Eminent Domain

Couldn't states use eminent domain to increase access to land locked parcels of public land? I'm not super knowledgeable about the public access issue, but I've never heard of eminent domain being used to gain public access to public land, which surprises me. Can anyone who is more knowledgeable tell me why this doesn't happen? I'm not saying I'm FOR using eminent domain. I'm just curious.

I'm all for public access but that would be a death wish come re-election.

I think you would end up in litigation hell if a state tried to do this. Eminent Domain is supposed to be used in rare occasions or if there is a taking of private property rights. Claiming ED to open landlocked parcels of public land for recreation more than likely would not meet the legal definition for allowing that action.

I'm a fan of public land and access in every way, that said I am not a fan of eminent domain.

Ben Lamb said:

I think you would end up in litigation hell if a state tried to do this. Eminent Domain is supposed to be used in rare occasions or if there is a taking of private property rights. Claiming ED to open landlocked parcels of public land for recreation more than likely would not meet the legal definition for allowing that action.

Click to expand...

This ^^

I am sure this has been answered but why can't easement be granted by the court to public property like it is to Private property.

Quackillr said:

I am sure this has been answered but why can't easement be granted by the court to public property like it is to Private property.

Click to expand...

That would be considered a takings of private property rights and the state or fed would have to pay for the easement, unless there is already an easement in place that has been improperly closed.

It can, but under only certain specific circumstances. Some of the successful access work accomplished by Public Land Water Access Assoc. (PLWA) has dealt with prescriptive easement access to public lands. The prescriptive easements being held up by the court.

It's my understanding that courts have actually allowed municipalities to use eminent domain (condemnation) to take private property (paid for pursuant to certain standards that are *supposed to* reflect fair market value, only to turn the property over to private sector interests so they can build their mall or whatever, create jobs and build the tax revenues. I think that sucks, but I think it has been upheld in court.

As to corner crossing, it may be political suicide but I'm all for it. There may be litigation but I think the land owner would lose. I also think the fair market value for a few square feet of land would be chump change. Finally, this would be WAY better than some legislative alternative that purported to allow corner jumping without paying just compensation for the "taking" in, what I believe would be a violation of the 5th.

So, yeah, the states should condemn and pay for access. I think it should be limited to the width of a person walking, and not include cars, 4X4's etc. But that's just me.

Edited to add, I know Wyoming has a law allowing a private party to condemn access through another private parcel to access his own land. It has to be the least imposing route, etc. and it can only be done if there is no other way in.

The states have the power to use eminent domain to allow public acces for recreation. Florida has done it to provide easements through private property to access public beaches. The state of course has to pay fair value. I think the biggest obstacle is lack of political will and fear of attacks from private landowners come election time.

it should be illegal to block access to public land..

If public access is blocked to public land that land should also be off limits to the landowner and any third party with permission to cross the private land. If a landowner will not grant public access then all private access to the public land should be prohibited. OR that private land owner should be forced to buy the said public land at it's fair market value or higher value as real estate not the value of the land as farmland. furthermore the landowner should be forced to keep it as wildlife habitat..

I imagine this would be extremely unpopular but what is happening how is that some landowners are stealing public property I understand that that is the way it has been for decades but it's not right! I am sorry that landowners have become used to having it this way but it's wrong. public land is for the public not for private use or gain.

I have always had this opinion but it became a strong opinion when i saw recently a bunch of private cows ruining a very public state campground close to Bozeman. what gives a landowner the right to destroy public property with his cows??? What kind of landowner thinks it's ok to steal from the public like that? Just cause you have done it for decades doesn't make it right!

I am all for respecting private property I am however not for the good old boy network of private landowners stealing public , my, and your property.


I think state agencies should do everything they can to work with landowners to gain access to these parcels... I am thinking something as simple as a turn out for parking and some ribbon to mark a narrow trail to the public land. if access is not allowed then the public parcel should be closed to ALL access..

point taken the main point is our public land should not be their private playground or cash cow. When that happens it's nothing less than the theft of public property.

I think any leased public lands should have access . But not likely to happen in NM.
I used the cattle eating MY deer food & ruining MY trout stream on public lands in a FS meeting once,did get some enforcement done.
ED should not be used wily nilly as it has. Seen way too many shady/back door deals for the benefit of a few in my life .