Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

RS-2477.. FS gets spanked

Recommended Posts

November 3, 2011

RS 2477 Roads & Right-of-Way, what the forest service does not want you to know! (Summary)

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: Feds have no authority, RS 2477 — thearizonasentinel @ 1:41 pm

RS 2477 Roads & Rights-of-Way (Summary)

How To Determine If You Are Being Mislead Or Lied To!

Compiled by The Western Counties’ Resources Policy Institute

Box 27514, Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0514

The recent increased public attention given to RS 2477 rights-of-way also has been accompanied by an increase in misinformation being spread by some anti-access environmental groups and federal bureaucrats. Sometimes this is because they simply do not understand the issue themselves. Often, however, it is a clear and deliberate effort to deceive.

The following are the fundamental facts on RS 2477. If you encounter anything contrary, you can be certain you are either being misinformed or intentionally mislead. For more detailed information, you should check out the Official RS 2477 Internet site, www.rs2477roads.com. (See for yourself why eco-terrorist tried to destroy this web site in July of 1997!)

A word of caution! If those supporting continued public access to the public lands don’t discuss RS 2477 accurately, they are just playing into the hands of the lockout crowd. You might want to double-check yourself on the facts, too!

1. RS 2477 is a simple and straightforward law. This is the entire text of RS 2477: “The right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not reserved for public purposes is hereby granted.”

2. Congress specifically and clearly reaffirmed the validity and intent of RS 2477 in 1976. Because RS 2477 became law in 1866, anti-access extremists argue that it is now somehow inconsistent with modern public land management policy. But just 22 years ago, when Congress repealed RS 2477 and replaced it and many other laws with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it specifically and explicitly reaffirmed all RS 2477 grants previously made.

3. RS 2477 was a self-executing law. When the conditions were met, the right-of-way grant was made. No further action by the grantee or by Congress was necessary to validate it.

4. Congress specifically by-passed the Executive Branch of the Federal Government in making RS 2477 grants. Under our Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public lands and property (Article IV, Section 3: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;”). In 1976 when Congress reaffirmed the RS 2477 right-of-way granting process established 110 ten years earlier, it had the total power to do so. The federal land management agencies have no independent power or authority over RS 2477 roads (or anything else to do with public lands). Their only authority over public lands is what Congress delegates to them.

4. The RS 2477 right-of-way grant is a property right. Therefore, it enjoys the same constitutional and legal protections as any other property. Legally, when the grant was made, the federal government’s interest in the land underlying the right-of-way became the “servient estate” and the interest of the right-of-way grantee became the “dominant estate.” That means that while the federal government is protected against unnecessary or undue damage to the land underlying the right-of-way, it cannot interfere with the grantee’s exercise of its rights.

5. The RS 2477 grant also conveyed a bundle of associated rights. These include the right to maintain the road and even upgrade the road. This federal law also is unusual because state law plays a major role. It can partially determine the scope of these associated rights, how the requirements of the grant offer were met, and the width of the right-of-way granted.

6. It is legally incorrect to call RS 2477 assertions “claims.” The term “claim” suggests that there is some process which must still be followed before the RS 2477 right-of-way is fully granted and valid. In reality, the grant was either validly made before RS 2477 was repealed in 1976 or it was not. If it was, then it is not a claim but a valid grant, and the grantee asserts its validity. If it was not, then it cannot be asserted under a repealed law. The anti-access activists and some federal bureaucrats like to talk about “claims” to confuse the issue. When someone talks about RS 2477 “claims,” they are either confused or deceptive.

7. Congress granted a right-of-way, not a road. In fact, RS 2477 rights-of-way can host a number of things besides roads. The legal definition of “highway” in the law means not only the frequently-traveled, periodically-maintained roads commonly associated with it, but also other kinds of public ways, including carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, and even railroads, canals, ferries and navigable rivers. The essential element in defining “highway” is that whatever the means of transport, the public has the right to come and go at will.

8. The present physical condition of a road is totally irrelevant to whether a valid RS 2477 right-of-way exists. This should be obvious, but this is the point on which the anti-access folks are spreading the most misinformation. Whether a road is barely visible on the ground or even has been obliterated for any other reason, the legal status of the right-of-way is not affected. The grantee can legally re-establish the road even if it has totally disappeared. It follows, then, that it also is impossible to determine whether a valid right-of-way exists simply by looking at it. A right-of-way can only be relinquished or abandoned in accordance with state law.

9. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of vehicles. The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear: construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don’t be mislead.

10. No federal land management agency can determine the validity of an RS 2477 assertion. The agency can only determine for its own administrative purposes whether or not it will recognize the assertion as valid. Constitutionally, only a court can determine the validity.

11. No federal agency has the authority to close an RS 2477 road for any reason, period. This follows logically, but many federal bureaucrats think they have this authority and try to act accordingly. When next you run into one, outline the points listed here and ask them to cite the legal authority by which they claim they can close an RS 2477 road. Ties them in knots.

Leave a Comment

Another county taking action to reopen RS 2477 Roads Trails and Two Tracks. The Forest Service and BLM have been acting outside of the law. Bingo!!!

Filed under: My Posts — Tags: Feds have no authority, Kane County opens roads, RS 2477 Roads, RS2477 — thearizonasentinel @ 8:48 am

News archives:

Kane County wins its first RS 2477 road — the Skutumpah

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010 11:39 p.m. MDT

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret News

bubble6.gif6 comments



KANAB, Kane County — Kane County officials are celebrating what they say is the first concession in Utah of the federal government agreeing to grant right-of-way access to disputed roads that cross federal lands.

In a press release sent out late Tuesday by the Kane County Commission, the change allows the county to assert control and access over 27 miles of the 33-mile Skutumpah Road, which is a back road leading to Cannonville and is within boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.<p>

See both photos | Click to enlarge


Kane County Commission

Commissioners Mark Habbeshaw, Daniel Hulet and Doug Heaton and Rep. Mike Noel stand near Skutumpah Road.

From the archive

Although the victory does come as a result of a stipulation made by Department of Justice attorneys in U.S. federal court, the agreement could be the start of a path that lays out a simpler way to solve such disputes through negotiation, rather than protracted litigation.

“This shows that the process can be real simple and easy if the federal government cooperates in cases like this where you have roads that are no-brainers; simple roads that we ought to be able to take care of,” said Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab.

So-called RS 2477 rights-of-way were granted to states and counties from 1866 to 1976 to facilitate transportation and settlement needs in the Western United States. Although repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, all established “RS 2477″ roads were grandfathered in as valid existing rights.

Shifts in policy, however, and political pressure have led to contentious battles over the roads, many of which cross scenic lands but also have entrenched historical use.

Such battles have pitted local government officials who say roads used for access for decades need to remain open, while environmentalists say continued use poses unacceptable detrimental impacts.

Just this summer, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar authorized a pilot project to have some of the Utah disputes on less-controversial roads worked out through round-table negotiations that bring together environmentalists and state and county officials. Talks are already going on in Iron County.

In this portion of the fight, settled Tuesday, access to the road came out of quiet title litigation over a total of 15 roads.

The county release says while those fights will continue, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups advised some sort of settlement needed to be reached on Skutumpah because Kane County was put in a “Catch 22.”

Noel said that while the “width” of the road the county can control has yet to be settled, the stipulation reached Tuesday allows the county to immediately begin maintenance.

e-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com

RS 2477 Roads & Right a Ways,,,,,,Click here,

http://www.icmj.com/..._Rights-of-Way_ (Summary)

Paste the above to your browser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...