Hope none of ya'll have it on your property. Going to lose all the trees on 50 ROW over 300 ft long. Our easement was granted/sold in 1939. Its old but binding.

Pipeline or power line?

Pipe line being bored. natura gas

Are they pulling the trees out? Why bore instead of trench if they aren't?

Tree roots around a pipeline are generally a bad idea.

My neighbor has an easement for a quarter mile for a pipeline. They have a wildlife expedition on their property. When the company came in to do the same as the OP, they fought it and the company was required to BORE. They lost no trees.

Is that an option for you?

Hey you'll have a new hunting sendera. Are they going to reclaim the damages or just payup?

New 300ft shooting lane. Sounds like an excuse for a new gun.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Tree roots around a pipeline are generally a bad idea.

---

He was saying "no need to bore if the trees are gone. open cut the thing"


If i were OP i'd be loading up on grand champion steers for construction.

Interesting. Did he use an attorney or have anyone else representing him?

My properties are wildlife exempt and have a number of pipeline easements. With the effort I put into trees and habitat, this would be a good card to keep in the back pocket.

The wife was a corporate attorney and the husband was an accountant but I do believe they used or consulted with a specific attorney about it.

Now, they were close to a river, and that required boring anyway, so there may have been some thing with simply continuing the bore. There were other requirements that esssentially made the company have biologists on site to make sure it went properly. It was a big deal and I was pretty impressed at the ability to strong arm a pipeline job like that. I wish more people did it.

I helped clean up a bit after the job since they are older and I can say that there was very minimal disturbance of their place at the end. It was done well.

It wasn't like you couldn't tell they were there but there was absolute constraints on how wide a disturbance swath could be. That's not to say they didn't kill a plant or two but compared to the other places where they just plowed through, the property would fully recover ina matter of months.

What kind of trees? What revegetation plan is in place?

You might make lemonade out of lemons.

Tx Ag72 said:

---

Pipe line being bored. natura gas

---

What pipeline company and where?

HTownAg98 said:

---

Tree roots around a pipeline are generally a bad idea.

---

I know. I just had to fix my water main for this exact reason.

However, if you're boring down 3 to 4' feet, you're likely well below most oaks. Most roots are in the top 18-24" of soil.

And of you're pulling the trees out, there's no reason you bore. A trench would likely be cheaper and easier. If you're boring, go deep and avoid the trees at minimal, if any, extra cost.

Tx Ag72 said:

---

Pipe line being bored. natura gas

---

It's an easement from 1939 for a pipeline that was never built, or are they trying to rebuild it and/or move it?

Is it for the Mattahorn Express?

Tx Ag72 said:

---

Hope none of ya'll have it on your property. Going to lose all the trees on 50 ROW over 300 ft long. Our easement was granted/sold in 1939. Its old but binding.

---

Chapman?

The ROW is for Atmos to inspect the pipeline from the air. The pipeline is replacing an existing pipeline about 50 yards north of the new one. Unfortunately my place is not large enough to qualify for some of the exemptions mentioned. I am going to be reimbursed dollars per linear inch of diameter of trees. I went behind the Pine Curtain today and had lunch with some friends, one who is retired title attorney. He suggested I go find the title policy and if the easement is not noted ( my legal jargon may not be correct), title company could be liable for damages. We'll see. This is in Brazos Co. One of my daughters suggested that I start looking for a Native American burial ground on the place.

Tx Ag72 said:

---

The ROW is for Atmos to inspect the pipeline from the air. The pipeline is replacing an existing pipeline about 50 yards north of the new one. Unfortunately my place is not large enough to qualify for some of the exemptions mentioned. I am going to be reimbursed dollars per linear inch of diameter of trees. I went behind the Pine Curtain today and had lunch with some friends, one who is retired title attorney. He suggested I go find the title policy and if the easement is not noted ( my legal jargon may not be correct), title company could be liable for damages. We'll see. This is in Brazos Co. One of my daughters suggested that I start looking for a Native American burial ground on the place.

---

Atmos is going through our place, too, on an old existing easement.

I build a lot of pipelines...and Atmos is bottom barrel in the transmission pipeline construction.


Fight them with everything you have. tell them to eff off and stuck to 3/4" lines to houses.


I'll stick a pin in my voodoo doll for you. Worst construction/engineering group I've seen.

Tx Ag72 said:

---

The ROW is for Atmos to inspect the pipeline from the air. The pipeline is replacing an existing pipeline about 50 yards north of the new one. Unfortunately my place is not large enough to qualify for some of the exemptions mentioned. I am going to be reimbursed dollars per linear inch of diameter of trees. I went behind the Pine Curtain today and had lunch with some friends, one who is retired title attorney. He suggested I go find the title policy and if the easement is not noted ( my legal jargon may not be correct), title company could be liable for damages. We'll see. This is in Brazos Co. One of my daughters suggested that I start looking for a Native American burial ground on the place.

---

You need an attorney experienced in oil/gas/pipelines to review your deed and title policy BEFORE they are allowed on your property and before you sign ANYTHING. Perhaps you could have the easement defined by a current survey with a legal description. This was the outcome on a property we own with a similar easement years ago. We had to force the issue when they wanted to replace the pipe with a new pipe.

Absolutely talk to an experienced attorney ASAP. There very well may be some language in there that limits what they can do.

Agree! That sucks! 50 yards away from existing pipeline is excessive, A recorded easement would almost be 100 ft, maybe only 50 ft. 50 yards away is ridiculous.

It's also ridiculous that it is not ona title search when buying property! What is the point of it if not showing crap like that?

It's probably 50 feet.

And while I've never worked for atmos, they would have to adhere to the basic tenants of the NEPA guidelines (waters of the us, endangered species, historical)

Especially for going under the river/water body.

Tx Ag72 said:

---

The pipeline is replacing an existing pipeline about 50 yards north of the new one.

---

Without seeing your actual 1939 easement, I'm shooting in the dark here, but I'm familiar with blanket easements from the 1930's and 1940's.

Most of those are pretty simple non-specific 1-page documents signed by folks who were told by the pipeliners that 'this is what we're going to do and this is what you'll be paid and if you don't like it hire an attorney."

The more sophisticated landowners did get legal representation and those easements tend to be longer and better define exactly what the pipeliner acquired. They also don't contain the amount paid (generally higher $$), unlike the simple ones (super low $$) mentioned in the previous paragraph.

That said, the common law rules of easements (apart from contrary language in the easement) still apply. Namely, that once a pipe is put in the ground, the easement becomes defined as to location as a matter of law.

So, just because you have a blanket easement, once that one pipe is in the ground the pipeliner is pretty much restricted to replacements that are adjacent and parallel.

The other thing is this -- in 1994, The Texas Natural Resources Code Section 111.0194 was added, and it generally restricts the total width of an old blanket easement to 50 foot per pipe installed per the easement. So, if Atmos wants to go 50 yards away, I'd cry foul. As a matter of fact, they really need to go as close as possible to the existing pipe as is safe from an engineering standpoint, which is probably 20' or so. But, I really can't say whether that would then move the centerline of the easement. Common sense says it would, but if it was previously 'set' as a matter of law, who knows.

Quote:

---

TNRC Section 111.0194

(a) Unless the terms of the grant or the condemnation judgment expressly provide otherwise, or the easement rights otherwise prescriptively owned through actual use are greater, an easement created through grant or through the power of eminent domain for the benefit of a single common carrier pipeline for which the power of eminent domain is available under Section 111.019 of this code as of January 1, 1994, is presumed to create an easement in favor of the common carrier pipeline, or a successor in interest to the common carrier pipeline, that extends only a width of 50 feet as to each pipeline laid under the grant or judgment in eminent domain prior to January 1, 1994.

---

Good luck. You do have rights here, although my experience with some (not all) pipeline companies is that they can be arrogant SOB's and act as though they own the land fee simple and not just an easement.

So did the title commitment not disclose this blanket easement when you acquired the properly or did you not fully understand the issue here? Landowners have rights. Grantees have certain rights. Nothing should be a surprise.

As a Developer I'm always amused at the homeowner who calls and throws a fit five years after buying a home and "all of a sudden" he can't put in a pool or structure on "his land ". Clearly the survey, plot plan, final plat and title commitment identifies the Drainage & Utility Easements running along the back or sides of the lot. Love when the tough guys signs off with "get ready; I'm gonna sue your ass off". Then I never hear from them again.

Worked on a project in the mid 2000's down in Brazoria County. The BIG pipeline. 42" LPG.

There was one tract on the west side of Hwy 288 that the landowners didn't want any ground disturbed. There wasn't an existing easement, the BIG group was acquiring one.

BIG had been successful in getting what they want from a lot of other landowners. This particular one had better attorneys.

BIG had to bore under 288 and thru their entire property if I remember correctly. It was a LONG bore and a long pull of 42" pipe.

Again, not an existing easement, so a little different scenario, but if your lawyers are good, you can get better results. And more money possibly.

50yds is ridiculous. If they have an existing pipeline they want to abandon in place and replace with a new line, have them put it close to the existing line. They shouldn't need 50yds.

We ran pipelines in dedicated corridors all the time that were five foot wall-to-wall from the last pipeline on the edge of the corridor. Have them do that if they aren't inept and won't screw up the existing line, which I'm guessing is still under pressure.

50ft would be more than I would want. 50yds? Ridiculous.