Opinion ID: 182614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: R.S. 2477 Rights of Way

Text: This case is the latest stage in years of litigation over road rights on federal lands in southern Utah. Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004); Kane County v. United States, 597 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir.2010); Kane County v. Salazar, 562 F.3d 1077 (10th Cir.2009); San Juan County v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir.2007) (en banc); Utah Shared Access Alliance v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir.2006); S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir.2005) ( SUWA ); Sierra Club v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 362 (10th Cir. 1991); Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir.1988). Like most of those cases, this one concerns the nature of Congress's grant of a right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses. Act of July 26, 1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 932, repealed by Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Pub.L. No. 94-579, § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743. Known as R.S. 2477, this statute and the roads established under its authority were an integral part of the congressional pro-development lands policy. SUWA, 425 F.3d at 741. The establishment of these rights of way required no administrative formalities: no entry, no application, no license, no patent, and no deed on the federal side; no formal act of public acceptance on the part of the states or localities in whom the right was vested. Id. Indeed, R.S. 2477 was a standing offer of a free right of way over the public domain, the acceptance of which occurred without formal action by public authorities. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). All that is required for title to pass are acts on the part of the grantee sufficient to manifest an intent to accept the congressional offer. Id. at 754; see also San Juan County, 503 F.3d at 1168 (`[A] right of way could be obtained without application to, or approval by, the federal government. Rather, the grant referred to in R.S. 2477 became effective upon the construction or establishing of highways, in accordance with the state laws.' (quoting Hodel, 848 F.2d at 1078)). Although FLPMA repealed R.S. 2477 in 1976, it expressly preserved any existing rights-of-way. Pub.L. No. 94-579, § 701(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2786 (Nothing in this Act . . . shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this act.); § 701(h), 90 Stat. 2743, 2786 (All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights.).