Caliphony can pass all the freakin' laws it wants; when such laws get to court they are generally rendered meaningless. No state has the Constitutional authority (nor do the feds) to retro-actively change the provisions of any existing contract, unless that contract can be shown to thwart the Constitution itself - very rare indeed.

Laws overturning racially restrictive covenants, and overturning certain H.O.A. contract clauses restricting outdoor antennas, have been upheld; but these contract provisions did in fact directly thwart the Constitutional rights of citizens.

If reversion rights and limited use provisions are in an r.o.w. easement contract, and they almost always are (that's what makes it merely an easement in the first place); even our illustrious Emperor cannot lawfully change thing one, without willing consent of all parties to the contract. (of course he could resort to bullying! - Naw! He'd never do that)

This is one of the major reasons "rail banking" laws rarely work. Unless the tracks are left in place, in serviceable condition or close to it; abandonment clauses or change of use prohibitions generally take effect, terminating the easement. Of course, a new easement contract could be negotiated if the landowner is willing, covering the new uses; however, usually at considerable additional cost.

This has been the most common path for successful rails to trails programs, but as a method of rail right of way banking, it fails to adequately ensure rights to rebuild the rail line in the future. Building the railway then becomes the change of use that cancels the then existing trail easement.

Glued screwed & Tattooed - no matter how it goes, once the tracks are gone!