How Do Defeat a Uitility's Claim for Easement

[PATTON]

My question involves an easement in the state of: UTAH
In Salt Lake City, Utah I have been unsuccessful in negotiating with the power utility. They do not negotiate.
After almost 4 years in court, it appears that they will be granted an easement over my ENTIRE property with no compensation. Lines have been in place since the 30's and are directly over the back 20 feet of my property which abuts a public park. ALL other properties along the park have power lines BEHIND their property IN the public park. Mine is the only exception. Three issues:
1. Poles have been moved at least two times, most recently last year when one pole was moved closer to my home putting the 12.5kv lines within 15 feet of my back porch. The lines were also spread further apart, increasing the width occupied by the lines by 2x. I thought that if the easement moved or changed, the 20 year clock started over?
2. Additionally, they filed for a TRO in 2001 enjoin me from prohibiting them onto the property un-announced and uninvited. The TRO was not issued. I did however negotiate giving them permission to come in and cut the trees in my presence, as I have done in the past. The TRO was not granted. I’ve never allowed them on the property without my permission and presence to discuss cutting and safety issues with the ‘arborist.’ I view this as permission from me to them to come onto the property to cut and do whatever. Should this alone defeat the claim of easement, i.e. permissive use?
3. The utility filed an easement with the county clerk’s office in 2010 after the current litigation was begun and is not specific except that it covers “property located at xxx Street, Salt Lake City, Utah”. Isn’t there a requirement for specificity or a more narrow definition something smaller that my entire property?
4. There is a 10 foot public easement 50 feet south of my property which provides easy access to the lines in my yard. The City relinquished their claim for that easement about 10 years ago and adjoining neighbors have now built a fence. This was the access for the utility since 1930 until it was closed by the fence. Seems to me that the City’s relinquishment would have nothing to do with the utility’s “easement” over this same ground and that they should still have it and exercise it rather than take my property. How do I raise this issue and is it a valid issue?
5. In the past they have claimed clearance for vegetation at 10’, 12’ and currently claim 14’, in other words, IF they had an easement, it’s been moving. My understanding was that if the easement moved, i.e. the lines moved, the 20 year clock started over?
Any help or guidance, would be much appreciated.

[LandSurveyor]

The utility filed an easement with the county clerk’s office in 2010 after the current litigation was begun and is not specific except that it covers “property located at xxx Street, Salt Lake City, Utah”. Isn’t there a requirement for specificity or a more narrow definition something smaller that my entire property?

Sounds like a "blanket" easement, and if so it does cover your entire property, so no specific description is needed. What else does the easement say? Was the easement created in 2010 or was it created at a much earlier date and not recorded until later?

[PATTON]

There is no creation date as such in the recorded document. So, I assume that they "created" it on the date in 2010 by typing it up and recording it. However, in their affidavit they claim "continuous" use since 1930 and the affiant claims "personal knowledge" of the specific lines and location being stationary and uncontested since something like 1980. So I am not sure when they claim it was created. I will get the exact wording...need to find it in this pile on my desk. BTW, Thank you for reading and your response.

Granting such a "blanket" easement seems to me to be over kill. If they claimed a prescriptive easement in the 30' strip of land and access to it from the public easement in the park, that would be one thing. But to create an easement over all my property, by their definition would mean I cannot erect a fence, plant trees, far away from the lines, yet "may" obstruct their "access" from the front of the property. I was even told that they could ask that I not park cars in my driveway in a manner that might restrict their access.