A new way to look at corner crossing?

SAJ-99 said:
Sure but Helicopters. The definition is what type and ease of access. Regardless of what we want to see, it is unrealistic to think every piece of public land should have an easement to it.
Click to expand...
I can afford to walk. I can't afford a helicopter.
Especially a helicopter making at least 2 trips.

Also, "fairness" has Jack Schmidt to do with real estate.
Here in Altoona PA, we watched 2 residential blocks get Eminent Domain for the hospital to put up parking garages.
One block is an empty gravel lot that is fenced off.
The other block is a Sheetz convenience store.

So "fairness " isn't dispersed equally.
 
Last edited:
std7mag said:
I can afford to walk. I can't afford a helicopter.
Especially a helicopter making at least 2 trips.

Also, "fairness" has Jack Schmidt to do with real estate.
Here in Altoona PA, we watched 2 residential blocks get Eminent Domain for the hospital to put up parking garages.
One block is an empty gravel lot that is fenced off.
The other block is a Sheetz convenience store.

So "fairness " isn't dispersed equally.
Click to expand...
Never is, but not sure what your example has to do with this situation. Are you implying that the government paying people fair market value for land to put up a community hospital is the same as forcing a public easement across private property to access landlocked parcels? I’m not sure courts would agree, but it is an interesting argument.
 
What if oil was found to be on "land locked" public property and the oil lease was given to an Exxon? Does that mean necessity changes? If necessity can change for an oil company to drill a well, what other uses would change the "necessity" of access to public land? In Montana, outdoor sports are either the first or second biggest industry...would this be a basis for "necessity" to increase the biggest industry within a state?
 
MattK said:
and the oil lease was given to an Exxon?
Click to expand...
In your example, necessity probably still doesn't exist like it would in the East with private land. How it would work is Exxon would negotiate the cost of the easement with the landowner. Know a guy that does that exact thing across the Bakken. Some of the wells are on public and some on private. Money talks, and silences I guess. Landowners often complain after those trucks run through in wet conditions. The company usually has maintenance responsibility.
 
SAJ-99 said:
In your example, necessity probably still doesn't exist like it would in the East with private land. How it would work is Exxon would negotiate the cost of the easement with the landowner. Know a guy that does that exact thing across the Bakken. Some of the wells are on public and some on private. Money talks, and silences I guess. Landowners often complain after those trucks run through in wet conditions. The company usually has maintenance responsibility.
Click to expand...
In most cases the roads are private with no public access.
 
SAJ-99 said:
In your example, necessity probably still doesn't exist like it would in the East with private land. How it would work is Exxon would negotiate the cost of the easement with the landowner. Know a guy that does that exact thing across the Bakken. Some of the wells are on public and some on private. Money talks, and silences I guess. Landowners often complain after those trucks run through in wet conditions. The company usually has maintenance responsibility.
Click to expand...
There's also the problem with mineral rights being the dominate estate between surface and mineral interests. Meaning the mineral interests have a legal right to access their minerals and don't need the consent of surface owners to do it.
 
BuzzH said:
There's also the problem with mineral rights being the dominate estate between surface and mineral interests. Meaning the mineral interests have a legal right to access their minerals and don't need the consent of surface owners to do it.
Click to expand...
Scenario exercises are fun and I went to a similar place. What if a high quality seam of rare earths was discovered in the Durfee Hills? Would that constitute necessity? The thought of a court battle between the US and the Wilks is entertaining. Although we all know it would end up with the Wilks collecting a big check from the taxpayers for an easement.

In some ways if we go back to the OP, it is not clear that sections touching at a corner would be considered landlocked. In Montana maybe, and in Wyoming not, after the recent court ruling. And honestly, I'm fine with the corner crossing being allowed via boot leather and not allowed motorized, so everyone (ok, most reasonable people) has their own nuanced preference on this subject. I'm not sure how the courts would interpret that if the corner was private to private.
 
MattK said:
What if oil was found to be on "land locked" public property and the oil lease was given to an Exxon? Does that mean necessity changes? If necessity can change for an oil company to drill a well, what other uses would change the "necessity" of access to public land? In Montana, outdoor sports are either the first or second biggest industry...would this be a basis for "necessity" to increase the biggest industry within a state?
Click to expand...
'Some real s t r e t c h e s in this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elky Welky
10th Circuit Corner Crossing Ruling: What does this mean for MT?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
8K
Rack Daniels
Rack Daniels
QELKhunter
2026 is off to a good start—with a cow tag punched and a little good karma mixed in.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
schmej20
S
M
A Perfect Elk Place
Replies
15
Views
2K
El Jason
El Jason
Brad
It's Public Land. But The Public Can't Reach It.
Replies
16
Views
5K
Mussgrass
M
Big Fin
Podcast Episodes on Public-Private Property Rights at Intersecting Corners
6 7 8
Replies
151
Views
20K
Big Fin
Big Fin

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
118,725
Messages
2,204,200
Members
38,629
Latest member
RipDog

Share this page

Back
Top