There must be a story behind that story on both the retaining wall and the firing.
All property is held subject to the public’s right of paying just compensation for “taking” the property for a legitimate public purpose. I would think that if the treaty preceeded the patenting of the land, the title to the land was subject to treaty provisions. If it was patented after the treaty, then the treaty prohibitions would be a taking of the right to use and enjoy. If it is substantial enough, then the court of claims could award just compensation. Otherwise, the court may say it was not a taking of the entire use of the property or taking of sufficient value to qualify for compensation.