JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit against the Grain Belt Express, arguing for deep personal property rights.
Bailey says the massive transmission line project will unlawfully seize land from many property owners in the northern part of the state, which he is not OK with.
In his motion, Bailey noted that Missouri has multiple strong grounds for intervening in this lawsuit.
Even without the unconditional statutory right, the state’s motion to intervene satisfies the requirements of Rule 52.12(a), Bailey contends, which allows intervention when the applicant has a significant interest in the case, that interest could be impaired by the case's disposition, and no existing party adequately represents that interest.
"Living and raising my family in rural Missouri has given me a deep respect for personal property rights. No one knows better how to use Missouri land than Missouri farmers, ranchers, and landowners," Bailey said in a provided statement. "My neighbors are the legacy farmers and ranchers that sustain Missouri’s economy through livestock and agricultural production. I’m filing a motion to intervene to ensure Missouri farmers are not being strong-armed into giving up their land."
Bailey's motion challenges the scope and enforceability of state statutes, arguing that § 229.100 cannot be used by counties, thereby raising issues that affect the state’s interest in the proper application of its laws. This directly impacts the state’s regulatory scheme and its efforts to maintain public safety and welfare.
The initial lawsuit was filed last year by Grain Belt Express against Monroe County, Mo.
"Multiple independent bases for intervention demonstrate the State’s entitlement to intervene in this action," Bailey wrote in the motion. "Plaintiff’s assertions that various lawfully passed Missouri statutes conflict with each other (they do not), coupled with Plaintiff’s request that this Court declare that statutory provisions vesting authority in counties 'cannot be used' by Missouri counties, directly relate to important State interests in the proper interpretation of the State’s own laws—laws that are each presumed to be specifically passed to 'serve the best interests and welfare of the general public.'"
Bailey wrote that the state, through the attorney general, has an unqualified statutory right to intervene in this action.
"Even if the statute did not grant this unconditional right, the State’s motion to intervene as a defendant in this action challenging the scope and authority of various lawfully passed state statutes satisfies each element of 52.12(a), and no party would be prejudiced by intervention," the motion states. "Finally, even if this Court disagrees that either of the independent bases for intervention as of right apply, it should exercise its discretion to allow Missouri to permissively intervene in this lawsuit."
The state's interest extends to ensuring the proper interpretation of § 229.100, which regulates the installation of infrastructure like electric poles and conduits, requiring county assent and adherence to rules set by county engineers.
Bailey's claim that county commissions cannot enforce these regulations threatens to undermine the state's statutory framework and its authority delegated to local governments.
Bailey argues that even if the court does not recognize an unconditional right to intervene, it should still permit intervention under Rule 52.12(b) for reasons of permissive intervention.
Last year, the Missouri Public Service Commission gave Invenergy final regulatory approval to begin the first phase of the Grain Belt Express. The project is planned to bring 800 miles of high-voltage transmission lines across several states to carry renewable energy.