Absentee Landowners Stopping County Waterline

[rfawkes]

Here in Hardin County Illinois we almost have water piped in for rural residents. The line will run through my property and on down to fifty other families down the road who have only well water at present. We are stopped by two landowners who do not live here and refuse to sign easements for the lines to cross their properties. I cannot understand there reluctance, as there is no cost to them one way or the other and they don't have to hook up if they don't want to hook up. If there is a valid reason, maybe I could understand. Am I missing something?

[Bird]

When I was on the board of directors of our water co-op, we had the same problem with 2 or 3 people. I think every easement document I've seen permits the utility, pipeline company, or whoever needs the easement to enter the property at any time for the purpose of maintenance or repairs and a lot of people are afraid you'll come in with trucks, tractors, etc. and make a mess. No matter how minor it is, giving an easement is giving up a little bit of control over your property, so I don't think anyone wants to do that without a good reason.

[jimbrown]

just went thru this in Brazos county tX. The county simply sued the hold outs and won hands down.

[Pat]

Same crap here in South Central Oklahoma. The holdouts were mostly in three categories: 1. thought they won the lottery and could demand exorbitant prices for crossing their property, 2. were frightened by the prospect of water folks rampaging on their private property, 3. too ignorant to have a clue and just don't agree to anything whether it helps or harms them or is neutral.

Those thinking they won the lottery got a rude surprise as the line was laid on the other side of their fence (closer to the road) on public right of way and it didn't make much difference to the pipe laying contractor.

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Bird]

OK, what's the third category? [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Pat]

Bird, I for got the (3.) and ran 2 and 3 together.

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Chuck52]

In an adjacent county, there is one farmer who refuses to sign because he doesn't want the development which would be sure to follow. The only thing keeping a large tract on one side of him from being divided up and developed is no district water. Selfish, I suppose, but somewhat understandable. It's a more rural county, and this farmer is a LARGE landowner who must have considerable sway, since he has blocked the water line for a number of years now. The development, and the developers, would be from my county, so the locals in that county aren't all that interested in making it easier for the "city folk" to move in. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Chuck

[rdbigfarmboy]

I would side with the absentee large land owner. If they are farming they need less traffic, lower taxes and less neighbor hassles. My city folk or as I call then (soon to be broke) neighbors do work quickly to turn rural countryside into an urban area. If you cant manage well water or a septic system or haul off your own trash please stay where you are. The reason theyre broke is living is a bit cheaper cept for the travel and other cost they never encountered along with extended families that cant make decent living in a rural area.