CO Code § 40-20-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 40 - Utilities|Article 20 - Organization and Government|Part 1 - General|§ 40-20-103. Right-of-Way for Changed Line - Sale of Right-of-Way for Public Passenger Rail Service - Definitions

  Any railroad company having located its line of road, whether the same is completed or not, may make a new location of its line and may acquire the right-of-way for such new line in the same manner as is now provided for acquiring the right-of-way by the statutes of Colorado; but in acquiring said new right-of-way, the previous right-of-way shall revert to the owner of the land through which said previous right-of-way was granted upon the payment or tendering payment to the railroad company of the amount assessed by the board of appraisers and paid by said railroad company for said previous right-of-way.      Any railroad company may sell its right-of-way for the operation of a public passenger rail service. In such case, the right-of-way shall continue to be used as a public highway only for operation of public passenger rail service for purposes of section 4 of article XV of the state constitution if ownership of the right-of-way is transferred to a public passenger rail service provider, regardless of:   Whether or not an order of abandonment has been issued for the right-of-way by the federal surface transportation board, any successor federal agency, or any court of competent jurisdiction;    The technology used to operate the public passenger rail service; or    Whether ownership of the railroad is public or private.       No rail service provider operating public passenger rail service as authorized by paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) shall be required to offer its right-of-way for use by any other rail service provider by operation of Colorado law after an order of abandonment has been issued.       Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any vested right of any party.    For purposes of this section, “public passenger rail service” means any passenger service that runs on rails or electromagnetic guideways, including but not limited to:   Commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area;    High-speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas; or    Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.         History. Source: L. 1874: P. 224, § 1. G.L. § 2234. G.S. § 2795. R.S. 08: § 5519. C.L. § 2902. CSA: C. 139, § 88. CRS 53: § 116-1-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 116-1-3. L. 2010: Entire section amended,(HB 10-1276), ch. 201, p. 875, § 1, effective August 11. History. Source: L. 1874: P. 224, § 1. G.L. § 2234. G.S. § 2795. R.S. 08: § 5519. C.L. § 2902. CSA: C. 139, § 88. CRS 53: § 116-1-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 116-1-3. L. 2010: Entire section amended,(HB 10-1276), ch. 201, p. 875, § 1, effective August 11.    Cross references:   For procedure in eminent domain, see articles 1 to 7 of title 38.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For note, “The Real Property Interest Created In a Railroad Upon Acquisition of Its ‘Right-of-Way'”, see 27 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 73 (1954).   Where nothing is paid for right-of-way part of § 38-1-101 requiring payment does not apply. Where a railroad company, having a right-of-way over public lands, changed its line and abandoned its former right-of-way for a period of 13 years, upon the extinction of title by abandonment it was merged in the title held by those holding under certain patentees, and the land came within the provision of this section. Nothing having been paid for the right-of-way, that portion of § 38-1-101 requiring payment does not apply. Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Mills, 222 F. 481 (8th Cir. 1915).   Question of abandonment of right-of-way is one of intent. The question as to whether or not a railroad company has abandoned a right-of-way acquired by it is to a great extent one of intent; but such intention can be established by the acts of the company clearly indicating its purpose not to use such right-of-way and by long nonuser thereof. Denver & R. G. R. R. v. Mills, 222 F. 481 (8th Cir. 1915).   Where owner does not object to changes he is estopped from maintaining trespass or ejectment. Where a company acquires a right-of-way over land for a railroad and its successor changes the use to toll road purposes, of which the landowner had knowledge, and the latter stands by without objection while expenditures are made in the construction of the toll road, he is estopped from maintaining either trespass or ejectment for the entry for such changed use. MacKenzie v. Corley, 94 Colo. 263 , 29 P.2d 1044 (1934).   Estoppel operates against a grantee acquiring title with notice of the change. MacKenzie v. Corley, 94 Colo. 263 , 29 P.2d 1044 (1934).   In such circumstances the remedy of the original owner is an action for damages, but such remedy does not pass with the land to his grantee. MacKenzie v. Corley, 94 Colo. 263 , 29 P.2d 1044 (1934).