U.S. Code » Title 23 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

23 U.S.C. § 123

Relocation of utility facilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 23 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definitions.—In this section:(1)Cost of relocation.—The term “cost of relocation” includes the entire amount paid by a utility properly attributable to the relocation of a utility facility, minus any increase in the value of the new facility and any salvage value derived from the old facility.(2)Early utility relocation project.—The term “early utility relocation project” means utility relocation activities identified by the State for performance before completion of the environmental review process for the transportation project.(3)Environmental review process.—The term “environmental review process” has the meaning given the term in section 139(a).(4)Transportation project.—The term “transportation project” means a project.(5)Utility facility.—The term “utility facility” means any privately, publicly, or cooperatively owned line, facility, or system for producing, transmitting, or distributing communications, power, electricity, light, heat, gas, oil, crude products, water, steam, waste, stormwater not connected with highway drainage, or any other similar commodity, including any fire or police signal system or street lighting system, that directly or indirectly serves the public.(6)Utility relocation activity.—The term “utility relocation activity” means an activity necessary for the relocation of a utility facility, including preliminary and final design, surveys, real property acquisition, materials acquisition, and construction.(b)Reimbursement to States.—(1)In general.—If a State pays for the cost of relocation of a utility facility necessitated by the construction of a transportation project, Federal funds may be used to reimburse the State for the cost of relocation in the same proportion as Federal funds are expended on the transportation project.(2)Limitation.—Federal funds shall not be used to reimburse a State under this section if the payment to the utility—(A) violates the law of the State; or(B) violates a legal contract between the utility and the State.(3)Requirement.—A reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be made only if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the State paid the cost of the utility relocation activity from funds of the State with respect to transportation projects for which Federal funds are obligated subsequent to April 16, 1958, for work, including utility relocation activities.(4)Reimbursement eligibility for early relocation prior to transportation project environmental review process.—(A)In general.—In addition to the requirements under paragraphs (1) through (3), a State may carry out, at the expense of the State, an early utility relocation project for a transportation project before completion of the environmental review process for the transportation project.(B)Requirements for reimbursement.—Funds apportioned to a State under this title may be used to pay the costs incurred by the State for an early utility relocation project only if the State demonstrates to the Secretary, and the Secretary finds that—(i) the early utility relocation project is necessary to accommodate a transportation project;(ii) the State provides adequate documentation to the Secretary of eligible costs incurred by the State for the early utility relocation project;(iii) before the commencement of the utility relocation activities, an environmental review process was completed for the early utility relocation project that resulted in a finding that the early utility relocation project—(I) would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts; and(II) would comply with other applicable Federal environmental requirements;(iv) the early utility relocation project did not influence—(I) the environmental review process for the transportation project;(II) the decision relating to the need to construct the transportation project; or(III) the selection of the transportation project design or location;(v) the early utility relocation project complies with all applicable provisions of law, including regulations issued pursuant to this title;(vi) the early utility relocation project follows applicable financial procedures and requirements, including documentation of eligible costs and the requirements under section 109(l), but not including requirements applicable to authorization and obligation of Federal funds;(vii) the transportation project for which the early utility relocation project was necessitated was included in the applicable transportation improvement program under section 134 or 135;(viii) before the cost incurred by a State is approved for Federal participation, environmental compliance pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been completed for the transportation project for which the early utility relocation project was necessitated; and(ix) the transportation project that necessitated the utility relocation activity is approved for construction.(C)Savings provision.—Nothing in this paragraph affects other eligibility requirements or authorities for Federal participation in payment of costs incurred for utility relocation activities.(c)Applicability of Other Provisions.—Nothing in this section affects the applicability of other requirements that would otherwise apply to an early utility relocation project, including any applicable requirements under—(1) section 138;(2) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), including regulations under part 24 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations);(3) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.); or(4) an environmental review process.(Pub. L. 85–767, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 900; Pub. L. 100–17, title I, § 133(b)(8), Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 171; Pub. L. 112–141, div. A, title I, § 1104(c)(3), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 427; Pub. L. 117–58, div. A, title I, § 11315, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 540.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (b)(4)(B)(viii), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1894, which is classified principally to chapter 61 (§ 4601 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4601 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Act is classified generally to subchapter V (§ 2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 117–58 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to reimbursement to States for relocation of utility facilities.

2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–141 substituted “on any Federal-aid highway” for “on any Federal-aid system”.

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–17 substituted “any Federal-aid system,” for “the Federal-aid primary or secondary systems or on the Interstate System, including extensions thereof within urban areas,”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–58 effective Oct. 1, 2021, see section 10003 of Pub. L. 117–58, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–141 effective Oct. 1, 2012, see section 3(a) of Pub. L. 112–141, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2012 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

Study of Procurement Practices and Project Delivery

Pub. L. 105–178, title I, § 1213(e), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 201, directed the Comptroller General to conduct a study to assess the impact that a utility company’s failure to relocate its facilities in a timely manner has on the delivery and cost of Federal-aid highway and bridge projects, including an assessment of methods States use to mitigate such delays, and directed the Comptroller General to transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study with any appropriate recommendations not later than 1 year after June 9, 1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1958–1985 · leading case: Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Virginia, 464 U.S. 30 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Virginia, 464 U.S. 30 (1983). · cites it 7× “Utility relocation costs necessitated by federally funded highway projects were already specifically governed by a separate provision, 23 U. S. C. § 123 , which predated and was left intact by the 1968 Act.”
State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. Slavin, 452 P.2d 943 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “Specific further authorizations provide for expenditures for relocation of utility facilities, 23 U.S.C. § 123 (1964), certain toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferry facilities, 23 U.”
Washington State High. Comm'n v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 367 P.2d 605 (Wash. 1961). · cites it 2× “Congress evidenced its concern with the effect that the new highway program would have upon utilities by the passage of § 3 of the act, 23 U.S.C.A. § 123 , which provides: "When a State shall pay for the cost of relocation of utility facilities necessitated by the construction…”
Nw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Wentz, 103 N.W.2d 245 (N.D. 1960). · cites it 2× “900 , 23 U.S.C.A. § 123 . The 1958 amendment, however, has no application to the question before the court.”
State v. City of Austin, 331 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1960). “See 23 U.S.C.A. § 123 . The two suits, which have been consolidated for submission on appeal, were instituted by the Attorney General in the name of the State of Texas, petitioner, one against the City of Dallas, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Dallas Power & Light Company,…”
Weir v. Consol. Rail Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1341 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “2: “The lower court erred in failing to apply the provisions of 23 USC § 123 and related federal regulations as well as in failing to consider Section 8.”
Arizona ex rel. Arizona High. Dep't v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 171 (Ct. Cl. 1974). · cites it 4× “Because of the above provisions, the defendant argues that it is not required to reimburse Arizona under 23 U.S.C. § 123 , since Arizona was not legally obligated to recompense El Paso.”
Jones v. Burns, 357 P.2d 22 (Mont. 1960). · cites it 2× “§ 162 , (now 23 U.S.C.A. § 123 ), will point out the fallacy in plaintiff's assertion.”
Dep't of Highways v. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 145 So. 2d 312 (La. 1962). · cites it 2× “(a) When a State shall pay for the cost of relocation of utility facilities necessitated by the construction of a project on the Federal-aid primary or secondary systems or on the Interstate System, including extensions thereof within urban areas, Federal funds may be used to…”
Cnty. of Bergen v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009 (D.N.J. 1985). “23 U.S.C. § 123 . Following final approval the state DOT and the FHWA enter into construction agreements, bids are accepted, contracts awarded and construction commenced under the state’s supervision.”
State v. City of Dallas, 319 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. 1958). “…S.W.2d 522 , 109 A.L.R. 754 . The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Affirmed. HUGHES, J., not sitting. 1 . Now 23 U.S.C.A. § 123 .”
Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. City of Topeka, 518 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1973). “) By way of analogy a good many states have adopted legislation providing that the relocation of utility lines on public rights-of-way made necessary by the improvement of highways embraced within the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways be done at state expense,…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.