Information Regarding Rails-to-Trails Litigation
NOTE: The information below is specific to the State of South Dakota, but many states have similar circumstances. We are able to assist in many areas of the country. Please get in touch with our office for more details.
Rails-to-Trails Litigation: Your Rights and Compensation
Understanding the Issue
A group of Charles Mix and Bon Homme County landowners is taking the federal government to court. The lawsuit claims that landowners along a 24-mile rail line between Tyndall and Ravinia are due compensation. This case centers around the "Rails-to-Trails" program, which repurposes abandoned railroads into hiking and biking trails.
The Problem
When a railroad stops using its corridor, landowners expect to regain possession of that land. However, a federal law allows this land to be converted into recreational trails without the landowners' consent. The state of South Dakota requested that a portion of state-owned rail in south-central South Dakota be converted to a public trail, and the federal government granted this request.
Easements and eminent domain used when the rail was built continue to affect landowners along the route. Federal courts unanimously agree that this constitutes a taking of land, entitling landowners to compensation from the government. This is known as "Rails-to-Trails" litigation.
The Legal Background
Railroad corridors were mostly established in the 1800s or early 1900s. Railroads often obtained easements, which are rights to use the land without owning it outright. If a railroad abandons its corridor, the easement is extinguished, and adjacent landowners reclaim their property. This principle is based on state law.
Two key federal events triggered Rails-to-Trails litigation:
Federal Regulation of Railroads: In the early 1900s, railroads came under federal regulation. They needed federal permission to abandon corridors. Today, this is managed by the United States Surface Transportation Board (STB). If abandonment is approved, the corridor leaves federal jurisdiction, and landowners can reclaim their land.
The Federal Trails Act of 1983: To preserve railroad corridors from being disassembled, Congress passed the Trails Act. It allows third parties to convert abandoned railroad corridors into recreational trails, a process known as "railbanking." When a railroad seeks to abandon a corridor, the Trails Act allows entities to request a halt to abandonment and convert the land into trails. The STB issues a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) to authorize this.
The Claim
Federal courts recognize that a NITU blocks the abandonment process, preventing landowners from reclaiming their property. If the railroad held only an easement, landowners have a claim for compensation from the federal government due to the Trails Act's interference.
The Legal Process
Landowners have two choices in suing the government. The federal court in South Dakota is limited to compensating up to $10,000 per person. Therefore, the lawsuit has been brought to the United States Court of Federal Claims, which does not limit how much compensation a single person can receive.
The Lack of Notice
One major issue is the lack of communication between agencies and landowners. Often, landowners receive no notice from the federal government, the railroad, the state, or the trail group about the conversion of the rail corridor to a recreational trail. This leaves many landowners unaware of their legal rights and the possibility that they are entitled to compensation.
Potential Claimants
So far, only a few landowners in South Dakota have pursued representation, but many more could be entitled to compensation along the 24-mile route.
Seeking Justice
The Justice Department, through the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, defends the federal government in these cases. They have not responded to requests for comment on this case.
If you are an affected landowner, you have the right to seek compensation. Contact us to discuss your case and ensure your property rights are protected.
For more information on this and other areas of practice, please get in touch with our office directly.
DISCLAIMER: The answers provided on this website are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. No person should ever apply or interpret any law without seeking the help of an attorney. The attorney needs to know the facts of your situation and be aware of any changes in the law before forming and giving an opinion on it. You should not read the responses herein to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
Click here to contact the George J Nelson team to help with your case.