A Washington couple’s dispute with a local utility has raised questions about property rights, infrastructure easements and the extent to which homeowners can challenge equipment installed on their land. Liz Covert and Denis Goudie, who purchased their property in 2017, are challenging the replacement of an existing wooden tower with a taller steel structure by the Orcas Power and Light Cooperative (OPALCO). The case was reported by Moneywise on October 10, 2026, following earlier coverage by The Journal of the San Juan Islands and reporting by NBC affiliate KING 5. The couple alleges that OPALCO threatened to disconnect their electricity unless they signed an easement within 90 days, escalating a disagreement over the utility’s rights to use the property. The dispute centres on whether the existing easement permits the infrastructure now standing on the site.
Dispute over an existing easement
Covert and Goudie say the easement associated with their property allows landscaping-related activities but does not authorise above-ground utility infrastructure of this kind. They were aware of an older wooden tower when they purchased the land, but say they were not informed about its replacement before construction began. According to the reporting, the original structure was replaced in 2023 with a taller steel tower and a larger generator. The couple has raised concerns about additional noise during the generator’s startup cycles, as well as the tower’s impact on the surrounding landscape and views.OPALCO has offered a different account. In an October 7 statement on its website, the cooperative said the pole site had been established with the previous owner’s permission before Covert and Goudie purchased the property. The utility also argued that its members agree to grant easements when joining the cooperative, allowing it to install and maintain infrastructure where the relevant agreements permit. However, OPALCO acknowledged that easements differ in scope and that its rights depend on what each agreement allows. There is also a discrepancy over the structure’s height. While Moneywise describes it as a 120-foot tower, OPALCO says the replacement structure stands 103 feet tall, approximately 20 feet higher than its predecessor.
Neighbours have raised similar concerns
The disagreement is not limited to Covert and Goudie. According to The Journal of the San Juan Islands, their neighbours, Norma and George Andreadis, are pursuing a similar legal challenge against the utility. The cases highlight a broader question for property owners: when an infrastructure easement already exists, how much authority does it give a utility to replace or upgrade equipment without obtaining fresh consent?The answer can depend on the precise language of the recorded easement, the rights granted by the previous owner and the applicable property laws. An agreement allowing access to maintain existing equipment does not necessarily settle every question about replacing it with a larger structure. The dispute is now moving through litigation, with the scope of the easement expected to be central to the case.
Could a nearby tower affect property values?
Beyond the legal disagreement, homeowners may also worry about the effect of telecommunications infrastructure on their property’s appearance, privacy and resale prospects. A 2019 study published in Empirical Economics Letters, examining home sales in Savannah, Georgia, found that properties within 500 feet of cellular towers sold at discounts of up to 7.6% in the dataset studied. The researchers also found that the negative association was stronger during periods of declining housing prices. The findings relate to a particular market and do not establish that every home near a tower will lose value.For homeowners concerned about a nearby structure, documenting changes to views, noise levels and the property’s surroundings can help establish the nature of the impact. Independent valuations and advice from real estate professionals may also help owners assess whether the infrastructure affects their home’s marketability.
When an easement becomes a point of contention
OPALCO says easements are essential to maintaining electricity and internet services across Washington’s San Juan Islands. The member-owned, non-profit cooperative argues that allowing infrastructure to cross private land helps it serve the wider community without imposing additional costs on members. For Covert and Goudie, however, the central issue is whether the permissions attached to their property extend to the upgraded structure and whether the utility can require them to accept a new agreement. The outcome could turn on the wording of the original easement and the legal rights available to both sides. Until those questions are resolved, the dispute illustrates how an agreement that predates a property purchase can become a major source of conflict when infrastructure changes.
