>That quote you provided is boilerplate language inserted, in some form, in most if not all ICC and STB abandonment decisions. Precise language varied over the years depending on requirements of then-current trails legislation and court decisions. It preserves the Feds' rights if federal land was originally used for all or part of the r/w. It doesn't mean there *is* federal land in the r/w absent other information about how SP got and held title, which could be different for various parts of the line. I suspect they started doing that because the Feds did indeed lose rights to put trails on some rail lines that were abandoned before that clause became standard - the land reverted to surrounding owners even though they got their land from the feds after the rail line went in. There were a couple of significant court cases about that, most recently only a few years ago. As with most legal things, it comes down to details.

Funny you should say all this because the title of the document is: "Public Law 100-693 100th Congress", which carries a lot more horsepower legally than some bureaucratic decision.

>Most of the central Bay Area was held in ranchos long before statehood, which were recognized as private (not federal) landholdings when California became part of the U.S. I suspect that there is in fact little if any formerly federal land in the r/w, and that Alameda Co. is legitimately SP's successor in most if not all of it. A serious title search would be needed to be sure, which the county probably (hopefully) did before taking over, but it makes sense given the history of land ownership there.

The aforementioned Act goes on to describe the origins of the R/W:

"(b) SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION.-The real property referred to in subsection (a) involves certain real property situated in the unincorporated townships of Murray, Pleasanton, and Washington, and in the incorporated area of the cities of Union City and Fremont, and is more particularly described as follows:

(1) PARCEL i.-A strip of land, 400 feet in width, acquired by the Central Pacific Railway Company by an Act of Congress dated July 1, 1862 (as shown on the map entitled "C.P.RY. Co. Oakland to Sacramento Main Line Via Niles and Tracy Map of Real Estate and Right of Way Properties through Alameda, County, California" dated 1914, in Alameda County Road Department Files numbered A 77-32, A 77-33, and A 77-34), lying equally 200 feet on each side of the center line more particularly described in that certain Quitclaim Deed from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation, to the County of Alameda, dated March 15, 1985, and recorded April 23, 1985, as Series No. 85-077990, Official Records of Alameda County, California.

(2) PARCEL 2.-Those strips of land varying in width acquired by the Central Pacific Railroad Company by an Act of Congress, dated July 1, 1862 (as shown on the map entitled "C.P.RY. Co. Oakland to Sacramento Main Line Via Niles and Tracy Map of Real Estate and Right of Way Properties through Alameda County, California" dated 1914, in Alameda County Road Department Files numbered A 77-26, A 77-27, and A 77-28), the center line of said strips of land being more particularly described in that certain Quitclaim Deed from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation, to the County of Alameda, dated March 15, 1985, and recorded April 23, 1985, as Series No. 85-077991, Official Records of Alameda County, California.

(3) PARCEL 3.-Those strips of land varying in width acquired by(A) the Central Pacific Railroad Company under the Act referred to in subsection (a) (as shown on the map entitled "C.P.RY. Co. Oakland to Sacramento Main Line Via Niles and Tracy Map of Real Estate and Right of Way Properties through Alameda, County, California" dated 1914, in Alameda County Road Department Files numbered A 77-26, A 77-27, and A 77-28);
(B) the Western Pacific Railroad Company by Order and Declaration dated June 22, 1868, concerning the Report of Commissioners in the matter of the Western Pacific Railroad Company against Matthew W. Dixon, et al., in the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the
County of Alameda, State of California, a certified copy of the Order recorded September 7, 1869, in Book 43 of Deeds at page 262, Records of Alameda County, California; and
(C) the Western Pacific Railroad Company by deed dated April 18, 1870, from Jonas G. Clark, recorded June 14, 1870, in Book 55 of Deeds at page 342, Records of Alameda
County."

Light reading a bedtime, but sounds to me like grants were involved.

>And in any case, NCRy appears from everything seen in this thread to be simply the county's tenant, and as such can be evicted if something better comes along.

Yes. Can also happen if PLA annoys the county.

The reversionary thing was done in by its own accord. The Court decision was that if the original deed reads "reverts to original owners", and those individuals had passed on, then no reversion for the simple reason that by being dead, they are no longer present. If however, it reads "reverts to original owners, their successors or assigns", then it did revert. Part of the intend of the rails banking act was to forestall even this possibility. The "successors and assigns" were not amused.