Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Ahtna, Inc. v. State of Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, et al. (3/12/2021) sp-7508

Ahtna, Inc. v. State of Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, et al. (3/12/2021) sp-7508

         Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

         Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

          corrections@akcourts.us.  



                    THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  



AHTNA,  INC.,                                                 )  

                                                              )     Supreme  Court  Nos.  S-17496/17526/  

                                                  

                            Appellant and                     )     17605  (Consolidated)  

                            Cross-Appellee,                   )  

                                                                                                                        

                                                              )     Superior Court No. 3AN-08-06337 CI  

         v.                                                   )  

                                                                                      

                                                              )    O P I N I O N  

                                   

STATE OF ALASKA,                                              )  

                               

                                                                                                     

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL                                         )    No. 7508 - March 12, 2021  

                                                     

RESOURCES and DEPARTMENT OF                                   )
  

                                      

TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC                                       )
  

FACILITIES,                                                   )
  

                                                              )
  

                                             

                            Appellees and                     )
  

                            Cross-Appellants.                 )
  

                                                              )
  



                                                                                                 

                               rom the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                   Appeal f 

                                                                                    

                   Judicial District, Anchorage, Andrew Guidi, Judge.  



                                                                                              

                   Appearances:  Matthew Singer and Peter A. Scully, Holland  

                                                                   

                   & Knight  LLP, Anchorage,  for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.  

                                                                                           

                   Jessica M. Alloway, and Max D. Garner, Assistant Attorneys  

                                                                                           

                   General,  Anchorage,  and  Kevin  G.  Clarkson,  Attorney  

                                                                                           

                   General, Juneau, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.  



                                                                                                   

                   Before:        Bolger,  Chief  Justice,  Winfree,  Maassen,  and  

                                                                                 

                   Carney, Justices.  [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]  



                                    

                   CARNEY, Justice.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

I.         INTRODUCTION  



                     The State claimed the right under Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477) to clear  

                                                                                                                                    



land and permit the use of boat launches, camping sites, and day use sites within an  

                                                                                                                                        



alleged 100-foot right of way centered on a road on land belonging to an Alaska Native  

                                                                                                                                 



corporation. TheNativecorporation sued,arguing that its prior aboriginal titleprevented  

                                                                                                                            



the federal government from conveying a right of way to the State or, alternatively, if the  

                                                                                                                                       



right of way existed, that construction of boat launches, camping sites, and day use sites  

                                                                                                                                     



exceeded its scope.  

                      



                     After years of litigation and motion practice the superior court issued two  

                                                                                                                                      



partial  summary  judgment  orders.                         It  held  as  a  matter  of  law  that  any  preexisting  

                                                                                                                         



aboriginal title did not disturb the State's right of way over the land.  It also concluded  

                                                                                                                           



as a matter of law that the right of way was limited to ingress and egress.  Because the  

                                                                                                                                       



superior court did not err, we affirm both grants of partial summary judgment.  

                                                                                                              



II.        FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                    



           A.         The Dispute  

                              

                     Klutina  Lake  Road1                is  a  single-lane  dirt  road  running  approximately  

                                                                                                                   



25 miles along the Klutina River from Copper Center on the Richardson Highway to the  

                                                                                                                                       



outlet of Klutina Lake.  Much of the road travels over land owned by Ahtna, Inc., the  

                                                                                                                                      

regional Alaska Native corporation.2                           The Ahtna Athabascan people have used and  

                                                                                                                            



occupied the land for hundreds of years.  

                                                        



                     In 2007 the State cleared a swath of land along the road and removed one  

                                                                                                                                      



of the "permit fee stations" Ahtna had erected to collect fees for use of its land.  The  

                                                                                                                                     



           1         Klutina Lake Road is also known locally as the Brenwick-Craig Road.                                      



           2  

                                                                                                                               

                     The road also travels over land referred to as Lot 3 and owned by a number  

                                                                                                                         

of  private  landowners.                 While  those  property  owners  are  parties  to  the  underlying  

                                                             

dispute, they are not involved in this appeal.  



                                                                   -2-                                                             7508
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

 State claimed that it had established a 100-foot wide RS 2477 right of way for the cleared                                                                                                                                                                                           



land "as early as 1899" and then again in the 1960s when the State "constructed a more                                                                                                                                                                                                    



official road."   The State claimed its RS 2477 right of way included a broad scope of                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



activities, such as day use, camping, boat launching, parking, and fishing, as well as the                                                                                                                                                                                                          



right to travel over the road.                                                  



                                               Ahtna objected to the State's land clearing and destruction of Ahtna's                                                                                                                                                            



property. It disputed the existence and width of any State right of way, and it argued that                                                                                                                                                                                                       



any right of way that might exist permitted only ingress and egress.                                                                                                                                                



                                               In early 2008 Ahtna filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and an                                                                                                                                                                                  



injunction regarding the State's alleged trespass on its land.                                                                                                                                                   Years of litigation ensued,                                        



culminating in the current appeal.                                                           



                        B.                     Statutory Background   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            3  

                                               Congress   enacted   RS   2477   in   1866   as   part   of   the   Lode   Mining  Act.   



RS 2477 stated in its entirety:  "The right of way for the construction of highways over  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted."4  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The federal government's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

grant of rights of way under RS 2477 "was self-executing, meaning that an RS 2477  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

right-of-way automatically came into existence 'if a public highway was established  



                                                                                                                                                                                                               5  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

across public land in accordance with the law of Alaska.' " 



                       3                       Lode Mining Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253, (codified                                                                                                                                                    



as 43 U.S.C. § 932 (1925), Revised Statute 2477),                                                                                                                             repealed by                                Federal Land Policy and                                                  

Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-579, § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2787 (1976).                                                                                                                                                                                              



                       4                       43 U.S.C. § 932 (1970) (repealed 1976).  

                                                                                                                                                                      



                        5                     Price v. Eastham, 75 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Alaska 2003) (quoting Fitzgerald  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

v. Puddicombe, 918 P.2d 1017, 1019 (Alaska 1996)).  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                                                                                                   -3-                                                                                                                                        7508
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                            6  

                           Congress repealed RS 2477 in 1976 but left existing rights of way intact.                                                                           



                                                                                                                                                                    

In  Alaska,  however,  authorization  for  RS  2477  rights  of  way  ended  no  later  than  



                                                                                                                                                               

January 1969, when the Secretary of the Interior withdrew all public lands not already  

                  7   Because the statute was self-executing and did not require rights of way to be  

reserved.                                                                                                                                                                

recorded, the existence of an RS 2477 right of way is frequently a matter of controversy.8  

                                                                                                                                                   



                           In determining the existence and scope of an RS 2477 right of way over  

                                                                                                                                                           



Native land, courts must also be mindful of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act  

                                                                                                                                                                      

(ANCSA).9                  Congress enacted ANCSA in 1971 "to settle all land claims by Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                               



             6             Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-579,                                                                



§ 701, 706, 90 Stat. 2743 ("Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act,                                                                               

shall be construed as terminating any valid . . . right-of-way . . . existing on the date of                                                                             

approval of this Act.");                           Dickson v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res.                                       , 433 P.3d 1075, 1083                

(Alaska 2018).   



             7             Public Land Order (PLO) 4582, 34 Fed. Reg. 1025 (Jan. 17, 1969).  The  

                                                                                                                                                      

parties have both cited January 17, 1969, the date Secretary Udall signed PLO 4582, as  

                                                                                                                                                                          

the date lands were withdrawn.  Other sources suggest that the withdrawal was instead  

                                                                                                                                                                

effective on December 14, 1968, the date the notice of application for withdrawal was  

                                                                                                                                              

published.  See Betty J. (Thompson) Bonin, 151 IBLA 16, 26 n.8 (1999) (describing  

                                                                                                                                                       

December 13 as "the earliest date which would not run into the controversy as to when  

                                                                                                                                                                   

the lands affected by PLO 4582 had been removed from entry and location"); Notice of  

                                                                                                                                                                          

Application for Withdrawal of Unreserved Lands, 33 Fed. Reg. 18591 (Dec. 14, 1968).  

                                                                                                                                                                               

Because the parties agree that withdrawal was effective as of January 1969, and because  

                                                                                                                                                              

this case does not require us to determine whether withdrawal was effective sooner, we  

                                                                                                                                                                        

do not decide whether withdrawal was effective earlier than January 1969.  

                                                                                                                                           



             8             See S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 742  

                                                                                                                         

(10th Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh'g (Jan. 6, 2006) ("[T]he definition of  

                                                                                                                                                    

R.S. 2477 rights of way across federal land, which used to be a non-issue, has become  

                                                                                                                                                              

a flash point, and litigants are driven to the historical archives for documentation of  

                                                                                                                                                                         

matters no one had reason to document at the time.").  

                                                                                             



             9             43 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (2018).  

                                                                              



                                                                                    -4-                                                                            7508
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

Natives."10  ANCSA "extinguished all claims of the Native people of Alaska based on   



aboriginal title in exchange for 962.5 million dollars and 44 million acres of public                                                   



          11  

                                                                                        

land."         Section 4 of ANCSA addresses aboriginal title:  



                                                                                                                    

                       (a) Aboriginal title extinguishment through prior land  

                                                    

                       and water area conveyances  



                                                                                                                        

                      All  prior  conveyances  of  public  land  and  water  areas  in  

                                                                                                                      

                      Alaska, or any interest therein, pursuant to Federal law, and  

                                                                                                                

                       all tentative approvals pursuant to section 6(g) of the Alaska  

                                                                                                                       

                       Statehood Act, shall be regarded as an extinguishment of the  

                                                                  

                       aboriginal title thereto, if any.  



                                                                                                                

                       (b)  Aboriginal  title  and  claim  extinguishment  where  

                                                                                                                

                       based         on      use       and        occupancy;              submerged               lands  

                                                                                                              

                       underneath inland and offshore water areas and hunting  

                                                     

                       or fishing rights included  



                                                                                                                         

                      All aboriginal titles, if any, and claims of aboriginal title in  

                                                                                                         

                      Alaska based on use and occupancy, including submerged  

                                                                                                                      

                       land underneath all water areas, both inland and offshore, and  

                                                                                                                     

                       including any aboriginal hunting or fishing rights that may  

                                                    

                       exist, are hereby extinguished.  



                                                                                                                      

                       (c)  Aboriginal  claim  extinguishment  where  based  on  

                                                                                                                

                       right,  title,  use,  or  occupancy  of  land  or  water  areas;  

                                                                                                        

                       domestic statute or treaty relating to use and occupancy;  

                                                                    

                       or foreign laws; pending claims  



                                                                                                                   

                      All claims against the United States, the State, and all other  

                                                                                                                      

                      persons that are based on claims of aboriginal right, title, use,  

                                                                                                                      

                       or occupancy of land or water areas in Alaska, or that are  

                                                                                                                         

                      based on any statute or treaty of the United States relating to  

                                                                                                                        

                      Native use and occupancy, or that are based on the laws of  

                                                                                                               

                       any other nation, including any such claims that are pending  



           10         Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov't                              , 522 U.S. 520, 523 (1998).           



           11  

                                                                                                                                   

                      Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 807 P.2d 487, 490  

               

(Alaska 1991).  



                                                                       -5-                                                               7508
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                     before   any   Federal  or   state   court   or   the   Indian   Claims  

                     Commission, are hereby extinguished.                       [12]  



          C.	        Proceedings  

                                           



                     Ahtna's 2008 lawsuit sought a declaration that the land in question was  

                                                                                                                  



"free and clear of an RS 2477 [right of way]" and an injunction to prevent the State from  

                                                                                                                               



"further trespass upon Ahtna's lands."  Ahtna acknowledged that the United States had  

                                                                                                                                 



a 60-foot-wide easement allowing public travel on the road, but argued that the State did  

                                                                                                                                  



not have an additional 100-foot-wide RS 2477 right of way.  The State counterclaimed,  

                                                                                                              



seeking to quiet title to the claimed right of way and arguing that its RS 2477 right of  

                                                                                                                                   



way was superior to the federal one.  The parties repeatedly postponed trial in the hope  

                                                                                                                               



of reaching a settlement. In 2014 Ahtna filed a second amended complaint, which forms  

                                                                                                                              



the basis for the present litigation.  

                                       



                     In 2016 Ahtna moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration  

                                                                                                                     



that RS 2477 rights of way permit only ingress and egress.  The State opposed.  In May  

                                                                                                                                



2016 the superior court granted the motion. The court determined that "RS 2477, which  

                                                                                                                             



granted rights-of-way for 'highways over public lands,' conveyed the right to pass over  

                                                                                                                                



the land, and nothing more."  

                                   



                     Ahtna separately moved for summary judgment "to establish that there is  

                                                                                                                                    



no RS 2477 right-of-way along the Klutina Lake Road" because then-existing aboriginal  

                                                                                                                       



title prevented conveyance of an RS 2477 right of way.  The State opposed.  In June  

                                                                                                                               



2018  the  superior  court  denied  Ahtna's  motion  for  summary  judgment  based  on  

                                                                                                                                  



aboriginal title.  The court assumed without deciding that "aboriginal title land was not  

                                                                                                                                  



public land before Congress enacted ANCSA and Ahtna possessed aboriginal title to the  

                                                                                                                                  



          12  

                                         

                     43 U.S.C. § 1603.  



                                                                 -6-	                                                             7508  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                 13  

land at issue."                                         It then concluded that ANCSA applied retroactively and that ANCSA                                                                                                                                                      



extinguished Ahtna's aboriginal title.                                                                            



                                               The parties eventually stipulated to entry of final judgment under Alaska   



Civil Rule 54(b).                                            Ahtna stipulated to the existence of a 100-foot RS 2477 right of way,                                                                                                                                                          



"50 feet on each side of the centerline of the current location of Klutina Lake Road," and                                                                                                                                                                                                      



two additional 100-foot RS 2477 rights of way between the Klutina Lake Road and                                                                                                                                                                                                                



Klutina River, subject to its right to appeal on the basis of aboriginal title.                                                                                                                                                                                 Both parties   



dismissed claims, somewith                                                                        prejudiceand                                   somewithout                                     prejudice. However,                                                     theparties   



"agree[d] to preserve the right to appeal legal issues already decided . . . on motions for                                                                                                                                                                                                        



summary judgment."   



                                              Ahtnaappeals                                      thesuperior court'sdenial                                                                 ofsummary                                 judgment concerning   



aboriginal title.                                      Ahtna also requests that we confirm the court's assumption "that the                                                                                                                                                                       



Ahtna Athabascan people held aboriginal title to the Klutina River Valley."  The State                                                                                                  



cross-appeals thecourt's partial summary judgment order declaring that any right of way                                                                                                                                                                                                        



pursuant to RS 2477 is limited to the right of ingress and egress.                                                                                                                                      



III.                    STANDARD OF REVIEW                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             14  "We review a court's  

                                               "We review grants of summary judgment de novo."                                                                                                                                                                                    



interpretation of statutes de novo and 'apply our independentjudgment, adopting the rule  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.' "15  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                        13                     This preliminary assumption that the land was not public was significant  



because  RS  2477  stated:   "The  right  of  way  for  the  construction  of  highways  over  public  

lands,  not  reserved  for  public  uses,  is  hereby  granted."  43  U.S.C.  §  932  (1970)  (emphasis  

added)  (repealed   1976).  



                        14                     Christensen v. Alaska Sales &Serv., Inc., 335 P.3d 514, 516 (Alaska 2014).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                        15                    Ruerup v. Ruerup, 408 P.3d 1203, 1206 (Alaska 2018) (quoting Stephanie  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                  -7-                                                                                                                                       7508
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

IV.	        DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                                                        

            A.	          The Superior Court Did Not Err By Denying Ahtna's Motion For  

                                                                                                              

                         Summary Judgment Based On Aboriginal Title.  



                                                                                                                                                       

                         1.	         We need not decide whether the land at issue was public or non- 

                                                                               

                                     public as a matter of law.  



                                                                                                                                                         

                         The superior court narrowed the issues by assuming without deciding that  



                                                                                                                                             

"aboriginal title land was not public land before Congress enacted ANCSA and Ahtna  



                                                                                                                                                           

possessed aboriginal title to the land at issue."  On appeal Ahtna urges us to confirm the  



                                                                                                                                                             

superior court's assumption and explicitly hold that Ahtna possessed aboriginal title to  



                                                                                                                                                              

the land surrounding Klutina Lake Road prior to the passage of ANCSA.  But such a  



                                                                                                                                                         

finding is not necessary.  As discussed below, even if Ahtna did possess aboriginal title  



                                                                                                                                                                  

prior to ANCSA, passage of the statute retroactively validated the RS 2477 right of way.  

                                                                           16   Like the superior court, we assume without  

                                                                                                                                                  

We therefore decline to decide the issue. 



deciding that Ahtna possessed aboriginal title to the land surrounding Klutina Lake Road  

                                                                                                                                                       



prior to the passage of ANCSA.  

                                           



                         2.	         The superior court's decision that ANCSA precluded Ahtna's  

                                                                                                                                                

                                     aboriginal title arguments is consistent with precedent.  

                                                                                                                             



                         The superior court held that aboriginal title did not prevent an RS 2477  

                                                                                                                                                       



right of way because ANCSA § 4(a) "extinguished aboriginal title as a defense to pre- 

                                                                                                                                    



             15	         (...continued)  



                                                                                  

F. v. George C., 270 P.3d 737, 746 (Alaska 2012)).  



             16          See Paug-Vik, Inc., v. Wards Cove Packing Co.                                              , 633 P.2d 1015, 1018             



                                                                                                                                                      

(Alaska 1981) (affirming trial court's decision without deciding preliminary issue when  

trial court found it "unnecessary to reach the complex issues of whether aboriginal title                                                                

                                                                                                                                                       

ever existed in Alaska, what criteria must be met in order to acquire aboriginal title,  

                                                                                                                                                      

whether the Natives of Naknek in fact met those criteria and whether any title they might  

have acquired was abandoned");                              United States v. Atl. Richfield Co.                         , 612 F.2d 1132, 1134          

                                                

(9th Cir. 1980) ("For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the Inupiats retained  

                                                                                                    

unrecognized aboriginal title to the North Slope until 1971.").  



                                                                             -8-	                                                                     7508
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

ANCSA conveyances of federal land encumbered                                                                                      by aboriginal title at the time of                                            



conveyance."  Ahtna does not claim that it still possesses aboriginal title over the land  



surrounding Klutina Lake Road.                                                     Instead, it argues that because it                                                had  aboriginal title   



when the federal government was offering RS 2477 rights of way, the land was not                                                                                                                             



"public land" under RS 2477 and was therefore not eligible for an RS 2477 conveyance.                                                                                                                                   



Ahtna argues that because the land was never eligible under RS 2477, there was no                                                                                                                              



conveyance, and ANCSA could not have validated a conveyance that did not occur.                                                                                                                  



                                 Ahtna also claims that its argument is not precluded by ANCSA § 4(c),                                                                                                    



which extinguishes "[a]ll claims . . . based on claims of aboriginal right, title, use, or                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                 17     According to Ahtna, § 4(c) precludes  

occupancy of land or water areas in Alaska."                                                                                                                                                  



only claims, not defenses.  

                                          



                                 But we have previously rejected the same arguments.  "The stare decisis  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



doctrine rests on a solid bedrock of practicality:  'no judicial system could do society's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                      18   Because this case is not  

work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it.' "                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                    



distinguishable from our prior cases addressing the same issues, we affirm the superior  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



court's order denying Ahtna's motion for summary judgment based on aboriginal title.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                                                  a.	             Section 4(a) of ANCSA validated the RS 2477 right of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                  way.  



                                 Assuming aboriginal title prevented a conveyance of a valid RS 2477 for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



Klutina Lake Road, the first issue is whether Section 4(a) of ANCSA retroactively  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



validated the RS 2477. Section 4(a) of ANCSA states: "All prior conveyances of public  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



land and water areas in Alaska, or any interest therein, pursuant to Federal law, and all  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                 17              43 U.S.C. § 1603(c).         



                 18  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 102 P.3d 937, 943 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         

2004) (quoting Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. United Techs., 852 P.2d 1173, 1175  

                     

(Alaska 1993)).  



                                                                                                       -9-	                                                                                              7508
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

tentative   approvals   pursuant   to   section   6(g)   of   the   Alaska   Statehood   Act,   shall  be  



                                                                                                                             19  

regarded as an extinguishment of the aboriginal title thereto, if any."                                                          



                        Ahtna  argues  that  Section  4(a)  did  not  validate  the  conveyance  of  an  

                                                                                                                                                         



RS 2477 for Klutina Lake Road because aboriginal title prevented such a conveyance  

                                                                                                                                        



from  occurring  in  the  first  place.                                The  question  of  whether  ANCSA  validated  

                                                                                                                                            



conveyances  that  would  otherwise  be  barred  by  aboriginal  title  has  already  been  

                                                                                                                                                    

answered in Paug-Vik, Inc. v. Wards Cove Packing Co.20   In Paug-Vik, a cannery sought  

                                                                                                                                                  

and was granted a declaration confirming its right to use water from Seagull Lake.21  

                                                                                                                                                                



Wards Cove Packing Company claimed that the 1930 appropriation of water by its  

                                                                                                                                                         

predecessor in interest entitled it to water rights under 43 U.S.C. § 661.22  Paug-Vik, Inc.,  

                                                                                                                                                      



thelocalNativecorporation, protested theappropriation, arguingthat "prior toANCSA's  

                                                                                                                                            



passage in 1971 Seagull Lake was used or occupied by the Natives of Naknek, thus  

                                                                                                                                                      



conferring 'aboriginal title' on themand rendering the lake unavailable for appropriation  

                                                                                                                                      

by  non-natives."23                     When  the  appropriation  was  nonetheless  granted,  Paug-Vik  

                                                                                                                                           

appealed.24  



                                                                                                                                                   

                        Westarted our analysis in Paug-Vik byobserving that "Congress has settled  



                                                                                                                                                       

the question of whether conveyances of aboriginal title land under the federal public land  



                                                                                                                                                     

laws are valid" because "Congress has declared in § 1603(a) of ANCSA that such  



            19          43 U.S.C. § 1603(a).        



            20          633 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1981).                



            21          Id. at 1016.  

                                    



            22          Id. ; see 43 U.S.C. § 661 (concerning recognition of water rights).  

                                                                                                                                   



            23          Paug-Vik, 633 P.2d at 1017.               



            24          Id.  



                                                                           -10-                                                                     7508
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                    25  

conveyances   are   effective."                           After   holding   that   water   appropriation   rights   were  



conveyances covered by ANCSA, we concluded that such conveyances "therefore must                                                                    

                                                                                                                    26  We emphasized that  

be regarded as            extinguishing aboriginal title to the same interest.                                    "                                   



our interpretation of ANCSA was consistent with ANCSA's purpose, "which is that the  

                                                                                                                                                       



extinguishment provisions of that section should be construed broadly to eliminate every  

                                                                                                                                                  

claim resting on the assertion of aboriginal title."27   Our decision in Paug-Vik is directly  

                                                                                                                                               



applicable to this case.  

                                 



                        Ahtnaattemptstodistinguish Paug-Vik byarguing that Paug-Vik addressed  

                                                                                                                                           



different statutory language and answered a different question by focusing on "the nature  

                                                                                                                                                 



of the right acquired by an appropriation of water."  But Ahtna ignores Paug-Vik 's key  

                                                                                                                                                      



holdings.  While the main issue in Paug-Vik was whether the appropriation of water  

                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                   28 we also held that conveyances  

rights fell under the umbrella of § 1603(a) conveyances,                                                                             

                                                                            

extinguish aboriginal title under ANCSA § 4(a).29  

                                                                               



                        Ahtna's  attempt  to  distinguish  the  relevant  statutory  language  is  not  

                                                                                                                                                     



persuasive.  The statute at issue in Paug-Vik  conveyed a right to water appropriation  

                                                                                                                                    



"[w]henever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural,  

                                                                                                                                       

manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested  and  accrued."30                                                         There is no reason  

                                                                                                                                                



Ahtna's theory - that aboriginal title meant there was no conveyance rather than an  

                                                                                                                                                        



            25          Id.  at 1018.
   



            26          Id.  at 1020 (emphasis added).
          



            27          Id.
  



            28          Id. at 1018-19.  

                                   



            29          Id.  at 1020.   



            30          43 U.S.C. § 661; see Paug-Vik, 633 P.2d at 1017.  

                                                                                                        



                                                                          -11-                                                                     7508
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

invalid conveyance curable by ANCSA - would not have applied in                                                                                          Paug-Vik.   If that   



theory were correct, no conveyance could have occurred in                                                                        Paug-Vik  because aboriginal   



title would have prevented water rights from accruing in the first place.                                                                                     As the superior     



court observed, Ahtna's reading of ANCSA § 4(a) "would only extinguish aboriginal                                                                                         



title on land that was                        not  encumbered by aboriginal title. Or, in other words, it would do                                                                         



nothing."  



                              Federal   cases   interpreting   ANCSA   also   support   the   superior   court's  

                                                                                                             31 the Ninth Circuit addressed trespass  

holding. In               United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co.                                                                                                              

claims  based  on  aboriginal  title.32                                               The  Ninth  Circuit  held  that  ANCSA  applied  

                                                                                                                                                                               



retroactively and "extinguished not only the aboriginal titles of all Alaska Natives, but  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



also every claim 'based on' aboriginal title in the sense that the past or present existence  

                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                        33                                                             34  a federal  

                                                                                                               In Edwardsen v. Morton                                          

of aboriginal title is an element of the claim."                                                                     

                                                                                        



district court rejected a challenge to pre-ANCSA conveyances despite recognizing that  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                 35   As the court explained, "Congress could  

the conveyances were "void when granted."                                                                                                                                           

                                                                             



constitutionally, and did in effect, give the State good title . . . . by removing the only  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



impediment to the validity of the approvals rather than by making a new conveyance of  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

title."36         Because its decision was mandated by precedent, the superior court did not err  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



               31             612 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1980).
                       



               32            Id.
  



               33
           Id. at 1134 (emphasis added).  

                                                                               



               34             369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973).  

                                                                                            



               35            Id.  at 1377.   



               36            Id. at 1378.  

                                           



                                                                                           -12-                                                                                      7508
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

when   it   decided   that   ANCSA   §   4(a)   retroactively   validated   the   conveyance   of   an  



RS 2477 right of way for Klutina Lake Road.                                                                     



                                                         b.                ANCSAdoesnotdistinguishbetweenclaimsanddefenses.                                                                                               



                                      Ahtna attempts to distinguish these earlier cases by arguing that ANCSA's                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                                                           37  

language   applies   only   to   affirmative   claims,   not   defenses.                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                     Ahtna  points  out  that  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

ANCSA § 4(c) refers to "claims" but argues that "[n]o court has ever held that § 4(c)  



                                                                                                     

precludes a litigant from defending against an RS 2477 claim on the basis of . . . then- 



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

unextinguished aboriginal title." But Paug-Vik made just such an argument when it used  



                                                                                                                                                                38  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

aboriginal title as a defense to a pre-ANCSA conveyance.                                                                                                               As the superior court noted,  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

"[t]here is no meaningful distinction between the circumstances in Paug-Vik and this  



case."  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                      Ahtna  supports  its  theory  by  citing  Edwardsen,  in  which  the  court  



                                                                                                                      

differentiated between "challenges to the validity of certain titles to land" and "claims  

                                                                                                                    39      While it is true that Edwardsen interpreted  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

for compensation for alleged trespasses." 



ANCSA's extinguishment of claims more narrowly than Atlantic Richfield , Edwardsen  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



did  not  distinguish  between  defensive  claims  and  affirmative  claims.                                                                                                                                      Instead,  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



Edwardsen court distinguished between trespass claims and claims based on the loss of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                   37                 Even if we accepted Ahtna's argument that ANCSA should be read to                                                                                                                                       



extinguish only affirmative claims and not defenses, that argument would apply only to                                                                                                                                                         

 § 4(b) and § 4(c) of ANCSA. Section 4(a) of ANCSA, through which prior conveyances                                                                                                                             

are "regarded as an extinguishment of aboriginal title," does not refer to "claims" at all.                                                                                                                                                            

That section would still validate the State's RS 2477 right of way regardless of whether                                                                                                                                     

 § 4(c) applied to defenses.                                                 



                   38                 Paug-Vik,  Inc.,  v.  Wards  Cove  Packing  Co.,  633  P.2d  1015  at  1017  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

(Alaska 1981).  

                        



                   39                 369 F. Supp. at 1365.  

                                                                                   



                                                                                                                    -13-                                                                                                              7508
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                        40                                                                                                           41  

aboriginal title.           It  rejected  claims invoking aboriginal title to invalidateaconveyance.                                      



                                                                                                                             

Thus, even the Edwardsen court's narrower interpretation of ANCSA would not support  



                                                                                                                       

Ahtna's theory.  Because Ahtna's argument that ANCSA extinguishes only affirmative  



                                                                                                                                     

claims has no support in the statute or precedent, the superior  court did not err in  



                       

rejecting that argument.  



                                                                                                                                 

           B.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err By Concluding As A Matter Of Law  

                                                                                                                                    

                     That The Klutina Lake Road RS 2477 Right Of Way Was Limited To  

                                           

                     Ingress And Egress.  



                                                                                                                                  

                     The State cross-appeals, arguing that the superior court erred when it held  



                                                                                                                                     

the RS 2477 right of way was "limited to ingress and egress, and cannot, as a matter of  



                                                                                                                        

law, accommodate activities associated with travel in Alaska such as boat launching,  



                                                                                                       

camping, parking, and day use."  We affirm the superior court's order.  



                                                                                          42  

                                                                                                                              

                     RS 2477 rights of way are limited in scope.                               The full text of the statute  



                                                                                                                        

stated:   "The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands,  not  



                                                                    43  

                                                                                                                     

reserved for public uses, is hereby granted."                          "[T]he term 'right of way' is synonymous  



           40	       Id.  at 1379.   



           41        Id.  at 1378 ("In [passing ANCSA], Congress fully intended that there  

                                                                                                                                

should be no further 'cloud' on land titles in Alaska stemming from aboriginal land  

                                                                                                                                  

claims, and that legal challenges to title based on such claims should be barred.").  

                                                                                                                  



           42        "The 'scope' of a right-of-way refers to the  bundle of property rights  

                                                                                                                               

possessed by the holder of the right-of-way. This bundle is defined by the physical  

                                                                                                                           

boundaries of the right-of-way as well as the uses to which it has been put."  Sierra Club  

                                                                                                                                 

v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1079 n.9 (10th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Vill.  

                                                                                                                                  

of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Marsh, 956 F.2d 970 (10th Cir. 1992).  

                                                                                                           



           43        43 U.S.C. § 932 (1970) (repealed 1976).  

                                                                                       



                                                                 -14-	                                                          7508
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                                                                                                  44  

with 'easement' " and "a right of way creates only a right of use."                                                    "Highways" granted   



                                                                                                           45  

by RS 2477 are only rights of way, not fee simple interests.                                                                                

                                                                                                                In Andersen v. Edwards  



                                                                                                                                             

we expressly rejected the argument that the owner of a right of way has "an absolute  

                                                                                                                                    46   The holder  

                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                             

right to clear [a] right-of-way within the 100-foot limit of the reservation." 

of a right of way is "entitled to make only reasonable use."47                                                Clearing the full width of  

                                                                                                                                                        



the 100-foot right of way in service of a single-lane dirt road was not reasonable use.  

                                                                                                                                                              



The State therefore exceeded the scope of its RS 2477 right of way when it cleared 100  

                                                                                                                                                     



feet of land along Klutina Lake Road.  

                                                          



                        The State argues, based on current statutes and regulations, that RS 2477  

                                                                                                                                     



rights of way are interpreted consistent with state law.  Pointing to extensive lists of  

                                                                                                                                                        



facilities and services connected with its current obligations to maintain State highways,  

                                                                                                                                          



it argues that the superior court erred when it limited the scope to ingress and egress.  

                                                                                                                                                              

The State is correct that RS 2477 rights of way are interpreted consistent with state law.48  

                                                                                                                                                              



            44          Dillingham Commercial Co. v. City of Dillingham                                               , 705 P.2d 410, 415            



(Alaska 1985).   



            45          See id.  

                                



            46          625 P.2d 282, 286 (Alaska 1981) (holding that "only the amount of trees  

                                                                                                              

reasonably necessary to construct the roadway may be cleared").  

                                                                                                    



            47          Id. at 287.  

                                   



            48          S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 768 (10th  

                                                                                                                                                   

Cir. 2005), as amended on denial of reh'g (Jan. 6, 2006) ("We therefore conclude that  

                                                                                                                                                     

federal law governs the interpretation of R.S. 2477, but that in determining what is  

                                                                                                                                                         

required for acceptance of a right of way under the statute, federal law 'borrows' from  

                                                                                                                                                   

long-established principles of state law, to the extent that state law provides convenient  

                                                                                                                                         

and  appropriate  principles  for  effectuating  congressional  intent.");  Fitzgerald  v.  

                                                                                                                                                        

Puddicombe, 918 P.2d 1017, 1019 (Alaska 1996) (holding RS 2477 grant was automatic  

                                                                                                                                           

"if a public highway was established across public land in accordance with the law of  

                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                          -15-                                                                     7508
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

But to determine the scope of an RS 2477 easement, courts must refer to state law in                                                                      



effect when the offer of RS 2477 grants was withdrawn - not to contemporary highway                                                            

laws and regulations.                  49  



                                                                                                                                    

                        In Alaska, Public Land Order 4582 withdrew public lands and prevented  

                                                                                                                               50   Congress then  

                                                                                                                                                       

the establishment of new RS 2477 rights of way after January 17, 1969. 

preserved the existing rights of way when it repealed RS 2477 on October 21, 1976.51  

                                                                                                                                                                



The scope of an RS 2477 right of way in Alaska therefore had to be established before  

                                                                                                                                                  

January 17, 1969.52  

                       



                        Relevant  statutes  from  1969  do  not  include  recreational  uses  in  the  

                                                                                                                                                       



definition of "highway" in Alaska. In 1969 former AS 19.05.130(8) defined "highway"  

                                                                                                                                           



to include "a highway (whether included in primary or secondary systems), road, street,  

                                                                                                                                                   



trail, walk, bridge, tunnel, drainage structure and other similar or related structure or  

                                                                                                                                                          



            48          (...continued)  



Alaska").  



            49          S.   Utah   Wilderness  All. ,  425  F.3d  at  741 ("[E]ven  as  Congress  repealed  



RS  2477,  it   specified  that any   'valid'  RS  2477  rights   of  way   'existing   on  the   date   of  

approval  of  this  Act'  (October  21,  1976)  would  continue  in  effect.   The  statute  thus  had  

the  effect  of  'freezing'  RS  2477  rights  as  they  were  in   1976."  (citations  omitted)).  



            50          PLO No. 4582, 34 Fed. Reg.  1025 (Jan. 17, 1969); see Doyon, Ltd., 181  

                                                                                                                                                       

IBLA 148, 155 n.7 (May 31, 2011) ("We know that PLO 4582 precluded establishment  

                                                                                                                                     

of R.S. 2477  [rights of way] because  it was  subsequently amended by PLO 4676 to  

                                                                                                                                               

specifically allow for the establishment of an R.S. 2477 [right of way] from Livengood  

                                                                                                                                          

to the Yukon River.").  

                                           



            51          See S.  Utah Wilderness All. , 425 F.3d at 741 (noting repeal statute froze  

                                                                                                                                                     

RS 2477 rights of way as of 1976).  

                                                     



            52          In other states the scope of an RS 2477 right of way had to be established  

                                                                                                                                          

by October 21,  1976, because that was the date Congress repealed RS 2477 and there  

                                                                                                                                                     

was no land freeze preventing conveyances before that date.  See id.  

                                                                                                                              



                                                                           -16-                                                                     7508
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

facility, and right-of-way thereof, . . . whether operated solely inside the state or to                                                          

connect with a Canadian highway, and any such related facility."                                                53  Contemporaneous  



                                                                                                                                                  54  

                                                                                                                               

regulations also did not mention recreation facilities in their definition of "highway." 



                                                                                                                                          

                       The right of way's scope is also limited by the established usage before  

          55   The State may maintain and modernize the road, but any expansions must be  

 1969.                                                                                                                                           

consistent with the usage of the right of way prior to 1969.56                                          The record on appeal does  

                                                                                                                                             

not contain any evidence illustrating how Klutina Lake Road was used before 1969.57  

                                                                                                                                        



            53         Former AS 19.05.130(8) (1962);                           see also      former AS 19.45.001(8) (1981)               



(indicating section renumbered but language unchanged).                        



            54         Former   13   Alaska   Administrative   Code   (AAC)   300(a)(6)   (1959)  

                                                                                                                                        

(" 'Highway' means a public highway heretofore or hereafter established as a public way  

                                                                                                                                              

by Acts of Congress or of the Territorial or State Legislatures, or by the construction or  

                                                                                                                                                  

adoption thereof for public purposes by any public body or agency, or any route or  

                                                                                                                                                 

vehicular travel in continuous use by the public for the statutory period required to vest  

                                                                                                                                               

prescriptive ownership thereof in the public as a general body; and all such public ways  

                                                                                                                                             

expressly  adopted  by  the  Division.");  former  13  AAC  101.214  (1966)  (defining  

                                                                                                                                     

"[h]ighway" as "[t]he entire width between property lines of every way or place of  

                                                                                                                                                 

whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the public, as a matter of right, for  

                                                                                                                                                

purposes of vehicular traffic").  

                                       



            55         See S. Utah Wilderness All., 425 F.3d at 746 ("[T]he scope of an R.S. 2477  

                                                                                                                                             

right of way is limited by the established usage of the route as of the date of repeal of the  

                                                                                                                                                

statute.").  



            56         See id.  (noting that an RS 2477 right of way was not required "to be  

                                                                                                                                                 

maintained in precisely the same condition it was in on October 21, 1976; rather, it could  

                                                                                                                                            

be improved 'as necessary to meet the exigencies of increased travel,' so long as this was  

                                                                                                                                               

done 'in light of traditional uses to which the right-of-way was put' as of repeal of the  

                                                                                                                                                

statute in 1976" (quoting Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068, 1083 (10th Cir. 1988))).  

                                                                                                                                       



            57         Wespecifically authorized theStateto introduceevidenceofhistorical uses  

                                                                                                                                              

of the Klutina Lake Road right of way, State of Alaska, et al. v. Ahtna, Inc., et al., No.  

                                                                                                               

S-16316  (Alaska  Supreme  Court  Order,  Aug.  12,  2016),  but  it  has  not  introduced  

                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                              (continued...)  



                                                                       -17-                                                                 7508
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                                   The State misinterprets applicable case law when it claims that RS 2477                                                                                                         



permits any use "consistent with public travel," including boat launches, camping, and                                                                                                                                 



day use. The cases on which the State relies instead approved modifications "consistent                                                                                                             



with public travel" that were also consistent with the historical use of the rights of way                                                                                                                            



at issue - such as allowing the right of way to include a newly constructed dock at the                                                                                                                                  



end of a road or allowing forms of travel throughout the year rather than limiting it to                                                                                                                                   

                                                                       58  The State urges us, based on City of Dillingham, to hold  

dog mushing in the winter.                                                                                                                                



that  RS  2477  rights  of  way  include  any  use  "consistent  with  public  travel."                                                                                                                                But  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



Dillingham merely permitted an RS 2477 right of way to include a dock that did not exist  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



at the time the right of way was established; it does not support expanding the right of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    

way's scope to include activities other than travel.59   In fact, in Dillingham we explicitly  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



rejected the argument that an RS 2477 right of way allowed the government to "use the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

land for any purpose, such as a park."60                                                                      There is no case law to support the drastic  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



modification to the right of way proposed by the State.  

                                                                                                                                



                                   The State exceeded the scope of its RS 2477 right of way when it cleared  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



the  entire  100-foot-wide  right  of  way  because  the  right  of  way's  scope  did  not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                  57               (...continued)  



                                                                                                                

evidence of any use other than ingress and egress.  



                  58  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                  Dillingham Commercial Co. v. City of Dillingham, 705 P.2d 410, 415  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

(Alaska 1985) (permitting use of existing public road to access newly constructed dock);  

Dickson v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res., 433 P.3d 1075, 1084 (Alaska 2018) (declining to   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

"limit[] the RS 2477 right of way to winter use, and specifically to mushing" when  

                                                                                                                          

"RS 2477 vests rights of travel in the public at large").  



                  59               705 P.2d at 415.  

                                                                  



                  60              Id.  



                                                                                                           -18-                                                                                                    7508
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                         61  

automatically grant a right to clear the land.                                                                                                                                  And there is no evidence that the wide                                                                                               



range of public uses claimed by the State - including boat launches, day use, and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



camping - are consistent with the scope of the right of way in 1969. The superior court                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



did not err when it limited the scope of the right of way to ingress and egress.                                                                                                                                                                                            



V.                        CONCLUSION  



                                                   The superior court's decisions are AFFIRMED.                                                                                       



                         61                        Cf. Andersen v. Edwards, 625 P.2d 282, 286  (Alaska 1981) (rejecting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

argument that owner of a right of way has "an absolute right to clear [a] right-of-way").  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                                                                                                                             -19-                                                                                                                                                                      7508  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC