Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,,~j <br /> <br />r-.. <br />or-.. <br /> <br />, ' <br />-~ <br /> <br />,~=) <br />~, <br />~"..' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />of the servient estate burdened by a power line easement objected <br /> <br />to the easement owner altering the power pole from a wood pole <br /> <br />H-frame structure to a steel poleo The steel structure was taller <br /> <br />than the wood H-frame structure and three additional conductors <br /> <br />were affixed to the steel pole. The steel pole occupied less <br /> <br />physical space on the ground than the pole it replaced, and <br /> <br />required no additional land for operation and maintenance. The <br /> <br />Court determined that the changes made by the dominant estate <br /> <br />owner arose from the "normal evolution" in use of the dominant <br /> <br />estate without adverse effect upon the servient estate and, <br /> <br />therefore, no damages were due the servient estate as a result <br /> <br />thereof. <br /> <br />Whether one may rely on the doctrine of "norrral evolution" of <br /> <br />use to justify the change of a surface lateral easement to a <br /> <br />buried pipeline is doubtful, particularly in vie",' of a recent <br /> <br />decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. Wright v Horse Creek <br /> <br />Ranches, supra, was decided by the Court of Appeals in 1982; <br /> <br />however, on certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, the decision <br /> <br />was reversed. Wright v Horse Creek Ranches, <br /> <br />(Colo. 1985, <br /> <br />P.2d <br /> <br />Case No. 82SC420). <br /> <br />In Wright v Horse Creek Ranches, the Supreme Court stated <br /> <br />that, in selecting the test to be applied to determine whether a <br /> <br />particular use of an easement is authorized, it is critical to <br /> <br />determine whether the easement was created by prescription. In <br /> <br />respect to easements so created, the Colorado Court adopted the <br /> <br />-11- <br />