Supreme Court Rail Trail ruling?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/10/Supreme-Court-ruling-in-land-case-could-be-trouble-for-public-trails/UPI-37861394474831/?spt=rln&or=2

Does anyone out there know how, or if this will effect the Katy?

AK, my understanding is the Katy is "railbanked" and that this decision does not apply to "railbanked" trails. Railbanked means the trail could be converted back to rails at some point, not sure what.

This from an email I received today from the Rails to Trails conservancy:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a very disappointing decision.

In a blow to rail-trails, the Court ruled (8-1) against the U.S. Government’s interest in a former rail corridor that runs through land it used to own.

The case focused on a former rail line in Wyoming, most of which was converted to the Medicine Bow Rail Trail.

The Court ruled that the United States did not retain a “reversionary interest” in the railroad corridor after conveying the adjacent lands to private owners.

While our legal team is taking a closer look at the decision—and its implications for other rail-trails—here’s what we do know:

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.

This is the Rails to Trails statement from their website: http://community.railstotrails.org/blogs/trailblog/archive/2014/03/11/Supreme-Court-Hands-Down-Disappointing-Decision-for-Trails-in-U.S_2E00_.aspx

So Hank for us laymen, this is not good because we want the govt to be able to take back land to use for rail trails? Or is it bad because the private landowners do not have to allow rail trails through their land?

I'm not sure what you mean Pseudio.
The decision does not appear to affect a railbanked trail such as the Katy. It likely could affect a trail in the same class as the one the in the Supreme Court case.
Whether that's good or bad is a matter of personal opinion.

Know that the supreme court voted 8 to 1 that when railroads that acquired land by easement must return land to the owner after and when the railroad usage ceases. Not sure of any legal recourse, except pay each land holder, that our trail can be preserved the way it is. Whole situation is confusing my brain.

I read up on it a little more last night. (Court decision available here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1173_nlio.pdf)
Kind of a convoluted case in a way. However the core of it is pretty simple: The federal govt first owned the land and then granted right of way to railroads. The govt then later conveyed the adjacent land to private individuals, so the question is what happens when the railroad goes away? The Court says it reverts back to the landowners. Pretty simple.

The implication for any trail built over abandoned railroads in this same class (the Katy is different and not directly affected by this decision) is either the govt will have to pay for the land or it will revert back to the landowner. So trails in this class are definitely put into serious legal question.

Hank, what makes the Katy "different" and not affected by this case?

MoBikeFed has a good article about this that explains the type of trail that is affected.

Billy, the Katy is "railbanked" which is a different law from the one considered in the Supreme Court decision. The main difference is a railbanked trail is not considered abandoned and could in theory become a railroad again in the future. In the Supreme Court case the railroad was abandoned, the rail right-of-way was considered "easement," and the Court said as easement it reverts back to the landowners.

I had forgotten but Katy trail landowners won a claim several years ago and were compensated by the federal government for the lands they lost when the Katy Trail "easement" was taken for the trail. I would be interested to know who holds title to the property now; I suppose it remains railroad under the railbanked law.

Delving into this further I would love to know the "backstory" to this, especially what specifically the Edward "Ted" Jones donation was used for. Wikipedia etc. says the donation was used to "acquire" the railroad corridor but as railbanked it was never "acquired." Fine points I know but just who exactly now holds title to the land?

Hank, there used to be a paper available for free over the net that was authored by Michael Smith that discussed the compensation and legal case that was settled for easements "acquired" for the Katy Trail. Like you said, and contrary to belief by some, there was a court settlement that awarded claims to private property owners holding the old railroad easements in the late 90's I believe. The basic ruling was that railbanking these easements represented a "taking of land" and these property owners should be compensated for it.

Next issue is who owns the land now. I believe some land is part of the public Right-of-way owned and maintained mostly by DNR. Other parcels used by the Katy still have easements in place. If the Katy trail is abandoned, this land will go back to the private property holding the easement. In addition, if a railroad comes along and wishes to use the land that is railbanked, then it is likely that this will result in another "taking of land" and they would have to compensate the private property owners holding the easements.

This is all from memory as I could not find the original document that I read years ago so the details could be off somewhat.

Here is the Michael Smith paper that SteveO refers to:
http://www.bikekatytrail.com/SmithBoonville.doc

Awesome. Thanks very much Stevo and Ray.

Ray,
How do I get to the Michael Smith doc. on your website?
Thanks

John, you should be able to put that web address from the earlier comment into your browser, to get to the original document.But maybe your browser doesn't want to open it because it's a Word document. So, I went ahead and put it into a regular web page for anyone who wants to access it that way:http://www.bikekatytrail.com/michael-smith-boonville-bridge.htmHappy trails,