U.S. Supreme Court decision threatens rail-trails; could cost federal government millions

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled on a rail-to-trail conversion case that could affect existing and future rail-to-trail conversion projects across the U.S. The Court ruled in favor of a family trust in Wyoming that objected to a former rail line that was converted to a rail-trail.

The ruling does not affect rail-to-trails conversions using 'railbanked' corridors like Missouri's Katy Trail and Rock Island Trail State Park.  But they do affect trails built on other railway corridors that are not officially railbanked.

USA Today summarized the ruling:

The ruling came in a case brought by Wyoming landowner Marvin Brandt, whose 83-acre property is crossed by an old railroad line. Brandt's victory has implications for about 80 other cases involving some 8,000 claimants.

"Thousands of claims pertaining to 1875 Act rights-of-way have been filed," the Justice Department said in its brief to the court. "The United States will be obligated to pay just compensation on many claims in which ownership of the right-of-way is often a determining factor."

The full impact of the Supreme Court ruling is difficult to assess, and legal issues are complex, but the article summarized some of the possibilities:

The federal government or their state and local counterparts could exercise eminent domain proceedings to keep trails in operation and pay adjacent landowners, said Kevin Mills, senior vice president of policy and trail development for the conservancy. In other cases, trails could be shut down if landowners go to court.

"There probably will be an increase in litigation," Mills said. "At a minimum, it creates uncertainty and/or expense."

The Rails to Trails Conservancy clarified the ruling and its ramification in an email message to members and supporters:

• This decision reversed a lower court ruling that the U.S. has a "reversionary interest" in a portion of a federally granted rail corridor that now runs through private land;
• The case (Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust et al. v. United States) will be sent back to a lower court;
• This decision does not affect rail-trails that are on "railbanked" corridors (rail corridors that are preserved under the federal "railbanking law" for future rail use by being converted to a trail in the interim). But this decision could open up certain non-railbanked corridors to more litigation.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has a page analyzing the case the their stance on the legal issues and has issued a statement summarizing the ruling and its potential impact:

Our legal team is taking a closer look at the decision—and its implications for other rail-trails—to determine next steps. This decision is likely to result in more litigation over rail-trails in federally granted rights of way. Those rail-trails that have been built on railbanked corridors or fee simple land purchases will remain safe. Railbanked corridors are preserved for future rail use by being converted to a trail in the interim.

One reason this is a bad decision and a bad precedent, is that it depends on the distinction between corridors that are created by a "fee simple" ownership of the railroad corridor versus those that depend on railroad "easements" that allow use of the property.

But for most of the property under question, the land ownership and railroad use agreements were determined many decades ago--in many cases, over 100 years--and the land titles and agreements simply are not that clear.  Often they did not even use modern terminology such as "fee simple" and "easement."  So the ruling simply creates unnecessary controversy and uncertainty, while making it more difficult to use existing railroad corridors for uses like trails that benefit all citizens.

These corridors are, in most cases, irreplaceable--there is just no realistic alternative to using them, and no realistic way to create a new parallel or adjacent right-of-way to replace them.

NPR also has coverage of the issue.