Easement on top of current easement.

Not clear on this. ?ÿDo two adjacent owners want to share an irrigation pipeline? ?ÿWhy not keep it just outside of the current easement? ?ÿAs I read it, the PUE is only five feet wide on each side of the property line.

I've done work in a resort subdivision on Lake O' the Pines that had an easement 5ft each side of back line sitting on top of an easement 3ft each side of back line.

One was for their own water well and water system, the other was for their own waste water system and electricity.

Your?ÿspecifics aren't too clear to me, but I can definitely see the need for new?ÿeasement dedications under a few circumstances.

The nature of a utility easement dedication to the 'public' can be considered reserved for the expressed use of public or quasi-public utility providers to the public.?ÿ The tariffs under which these public utility companies provide their service to the public is usually spelled out specifically by a State entity.?ÿ In Oklahoma it's a division of the Corporation Commission.

I'm?ÿ assuming the irrigation line is a private concern rather than a public entity.?ÿ If that's the case, it would depend on the tariffs (rules) under which a utility company operates in your state as to whether a "for profit" company (that is not offering services to the public in general) can occupy public utility easements.

In Oklahoma we have hundreds of thousands of miles of easements to private pipeline companies that make sure all of their R/W is newly acquired easements whether there is an existing easement there or not.?ÿ

I have also seen new R/W obtained just to expedite a project.?ÿ Sometimes the legal and title research required to scrutinize each and every existing easement along a route can be lengthy and expensive.?ÿ Just get a "new" easement so there won't be any worries.?ÿ It's quicker and cheaper.

The owners can do anything they want with their property that does not interfere with use by the beneficiary of the easement.?ÿ I would think that if their private irrigation line precluded the installation of future public utilities it would not be an allowed use, but if compatible with any future utilities then they are free to install it.

If there were no public easement, would they need to record one for their irrigation line?

?ÿ

Posted by: Bill93

The owners can do anything they want with their property that does not interfere with use by the beneficiary of the easement.?ÿ I would think that if their private irrigation line precluded the installation of future public utilities it would not be an allowed use, but if compatible with any future utilities then they are free to install it.

If there were no public easement, would they need to record one for their irrigation line?

?ÿ

The only glitch I see... if you grant a Junior easement in the same location, the owner of the Senior easement may require you to move or relocate your facilities if they want to do something.

I suppose local laws and regulations can dictate how that happens.

Posted by: Peter Ehlert

The only glitch I see... if you grant a Junior easement in the same location, the owner of the Senior easement may require you to move or relocate your facilities if they want to do something.?ÿ?ÿ I suppose local laws and regulations can dictate how that happens.

The only instances I've seen here in Oklahoma involving J/S rights within an easement or a dedicated R/W (where there is still an underlying fee owner) involve the actual occupation or use of the easement in question.?ÿ I'm not so sure (around here anyway) a dominant estate can claim senior rights within an?ÿunoccupied easement or R/W.

A good example would be a existing pipeline?ÿthat crosses an existing statutory public R/W.?ÿ In the event the public R/W is being improved (grading or surfacing of a public road); the pipeline is usually accepted as being the "senior" occupation.?ÿ Even though the public R/W may have existed before rights were granted to the pipeline interest.?ÿ

It seems, as I've stated, around here anyway,?ÿit's "first in the ground" that gets the senior rights.

I'm sure, as in all things, the contrary may be shown.

?ÿ

A public utility easement is not a grant to the public, it is a grant to any and all public utilities. Public utilities are private companies, non profits, co-ops, and government entities that are regulated by you state as public utilities.

An irrigation pipeline shared by neighbors is not a public utility, so a new easment is needed. Land owners can use their land that is burdened by a non exclusive easment however they want, including?ÿ granting easements, provided it doesnt unduly interfere with the original easement. Whether an irrigation pipeline interferes with public utilities depends on the circumstances.?ÿ

Is the PUE a candidate for vacation? I would consider that first.?ÿ On the other hand, maybe no one will ever care.

I suppose that it all depends on the wording of the senior easement.?ÿ I can definitely see where two subsurface entities might potentially interfere with each other.?ÿ

A ROW passing over the PUE may not be an issue, but this has the potential to be.

?ÿ

There is a reason that the grantee of an easement is known as the dominate tenant.?ÿ?ÿ

Posted by: James Fleming

There is a reason that the grantee of an easement is known as the dominate tenant.?ÿ?ÿ

We call it the "dominant" estate around here...

(just poking fun...Holy Cow is the REAL spelling police)

I vote to vacate.

As Land Surveyors we have a tendency to look primarily at location, but what is important in the existing easement is the terms. If the utility companies aren't using the PUE and have no future plans to, I would suggest to the client that they should have it vacated.?ÿ

And then whether they get the existing easement vacated or not, IMHO, a new one should be done between the two owners. It is all about the intent and the terms of the easement.?ÿ