congress passed the natural gas act and it included and meant the main provision to ensure that the public interest in natural gas transmission was not obstructed by landowners unwilling to permit pipelines across their purchased the farm in one thousand nine hundred and fifty six and her dream and with columbia has been the same for the entirety of that sixty cos years she has never indicated that she would attempt to prevent replacement of line fifty seven in accordance with the terms of reason the eminent domain provision of the natural gas act is strictly construed when exercised by private party sophist columbia while the exercise of imminent domain is undoubtedly necessary at times in order to prevent unreasonable landowners from impeding projects that are in the public interest this is not one of those times the natural gas act allows columbia to exercise in the domain to acquire property the other it could be that we're just letting that one go or wiping the slate clean and we're using eminent domain in order to try to get a biplane across this property and then the question becomes under the forty six agreement is this really alongside the other pipeline and looking at the map here it seems that  because as i've mentioned we we never had any intent to prevent a pipeline so we're going to want that the pipeline replacement pipeline should be delayed in accordance with and agreed to allow some compensation for conversion of the actual mechanism by which she receives the gas and that will allow them propane gas to served but that's that's now been the case for that approximately six months there have been several disruptions to service subgroup gas leaks that require the fire department to come out that the old pipeline isn't carrying gas i think that that's my understanding so you're saying get assume the new one is and i think that's reasonable but again this is never been about keeping the pipeline out what's it the tap is a piece of it but there's also a vastly expanded set of rights afforded to colombia under the proposed new easement agreement they're now allowed to use pesticides to for easements and which themselves are subject to change it's a far different set of terms that because it is in agreement talk about not only made it word made but doesn't talk about alongside the original line much so a couple of points there st of all i don't believe that the alongside modifies replacement of the pipeline in fact if you look at the easement agreement the language says that said company had to pay any damages which may arise to crops and fences from the relaying replaced should not remain physically in the ground under the terms of this agreement so in other words there should be a replacement columbus free to do it across a different portion lay maintain operate repair and remove a nd line of the original pipeline that they've been yes they've been granted those ranks and by exclusion anything not granted to them is reserved to miss classes which is in the language of the agreement to it in fact says that any rights not granted to the company  yes the said grant or to fully use and enjoy the said print premises except for the purposes here and before granted to the said company so by exclusion anything that she has not expressly granted to them they don't have the right to do and this is consistent with the intent of this agreement as well keep in mind this is to provide her access so weaving steel cylinder at the front of her property does nothing to effectuate the purpose of the agreement which is from her perspective to receive access to natural gas well it's a back of a bo good afternoon your honour's may have clay please the court my name is nicole bag now and i represent columbia gas transmission along with my so many arguments were raised in the briefing i think judge amdro hit the nail on the head when he said the real issue here is the tap this is classic wants to keep her tap to receive gas did you get would you tell the federal energy regulatory commission that you w d compensate the landowner for the eliminated form taps what we told her yes your honor what we told st was that we would pay for the conversion to an alternate energy source which may be propane electricity so that  approval it was with the condition that you will do that is that correct yes your honor so there were thirty seven taps on the old pipeline that was that were approved by the fir to be abandoned and  distance of line actually on the classic property i guess it goes jagat but what's the maximum distance between the two i don't know about off the top of my head your honor i do know that in the record on page three hundred and fifty four there is a provides rights to colombia but it does not require with nubile of the pipeline it says they have the right to move the pipeline should they want to but it doesn't look wire them to do so and in fact for analyze this issue and determine that it was in the public interest in the areas where colombia sought to abandon the pipeline to leave it in place due to environmental and other issues and so since the property rights between the parties don't require  expressly in the agreement there's no need for it to be done particularly one furka agrees that the gas delivery has been switched over from the old so yes your honor the old pipeline is completely out of service the new pipeline has been the construction has gov in that case there was actually a case before judge bran and columbia was seeking to build a new pipeline but was also a replacement and judge brown in to the requirements that there was a requirement that the replacement be in the vicinity of or gees into the original pipeline and your honor and the panel looked at bad and said there was no such requirement and found that the the economy nation was appropriate and went forward and so really you're on about does not apply here but in fact here's i think it raises an important point if the landowners here who are not you are arguing that the alongside shouldn't matter which is an interesting point in colombia is here trying to do the right thing and pay for a very very soon what you said that your honor but really i mean here where it's clearly on its face not alongside columbia your honor at in the trial and just compensation and he and the diminution in value of the property to the landowner is their burden and if they prove there's a diminution in value to the property as a result of the new pipeline they significant differences between the law as you do and that is you look at the before and after value and take into account any diminishment in the property as a whole as a result of the document that it provides it does provide the opportunity to lay a nd line alongside the original pipeline but as we've already discussed your honour's that is not the case here there  are a couple of undisputed facts that there are two pipelines on the classic property that colombia condemned an easement for a new pipeline in addition to that new temporary construction easement on an access columbia will maintain that maintain it to make sure that there are no environmental or other issues with that pipeline as a part of the for approval yes around and that's part of the st certificate this is classic admits that the new pipeline  not alongside the existing pipeline and she also admits that she refused to sign a new easement or an amendment that provided for the new pipeline with out a task one thing that mr gibbs mentioned in his argument was that the new easement has other terms that was part of the settlement negotiation but as this court as well where in condemnation it's very clear what columbia will obtain it's the right of way as defined in the complaint and the items that mr g mentioned are not defined in the complaint the three things columbia had to prove on summary jetfire summary judgment where the existence of and use meant which was undisputed the existence of a necessary route which was undisputed and that were unable to agree and were here today your honour's because we were unable to agree the nine hundred and forty six agreement simply doesn't apply in this case at the point nearest the resident it contemplates obviously by its plain language a tap on the line not multiple taps it also contemplates that that tap be on the pipeline it refers to  this line and the line that's contemplated in the agreement is the original pipeline it's subject to a survey and the survey was a requirement that initial easement classic has that tap she had that tap for over sixty years this is a new pipeline that was built under condemnation and it simply doesn't apply i've already addressed the issue about removal your honour's and so rather than belabor it i'd just like to just one final point is that for the initial pipeline that it be maintaining and if it's not maintained i mean you've got somebody somebody's making a statement in court that you can you can use to your benefit but i my guess is what she says as she has for work already to say i don't recall seeing that in the approval and it sort of but i think you should be happy that somebody is you know we will receive you will kick off but let me just caution that really want to be ended in the means in the context of the st application is of removing all of that pipeline from perks just there are you saying that they you think that they will not maintained that initial pipeline i don't recall seeing that are you saying that you believe in the future they will not do that after this representation in court today not unless it's repurposed for some reason and it's now it will be outside of st jurisdiction some will have no mechanism to  columbia to to abandon it and then that easily could have been included as one of the rights granted to colombia i will also point out that with respect to the adjacen discussion and the two thousand and thirteen case before this court that definition provided by colombian urged upon the court was without reference or or any specific context just as a matter of law two objects are to be defined as adjacent to each other when they're within when it is that you have rights if it's alongside first of all i would argue that replacement is not required to be along pennsylvania law really requires a flexible reading of their rights here first of all under pennsylvania law where where an easement term this really of damages determination what that's on the horizon the damage determination as i understand it is on the horizon and is according to your colleague if you can present evidence to that effect and maybe a judge or jury could quantify for you the damages here in the context of a condemnation proceeding that's a taking and it's i mean i'm not sure that it's an appropriate subject for a condemnation hearing because colombia can't take property which was actually it's to begin with that that property isn't named in  the condemnation complaint filed by colombia which in order for it to take it it would have to identify it as part of the complaint as a condemnation proceeding bec is actually happened here columbia has proposed to change the location of the i see only thing that's changing here and can be hasn't actually seen fit to really identify the the need for it it's always identified as you know to a board in the by a mental issue or a construction obstacle never actually even gotten the basis for the relocation but be that as it may c asking to change the location of the by this classic has no objection to that and she's in fact intitled under pennsylvania law to waive any restriction or contract term that that is solely for her benefit which any geographic restriction would be for miss clappers benefit but she has said that she has no objection to colombia relocating it and yet colombia action somehow doesn't provide arms it also doesn't i mean we haven't they haven't decided yet how much compensation your clients want to get correct that's that's correct ok and so it may turn out well it may not but or may not turn out to your clients liking as as much as she as she would would want but that's not the case case if the question here is this is a contractual argument based on a nine hundred and forty six he's got agreement and it looks like the biggest difference is that they're here they're not they're saying we're not going to we place alongside requires the replacement pipeline to go in the same location and it's geographically ambiguous it says that it needs to be laid along a line surveyed that goes back to the st question what do you want do you want to get the new one to move a close really old no no no no nothing physically happens the way you want to do to get your money is opinion in your favor what would you what would you how would you write this i would i would write it that yeah yes or i mean that's correct that in terms of granting then those rights that's the language they use them so men do that in fifty words or less what would you have us decide in your favor i would reverse the decision in the condemnation actual granting summary judgment and dismissed that action provision of a farm tap and no abandonment of and in operative piece of pipe line on her property and to the extent that kwame isn't going to do those things there should be a hearing on damages but it shouldn't  i mean that i believe that they could and to be frank a result that ends with that agreement and the terms the still in force it is acceptable to in this closet i don't know of the process by which we get there with and i'm not sure that presidential it's a good thing to have a pipeline company acquiring