While the Alaska Supreme Court has not faced the discrete issue before this court, it has reached determinations which provide this court with guidance. Conversely, where the terms of the easement are ambiguous, then the holder of the easement is only entitled to use the property within reason. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants believe the terms of PLO 1613 are ambiguous. Rather, each group believes that the relevant terms expressly support their respective positions. Thus, the plaintiffs argue, the easement does not give the State the right to lower the elevation of the road 20 or 30 feet or to extract plaintiffs' gravel.
Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their assertion.
Accordingly, the defendants argue, PLO 1613 necessarily includes the right of the State to use subsurface materials and to alter the road's elevation for the purpose of the highway. The language of AS 19.10.010 is similar to that of PLO 1613. The court reasoned that, the express terms of the statute suggest that the legislature intended that only that amount of area within the express easement which was necessary for use as public highways be dedicated. Accordingly, I find that the terms of PLO 1613 are ambiguous so that the State is entitled to reasonable use of the property. Courts consistently find that an easement gives the holder the right to use the land to the extent necessary to serve the purpose of the easement.