Oklahoma, statute (27 O.S. § 6) gives private property owners the right to exercise eminent domain over neighboring property for “private ways of necessity.” This means that a private person may legally take or use another person’s private property for a “way of necessity” as long as it does not impose an undue burden on the neighbor and the property owner pays just compensation.
Historically, a “way of necessity” was narrowly interpreted to mean a necessary access route to a property. The statute was primarily used to grant a private property owner the right to create an access easement over a neighbor’s property when their own property lacked direct access to a public road or street. The purpose of the statute was to prevent what is often called a “landlocked” property. By providing a way to access these “landlocked” properties, the statute prevented the properties from becoming unusable due to the lack of access.
In a recent Oklahoma Supreme Court Case, the Court expanded the meaning of “private ways of necessity” under 27 O.S. § 6 to include utility easements, not just access easements. This ruling confirmed what modern landowners already know: property isn’t truly usable without access to utilities.
In Childers v. Arrowood, a couple purchased land with plans to build a home. While their property had a recorded roadway easement, it had no access to utilities. Local utility providers refused to service the property without an express utility easement in place. When the neighboring landowners declined to grant an easement voluntarily, the couple invoked 27 O.S. § 6 to condemn a utility easement as a “private way of necessity.” The Supreme Court agreed with the couple’s interpretation and expanded the meaning of “way of necessity” to include utility easements. The decision recognized that, in today’s world, access to electricity, water, and other utilities is often just as essential as access by road.
s important decision clarifies that both physical access to the property and access to utilities are often necessary for the effective and reasonable enjoyment of property. By confirming that utilities fall within “private ways of necessity,” the Court has expanded practical options for unlocking land value while still protecting neighboring owners through requirements of just compensation and no undue burden.
The ruling affirms Oklahoma’s strong public policy favoring land utilization and prevents property from being rendered effectively useless simply because it lacks access to utilities. This decision opens another pathway for landowners seeking to build on otherwise inaccessible property and for developers planning projects in areas otherwise unable to access utilities.
Oklahoma law now clearly recognizes that usable land requires more than a driveway. When utilities are essential to reasonable use, the law allows property owners a path forward by allowing private condemnation rights for both access and utilities.
This ruling doesn’t just interpret a statute; it modernizes it.
Written by: Libby A. Smith | Attorney at Law
