Colorado § 38-1-101.5 - Necessity of taking land for pipelines.

§ 38-1-101.5. Necessity of taking land for pipelines.

(1) When a court is determining the necessity of taking private land or nonfederal public land for the installation of a pipeline, the court shall require the pipeline company:

(a) To show that the particular land lies within a route which is the most direct route practicable;

(b) To post a bond with the court equal to double the amount which the court determines to be the estimated cost of restoring the affected land to the same or as good a condition as it was in prior to the installation of the pipeline; except that the pipeline company may elect to deposit cash, negotiable bonds of the United States government or any political subdivision of this state, or negotiable certificates of deposit of any bank or other savings institution organized or transacting business in the United States equal to double such cost. Said bond shall not be released until the court is satisfied that the condemned land has been restored to the same or as good a condition as existed prior to the installation of the pipeline, and, if the affected land is productive agricultural land, that the soil which sustains the agricultural activity has been restored so as to provide for the continuation of such agricultural activity, and that any damages awarded by the court have been paid. If the condemned land is adjacent to or in proximity of the boundary of federal land of comparable use, such bond shall not be released until the company has restored the land to at least the same reclamation standards and meets such other standards and requirements for such federal land as required by the laws, rules, and regulations of the federal government.

(c) To consider existing utility rights-of-way before any new routes are taken if the land to be condemned is adjacent to existing utility rights-of-way.

(2) When land is condemned for a pipeline, the determination of the amount of compensation to be received by the landowner shall reflect consideration of the fact that the condemned land is to be restored as required in this section.

Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 1444, § 1, effective June 3. L. 84: (1)(b) amended, p. 974, § 1, effective April 12.

ANNOTATION

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence relating to safety issues. Landowners failed to cite any authority that supports the proposition that a court must consider safety issues in pipeline condemnation cases. Sinclair Transp. Co. v. Sandberg, 228 P.3d 198 (Colo. App. 2009), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., 2012 CO 36, 284 P.3d 42.