Opinion ID: 1367534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Public Trust Doctrine

Text: In his motion for reconsideration, Hayes maintains that ATS 201, as filled tidelands, was conveyed subject to a public trust easement for the purposes of navigation, commerce and fishing. [4] He then argues that mining, as commerce, is a public trust activity and concludes that he cannot be either enjoined or ejected from utilizing the property for [mining] purposes. We disagree. In CWC Fisheries, Inc. v. Bunker, 755 P.2d 1115 (Alaska 1988), we adopted the public trust doctrine as enunciated in Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892), stating that: [T]idelands conveyed to private parties pursuant to class I preference rights under AS 38.05.820 were conveyed subject to the public's right to utilize those tidelands for purposes of navigation, commerce and fishery. While patent holders are free to make such use of their property as will not unreasonably interfere with these continuing public easements, they are prohibited from any general attempt to exclude the public from the property by virtue of their title. CWC Fisheries, 755 P.2d at 1121. Although we recognize that the filling of tidelands alone may not ease all public trust restrictions, [5] we reject Hayes' contention that mining is a public trust purpose. In Illinois Central, the United States Supreme Court declared that title to lands under navigable waters is a title held in trust for the people of the state, that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties. 146 U.S. at 452, 13 S.Ct. at 118. This usage implies commerce in the sense of trade, traffic or transportation of goods over navigable waters, a meaning which does not include mining. Most importantly, a mining claim is not a public use, but rather an exclusive, depleting use of a non-renewable resource for private profit. We believe that even the most expansive interpretation of the scope of public trust easements would not include private mining enterprises. [6]