So we've been asked to give, for $1, our water company an "extra" 15' easement of our private property in addition to what they currently have. I've asked our business attorney, he's out of Waco, and asked a local attorney (Killeen/Belton) that we highly respect and that's been a customer for 20+ years, their opinions. Neither are wrong but neither specialize in imminent domain. So I'm open to suggestions and realize that it's probably not someone in the temple/Belton metroplex.

Good catch!

Sam Fulcher handles a lot of property law. He did a bit of imminent domain work with i35 expansion.

He's a total sip, but a straight forward dude and I'd trust him with anything along those lines.

Thanks!

Sam is a good dude, that's for sure. I would bet he is an excellent attorney.

In this area a good attorney is likely sip or Baylor. Can't hate em all the time.

So.....

I'm guessing the water system is a non-profit, or Co-op type of thing
you're a user on this system, no?
--the cost of your potential payday, if that is what your considering, will be passed on and borne by your neighbors

do you kinda see where i'm going with this?

of course some co-ops really don't care about their members so get what you can.

I'm talking about you HoT Electric

localag88 said:

---

So.....

I'm guessing the water system is a non-profit, or Co-op type of thing
you're a user on this system, no?
--the cost of your potential payday, if that is what your considering, will be passed on and borne by your neighbors

do you kinda see where i'm going with this?

---

Yeah. I see where you're going. But my current water meter will have to be moved and my current fence and front property improvements will be in the new easement. If you think I'm gonna give up 6000 sqft of my property plus the trouble to move the water line to my home without compensation you've lost your mind. There's not a utility company in this state that doesn't compensate for eminent domain. IDGAF about my water bill. We already have plans for rain water. There's plenty of customers on dog ridge to absorb the costs. And this is one of many 2" lines that TCEQ probably requires replacement of. They just think we're dumb. The easement is for the city when they plan to annex us and widen/lengthen the road.

ETA-no one in this situation is looking for a "payday"! I damn sure don't need one. But it's my land and I'll fight for it.

http://mehlaw.com/attorney/justin-hodge/

Buddy of mine from high school who specializes in Imminent Domain. Smart guy. From Salado.

$1? You've gotta be kidding. They should at least be offering fair market value.

Yeah, especially when the guy across the street is selling off 3 of his 40 acres for $85k.

Jack Crews in Temple. Or if you want to go really big check out Barron Adler in Austin.

Fulcher is at same law firm as Crews, but he is the attorney for the TEDC... I would bet if you called firm they would direct you to the best fit attorney.

Hopefully I won't need to. The water line is on the opposite side of the road, so they shouldn't need 15' on my side but we'll see. I made some comments about that firm during the BISD school bond election. I know for sure one of the attorneys there is not fond of me.

I'm pretty well versed on the water utility and city/gov side of things and dealing with ED matters... what your describing doesn't make sense yet to me. They can't take your property, especially through ED without a reason. Now they can offer you money for it, but you can just say no.

jpb1999 said:

---

I'm pretty well versed on the water utility and city/gov side of things and dealing with ED matters... what your describing doesn't make sense yet to me. They can't take your property, especially through ED without a reason. Now they can offer you money for it, but you can just say no.

---

the main water line on our road is only 2". TCEQ is requiring Dog Ridge to upgrade to 6". Dog ridge wants another 15' of easement for this so in the future they don't have to move it if the county ever widens the road. Makes sense to me, but I doubt the county has plans to widen the road.

Quote:

---

Hopefully I won't need to. The water line is on the opposite side of the road, so they shouldn't need 15' on my side but we'll see.

---

But here you say it is not on your side of the road. So are they asking the prop owner on the other side of the road for the 15' or are they asking you (or asking both of you?)? Definitely not trying to argue, just trying to understand the situation...

The original request was to property owners on both sides. Of course no one signed them so the water company had a meeting for us with maps showing existing water line and the proposed new line. The line is on the east side so the question was raised, why ask for the 15' on both sides? Of course I don't wish this on my neighbors across the street but hopefully the request is dropped for me and my side.

Thanks for clarification. So I'll go back to what I said earlier, if they are not showing any improvements (or the need of) on your side, they do not have a leg to stand on as an ED case. Now they can "ask" for the land for a certain amount of compensation...

I hope you're right. The whole thing is shady, IMO. The first letter was to let us know they were replacing the line (Hallelujah) and would need us to sign a future letter giving them access to our property. But the next letter was to give them the extra 15' easement for $1. Then a Q&A letter that really didn't answer any questions but did announce the meeting. The water pressure can be extremely poor at times and a couple of summers ago all of us along the road went without water for 2.5 days. Obviously something needs to be done. That was not fun. They're paying for this with a grant from the USDA, FWIW.

Is the engineer BSP Engineers still?

I think so. The engineer at the meeting was very young and I don't think he brought business cards.

jpb1999 said:

---

Jack Crews in Temple. Or if you want to go really big check out Barron Adler in Austin.

Fulcher is at same law firm as Crews, but he is the attorney for the TEDC... I would bet if you called firm they would direct you to the best fit attorney.

---

Talked to Fulcher and he confirmed that there was another guy better suited. I assume he meant Jack.

Sounds to me they are just asking. The number of people that sign those letters the first go-round is not zero. Upsizing the line shouldn't require additional easement.

If what you say is correct and the city annexes/widens the road, it may be up to dog ridge to move the existing lines to a new easement. If they are upsizing the lines as a part of a grant, they wouldn't want to put the line in the existing easement then move it when city/county widens. Sounds like they are trying to get some on the cheap (as they should).

Tube said:

---

Sounds to me they are just asking. The number of people that sign those letters the first go-round is not zero. Upsizing the line shouldn't require additional easement.

If what you say is correct and the city annexes/widens the road, it may be up to dog ridge to move the existing lines to a new easement. If they are upsizing the lines as a part of a grant, they wouldn't want to put the line in the existing easement then move it when city/county widens. Sounds like they are trying to get some on the cheap (as they should).

---

Of course they should. Cause we're all ignorant county dwellers.

Quote:

---

Of course they should. Cause we're all ignorant county dwellers.

---

That's of course not what I meant. The water company has limited funds to spend and the funds they have come from their users via fees. They owe it to all the members to be responsible with those funds.

Also, I'd be willing to bet the easement document says "$1 and other good and valuable consideration" or something similar. I'm not an attorney, but I believe that "other consideration" could be something negotiated like moving the fence, repairing a driveway culvert, providing a meter, or even a sum of money. Those terms would be addressed in a separate document.

In some cases the landowners don't care, or find a benefit to having the utility on their property. Perhaps they may be happy to give an easement for improved pressure in this case.

My family members had a similar situation where the city (in Collin County) offered $10 for a utility easement next to the road. The letter from the city mentioned eminent domain and other semi-aggressive phrases. The letter sounded like they had no choice. The easement was for a new housing development and I think the city more or less acted as a puppet for the developer.

My family hired a lawyer, went to court, and ended getting about $30K for the easement, after lawyer fees.

I say this for the benefit of others...don't take the $10 offer.

Wow! Yeah, I think my water company is definitely a puppet but not for the county.

I might could help with this.

Dog Ridge is only asking for an easement. You don't lose the property. An easement only provides access for Dog Ridge to the 15' easement to allow for construction and maintenance of the waterline. You don't have to move your fence.

I am an eminent domain attorney but i rarely handle landowner cases. I have handled approximately 1200 cases.

Where are you and where is the land? Let me know that and i can let you know who to use.

Btw, most landowners attorneys work contingent

Thank you. I've kinda forgotten about this. I guess the water company is having a hard time getting funding. And the water line is on the other side of the road so they don't need more easement from me. They sent letters requesting docs they need (deed, some signatures for something and other stuff) which I haven't done. I'm honestly too busy. When we bought the property, we went to the water company with the seller to transfer the service in our name. That was 13 years ago. Now they need proof we're supposed to have service...

Speaking of imminent domain, I'm excited to see the Watertower fight in Northcliffe.