Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Conger
| Decision Date | 12 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 11687,11687 |
| Citation | 254 So.2d 98 |
| Parties | SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis P. CONGER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Smith, Trichel, Malsch & Ballard, by John R . Ballard, Shreveport, for appellant.
Wilkinson, Woods, Carmody, & Peatross, by Arthur R. Carmody, Jr., Shreveport, Wallace, Bigby & Wallace, by Walter O. Bigby, Bossier City, for appellee.
Before BOLIN, PRICE, and HEARD, JJ.
This is an expropriation proceeding whereby Southwestern Electric Power Company (hereafter referred to as SWEPCO) seeks to expropriate a 100 foot right of way for a distance of 15,781 feet over the property of Lewis P. Conger, encompassing 36.23 acres. SWEPCO seeks to construct a 69/138 KV electric transmission line from its primary supply point at Dixie, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, to its Red Point Substation near Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, a distance of 25.37 miles. SWEPCO attempted to negotiate with Conger for the right of way, and failing this, filed suit for the expropriation of the right of way. Conger defended the suit, asserting that there was no need for the new line and in the alternative, there was a better route off of his property, and in the further alternative, there was a better route on his property. The trial judge found that there was a need for the line, that SWEPCO had not abused its discretion in exercising the privilege of expropriation, and that the market value of the land expropriated was $225 per acre. Further, the trial judge found that the right of way did not amount to a full taking, and awarded an allowance of 75% Of the market value of the 36.23 acres of land expropriated, or $6,113.81. Defendant Conger appealed.
The need for the proposed transmission line does not seem to be seriously disputed. Conger called no witnesses to dispute this item, whereas, SWEPCO's employees testified convincingly as to the necessity. Robert F. Scott, Louisiana Division Manger of SWEPCO, testified that the proposed line will provide a grid loop system for the eastern part of Bossier Parish which presently is served by a radial line. Scott testified that the problem with a radial line is that a hazard, such as a traffic accident, will black out the entire area. Also, if the line needs servicing, the entire area needs to be blacked out to do so safely. With a loop system it can be serviced without blacking out the entire area. In addition to these safety reasons and black out problems, Scott testified that the grid loop system provides flexibility and the ability to move quantities of power. This is necessary due to the growth in the Bossier Parish area. Robert Watt, System Planning Engineer, testified that the line was needed because of the rapid rate of electrical load growth in the area. Further, he stated that there would be a necessity for a new line in 1974 and the loop would avoid prolonged discontinuance of service. C. H. McDonald, in charge of Design and Construction of Transmission facilities, pointed out that the location of the line with respect to subject property is the most practical and feasible to accomplish the purposes to be achieved and was in accordance with sound engineering practices. Thus, in light of this uncontradicted testimony, we believe the trial judge was correct in his decision that the new line was necessary.
It is the well settled jurisprudence in Louisiana that:
'* * * in the location of rights-of-way considerable discretion is vested in the expropriating authority and the courts will not disturb or interfere with the exercise thereof in the absence of fraud, bad faith or conduct or practices amounting to an abuse of the privilege. * * *' (Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Covington & St. Tammany Land & Improvement Company, La.App., 131 So.2d 369, 375 1st Cir.1961).
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Bowie Lumber Co., La.App ., 176 So.2d 735 (1st Cir.165), writ refused, 248 La. 385, 178 So.2d 663 (1965); Gulf States Utilities Company v. Heck, La.App., 191 So.2d 761 (1st Cir.1966), writ refused, 249 La. 1021, 192 So.2d 370 (1966); Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Pierce, La.App., 192 So.2d 561 (3d Cir.1966); Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Brooks, La.App., 201 So.2d 679 (3d Cir.1967), writ refused, 251 La. 229, 203 So.2d 558 (1967). Quoting further from Central Louisiana Electric, supra, the court said:
'* * * that availability of other and alternate routes is of no concern to the property owner whose land is sought to be expropriated provided the location selected fulfills the needs and requirements of the expropriator, meets the standards prescribed by sound engineering and economic practices, is neither artibrarily nor capriciously chosen, and does not constitute an abuse of the discretionary right of selection. * * *' (131 So.2d 369, 375, 376)
Louisiana Power and Light Company v. Anderson, La.App., 188 So.2d 733 (2d Cir.1960); Gulf States Utilities Company v. Heck, supra.
Defendant Conger asserts that there is a better route for the line off of his property but testimony by employees of SWEPCO clearly shows that the line must cross Conger's land due to a proposed future substation in the Swan Lake area near the western part of Conger's land. Scott testified that when building a transmission line, a straight line would be ideal. However, he stated this was not possible in this case because the substation at Swan Lake was part of the proposed grid loop. He states that the He further testified that the proposed point for the substation was chosen to avoid Swan Lake itself and to be approximately across from the Brownlee substation.
C. H. McDonald testified that it would be a waste of line to go south of the proposed substation at Swan Lake, and further that they chose the location of the substation because SWEPCO wanted it near a load center. Having decided that there is a need for the grid system, it would not be fair to force SWEPCO to abandon a link in the system.
Conger further asserts that there is a more feasible route along the northern boundary of his land, but, again, the testimony of SWEPCO's employees shows that they checked out this proposed alternate route and it was not feasible. McDonald testified that SWEPCO determined it was not feasible to traverse Conger's land to the north since they would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Mayeux
...So.2d 885, 886 (1952); Claiborne Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Garrett, 357 So.2d 1251, 1255 (La.Ct.App.2d Cir.1978); S.W. Elec. Power Co. v. Conger, 254 So.2d 98, 99 (La.Ct.App.2d Cir.1971); Dixie Pipeline Co. v. Barry, 227 So.2d 1, 7 (La.Ct. App.3d Cir.1969); see also Dakin & Klein, supra note 11,......
-
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Conger
...of Transportation. As pointed out by this court through Judge Heard as the author of the opinion in Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Conger, 254 So .2d 98, 100 (La.App., 2d Cir., 1971): 'It is not enough for Conger to simply point out alternate routes to the court, he must show that S......
-
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Jones
...from this judgment. We have previously considered the issue of the necessity of this new transmission line in Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Conger, 254 So.2d 98, La.App., (2d Cir. 1971). We upheld the trial judge's finding of the necessity in that case, and see no reason to reverse......
-
Dixie Elec. Membership Corp. v. Harvey
... ... 12:401--430, and engaged in the business of transmitting and distributing electricity for power, lighting, heating, or other such uses, in a number of parishes in the State of Louisiana ... See United Gas Pipeline Co. v. LeBlanc, 243 So.2d 912 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971) and Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Conger, 254 So.2d 98 (La.App.2d Cir. 1971) ... Neither ... ...