7/21/00......We had our day in court & we lost!  Even though it is my understanding that a similar case was before this court (different judge) in the last few years where the defendants won, in our case the apportionment of cost & need factors were, in my understanding of the court's viewpoint, not relevant.  This reaffirms the need for a law that can be consistently applied in a fair & just manner. If the words "unconscionable" and "apportionment of cost"  are not relevant to the residential landowner's situation, then what manner of criteria could possibly be applied?  It is my opinion that these phrases were intended for a situation representing exactly ours - that of the residential landowner.  It is more important than ever that KRS 256.042 be amended so that it is administered in a manner that is fair & just for all, not just a select group.