Opinion ID: 2116706
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Establishment of a Highway Within One Year of Abandonment

Text: The Landowners contend that a recreational trail as proposed by the State is not a public highway within the meaning of § 912. State law determines what constitutes a public highway legally established for purposes of federal land grant statutes, including § 912. Standage Ventures, Inc. v. Arizona, 499 F.2d 248 (9th Cir.1974) cited in Vieux, 906 F.2d at 1341. A public highway is defined as a passage or road which `every citizen has a right to use.' Lawrence v. Ewert, 21 S.D. 580, 583, 114 N.W. 709, 710 (S.D.1908). South Dakota law defines highway as [e]very way or place of whatever nature open to the public, as a matter of right, for purposes of vehicular travel. SDCL 31-1-1; Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State, 84 S.D. 238, 242, 169 N.W.2d 722, 724-725 (S.D.1969). Vehicles may include snowmobiles and bicycles. SDCL 32-14-1. Federal law specifically recognizes and authorizes the conversion of railroad rights-of-way to recreational trails in the Trails Act 16 U.S.C. §§ 1241 et seq. [9] The recreational trail proposed by the State is open to the public for snowmobiling and bicycling and, therefore, falls within the definition of highway under state law. The State established the trail within the one year statutory period.