## Facts

- Denbury Green Pipeline–Texas, LLC sought to construct the “Green Line,” a carbon dioxide (CO₂) pipeline, across rice-farming land owned by Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., where Mike Latta farmed as a tenant.
- Denbury obtained a Railroad Commission permit by self-designating on a one-page T-4 form that the pipeline would operate as a common carrier.
- The landowners refused Denbury access to survey the property.
- Denbury sued for an injunction to enter and proceed, asserting eminent-domain authority based on claimed common-carrier status under the Texas Natural Resources Code.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Denbury and enjoined the landowners from interfering.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the agency permit and check-box designation conclusively established Denbury’s condemnation authority and precluded a landowner challenge.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted review and issued a substituted opinion on rehearing.

## Issues

1. Whether landowners may challenge in court a pipeline company’s claim of common-carrier status and resulting eminent-domain authority when the claim rests on a Railroad Commission permit obtained through self-designation.
2. What standard governs whether a CO₂ pipeline qualifies as a “common carrier” serving a constitutionally required “public use” for eminent-domain purposes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded.
- Landowners may challenge in court whether a pipeline is a common carrier with eminent-domain power; the Railroad Commission’s ministerial permitting process does not conclusively determine “public use.”
- A CO₂ pipeline has eminent-domain authority only if there is a reasonable probability the pipeline will serve the public by transporting CO₂ for at least one unaffiliated customer.
- On the summary-judgment record, Denbury did not conclusively establish a reasonable probability of public use; evidence indicated the pipeline primarily served Denbury’s own operations.

## Legal Principles

- The Texas Constitution limits eminent domain to takings for “public use”; statutory grants to private entities do not eliminate judicial review of that constitutional requirement.
- A CO₂ pipeline is not a “common carrier” merely by self-labeling; common-carrier status requires a genuine public-serving function, not a line limited to the owner’s facilities and business.
- “Public use” for a claimed common-carrier pipeline requires evidence showing a reasonable probability that the line will transport product for third parties (unaffiliated shippers), not solely for the owner or its affiliates.
- A ministerial agency permit based on a check-box designation does not, by itself, establish condemnation authority as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that landowners may litigate whether a CO₂ pipeline’s claimed common-carrier status satisfies the constitutional public-use requirement, and it adopted a “reasonable probability” evidentiary standard for public service; because Denbury’s proof did not conclusively meet that standard on summary judgment, the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Tex. Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Tex., LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012)