Opinion ID: 2033304
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Erection of Utility Lines Constitutes an Additional Servitude for Which the Landowner Must Be Compensated

Text: KJRY relies heavily on Thompson v. City of Osage to support its argument that a condemner takes only the estate or interest in the property condemned that is necessary for the purpose of condemnation. Thompson v. City of Osage, 421 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Iowa 1988). Unlike the view IES would have us adopt, we do not believe the city's right of way dominates the servient landowner's right to use his land. We have previously recognized: Although the condemner is entitled to exclusive use of the land condemned, the owner retains the right to use the property for any purpose not inconsistent with the public right. Id. KJRY correctly argues that the installation of the power lines creates an actual burden on the land. IES has placed its electricity poles on land still retained by KJRY in fee simple. When the servient land is burdened by an easement, the servient landowner does not surrender a fee simple. All that is relinquished is so much of the land as is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the easement. Contrary to IES's contention, the landowner would not be getting paid twice for the same land (once by the city and once by the utility) if the utility was forced to pay for its own right-of-way. This is because the land remains in the control of the servient landowner to be used for other uses as long as these uses do not interfere with the purposes of the easement. The increased risk of harm to KJRY's land also creates an additional burden because overhead power lines create a danger to KJRY's railroad tracks below and its operations in that area in general that was not contemplated at the time of the original easement. In this regard, the West Virginia Supreme Court recognized: It is true that high voltage of electricity is a dangerous agency wherever it may be found. Karcher v. Wheeling Elec. Co., 94 W.Va. 278, 118 S.E. 154, 155 (1923) (failing to find this fact created an additional burden). Moreover, the construction of these poles on KJRY's land minimizes the use KJRY could have in that area. KJRY did not surrender all use to the land subject to the easement; it retained full possession limited only by the purposes for the easement. KJRY would still be free to sell this portion of the land or enter into an easement agreement with another. Erection of the poles by IES seriously limits these options and thus creates an additional burden. Similar persuasive authority comes from the various states that have adopted the fifth possible rationale. See, e.g., Cathey v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 193 Ark. 92, 97 S.W.2d 624, 626 (1936); Heyert v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 24 A.D.2d 592, 262 N.Y.S.2d 123, 125-26 (1965), aff'd, 17 N.Y.2d 352, 271 N.Y.S.2d 201, 218 N.E.2d 263 (1966). In these jurisdictions it is held that the owners of fee in the street or highway are entitled to be compensated for the additional servitude to which their property is subjected by the erection of electric power lines. Hursh, 58 A.L.R.2d at 543-44. Arkansas has decisively found that although the state may provide a utility company the right to construct its poles on a highway easement, the owner in fee must still be compensated for it. Cathey, 97 S.W.2d at 626. Even though the state held a highway easement for the land, it had no right to appropriate or take the right-of-way over one's land for any purpose other than for a highway for the use of the public, and every additional servitude to which the land is subjected entitles the owner to compensation for such additional servitude. Id. The Arkansas Supreme Court relied on the holding in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Biddle , to make its decision. See id. (citing Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Biddle, 186 Ark. 294, 54 S.W.2d 57, 58 (1932)). The Biddle court held: [T]he erection of a telephone line upon the public highway along lands of adjoining owners, in which the public only has an easement for use as a highway, would not prevent the owner of the land from collecting damages for the new servitude to which his land is subjected; such use not having been in contemplation when the easement was taken or granted. Biddle, 54 S.W.2d at 58. The Cathey court extended this rationale for telephone poles to electric power poles as well. Cathey, 97 S.W.2d at 626. Louisiana has come to a similar conclusion. See Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Dileo, 79 So.2d 150, 155 (La.Ct.App.1955). The public easement taken by the city was specifically limited to a right-of-way solely for the construction and maintenance of the highway in question. Id. at 154-55. This did not convey fee simple to the city to allow it to use the land unfettered, rather it only gave the city the right to use the land for purposes listed in the easement. Id. at 155. Accordingly, a utility company cannot set their poles on and their lines across these lands without the consent also of the owners of the surface title thereto, or without securing this servitude by expropriation. Id. The court recognized that [a]lthough the strips of land in question [were] subject to a servitude for public highway purposes, this servitude [did] not extend to the use for private power line purposes. Id. New York has also taken an exclusive stance toward highway easements. See Heyert, 262 N.Y.S.2d at 126. As related to a gas main the court found the landowner was entitled to damages because there [was] an unauthorized taking or use of her property for a purpose which [was] not a lawful highway or street use under the public easement.... Id. Moreover, because the installation of the main was not within the scope of the public's easement[,] such installation constitute[d] an unlawful interference with plaintiff's property rights. Id. In North Carolina it has been held that trees within a public easement may not be removed to make room for utility poles without first compensating the servient landowner. Brown v. Asheville Elec. Light Co., 138 N.C. 533, 51 S.E. 62, 65 (1905). In order to justify the defendants in setting up the poles, it is necessary for them to show that they have acquired the right to do so, either by consent or condemnation, from the owner of the soil. The designation by the city ... is not enough. Id. (quotations and citation omitted). The court aptly stated that the city has no right to grant away the property of the servient landowner. Id. Accordingly, if corporations quasi public ... seek to appropriate it so that they may have a benefit therefrom, every principle of justice demands they should make just compensation.... Id. (quotations and citation omitted). A public easement creates a contract between the servient landowner and the city. Jordan v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 468 N.W.2d 827, 830 (Iowa 1991); see Tamm, Inc. v. Pildis, 249 N.W.2d 823, 835 (Iowa 1976). It stands to reason that an entity not a party to the agreement should not be able to derive a benefit from the easement in the same way prescribed to the city without first paying for it. Moreover, when a city possesses an easement, third parties can only use it to the extent the city could use it. See Consolidated Cable Utils., Inc. v. City of Aurora, 108 Ill.App.3d 1035, 64 Ill.Dec. 464, 439 N.E.2d 1272, 1276-77 (1982). It would be inequitable to allow a third party the free use of the easement that not even the easement holder himself enjoys. Illinois follows this strict interpretation of the easement rule. See id. The scope of the easement is limited to only those things specifically named. See id. Because the city took an easement from the landowner for gas, electric, and telephone services, the easement was limited only to that. Id. The easement could not be expanded to include cable lines. Id. We believe this is a sounder conclusion than that adopted by the court in Florida. Compare id. (holding the easement language is controlling), with Nerbonne, 692 So.2d at 930 (finding the failure to exclude utilities is persuasive). While it is true that the holder of the easement possesses all rights necessary to the reasonable and proper enjoyment of the easement, the installation of utilities must be related to the road right-of-way granted in the easement. Hunter v. Keys, 229 Wis.2d 710, 600 N.W.2d 269, 273-74 (Ct.App.1999). Here, in this private easement to improve the roadway the court found that placement of electrical wires exceeded the scope of the easement. Id. The easement was limited to purposes that would satisfy improving the road for travel. Id. Electrical lines were not one of those purposes. Id. We agree with the sound arguments made by the courts adopting the fifth rationale. We conclude that power lines and utility poles are not included within the scope of the general public highway easement. Specifically, if the city had wanted its easement to include utilities, it could have stated as much. Allowing a utility company that operates for a profit to place its poles on the servient land without having to pay for this right is manifestly unfair to the servient landowner whose easement did not include utilities within its purview. To hold otherwise would allow the utility company to get something for nothing. The sole existence of a public easement should not enable a company for profit to obtain free use.