But Dave, if a property owner grants the east so-many feet of his property as a power line easement and the power lines are within that easement, what does the location of the power line have to do with the location of the easement?
That case is more typical of distribution easements but yes I agree with that. Heck my property has a 5' easement in the backyard but the wood poles are about a foot or so on the other side of the lot line. In that case I don't expect that my easement is 4' and my neighbor's is 6'. Or the case of the south 10' of Smith with wood poles about 3' from the south line of Smith. I would not personally show an occupied centerline of the 10' easement 3' from the south line of Smith and a record centerline 5' from the south line of Smith, that would be silly. If the poles are not the centerline (likely) then I would show the one centerline which is 5' from the south line of Smith. Sometimes the description actually calls for the pole line with bearings and distances and ties. Again the one centerline is the pole line with measured bearings and distances and ties versus the record.
I think the original poster said the easement description referred to a proposed centerline. This is similar to highway descriptions that refer to the Engineer's centerline even though they destroyed all the centerline when they built the highway (LOL with tears).
I can make a statement and of course someone can easily think up some exceptions. That's why there is no single hard and fast rule.
I'm just saying that if a utility company comes to me and says they propose to place a transmission line in this certain identifiable location of a certain width and I grant that strip of land to them and they don't center their facilities in that strip of land, that's tough toenails for them. I gave them what they get and no more. Now, if they totally miss the strip of land and time goes by and I don't squawk, that's different.
What if I told you the centerline was staked with rebars at the structure locations (under the H-frames, agreeing with the as-built line, not the deed measurements) and capped rebars at the PIs? They often are.
Would this change anyones answer to have more what you would accept as "original monuments"? I'm having trouble understanding just why in the case of an easement a surveyor would ignore evidence and just plot a deed on the ground, but generally not for a boundary. I was not putting this forth looking for right or wrong answers, just discussion.
Forget for a moment the rare exception (at least in the 15 states I work in) of an intentionally offset centerline for a transmission line - this is just not worth discussing in this example. In the case of a 100 foot easement we are talking high voltage, likely 230kV, and there would be no room for another line without more easement (I know now I should have explained this in the first place). In this case it was intended to be built on centerline, and was agreed to as such, but not constructed accurately with what is now discovered to be the section corner ties. And yet, surveyors ignore physical evidence for record measurements for all kinds of reasons. Astonishing.
Lots of job security for me and our legal department!;-)
I must also re-iterate the public safety factor. If one were to build, cut trees etc. to close to a high voltage line, it could arc and they'd get fried. It happens. Especially at the sag point of a conductor. Hot days and high usage causes this to increase and get closer to the ground.
Also, transmission utilities, public and private, MUST actively pursue veg management (cutting trees) or be subject to huge fines. I think we all have had a survey where a ticked landowner had a tree cut down on their property. A large tree-related outage is the driving for for new NERC regs to as-built old lines. Lots of work coming - I wish I'd invested in a LiDAR firm.
So in the case of a single high voltage line, with no offset scenario or plans for an adjacent line, the as-built vs. described centerline is very important.
I am guessing that what they did was similar to highway surveys. They surveyed and staked a centerline and picked up some ties to remote corners with not necessarily the best methods or even the correct object at the corner. Then they wrote up the legal descriptions. The land owner would have seen the surveyed centerline.
I don't encounter transmission lines very often but it seems like 2 or 3 years ago I found a monument under a tower.
My Department pursues cost recovery against power companies that start fires but the ones I know about are smaller lines usually on wood poles. Maybe those are more likely to get forgotten.
We had one case where a transmission line started a fire but that was because a helicopter hit the lines (at an active fire). Fortunately the helicopter landed safely but the downed lines started another small fire.
At our current project down in San Diego County there is a line of steel poles (not sure of the voltage but could be 69kv or the next step up). The Fire Captain told us the power company is going to steel poles because of the fire resistance.
If you are 'brushing' the R/W using the poles as marking the C/L and the land owners are using the record, you may find one owner with a good lawyer who will have you paying for the trees you cut down.
The accuracy of the description is your responsibility, not the land owners.
Richard Schaut
> If you are 'brushing' the R/W using the poles as marking the C/L and the land owners are using the record, you may find one owner with a good lawyer who will have you paying for the trees you cut down.
Believe me, we know. None have yet to be successful in that endeavor. Sometimes we settle just because it is easier and good for PR. We have to draw a hard line in regards to trees, though.
>
> The accuracy of the description is your responsibility, not the land owners.
We address on a case by case basis, considering we have 17,000 miles of transmission lines. Correcting every single inaccurate description written from the Bureau heyday would take several lifetimes. Thankfully, as has been discussed, the problems are usually generated by surveyors ignoring basic established legal principles, not written descriptions being inaccurate.
CS,
Thanks for the entire discussion and updated feedback. I enjoyed this one. Shoot me an email when you get a chance.
Proposed is just that, proposed. The power line may have been "proposed" to be built on centerline, but is the as-built always equal to what is proposed?
Personally I never use the word "proposed" on a legal description, or plat that will be recorded with the legal description. A mentor of mine once asked me (in deep red pen markings), "Is this easement still proposed after it is recorded?"