Dominion Resources is suing more than 40 landowners in Virginia who won’t allow the energy company to survey their properties for a proposed $5 billion natural gas pipeline.
Dominion filed lawsuits earlier this week in circuit courts against 20 property owners in Nelson County and 27 in Augusta County. That number is expected to double, the company said.
Dominion spokesman Jim Norvelle said Virginia law allows the company to enter the properties to conduct the surveys. He said the surveys are needed to avoid future problems, such as family cemeteries.
Would this be a problem in your state? :-S
In Oklahoma a surveyor may enter private property in conjunction with public or municipal projects. The statute is salted with words like "references to corners and other incidental survey markers necessary for the project...".
With private projects an official "Right of Entry" must be obtained from the property owner. I have been part of projects where some owners refused to allow "Right of Entry". We respectfully worked around those properties.
Sadly, a private interest such as a hydrocarbon transmission line has been successful in condemnation of private properties in the name of "eminent domain".
Basically, that's where the need for profit outweighs the rights of private property owners. And it stinks.
It would not be outrageous for the property owner to expect huge monetary amounts for any damages.
Cutting branches from flowering and nut bearing plants and trees can bring them good money.
😉
In Massachusetts entry upon private land for the purpose of surveying by a person duly registered does not constitute trespass. However the "surveying" must be for the boundary of a private individual and does exclude public authority, utility or railroad. Further the surveyor must be within reasonable distance of the boundary.
The permission to "survey" private land was denied in my town and many other towns along a proposed route of a similar natural gas pipeline. I have doubts that the survey they mention has anything to do with property lines and is more a route survey and a determination of geophysical properties in the area of the proposed pipeline route.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Similar issues in NJ with the proposed Pilgrim pipeline. The pipeline sent letters stating they would exercise eminenet domain, but they arenot a public utility, so emminenet daomin may not be an avilaible rmeedy for them.
Pilgrim has been silent sincethe last news article but I would suspect that their lawyers have some explaining to do to state authorities as to why they are threatening landowners without the legal rights for emminenet domain.
Seeing that this is NJ it may be ugly before this is over.
The following is the relevant statute for Kansas. It would appear the surveyor can get the job done, one way or another, whether or not the landowner is happy about it.
Article 70. - STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL PROFESSIONS
74-7046.?Liability of licensed land surveyor. (a) A land surveyor, licensed pursuant to article 70 of chapter 74 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, and such surveyor's authorized agents and employees may enter upon lands, waters and premises of a party who has not requested the survey when it is necessary for the purpose of making a survey. If the licensed surveyor has made a reasonable attempt to notify the person in possession, such entry shall not be deemed a trespass. Upon notice, such person in possession has the right to modify the time and other provisions of the surveyor's access upon notification to the surveyor, as long as such modifications do not unreasonably restrict completion of the survey. Nothing herein shall change the status of the licensed surveyor as an occupier of land.
(b)?While conducting surveys, the licensed surveyor and such surveyor's authorized agents and employees shall carry proper identification as to such surveyor's licensure or employment and shall display such identification to anyone upon request.
(c)?Neither the landowner nor the person in possession shall be liable for any injury or damage sustained by a licensed surveyor or such surveyor's authorized agents and employees entering upon such land, water or premises under the provisions of this section, except when such damages and injury were willfully or deliberately caused by the landowner or person in possession.
(d)?Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(1)?Remove civil liability for actual damage to such lands, waters, premises, crops or personal property;
(2)?give the licensed surveyor or such surveyor's authorized agents and employees the authority to enter any building or structure used as a residence or for storage; and
(3)?remove civil or criminal liability for intentional acts of injury or for damages to the surveyor or authorized agents and employees.
History:?L. 2004, ch. 129, § 1; July 1.
That looks like a good law to me, consider yourself fortunate. I wish Utah would do something similar. At present entering land (without permission) in Utah is trespass (civil). Entering agricultural land (greenbelt taxed) is criminal trespass ($500 fine). The issue is being addressed by UCLS but it takes time and there is not any guarantee the legislature will give (surveyors not all that welcome at the Utah Legislature).