Wrong Way for Right of Way

“Revised Statute (RS) 2477, contained in the 1866 Mining Law, was intended to facilitate settlement of the West by granting rights-of-ways on public lands. Although RS 2477 was repealed in 1976, existing claims were grandfathered. Now, several states are claiming thousands of routes across every type of public land units, including National Parks and Wilderness. But their claims have nothing to do with building highways, and everything to do with opposing any measure of protection for our public lands. Sadly, the Bush Administration has just issued a new rule that would facilitate those claims -- and the destruction of our nation's greatest landscapes.

RS 2477: A Tool to Block Wilderness
Anti-wilderness counties and state governments in the rural West [and Alaska] say that the RS 2477 fight is about all about access. But in reality, these claims have absolutely nothing to do with legitimate transportation needs, and everything to do with thwarting Wilderness designation or any other protections for our nation's public lands.


Administration Determined to Sacrifice Natural Resources for RS 2477
Rational people are tempted to think that claims as ludicrous as these don't stand a chance. But much depends on the legal review these claims receive, and the politics of the moment. We have reason to be worried about both.

The U.S. Department of Interior, which oversees much of America's public lands, is showing remarkable eagerness to give states whatever they want, and to surrender management authority over large chunks of roadless and protected public lands. For instance, Interior is quite keen on making quick settlements with states that are making RS 2477 claims. The department also is enacting new agency rules that would forever allow any RS 2477 claim -- legitimate or not -- to be recognized, without any amount of scrutiny from the public or courts.

Some Examples


Disclaimer Rule: The BLM recently published a new "Disclaimer Rule" directing the agency to review new RS 2477 claims, above and beyond the claims that were grandfathered when RS 2477 was repealed in 1976. Even the National Park Service has said that the new rule could devastate National Parks and Wilderness throughout western U.S. and Alaska.



Secret Utah Negotiations: Even though the state of Utah has never sued the U.S. government over RS 2477 claims, Interior Sec. Gale Norton directed her staff to work out a deal with state officials on Utah's RS 2477 claims, in back-room negotiations excluding the public and conservationists.



What is a legitimate claim? In addition to the Disclaimer Rule, the Administration is expected to propose new guidelines on what is a legitimate RS 2477 claim. We expect those guidelines to be far from what is an accepted highway -- built and meant to carry goods and people to an actual destination -- unlike most of the current RS 2477 claims.
Areas at Risk
All western public lands are at risk from RS 2477 and the Administration's new Disclaimer Rule. From Alaska's Denali National Park and Preserve to the Robledo Mountain Wilderness Study Area in New Mexico, much is threatened.

-----Wilderness.net

There was plenty of buzz about this in Colorado. Some local municiplaties not only claiming old mining trails as ROW, but ancient native american trails as well. I read an article about how one county in Southern Colorado claimed over 400 ROW passages. When investigated, the great majority of the trails were indistinguighable from the normal habitat. It turns out that county and municiple officials are relying on maps 100 to 200 years old, and using those trials to claim ROW.

This is all complete BS, and a loophole that politicians who don't give a damn about the enviroment cna utilize in order to wreck our parks.

Please contact or write your congressperson in order to help put pressure on Washington. A congressmean named Mark Udall from Colorado seems to be the champion for the cause.”

“BB, revised statute?

Do you have a cross reference to the USCA or the CFR?

Or is this a Colorado statute?”

“Sounds like it would be a federal law Chili. It apparently goes beyond Colorado.”

“Buddha, I can't find that ref on wilderness.net. Was it in an email they sent you?”

“Seems to me this could be a serious issue around the country if they're claiming old road and trail traces as "highways." The West Virginia wilderness coalition is just getting started on a number of proposals, and if county boards of commissioners get ahold of this, they have scads of old road/trail/rail grades they could cite. Sounds like a totally cynical attempt to me.”

“I gathered from the story, geo, that it was a Federal issue.

However, I would expect an applicable federal law to be contained in the United States Code (Annotated); or the Code of Federal Regulations.

Revised Statute is a term I hear applied to state law more often, thus the confusion.”

“We definitely need more info on this issue. Environmental lawyers in particular.”

“Thanks BB. I bookmarked it for later study. Glad you raised this issue.”

“Thanks. At first glance, and I haven't had time to look at in detail, I suspect this will turn out to be a Utah Revised Statute.”

“Curious, how could a Utah revised statute affect other western states' battles with the feds?”

“I think this sums it up pretty well.”

“It looks like it is a moot point after the agreement.”

“This makes R.S. 2477 look like a federal law, particularly since it was repealed by a federal act.”

“I was searching under RS 2477 and not R.S. 2477. Those silly little flyspecks do make a difference!”

“Thanks, geo. When it was passed, I suppose legislation must have been called revised statutes. I wonder if it was ever codified into the US Code or put into a Federal Regulation? I dont see any mention of it.”

“It's alive and well, and, the ROW's are grandfathered encompassing some broad definitions for ROW: Any path that could have been used to transport people or goods, or something to that effect.

This is a federal statute and mainly effects the west and Alaska where large tracts of wilderness still exist.”

“Back in 1866 I suspect things might have been different. Sounds like one of those forgotten bits of law that somebody pulled off a shelf and dusted off to throw into an argument, and succeeded admirably.

It was a crafty bit of prescience.

This administration seems to be stepping where even Earl Butts and James Watt feared to tread. It's disconcerting, because you can't figure out what seemingly improbable thing they'll come up with next.”

“The environmental movement is in a bit of a quandary right now, trying not to be perceived as obstructionist and at the same time waging fights that need to be waged. The administration apparently perceives this weakness and has gone into attack mode.”

“hmmm”