Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 626 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that the magistrate judge did not err in construing a right of way agreement as granting Columbia Gas a fifty-foot easement because it was “reasonably necessary and convenient for the inspection, operation, and maintenance of each of the pipelines”); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding that a width of fifty feet “is a necessary and reasonable width for the purpose of maintaining a pipeline” and “this width squares with what other courts have found in similar cases”); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Adams, 646 N.E.2d 923, 927 (Ohio 1994) (ordering Defendants to cease interference with the fifty-foot right-of-way permitted by the court).
Columbia cites a line of cases holding that a width of fifty feet is required to maintain and operate a single natural gas pipeline. Columbia Gas v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y.2008); see also Columbia Gas v. Burke, 768 F.Supp. 1167, 1172–73 (N.D.W.Va.1990). Parrish also indicated that “[i]n the event that repair work cannot be performed while gas continues to flow through ... the pipeline Columbia would also need to construct a temporary bypass line around the area to be repaired. (Parrish Decl. ¶ 15.)
Nonetheless, the materials show that trees and their roots can raise safety concerns. Moreover, case law supports the proposition that a fifty-foot wide easement is not unreasonable. See Columbia Gas Transmission Co., v. Perry, 623 F.Supp.2d 409, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("this width [50 feet] squares with what other courts have found in similar cases."); Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Co., 544 F.3d 618, 626 (6th Cir. 2008) ("[A]lmost every court to construe an easement with similar language as the one here has concluded that a twenty-five foot right of way on both sides of the pipeline was reasonably necessary and convenient.").