Require Rails to Trails sponsors to get approval from all impacted landowners and fully compensate landowners when a project moves forward.

Sam Graves · Missouri · Republican

policy impact 0.72 specificity 0.90 extraction confidence 90%

Contest this claim

Occurrences

Evidence

Congress.gov lists H.R.4924, Rails to Trails Landowner Rights Act, sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves, introduced 08/08/2025, referred to House Natural Resources, and still only at the 'Introduced' status.

Graves introduced a concrete bill matching the promise, but Congress.gov shows it had not passed either chamber or become law by the available record.

never unknown A for effort

H.R.4924 - Rails to Trails Landowner Rights Act
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 95%

Contest this evidence item

The bill would require signed approval from each affected property owner and would require trail-use agreements to compensate property owners for additional costs, with minimum compensation at fair market value.

The introduced bill directly addresses the approval and compensation components of the promise, demonstrating effort, but it was not enacted.

never unknown A for effort

Text - H.R.4924 - Rails to Trails Landowner Rights Act
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 96%

Contest this evidence item

Current 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) allows interim trail use when a state, political subdivision, or qualified private organization assumes management, liability, and taxes; it does not require approval from every impacted landowner or sponsor-paid fair-market compensation.

Existing federal rails-to-trails law lacks the promised landowner-approval and full-compensation requirements, supporting a non-delivery finding.

never unknown

16 U.S. Code § 1247 - State and local area recreation and historic trails
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 92%

Contest this evidence item

The STB rule requires a trail sponsor statement assuming management, legal liability, and taxes, and provides for CITU/NITU negotiation with the railroad; it does not condition approval on all impacted landowners signing off.

The operative federal regulation still does not implement the promised universal landowner approval requirement.

never unknown

49 CFR § 1152.29 - Prospective use of rights-of-way for interim trail use and rail banking
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 90%

Contest this evidence item

The Supreme Court described rails-to-trails transfers despite reversionary interests and held that, if a taking occurs, compensation is available under the Tucker Act rather than through an explicit sponsor-payment requirement in the Trails Act.

The legal compensation route for affected owners has been takings litigation against the federal government, not the promised up-front sponsor compensation framework.

never unknown

Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990)
secondary · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 86%

Contest this evidence item

Assessments

never unknown A for effort

Sam Graves sponsored H.R.4924, the Rails to Trails Landowner Rights Act, which directly matched the promise by requiring affected landowner approval and compensation. However, Congress.gov still lists the bill as introduced and referred to committee, with no passage or enactment. Existing federal rails-to-trails law and regulations still do not require universal impacted-landowner approval or up-front sponsor-paid full compensation, so the promised policy outcome has not been delivered despite a serious legislative effort.

provider codex_cli · model gpt-5.5 · confidence 95%