Does the federal government really want to be in the business of funding acquisition of state parks at $10 million a pop, particularly when those acquisitions violate property rights? That's the basic question underlying a Nov. 21, 2002, decision in favor of Missouri landowners handed down by the U.S. Court of Claims in St. Louis. The case involved landowners who disputed ownership of the former 225-mile Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad corridor that bisects the state from St. Charles to Clinton--the Katy Trail.

A brief history: MKT officially abandoned the rail line in 1986. The line carried easements which allowed it to operate across the private property of citizens of the state. Simultaneously with abandonment, the railroad entered into an agreement with Missouri's Department of Natural Resources.

DNR wanted to (subsequently did and still does) operate the abandoned rail line as a hiking and biking trail. The railroad sold its interests in the abandoned line to DNR for the sum of $200,000. At the time, it was a standard transaction under the Rails-to-Trails Act, federal legislation that hinged on a deceitful practice called railbanking. Railbanking is defined as holding the property in case a national emergency requires reactivation of the rail line.

But in this particular case, a federal judge ruled in 2000 that through railbanking, government was actively scheming to keep land from reverting to its rightful owners. Congress has the power to prevent reversion, the judge explained. But if it exercises that authority, government must pay.

His original ruling contains this insight in support of property rights: "The likelihood that the Rails-to-Trails Act was motivated by a commendable interest in public recreation or was an exercise in great foresight is immaterial. Rights in private property are more durable than the current majority's notion of what constitutes a worthy cause."

The foundation of the United States was built on the concept of property rights. The legal theory is the public trust doctrine, a philosophical distinction that says management of U.S. land must be for the public good, i.e. you can't start a hazardous waste dump in your back yard just because it's your property.

Government can use public trust doctrine to set allowable limits on erosion, water quality and pollution. In theory, the doctrine is held in check by the Fifth Amendment balance that prevents abuse of the minority (landowners) by the majority. The interaction splits government taking of private property into either eminent domain or police power.

When government seizes private property for public use, eminent domain is invoked, and compensation must be paid. Conversely, when government regulates private property with the intent of preventing harm to public interest, police power requires no compensation.

Upholding property rights, this new decision found the bill is past due for the Katy Trail. The ensuing bill could total as much as $10 million and includes mandated interest going back to 1987. But the feds get the bill because Congress passed Rails-to-Trails.

Trail supporters, however, are far from defeated. In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives last June, The Rails to Trails Conservancy argued for continued, purposeful violation of property rights. Citing a helpful statute of limitations alongside the slowing pace of abandonment, the non-profit group told Congress the practice was cost-effective. The small amounts awarded in these cases, Conservancy members argued, will not pose "an undue burden on the federal treasury...."

That should temper any celebration.