OCR Text |
Show way that could be used for a variety of purposes, their use should be authorized by a statutory directive to that effect. Obviously, it is economically wasteful for usable lands to lie idle when they might be put to productive use, and it is not expedient to permit the present confusion as to the limits of the rights of the railroads and the United States to continue. However, there should be a provision requiring that railroad rights-oj-way never be diminished to the extent that adequate public service cannot be maintained. Available evidence indicates that a width of 50 feet on each side of the centerline is ordinarily adequate, and such a minimum width probably should be prescribed. There are innumerable situations in which railroads have purported to pass title to right-of-way occupants. Since these lands are not needed for railroad purposes, it appears just and reasonable to provide a procedure for confirmation of their titles, with the consent of the railroads and of the United States. Inasmuch as the railroads never owned an interest in the minerals, the confirmed titles should carry an express reservation of mineral interests to the United States. Generally, those seeking confirmation of their titles should be required to pay no more than the administrative expenses of the Federal Government and the railroads. The reverter interest of the United States is ordinarily valueless because, in a 1922 Act,27 Congress provided that forfeiture interests in railroad rights-of-way would pass either to the owners of adjacent lands or to municipalities under certain circumstances. However, in the unlikely event that the Federal interest may prove to be valuable in some situations, the Secretary of the Interior should take appropriate steps in those cases to charge the fair-market value of the interest to be conveyed. 24 43 U.S.C. §912 (1964). 232 |