Home at stake as veteran challenges LPEA easement expansion

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Jack Barrett didn’t expect his retirement to look like this. The 80-year-old Navy veteran thought he, and his wife, would spend their later years quietly on the 9.6 acre property they bought outside Pagosa Springs—nearly two decades ago. Instead, Barrett is now fighting La Plata Electric Association over a transmission line upgrade that he says would force a widened utility easement closer to his home—and deeper into his property.

“I served my country with honor,” Barrett said. “And I should not have this fight at this time in my life.”

LPEA has filed a petition in condemnation to secure easement rights. It would be for project upgrading an existing transmission line from 69kV to 115kV. What began as a technical discussion has stretched into years of conflict, something Barrett says has taken a personal toll.

“This has been going on for over two years now, and it just wears you down,” he said.

According to Barrett, LPEA’s preferred alignment would require a significantly wider easement than what exists today, affecting multiple structures on the property.

“When they presented us with our first contract, they wanted 100 feet right-of-way. What they showed us is that it would take up our whole pole barn. It would take up our front porch. It would take part of our living room. It would take part of our dog run,” Barrett said.

An expanded easement, not just an upgraded line

In written responses, LPEA acknowledged that the project involves more than replacing existing infrastructure. The cooperative stated that for a line of this capacity, the “industry-standard easement width is approximately twice that of the existing line,” adding that “it is the outer boundary of the standard easement that would come near the corner of the living room, not the line itself.”

LPEA has said it is willing to “modify” the standard width to allow the home to remain, but the expansion itself remains central to the dispute. Barrett said the compensation discussed for accepting that expanded easement felt dismissive of the property’s actual value.

“They’ve not been really generous with the money part anyway because they only figured our property in about a third or a fourth of what it’s worth per acre and then we only wanted to give us 37% of that and they said, ‘Oh, that’s just what we do,’” Barrett said.

Barrett said the existing line runs across roughly 1,000 feet of his property. Based on LPEA’s stated industry-standard easement width of approximately 100 feet, the expanded corridor would place about 2.3 acres of the Barretts’ land under permanent easement — land that would be newly encumbered beyond the footprint historically occupied by the existing line.

“I sent letters. I tried to work with them. It just felt like nobody was listening,” Barrett said.

The unresolved 1953 easement question

LPEA has repeatedly referenced an easement dating back to 1953 to justify keeping the line’s general alignment. Barrett disputes that claim and says he found no recorded easement supporting the expanded use now being proposed.

“LPEA has never had and don’t have an easement of record on file,” Barrett said. “I went down to the records in our county and spent plenty of time there.”

In its written responses, LPEA said it cannot share easement documentation due to ongoing negotiations and litigation. The cooperative wrote that the Barretts’ barn lies within the “presumed scope” of the existing easement, while “the home is not,” and said it has developed a prescriptive easement for the line’s existing location based on long-term occupancy.

What remains disputed is the scope of any original easement and whether it authorizes the expanded footprint now being sought. If the governing easement document cannot be produced, the specific rights granted within it — including width, location, and whether expansion or higher-voltage upgrades were permitted — would need to be established through other legal means rather than the document itself.

The question, then, is not just where the line has been, but how far beyond that footprint LPEA is now asking to go.

“They’ve got all the power — and we’re just supposed to accept it,” Barrett said.

Three routes, divided neighbors

County officials have discussed three routing concepts: keeping the line near its current location with an expanded easement, rerouting behind the Barrett property if neighboring landowners agree, or moving the line across the highway onto largely undeveloped land.

Route options provided by LPEA

The landowner directly adjacent to the Barrett property does not approve routing the upgraded line through her yard, a factor LPEA has cited in narrowing its options. County officials confirmed, however, that the property owner across the highway has indicated she is willing to allow the line to run on that side, a route that would avoid homes entirely.

Commissioner John Ranson, who has walked the property with LPEA staff, said that contrast has been central to the county’s concern.

“The new easement is the one that would go right on the corner of their living room,” Ranson said. “There’s no homes across the highway that would affect the lady that owns that property.”

Despite that, LPEA has characterized the highway alignment as a member-requested relocation and said the additional cost should fall on the Barretts.

“That change is the responsibility of the one that wants the change,” an LPEA representative said during a county meeting. “We don’t socialize that cost across all of the membership.”

Once LPEA acknowledged that it needed new easement rights to complete the transmission upgrade, the process for acquiring those rights fell under Colorado’s eminent domain framework.

Under Colorado law, utilities may obtain property rights for a public project only through voluntary agreement or condemnation. State statute does not provide a mechanism allowing a condemning authority to require a homeowner to pay to avoid harm to their own property once condemnation is pursued. In practical terms, routing decisions — including the cost of selecting an alternative route — become part of the utility’s overall project considerations once new rights are required.

“They’re supposed to be there for the members. But it doesn’t feel like that anymore,” Barrett said.

What each side would have to prove

If the case moves forward, LPEA would carry the initial burden. Under Colorado law, the cooperative would need to show that the taking serves a public use and that the route it selected is reasonably necessary. LPEA would also need to establish the scope of any easement it claims to rely on. If it argues that a prescriptive easement exists, that claim would be limited to the historic use of the line and would not automatically include a wider corridor, higher voltage, or a greater burden on the property.

The Barretts would not need to challenge the public purpose of the project. Their case would instead focus on whether LPEA is exceeding any existing easement rights and whether the cooperative can prove the scope of those rights if original documentation cannot be produced.

At its core, the dispute would turn on whether LPEA can lawfully rely on existing rights for an expanded project — and, if not, who bears the cost when new rights must be acquired.

EMF concerns near the home

Barrett said his concerns about the project aren’t just about property lines or compensation. He said his concern grew as he realized how close the expanded easement would come to places where his family actually spends time.

“It’s not about the money,” Barrett said. “It’s the location of these lines. We don’t want all this EMF.”

Barrett said he started researching electromagnetic field exposure on his own, particularly given that his grandchildren play on the property. While LPEA said it would provide information addressing EMF safety, Barrett said he never received studies directly from the cooperative.

Upgrades to transmission lines can change exposure levels because they are designed to carry more electrical load. Higher load means higher current, which results in stronger magnetic fields. For that reason, proximity matters. Magnetic fields weaken with distance, so placement near homes can affect exposure levels more than voltage alone.

Public health agencies generally say typical residential EMF exposure carries a low overall risk. Some long-term studies, however, have raised questions about childhood leukemia, and that uncertainty is why health officials often advise limiting exposure when practical — particularly when routing decisions can still be adjusted.

Barrett said that information reinforced his position that the upgraded line should be routed away from his home rather than expanded toward it.

A broader backdrop at LPEA

The Barrett case is unfolding as LPEA faces wider member concern over transparency and costs, including its $210 million plan to exit its power-supply contract with Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association — a decision previously examined by Rocky Mountain Voice in reporting on how members “feel the financial pinch.”

Ranson drew a comparison between the Barrett dispute and LPEA’s broader financial decisions, questioning how the cooperative defines fairness when allocating costs among its members.

“I don’t understand how they can pass a two hundred nine million dollar decision without bringing it to a co-op vote,” Ranson said. 

Ranson said the contrast was difficult to reconcile. In his view, LPEA demonstrated a willingness to distribute a $209 million financial obligation across its entire membership while refusing to absorb the cost of a route change that would avoid significant harm to a single household.

Asking for help to keep fighting

As condemnation proceedings move forward, the financial strain of the dispute has become unavoidable for the Barretts. Legal filings, consultations, and the time required to respond to LPEA’s actions have created costs the retired couple says they never anticipated when they bought their home.

“It’s stressful. We’re retired. This is not how we planned to spend our time,” Barrett said.

Supporters have launched a fundraiser on GiveSendGo, titled “Help Veteran Keep His House From Electric Board,” to assist with mounting legal expenses as the case continues. Supporters characterize Barrett as someone who “would give you the shirt off his back.”

“We’re retired,” Barrett said. “We don’t have a budget for lawyers.”

For Barrett, the issue has never been just financial.

“This is our home,” he said. “And after everything, it just feels like nobody was listening.”