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.
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. The dispute centres on whether the existing easement permits the infrastructure now standing on the site.
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. OPALCO says the replacement structure stands 103 feet tall, approximately 20 feet higher than its predecessor While Moneywise describes it as a 120-foot tower. OPALCO has offered a different account. 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.
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.
OPALCO says easements are essential to maintaining electricity and internet services across Washington’s San Juan Islands. Beyond the legal disagreement, homeowners may also worry about the effect of telecommunications infrastructure on their property’s appearance, privacy and resale prospects. 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. 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.
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.