Interesting Post Mr. Smith...

It probably should be recognized that the Courts are literally only used in these situations when the principals involved, the principals being the holders of the interests in either the dominant or servient tenements, are in dispute, wherein lies the REAL problem.

As far as the Florida Court ruling you cite, don't know how recent it was but I was actually taught that same sort of interpretation back in the late 1970's in California relative to upgrades on public roads, private Rights of Way, Railroad Rights of way dating back to the creation of the railroads themselves, and the use of easements for all sorts of Public  and quasi-public Utilities.

What I was told was that no matter how anybody looks at it, with the exception of it being an easement for purely permanent physical encroachment of some sort, that ALL of it had to do with some form or mode of "Transportation". Doesn't matter whether what is being transported is inside an unseen pipeline, moving by the flow of electrons through a wire, or involving the use of a goat cart on the surface with some person out in front leading the goats, the effect on the servient tenement is exactly the same. Absent the permission of the holder of the "owner" of the  servient tenement the party exercising their "right" to use of the easement is at least theoretically depriving the  owner of the servient tenement  of their right to use their property (or even easement) to the fullest potential they might be able to use it for should they choose to do so.

On a far more basic level, there are many things some of us are subjected to daily that are in fact issues relative to the imposition  of "claimed" easements but we like to consider them as something else entirely. For instance, the "conveyance" across property boundary lines of uninvited noise, smoke from Industrial processes (the actual cause of the very first "environmental" law suit in England way back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution by a landholding Nobleman against an adjacent Factory), or the " legal consent" a dominent tenement holder (for their purposes relative to their property) signs when buying a home next to Farmland, a Golf Course, or even a Park, relative to the possibility of migration of pesticides, wildlife,  or even errant golf balls at times causing either health concerns or property damage. 

As far as an Attorney explicitly prohibiting particular types of uses, it would seem to me that might protect the Attorney for leaving a possible different interpretation available to the Courts, but with respect to the actual overburdening of the easement. at least in the eyes of the client, the Attorney is still on the hook anyway.

A great many of the cases I've seen over the years relative to the "implied" use of easements actually didn't have much to do with that defined subject at all. Boiled down to basics, some people find a line of poles with wires suspended between them to be aesthetically abhorrent, or at least that's what they claim. Then it becomes a question of 1.) whether the pole line could be put somewhere else instead, and/or 2.) whether or not it might be feasable to bury them so as to not damage the landscape view, instead. Most of the time what I've seen is that it turns out the landowner isn't exactly against the use of a pole line, they're against the neighbor doing anything on THEIR property which would require the USE of a pole line, which is another matter entirely..

.