation work.
13. HPT is being developed through a development and management agreement between defendants Lario and the City of Topeka. Lario initially purchased the real property for the project. The City passed an ordinance to acquire real estate of the project and pay for the design, purchase, equipping, construction and installation of the buildings, improvements, machinery and equipment at the site. Lario is to manage, operate and maintain the project. The City of Topeka issued general obligation bonds to raise $7.5 million for the project. Lario is investing a similar sum in the project. The City will retain title to the property for HPT for 23 years. Thereafter, the property will revert to Lario, but the City will acquire the right to 1% of the gross receipts of HPT for 27 years. HPT is scheduled to begin operation in August 1989. It is being built to accommodate 75,000 spectators.
14. The asphalt tracks of HPT are "structures which interfere with the normal operation and maintenance of the pipelines" and, therefore, violate plaintiff's easement rights. "Structures which interfere with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan.
...to review by the courts. Duckworth v. City of Kansas City, 243 Kan. 386, 389, 758 P.2d 201 (1988). In Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enterprises, 716 F.Supp. 511 (D.Kan.1989), rev'd on other grounds 942 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir.1991), the United States District Court for the District of Kansa......
-
Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enterprises, Inc., MID-AMERICA
...certain rulings of the district court. The Memorandum and Order denying injunctive relief is published as Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enters., 716 F.Supp. 511 (D.Kan.1989). Jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . Our jur......
-
Coping With Ed (eminent Domain)
...County/Kansas City, 265 Kan. 779, 962 P.2d 543 (1998) (Kansas Speedway Racetrack); Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enterprises, 716 F.Supp. 511 (D. Kan. 1989), rev’d on other grounds, 942 F.2d 1519 (10th Cir. 1991) (auto track facility); State ex rel. Fatzer v. Urban Renewal Agency of Kan......
-
Eminent domain for private sports stadiums: fair ball or foul?
...ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County, 962 P.2d 543, 553 (Kan. 1998) (citing Mid-Am. Pipeline Co. v. Lario Enters., Inc., 716 F. Supp. 511, 517-18 (D. Kan. (54) 625 N.Y.S. 2d 371, 378-79 (App. Div. 1995), appeal dismissed, 655 N.E. 2d 700 (N.Y. 1995). (55) Courtesy Sandwich S......