From the lawsuit, seeking $40 million US:
Plaintiffs have and will continue to be damaged and injured by Defendants’ conduct unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, and they have no legal remedy sufficient to protect their interests because even though the damages might compensate them for their diminished property values, damages cannot compensate fully for the substantial interference with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land by causing unreasonable discomfort and annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities, and damages cannot fully compensate plaintiffs for the emotional harm they have sustained from the deprivation of the enjoyment of their property because of fear, apprehension, offence, loss of peace of mind, visual blight or other similar acts or circumstances.
… The construction of the water tower will create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those that live next to it.
A water tower will have lights on at all hours of the night, traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower, and creates and unsafe and attractive nuisance to the children of the area.
Furthermore, water towers can create an attractive nesting spot for invasive species of bird and other animals.
These animals will befoul Plaintiffs properties if the water tower is left to stand.
Further, upon information and belief, BWSC will lease or sell rights to third parties for the location of antennas and cell towers.
Furthermore, upon information and belief, BWSC will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards.
BUSINESS BRIEFING: Exxon CEO troubled by fracking-related water tower in his neighbourhood by Michael Babad, February 24, 2014, The Globe and Mail
Rex Tillerson’s company may be a big player in fracking, but the chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp. has a problem with what the related issues could mean to the value of his ranch. The chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corp., a major player where the controversial technique is concerned, is among a group of citizens in Bartonville, near Dallas, who are opposing a massive tower that would supply water for fracking.
…
Citizens of Bartonville, described as a wealthy community, which you’d expect given that it houses the chief of Exxon, have sued to try to stop the tower. Some have issues with what promises to be traffic and noise, according to what lawyer Michael Whitten told The Wall Street Journal, but Mr. Tillerson’s big beef is how it could affect the value of his spread. The suit filed in the District Court of Denton County lists Bar RR Ranches and its owners, the Tillersons, as among the plaintiffs, along with others with high-value properties, against Bartonville Water Supply Corp., which is now Cross Timbers Water Supply Corp., and officials at the non-profit utility. “Bar RR is a large horse ranch located immediately adjacent to the BWSC property in question,” the suit says.
“Bar RR has a fair market value in excess of $5-million. It is improved with homes, barns, and a state-of-the-art horse-training facility.”
According to the Wall Street Journal last week, Cross Timbers had an initial permit turned down, but won on appeal. The municipality is now appealing. “Each of the homeowners built or purchased their homes in Bartonville to live in an upscale community free of industrial properties, tall buildings, and other structures that might devalue their properties and adversely impact the rural lifestyle they sought to enjoy,” the suit says. The water tank will soar 160 feet, with a capacity of 750,000 gallons, and this wasn’t what residents bought into, the suit says.
…
Cross Timbers is also fighting back against Bartonville residents, complaining, for example, over a “misleading” ad from the North Bartonville Citizens Association, saying the tank is necessary and that its board’s “only goal is to ensure that the membership has a safe and adequate supply of water.” [Emphasis added]
[Refer also to:
A proportion (25% to 100%) of the water used in hydraulic fracturing is not recovered, and consequently this water is lost permanently to re-use, which differs from some other water uses in which water can be recovered and processed for re-use.
