Came across this item. It will certainly mean a lot of money for lawyers ?
http://www.timesunion.com/news/science/article/Feds-eye-stricter-rules-for-railroad-rights-of-way-5725283.php
The RR ROW is a natural place to also add utility lines. If the RR can't lease the ROW for non-railroad things, then I would think the gov't also could not lease the ROW for utility lines on land they already granted easements to the RR. It would seem to preclude an efficient use for existing ROWs.
They are talking about the land that the Government is leasing to the RRs or have granted easements for RR use, not land OWNED by the RR's. The RR cannot by law sublease the land for other purposes. There is question as to whether the RR owns some of the land that was obtained by land grant because when the RR abandons that land it possibly reverts to government ownership (though there are those that say the original grant allowed the RR to sell the land to farmers for development, so they should be able to sell or lease the land under the abandoned track for other purposes without government interference... Depends on the wording of the original grant and subsequent laws passed by Congress).
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The article refers to 200-foot-wide railroad rights of way as though the railroad company using them does not own them outright. Are these corridors merely easements over public land upon which railroad companies have been given a government grant of a right to run trains?
Euclid The article refers to 200-foot-wide railroad rights of way as though the railroad company using them does not own them outright. Are these corridors merely easements over public land upon which railroad companies have been given a government grant of a right to run trains?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The article I read on my smartaleckphone (don't ask me where it found it!) said it was land that the railroad had easements for track use only. And there were already laws set forth by Congress that limited the RR to use it only for Track and not pipelines or other utilities.
Well, this is the first time in my life that I have heard of extensive western railroad rights of way where the land is owned by the government and the “right of way” is only an easement granted by the government.
We have all heard of “land grants” which were given to compensate railroad companies for building into territory ahead of settler development. I had always assumed that those “land grants” were grants of outright ownership rather than grants of easements for specific use. Maybe the article is talking about something other than the well-known “land grants.”
In any case, the article is extremely unclear. If these railroad corridors are actually just easements granted by the government, I cannot imagine railroad companies going forward with large non-railroad improvements without government approval.
Euclid Well, this is the first time in my life that I have heard of extensive western railroad rights of way where the land is owned by the government and the “right of way” is only an easement granted by the government. We have all heard of “land grants” which were given to compensate railroad companies for building into territory ahead of settler development. I had always assumed that those “land grants” were grants of outright ownership rather than grants of easements for specific use. Maybe the article is talking about something other than the well-known “land grants.”
Re-read my quote from the article. The article is quite clear.
schlimm Re-read my quote from the article. The article is quite clear.
Are you referring to this as your quote:
"General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 that kept the land under federal ownership but still encouraged westward expansion by granting rights of way."
I don't seem to find that quote in the article. Where is it?
Euclid schlimm Re-read my quote from the article. The article is quite clear. Are you referring to this as your quote: "General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 that kept the land under federal ownership but still encouraged westward expansion by granting rights of way." I don't seem to find that quote in the article. Where is it?
About the equivalent of the 2nd page.
"The General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 [replaced earlier rights of way acts that started in the 1850s and followed Congressional policy by providing grants of land from the public domain to spur railroads to build rail lines in the West.
"But giving away land to railroads fell out of favor, causing lawmakers to create the more limited 1875 Act] that kept the land under federal ownership but still encouraged westward expansion by granting rights of way."
Okay I see. If the government granted rights of way, but retained land ownership, the grant must be in the form of an easement.
Think about the term "Right of Way". That states that a person or other entity has a "right" (by virtue of some agreement/covenant) to pass over the land of another. If the RR was granted a 'Right of Way' then they have the right to pass over that land, but not necessarily the right to develop the land for other purposes.
The property that you "own" may have utilities that have been granted a "Right of Way" to cross it (above or below). Those utilities need that "Right of Way" to access power poles or underground equipment, even though it resides on property that you own. Build a fence down the middle of, or across, that utility Right of Way and if the utility needs to access their equipment, they have the right to rip out the fence in whatever manner they wish. Usually they are nice about it and don't just come in and mow it down, but attempt to salvage the material out of good Public Relations, but they have a "RIGHT" to access that land and you cannot block them from it.
Often RRs were granted Right of Way across private farm land (sometimes with some sort of payment for that Right and other times by condemnation proceedings) and when the RR abandons the track, the land reverts to the present landowner. Many of the "Rail to Trails" groups have been thwarted by farmers that know the text of their land Deed and reclaim the land for farm purposes.
This is the stuff that keeps Mudchicken busy.
And there's no one answer - as has been mentioned, railroads got where they wanted to go by a variety of means - easements, outright purchase, grants, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some of the early eastern railroads used a combination of methods to acquire ROW, which really complicates resolving ownership issues down the road.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The pipeline is interesting. But its just a side show. If its illegal for the railroad to "sub-lease" the 1875 right of way, then what happens to all the leases for grade crossings, overpasses, underpasses, utility crossings, overhead wire crossings that the railroads have issued leases for over the last 140+ years?
If it violates the the 1875 agreement to put a pipe lengthwise on the right of way, it violates the agreement to put a pipe crossways on the right of way. In a city, a railroad can have 50-100 leases a mile, not counting on all the property that has been sold or leased to industries or others and now has buildings, billboards or other structures on it. How many electrical, telephone or cable lines cross railroad tracks? How many water mains, gas lines, pipelines, sanitary sewers and storm sewers cross railroad tracks? They are all on leases or easements.
Figuring out what's 1875 right of way could be a big deal.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I believe the Acts that created the western land survey section grids made provision for roads, and they do not need leases. The utilities and common carrier pipelines have eminent domain, so I don't know that they need to worry about a RR-gov't dispute.
Euclid Well, this is the first time in my life that I have heard of extensive western railroad rights of way where the land is owned by the government and the “right of way” is only an easement granted by the government. We have all heard of “land grants” which were given to compensate railroad companies for building into territory ahead of settler development. I had always assumed that those “land grants” were grants of outright ownership rather than grants of easements for specific use. Maybe the article is talking about something other than the well-known “land grants.” In any case, the article is extremely unclear. If these railroad corridors are actually just easements granted by the government, I cannot imagine railroad companies going forward with large non-railroad improvements without government approval.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf
This interesting thread re-confirms my belief that the railroads and the legal profession have one of the oldest symbiotic relationships in America today. Just imagine over the years how many lawyers toiled on questions such as these. I bet if we could look back we'd be astonished at how many lawyers each railroad employed; surely their legal departments were larger than many other departments the railroads used. Yet we never think of lawyers, or secretaries, for that matter, as railroad employees. How many people worked at NYC RR headquarters in Manhattan, for example?
Questions about who owns, leases, or can do what with RR right of ways out West can be thought of as an employment scheme, like public works, for lawyers and their staffs.
It also has to do with how these ROW agreements have been written. Some may state "For railroad purposes only".
I was involved with several of these along power transmission lines where condemnation was required to cross certain parcels. These agreements had to be perfected to allow the addition of a fiber-optic line. This usually involved an interesting discussion and compensation with a landowner still bearing a grudge from the original installation in the 1950's.
Most modern agreements include language to allow other uses.
I would be willing to bet there is a lot of fiber "trespassing" on poor or incomplete ROW agreements
Article poorly written by somebody with a poor grasp on reality. FGROW largely requires none of the "permissions required". Federal Gov't (BLM) does not own underlying right on FGROW (Brandt case hinted at that), nor can it re-acquire it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.