Dryland Partners vs. Xcel Energy Lawsuit, Colorado Judge Rejects Eminent Domain Bid for Wind Farm Power Line Easement

On June 2, 2026, Cheyenne County District Judge Mike Davidson denied Public Service Company of Colorado’s (Xcel Energy) petition to condemn a 550-foot easement owned by Dryland Partners, LLC. The easement was meant to connect two wind farms to the Goose Creek substation. On September 8, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court denied Xcel’s request to skip the Court of Appeals (No. 26SC492). That denial was procedural and did not decide the merits. The appeal is pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals (No. 26CA1087).

Dryland Partners v. Xcel Energy: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Public Service Company of Colorado v. Dryland Partners, LLC
Trial court	Cheyenne County District Court (15th Judicial District), Judge Mike Davidson
Trial court ruling	June 2, 2026: condemnation denied and petition dismissed
Colorado Supreme Court	No. 26SC492, petition for certiorari under C.A.R. 50 denied September 8, 2026
Court of Appeals	No. 26CA1087, pending
Condemning party	Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), an Xcel Energy subsidiary
Landowner	Dryland Partners, LLC, run by Darin Dickey and his brothers (fourth-generation farm and ranch family)
Disputed interest	About 550 feet of generation tie-line easement near County Roads DD and 36, close to the Goose Creek substation near Cheyenne Wells
Wind projects	Singing Grass (603 MW, about 27 miles of tie-line) and Cheyenne Ridge II (450 MW, about 5 miles of tie-line)
Xcel’s offer	About $19,000 (The Colorado Sun); about $19,886 in the court’s findings as reported by the Kiowa County Independent
Class action or claim form?	No

1. What Is the Dispute Between Dryland Partners and Xcel Energy About?

Xcel says it has easements from more than 100 landowners for the tie-lines. The last unresolved piece is about 550 feet across Dryland’s land.

Dryland sold Xcel about 90 acres in 2022 for $585,000 for the Goose Creek substation. It then worked with developers on agreed corridors through Sections 18, 19 and 24. Xcel’s chosen route is not one of those corridors. It would cross the intersection of County Roads DD and 36, which Dryland says would:

• put a tower beside a road used by heavy farm equipment, creating safety concerns, and
• compromise a gas pipeline right-of-way Dryland holds.

Dryland also negotiated an easement with NextEra’s Dusty Rose Wind project, which is now operating. It says it remains willing to negotiate on the previously approved corridors on the same terms. Xcel says the alternatives are prohibitively expensive and that its offer was far above fair market value.

The connection is part of Xcel’s roughly $1.7 billion Colorado Power Pathway, which links Eastern Plains wind and solar to the Front Range.

2. Why Did the Judge Deny Xcel Energy’s Condemnation Petition?

According to reporting on the June 2 order, Judge Davidson found that:

1. Xcel lacked authority to condemn. Colorado law does not authorize condemnation for generation facilities, and the lines were generation tie-lines, not public transmission. The court cited Xcel’s own permit applications and project documents, which called them generation tie-lines.
2. The taking was not for a public use. The lines would carry power from Xcel-owned wind projects to the substation and would not directly serve the public.
3. The taking was not necessary. Xcel had identified a less damaging route through Section 24 and then abandoned it.
4. Xcel failed to negotiate in good faith. The court found it chose a route that maximized harm to Dryland when a viable alternative existed.

These are district court findings. They are not final until the appeal is resolved.

3. What Is a Generation Tie-Line, and Why Does It Matter?

A generation tie-line (“gen-tie”) is a dedicated line that connects a specific wind or solar project to a substation. Transmission lines serve many customers and move power across the grid. A utility’s power to condemn depends on what statute authorizes it and what use the land is taken for. That is why the label on the line drives the case.

4. Which Colorado and Federal Laws Apply?

Law	Relevance
Colo. Const. art. II, § 15	Private property may not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation. When a taking is claimed to be for public use, whether the use is really public is a judicial question.
Colo. Const. art. II, § 14	Limits taking private property for private use, subject to narrow exceptions.
C.R.S. § 38-1-101	Colorado’s general eminent domain statute on who may condemn and for what purposes.
C.R.S. § 38-5-105	The statute at the center of utility condemnation for electric lines. The question on appeal is whether it reaches these tie-lines.
C.R.C.P. 71.1	Procedural rule governing condemnation proceedings in Colorado courts.
C.A.R. 50	Lets a party ask the Colorado Supreme Court to hear a case before the Court of Appeals rules, when the case is of “imperative public importance.”
Fifth Amendment	Federal floor: just compensation for takings. In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Supreme Court read “public use” broadly. Colorado’s judicial-question clause is a separate state constitutional protection.

5. Why Did the Colorado Supreme Court Refuse to Take the Case?

Xcel invoked C.A.R. 50, arguing the case was of imperative public importance. The Colorado Energy Office and the Sierra Club filed briefs in support, saying the dispute was delaying the 603 MW and 450 MW wind projects. The court’s September 8 order, the full text of which reads “Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pursuant to C.A.R. 50 DENIED,” gave no reasons.

That is not a ruling on the law. The district court’s decision stays in place and the appeal continues in the Court of Appeals. Xcel said it was disappointed and would proceed with that appeal, adding that the unfinished segment is delaying project benefits to customers, landowners and local economies.

6. How Much Did Xcel Offer, and Is Compensation the Issue?

Xcel’s offer was about $19,000 to $19,886, depending on the source. Dryland says that is far below what NextEra paid for a comparable easement.

The court did not set a price. The ruling is that Xcel had not shown it could condemn the easement at all.

7. What Other Disputes Have Come Up Around Goose Creek?

Local reporting from June 2026 describes separate disputes:

• A concrete pole foundation in or near the County Road 36 right-of-way, which Cheyenne County said violated its setback rules, followed by a county cease-and-desist order.
• Dryland’s allegations that Xcel trespassed outside the project area and mishandled drainage and erosion. An emergency injunction hearing was held June 5, 2026.

These are allegations. I did not locate a reported final ruling on them as of October 21, 2026.

8. What Happens Next in the Colorado Court of Appeals?

The Court of Appeals could affirm, reverse or send the case back to the trial court. After that, a party could seek certiorari review in the Colorado Supreme Court. The September 8 denial does not prevent later review.

The parties can also settle or agree on a route at any time. A deal would end the immediate dispute but would not settle the legal question of how far utility condemnation power extends.

9. What Does the Ruling Mean for Other Landowners and Utilities?

• A utility must prove statutory authority for the specific taking, not just that the project is useful.
• Whether a line is “generation” or “transmission” can decide the case.
• Evidence of a less damaging route can matter to necessity and good faith.
• Compensation is not the only fight. An owner can challenge the right to take.
• A trial court ruling is not a statewide precedent. Wait for the appellate decision.

Landowners facing a condemnation threat should keep route maps, offers, easement records and negotiation correspondence, and talk to a Colorado eminent domain attorney early.

10. Related Legal Coverage on This Site

Other eminent domain and property disputes covered on AllAboutLawyer.com:

• Trump Administration Sues Catholic Diocese to Seize Sacred Land for Border Wall Here’s the Legal Fight
• Scout Motors Blythewood Plant Lawsuit, Elderly Couple Says Construction Forced Them From Their Home
• PacifiCorp Wins Appeal in Oregon Wildfire Class Action Over 100 Damages Trials $1B Case Now Paused

These involve different parties and laws and do not affect the Dryland case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Dryland Partners v. Xcel Energy case over?

No. The appeal is pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals (No. 26CA1087), according to the latest reporting I located.

Did the Colorado Supreme Court uphold the ruling against Xcel?

No. On September 8, 2026, it denied Xcel’s petition for early review. It did not decide the merits.

Why did the judge rule against Xcel?

The court found Xcel lacked authority to condemn for generation tie-lines, the taking was not for public use or necessary, and Xcel did not negotiate in good faith.

How much land is involved?

About 550 feet of easement near County Roads DD and 36, next to the Goose Creek substation.

How much did Xcel offer?

About $19,000 to $19,886, depending on the source.

Is Dryland Partners against wind power?

No. It negotiated an easement for NextEra’s Dusty Rose wind project and says it is willing to negotiate corridors for Xcel’s projects.

Does the ruling stop all Xcel projects or utility condemnation in Colorado?

No. It concerns this easement and these tie-lines. Other projects depend on their own facts and statutes.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

No. This is a property-rights dispute, not a class action.

Official Sources and Court Records

1. Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Dryland Partners, LLC, No. 26SC492 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2026): order denying the C.A.R. 50 petition and identifying Court of Appeals No. 26CA1087.
2. Colorado Supreme Court case announcements, September 8, 2026
3. The Colorado Sun, “Xcel’s push for fast decision on power line path rejected”: the Supreme Court’s refusal, Xcel’s statement and the route dispute.
4. Kiowa County Independent, June 9, 2026: the June 2 ruling’s findings.
5. C.R.S. § 38-5-105 and C.R.S. § 38-1-101

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. The district court’s ruling is subject to appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court has not decided the merits.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Colorado Supreme Court’s September 8, 2026 order (No. 26SC492) and the local reporting cited above, as of October 21, 2026. Last Updated: October 21, 2026.