Western Railroad Discussion > Feds changing their mind on land grant railroads

In this newspaper article, dated August 31, 2013...

http://www.timesunion.com/news/science/article/Feds-eye-stricter-rules-for-railroad-rights-of-way-5725283.php

...the story is that "thousands" of miles of land grant railroad rights of way have been used for non-railroad purposes. A legal opinion in 1989 allowed land grant railroads, which were granted land after 1875, to place pipelines and fiber optics along their rights of way. Apparently, a new legal opinion in 2011 has reversed the 1989 opinion. The new opinion is just now being evaluated and implemented.

What will happen for those rights of way where pipelines and fiber optics were laid along side the tracks? Most likely, a settlement that allows them to be grandfathered, but restricts new construction.

How many railroad land grants were there after 1875? I don't think this would apply to the 1869 transcontinental Overland Route line.

The date in 1989 nicely coincides with Phillip Anshutz and his using his newly acquired SP rights of way to build the Qwest fiber network. By 1999, SP Construction Services (later Qwest Construction Services) had completed its part in laying portions of a network of 18,500 miles of fiber optic conduit, connecting 150 cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. This new, all-fiber network allowed Sprint to run its famous pin-drop commercials.

http://www.utahrails.net/sp/sprint.php

Don Strack

I think the carriers would be wise to vigorously oppose that opinion... === === = === JLH

The 1989 date is also significant as it marked the launch of Burlington Resources. That company gathered oil and gas rights from the BN into a new company. The project was extremely carefully lawyered, had extensive research on the transfer of rights, and had support from both political parties.

Some of the land that went into the new company was undoubtedly derived from the land grants to CB&Q, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and other formative companies

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of the land that went into the new company
> was undoubtedly derived from the land grants to
> CB&Q, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and other
> formative companies

It should be noted that the Great Northern Railway did not receive land grants from the government. It purchased its right-of-way and other surrounding land from the US Government and then resold land to settlers and such for development. So at least one western railroad line is immune from this issue. I don't know what, if any, pipelines or fiber-optic cables parallel the old Great Northern tracks.

See you in court, several layers of them.

Lamd grant and fiber optic came to head a few years ago here in Georgia. Ended in some settlement payments.

Posted from Android

Oh boy! Another lawyer feast. Is there no end to this?

Norm

Norman Orfall
Helendale, CA
TIOGA PASS, a private railcar

aronco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh boy! Another lawyer feast. Is there no end to
> this?
>
> Norm

What do you think?

BNSF6400 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some of the land that went into the new company
> > was undoubtedly derived from the land grants to
> > CB&Q, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and
> other
> > formative companies
>
> It should be noted that the Great Northern Railway
> did not receive land grants from the government.
> It purchased its right-of-way and other
> surrounding land from the US Government and then
> resold land to settlers and such for development.
> So at least one western railroad line is immune
> from this issue. I don't know what, if any,
> pipelines or fiber-optic cables parallel the old
> Great Northern tracks.

Thank you, I didn't know that info about the GN

Another Lawyer Full-Employment Act. Need to get those Job numbers ready for the election season.

This is really absurd, just a way for the government to extract more money from the private sector. While some early railroads received land grants, most later ones were built solely with private funding. Then there is the question of partially completed railways who forfeited their land grant lands due to failure to meet the obligations of the grant like the Oregon and California Railway.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

One thing a lot of folks don't know about is that land grants to build a railroad line were typically given for 6 miles either side of the proposed railroad's right of way. But the railroad didn't get all the land. It was half the RRs and half remained as government land, in alternate square mile sections. Similar to a checkerboard, the RR's go the red squares and the Federal Govt. kept the black squares. At the time the grants were given, the land was pretty much useless from an economic perspective. Without transportation, settlements were small and far between and the land was not conducive to agriculture. The RR changed all that, of course. And with that change, the value of the land increased, the government reaping the return on its investment when it sold the government's half of the land grants to settlers.

This is how public-private partnerships are supposed to work, where the government creates the conditions for private enterprise to flourish AND in return to also participate in the economic rewards.

BTW - one of the conditions of getting a land grant meant the railroads were compelled to haul government freight at greatly reduced rates. And this condition persisted until after World War 1. As I understand it, this massive discount nearly did the railroads in because WW1 wore out plant & equipment the traffic didn't pay to replace.



- Norm

The railroad land grants prior to 1875 were the federal government granting title of the land to the railroad.
Along with every other section of land on both sides out to 10 miles and later changed to 20 miles.

In 1875 new legislation changed how the railroad land grants operated. The change was the railroad
was granted right of way over federal property for railroad operations. The government retained title to the land.

This page has brief rundown of land grants and railroads.

http://www.landgrant.org/history.html

Nice how the Gov't can come back 150 years later and change the rules.

NCA1022 - It is my understanding that the reduced government freight rates didn't change till after WW II. Was it as early as WW I?

from http://www.landgrant.org/history.html

"1940 Transportation Act relieved railroads from carrying government freight
at reduced rates (except for military taffic, which was ended in 1947)
if they would abandon further claims to the government for additional lands or compensation."

Thanks ActionMike.

EmpireBuilder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice how the Gov't can come back 150 years later
> and change the rules.


it's good to be the king


In the 1980s, Sears Roebuck was given an award by the Veteran's Administration for their strong hiring preference benefiting military veterans. A few years later they were sued by EEOC for hiring practices which disproportionately benefited male applicants. Guess what was exhibit 1?

Congress and the agencies have never been big on consistency or logic in their directives.

>it's good to be the king

Nope. It's the "Count de Monay".