LEGAL & POLICY CONTEXT

Easement Overreach and Legal Concerns

Private utility easements were never intended to become an open invitation for unlimited disruption. These easements — which typically run along residents’ front and side yards — were created so that truly essential utilities like water, electricity, gas, and sewer could be installed and maintained. They were not designed to allow repeated, competitive trenching by every private telecommunications provider seeking to enter the market.

Allowing unlimited trenching by unlimited companies fundamentally changes the nature of an easement. Instead of enabling access for vital infrastructure, it creates a revolving door of private profit-driven projects at the homeowner’s expense. This is not what Florida law contemplates when it speaks of “reasonable utility use.”

The Legal Framework: Boundaries Do Exist

While utility companies have legal rights of access, courts have long recognized that these rights are not absolute. Legal precedents in Florida and elsewhere affirm important boundaries:

Reasonable Use: Easements exist for reasonable use — not perpetual, overlapping disruption.
No Unreasonable Burden: Property owners cannot be forced to endure excessive or repeated damage. Multiple trenches across a single yard in the same season raise serious legal concerns.
Original Intent Matters: The easements granted decades ago were meant for critical services like power and sewer. The drafters did not envision perpetual competition between private companies using residents’ lawns as a battleground.
Local Authority: Counties and municipalities retain regulatory power. They can adopt “dig once” policies, enforce restoration standards, and coordinate construction to minimize harm — as many other jurisdictions already do successfully.

ROW vs. private easements—two very different regimes. Orange County’s ROW rules (permits, coordination, restoration) apply in the road and let the County manage time/place/manner. Inside private 10-ft easements, use is governed by the easement grant and common-law limits: compatibility with the original purpose and no overburdening the property. Federal law favors shared use of compatible utility corridors but still requires restoration and compensation—it does not authorize unlimited, perpetual trenches through front yards just because multiple providers want to compete. Municode Library FDOT Legal Information Institute FindLaw Case Law CaseMine

ROW vs. Private Easements - Two Very Different Regimes

Orange County’s ROW rules (permits, coordination, restoration) apply in the road and let the County manage time/place/manner. Inside private 10-ft easements, use is governed by the easement grant and common-law limits: compatibility with the original purpose and no overburdening the property.
Federal law favors shared use of compatible utility corridors but still requires restoration and compensation—it does not authorize unlimited, perpetual trenches through front yards just because multiple providers want to compete.

Orange County Rules vs. Private Easements: What Really Applies

1) Orange County’s rules in the public right-of-way (ROW)

Orange County regulates construction in county roads/ROW through Chapter 21, Article VI (Right-of-Way Utilization Regulations). In short: you need County permits, you must coordinate with other utilities, and you must restore what you disturb. These are County tools for ROW, not for digging inside your front-yard private easement.

Permits & exceptions. Work in the ROW generally requires a County permit; the code lists a few narrow exceptions (e.g., certain pre-scheduled service connections). orangecounty-fl.elaws.us
Notification/coordination. Applicants must notify other ROW users/nearby municipalities before construction—this is the County’s built-in coordination lever. orangecounty-fl.elaws.us
Restoration standards. The County can require full restoration and cleanup of any ROW disturbed—another lever to minimize recurring cuts. orangecounty-fl.elaws.us
Adopted technical manuals. Orange County references the FDOT Utility Accommodation Manual and County utility standards to set construction/restoration expectations in the ROW. Municode Library FDOT Orange County, FL

Bottom line (ROW): The County already has authority to coordinate and require restoration in the road/ROW. Those tools don’t automatically govern the private 10-ft utility easements inside front yards—that’s a different legal regime.

2) Private Utility Easements On Residential Lots Are Not a Free-For-All

Florida law treats a private easement as a limited property right defined by the grant’s language and bounded by reasonableness. Even where communications providers have strong access rights in the public ROW, using a private easement still must (a) be compatible with the easement’s purpose and (b) not overburden the servient estate (the homeowner’s land).

A. What federal law actually says

Federal cable law lets a franchised cable operator use easements “dedicated for compatible uses” (e.g., existing utility corridors) with safeguards: operators must avoid safety/appearance harms, restore the property, and compensate for damages. Courts—including the Eleventh Circuit in a Florida case about a Jupiter development (Centel Cable v. Admiral’s Cove)—have used this to allow access to compatible utility easements, not to authorize unlimited trenching anywhere on a lot. Legal Information Institute Justia Law

B. Florida’s “scope & overburdening” rules

Florida courts repeatedly enforce two principles for private easements:

The deed/plat controls. The scope of an express easement is set by the instrument that created it; you can’t expand it beyond what was granted. (BHB Dev. v. Bonefish Yacht Club.) FindLaw Case Law
No permanent obstructions or scope creep. Cases enjoining posts/signs or structures inside access easements emphasize that degree of impairment isn’t the test—if the easement grants use over the strip, you can’t permanently narrow or obstruct it. (Sand Lake Shoppes v. Sand Lake Courtyards; Kagan v. West; Diefenderfer v. Forest Park Springs; discussion collecting these rules in a Florida Supreme Court filing.) FindLaw Case Law CourtListener CaseMine supremecourt.flcourts.gov

Applied here: A private “utility” easement must be used for that purpose and in a reasonable manner. Serial, duplicative trenches by multiple private competitors across the same 10-ft strip can be argued to overburden the easement (fact-specific, but recognized doctrine under Florida law). FindLaw Case Law CaseMine

C. Why “any company can install its own line” ≠ “endless private-easement trenching”

Florida law strongly favors competition in the public ROW (e.g., nondiscriminatory access under §337.401), but it does not convert every private utility easement into a perpetual raceway for unlimited private competitors regardless of cumulative impact. The easement’s text, compatibility, restoration, and overburdening limits still apply on private land. The Florida Senate

Similar Situations & Takeaways From Other Jurisdictions

Compatible utility easements often allow communications to share existing corridors (reducing redundant digs), but disputes turn on compatibility and burden. Courts outside Florida split where the original grant is narrow (e.g., Texas Supreme Court rejected cable in an electric-only easement in Marcus Cable v. Krohn), underscoring that grant language matters. CaseMine
“Dig Once” coordination is a proven local strategy (ROW side) to cut repeat excavations and encourage shared conduit, reducing the downstream pressure to spill into private easements: e.g., San Francisco Ordinance 220-14 and Minnesota’s state “dig once” statute. San Francisco Board of Supervisors MN Revisor's Office

Why Orange County Must Act on Private Easements

The current County position — that any communications company registered in Florida may trench private residential easements, each with its own separate lines, with no limit on number or frequency — is deeply problematic. While public rights-of-way have long been open to multiple utilities, private easements are fundamentally different: they exist on homeowners’ land, and the law constrains their use to reasonable, non-burdensome purposes.

A. Original intent and scope

When subdivision plats dedicated 10-foot utility easements decades ago, the intent was narrow and essential: water, sewer, electric, and perhaps telephone. These were true “utilities,” not private competitors racing for market share.
Nothing in those original grants contemplated a revolving door of trenchers cutting repeatedly through lawns, driveways, and landscaping to lay duplicative fiber.

B. Reasonable use vs. overburdening

Florida courts have made clear that:

Easements must be used for the intended utility purpose and in a reasonable manner.
Repeated or excessive use that imposes a new and disproportionate burden on the property owner constitutes overburdening and exceeds the easement’s scope.
Homeowners retain the right to challenge uses that go beyond what was contemplated at the time the easement was granted.

By confirming that there is “no limit” to the number of companies trenching the same 10-foot strips, the County has effectively endorsed a regime of unreasonable burden — the very thing the law guards against.

C. County responsibility

Even if state and federal law encourage competition in the public ROW, Orange County still has a responsibility to protect its residents from abuse of private easements. That responsibility arises because:

The County approved subdivision plats and easement dedications.
The County interprets and communicates policy to residents and providers.
The County has broad authority to regulate land use, coordinate utilities, and adopt protective ordinances.

D. Why “unlimited trenching” is unsustainable

No natural stopping point: If four, six, or ten providers each claim access, the easement could be disturbed every season indefinitely.
Property damage accumulates: Even with restoration, repeated trenching erodes soil, weakens roots, and diminishes property value.
Contrary to law: A perpetual parade of duplicative private lines exceeds the “reasonable use” standard recognized in Florida precedent and undermines the original intent of utility easements.

Framing for the County

The County need not (and cannot) eliminate access to communications providers altogether. But it can — and must — acknowledge that private easements are not equivalent to the public ROW. Unlimited trenching is not “reasonable utility use.” It is an overreach that violates the balance struck between infrastructure needs and property rights.

Orange County should formally recognize that its current stance — unlimited, perpetual trenching of private utility easements by unlimited providers — is inconsistent with both the original purpose of these easements and the County’s duty to protect residents from unreasonable burdens.

Ongoing Legal Review

We are actively consulting with attorneys and researching case law on “unreasonable burden” and “overburdening” of easements. Our goal is to clarify the legal boundaries of repeated excavations, highlight precedents that protect property owners, and present options for regulatory reform. This site will be updated as we gather further legal insights and potential pathways for action.

Sources & References

47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(2). Federal law giving cable operators the right to access easements “dedicated for compatible uses,” provided they restore property and compensate for damages.
Read the statute (Cornell Law)
Centel Cable Television Co. v. Admiral’s Cove Assoc., Inc., 835 F.2d 1359 (11th Cir. 1988). Federal case in Florida recognizing cable operators’ right to use compatible utility easements inside private developments.
Marcus Cable Assocs. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002). Texas Supreme Court decision holding that an electric-only easement did not authorize cable installation—showing limits when the easement language is narrow.
Florida Statute § 337.401. Governs local authority over utilities in the public right-of-way, requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of communications providers but allowing time/place/manner regulation and restoration standards.
Read the statute (Online Sunshine)
Orange County Code of Ordinances, Ch. 21, Art. VI (Right-of-Way Utilization Regulations). Requires permits for ROW use, notice to other utilities, and full restoration of disturbed areas; incorporates FDOT’s Utility Accommodation Manual.
Orange County Code – Sec. 21-197 to Sec. 21-237
FDOT Utility Accommodation Manual. Technical standards referenced by Orange County for how utilities must be installed and restored in rights-of-way.
Read manual (FDOT)
Florida easement cases:
– BHB Development, Inc. v. Bonefish Yacht Club Homeowners Ass’n, 691 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) – scope of easement limited by grant.
– Diefenderfer v. Forest Park Springs, 599 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) – use of easement must not unreasonably interfere with servient estate.
– Kagan v. West, 677 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) – overburdening principle reaffirmed.
“Dig Once” policy models:
– San Francisco Ordinance 220-14 (2014). Requires coordination of excavations and conduit installation.
– Minnesota Statute § 116J.391. State-level “dig once” statute encouraging shared infrastructure.