The Pivot Irrigation Easement and Highest and Best Use
You are appraising a 640-acre irrigated corn farm in the High Plains. The subject has a center-pivot system covering 520 acres, with the remaining 120 acres in corners and a farmstead. A transmission-line company has approached the owner about acquiring a 100-foot-wide perpetual easement running diagonally across the irrigated circle, roughly 1.4 acres in fee-equivalent area. The owner wants to know the easement's value. The pivot cannot physically cross the easement corridor without modification; the utility has offered to pay for a 'swing arm' or to relocate the pivot path. Comparable irrigated sales are $4,200/acre; dryland sales in the area are $1,900/acre. You note that the highest and best use of the whole parcel is irrigated cropland, and that the easement severs a small strip but impairs the pivot's full-circle operation.
1. How should the easement be valued, and what is the conceptual error in simply multiplying 1.4 acres by $4,200/acre?
Read the worked answer
The naive calculation (1.4 × $4,200 = $5,880) treats the easement as a fee simple strip sale and ignores the before-and-after principle and the impairment to the whole. The correct approach is to value the property before the easement and after, with the difference being the measure of damages (the 'before and after' or 'value of the take plus damages to the remainder').
Key reasoning:
- The 1.4-acre strip is not the full measure - the pivot cannot cross it, so the function of the 520-acre circle is impaired, not just 1.4 acres.
- The impairment is curable: the utility will fund a swing arm or pivot relocation. If the cost to cure is less than the diminution in value, the cost to cure is the appropriate measure of damages to the remainder.
- Therefore: Value = value of the strip taken (at irrigated rate) + cost to cure the pivot impairment, capped at the diminution in value of the whole if the cure is uneconomic.
A defensible conclusion shows both the before/after and the cost-to-cure comparison and reconciles them. Simply applying the per-acre rate to the strip area is a classic error the exam tests.
2. The utility argues the easement should be valued at the dryland rate because the strip can no longer be farmed. Is that correct?
Read the worked answer
No. The dryland rate ($1,900/acre) would be appropriate only if the highest and best use of the affected area were dryland. The subject's HBU is irrigated cropland, and the easement is a partial interest carved out of an irrigated parcel. The strip's contribution to value is as part of the irrigated unit, not as a standalone dryland tract.
However, the analyst should test whether the strip's marginal contribution is closer to the irrigated rate. The 1.4 acres sit within the circle and would otherwise produce irrigated corn, so the irrigated rate ($4,200/acre) is the correct unit value for the taken area, subject to the impairment adjustment. Using the dryland rate understates the take and double-counts the impairment (you would be reducing the unit rate AND adding damages).
The defensible answer: value the strip at the irrigated rate, then separately quantify and add the impairment to the remainder (or cost to cure). Do not blend the two into a single depressed rate.