Controversial Eastland Pipeline Hearing Begins, No Decision Reached
By: Homa Bash
Updated: October 23, 2012
The Lake Leon pipeline issue got underway in a packed Eastland County courtroom Tuesday afternoon in a hearing that lasted for hours.
It began with landowner Jim Farrar taking the stand for just over an hour.
Farrar filed -- and was granted -- a temporary restraining order against Hanlon Gas on October 9th, to stop the company from continuing work on reactivating the 93-year-old pipeline that runs through his land and under Lake Leon.
Hanlon Gas bought the line five years ago and along with it, they say, the easements or "right of way" for the land and water it passes through.
During testimony, it was revealed that Farrar did not run a title check when he bought the tract of land in the early 1990s.
Hanlon's attorney Tom Zable contended that title check would have revealed the easements already in place.
Farrar also testified that he was unaware of the pipeline's existence on his property until he was contacted by Hanlon in early 2012.
Farrar's employee, Pete Perez, testified about punching a hole in the pipeline in the early 1980s. Perez has worked as a groundskeeper on La Mancha for more than 30 years.
Karen Emert, an employee of the appraisal district, was also called to the stand. She said documents revealed the pipeline was capped and abandoned.
Many of the people who attended the hearing, both from Eastland and Ranger, said they were both angry and confused about the issue.
When asked if she felt any better about the issue that hits so close to home after sitting in Tuesday's hearing for two hours, Vonsil Tucker said, "Not at all, I don't even know what they're talking about."
Vonsil and her husband John own their home across from La Mancha Resort on Lake Leon and like many people in Eastland county, they're concerned about the future of their water supply.
So while the main issue in the courtroom is about abandonment, the main issue in the community is still uncertainty.
Testimony continued until 5 p.m. Tuesday and no decision was reached.
Both sides will be back in court on Thursday, when the judge is expected to make a ruling in the case.
It began with landowner Jim Farrar taking the stand for just over an hour.
Farrar filed -- and was granted -- a temporary restraining order against Hanlon Gas on October 9th, to stop the company from continuing work on reactivating the 93-year-old pipeline that runs through his land and under Lake Leon.
Hanlon Gas bought the line five years ago and along with it, they say, the easements or "right of way" for the land and water it passes through.
During testimony, it was revealed that Farrar did not run a title check when he bought the tract of land in the early 1990s.
Hanlon's attorney Tom Zable contended that title check would have revealed the easements already in place.
Farrar also testified that he was unaware of the pipeline's existence on his property until he was contacted by Hanlon in early 2012.
Farrar's employee, Pete Perez, testified about punching a hole in the pipeline in the early 1980s. Perez has worked as a groundskeeper on La Mancha for more than 30 years.
Karen Emert, an employee of the appraisal district, was also called to the stand. She said documents revealed the pipeline was capped and abandoned.
Many of the people who attended the hearing, both from Eastland and Ranger, said they were both angry and confused about the issue.
When asked if she felt any better about the issue that hits so close to home after sitting in Tuesday's hearing for two hours, Vonsil Tucker said, "Not at all, I don't even know what they're talking about."
Vonsil and her husband John own their home across from La Mancha Resort on Lake Leon and like many people in Eastland county, they're concerned about the future of their water supply.
So while the main issue in the courtroom is about abandonment, the main issue in the community is still uncertainty.
Testimony continued until 5 p.m. Tuesday and no decision was reached.
Both sides will be back in court on Thursday, when the judge is expected to make a ruling in the case.
