Pub. 10 2015 Issue 1

19 Issue 1 2015 / UCLS Foresights www.ucls.org recognized and adopted as sound precedent by other western states. In any event, once the California position on the true na - ture of the title interest in RR R/W derived through federal grants is solidified, this controversy appears likely to spread to other states, or to the federal court system, and if it is per- ceived as rising to the level of a significant national concern, it could conceivably reach SCOTUS at some point in the fu- ture. While reaching that point would most likely take several years, and only then would true and complete finality at law be obtained, just how this decision, provided that it stands in some form, will be regarded or leveraged by railroads, pipeline operators and other utilities in the interim will be very interest - ing to observe. At one extreme, chaotic title conditions could ensue, which would be evidenced by a rash or flurry of title liti - gation involving RR R/W interests over the next few years. Any such development would of course be very likely to produce a panoply of results all across the legal spectrum, as the matter is addressed in different jurisdictions, by attorneys of varying competence, before judges with varying levels of knowledge regarding title issues. On the other hand however, it is at least equally possible that in most locations throughout the west, where the legal consequences of this decision would be most impactful, the relevant corporate entities may well elect to simply take the “see no evil, hear no evil” approach, and deliberately refrain from embarking upon any litigation that might call unwanted attention to their specific title issues. As far as the present parties, UP and SF, are concerned, this affair could eventually prove to be equally problemat - ic for both of them. Superficially, this CCOA decision has the obvious appearance of a victory for SF and a defeat for UP, since it has the potential to save SF a great deal of money in the short term, by preventing UP from collecting certain rent from SF, which UP has long expected to get, and has invested very substantial funds in securing. But while the downside for UP, and by extension other railroads finding themselves in a similar position elsewhere, is quite clear, the downside for SF and other comparable utility operators may also prove to be highly significant. Although this decision has the potential to lift an immediate financial burden from SF, it certainly does not indicate that SF has no need to pay anyone to maintain the line or lines which are involved in this case, unless SF proves that it holds adverse or prescriptive rights in each location, which could well be prohibitively costly, even where it may be likely to be successful, and of course no such assertion could shield any SF facilities situated within the boundaries of any federal land. Ultimately, SF and any other utility operators who may find that they owe nothing to the railroads for the use of the land beneath any RR R/W of the relevant type, may learn to their great chagrin that they are now beholding to a landlord, or perhaps even a multitude of landlords, with genuine control over land which bears various fragments of their utility lines. Those parties, based on financial motivation, may be even less inclined to be cooperative with SF than UP has been, and such parties may very well be free to lodge serious demands for compensation upon utility companies, in exchange for the on - going use of their fee property 12 . In summary, this case holds the potential to bring about highly beneficial legal clarification of the true status of all RR R/W title of federal origin, which has long been sorely needed and would hold great value for an immense number of parties, both public and private. The fact that all of the parties associ - ated with this case in any manner, the litigants, the attorneys, the judges, the expert witnesses, and even the underlying land owners, have demonstrated that they stand in a state of high uncertainty, if not outright ignorance or confusion, over how to properly regard and handle RR R/W is more than ample evidence of the need for clarity upon this ubiquitous title issue. But of course that will not happen unless either this case or another case spawned from it is eventually placed upon the doorstep of SCOTUS, and accepted as being worthy of the highest judicial attention. That could well occur, par - ticularly if federal courts become engaged upon this issue going forward, but it is unlikely until such time as a clear split in judicial thought on this matter at the appellate level can be pointed out, and broad if not nationwide interest in this mat - ter becomes manifest. In the meantime, if a superb example was needed to demonstrate the monumental importance and great value of exhaustive research into the true origin of any R/W, whether it be public or private in character, and wheth - er it be merely alleged or actively contested, performed by the prudent and diligent professionals populating the land rights industry, this case most certainly fills that need. Ø Travis Warren Ø Kevin Despain Ø Todd Rakstad Ø Brad Marz Ø James Taylor Ø Robert Hickman Ø Jacob Regalado Ø Riley Lindsay Ø Ben Slater Ø Jeffery Gumm Ø Bahram Rahimzadegan UCLS Welcomes New Members 12 “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...” (Pete Townsend) Brian Portwood, is a licensed professional land surveyor ,who has been recognized as a leader in the advanced education of professionals working in the land rights industry.