Opinion ID: 311492
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Highway from Yukon River to Prudhoe Bay.

Text: 180 Appellants contend that the road to be built does not qualify as a highway under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 932 (1970). They argue first that, even though Alaska has formally indicated its intention to construct a public highway along the right-of-way, its real motive is not benefit to the public but assistance to those constructing the pipeline, and that this motive takes the road outside Section 932. Second, they charge that the State in fact has no intention of making the road public, at least not until construction of the pipeline has been completed, pointing to the fact that the construction contract between Alaska and Alyeska gives Alyeska a preference over the public to use the road. 181 There is no question that the State, at least formally, has indicated its intention to construct a public highway along the right-of-way requested. The application from the State Department of Highways to the Bureau of Land Management specifically states that [t]he primary purpose for which the right of way is to be used is a public highway. 89 In addition, in 1970 the legislature of the State passed a statute enabling the Department of Highways to contract with Alyeska for construction of the highway. In that statute [t]he legislature finds and declares that there is an immediate need for a public highway from the Yukon River to the Arctic Ocean and that this public highway should be constructed by the State of Alaska at this time   . Alaska Stat. Sec. 19.40.010(a). Ordinarily this expression of intent would constitute valid acceptance of the right-of-way granted in Section 932. That section acts as a present grant which takes effect as soon as it is accepted by the State. 90 Tholl v. Koles, 65 Kan. 802, 803, 70 P. 881, 882 (1902); cf. Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426, 429, 26 L.Ed.2d 578 (1880). All that is needed for acceptance is some positive act on the part of the appropriate public authorities of the state, clearly manifesting an intention to accept   . Hamerly v. Denton, Alaska, 359 P.2d 121, 123 (1961). 91 182 Appellants charge that this is not the ordinary case because the State's real intentions and real motives are not to construct a public highway but to permit Alyeska to build a haul road for construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline. It is a well known precept of our jurisprudence that we shun attempts to look behind a stated legislative purpose to find a hidden intention or motive, and that we may not restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 56, 24 S.Ct. 769, 776, 49 L.Ed. 78 (1904). See United States v. O'Brien, supra, 391 U.S. at 383, 88 S.Ct. 1673; Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 455, 51 S.Ct. 522, 75 L.Ed. 1154 (1931). While this doctrine typically has force in a context different from that present here, namely review of the constitutionality of legislative enactments, we think it thoroughly applicable to the instant case. The doctrine is based on the theory that ascertaining motive is a difficult and hazardous task, see United States v. O'Brien, supra, a factor present when reviewing administrative as well as legislative action, in a constitutional context or otherwise. In addition, any rule requiring us to look behind the face of Alaska's action in this case and analyze its real motive is inconsistent with the sound federal-state relationship that the judiciary has carefully protected in other contexts. 183 Even were we to pierce the alleged facade of Alaska's intentions, we would be constrained to approve the highway right-of-way. The State has been interested in providing some form of ground transportation to the North Slope area for many years. Studies of a proposed road were made in both 1951 and 1965, and in 1966 the State Legislature authorized the expenditure of up to $20,000 for another study, involving aerial photography and visual investigation of principal alternative routes and the drafting of maps and preliminary cost estimates for the various alternatives. 92 The State's intentions to have a public highway, rather than a mere pipeline construction road, are further evidenced by the fact that the State required Alyeska to make certain changes in the design features of the road to better accommodate public use. 93 These changes included realigning segments of the road to tie it in with an existing network of roads, reducing grades in certain segments, changing standards for bridges and culverts to ensure their continued maintenance after construction of the pipeline is completed, and enlarging bridge spans to better accommodate public traffic. 184 Appellants charge that even though Alaska might intend eventually to open the road to the public, the contract between the State and Alyeska envisions granting Alyeska preferential use during the pipeline construction period-that is, it may be read to allow public use to be barred when hazards posed by pipeline construction use endanger the public. Even were we to conclude that Alaska intends to grant Alyeska this preference, 94 we would affirm the validity of the right-of-way. 185 The contract between Alyeska and Alaska provides that Alyeska will bear the entire cost of constructing the road for the State, a cost which the Alaska Department of Highways estimates to be in excess of $100,000,000. 95 Preferential use in favor of Alyeska may be looked at as a reasonable price to be paid by the State and by the public for what amounts to, in the words of the Department of Highways, a gift to the State of Alaska. 96 There can be no doubt that but for Alyeska this road would not be built at the present time. But rather than tainting the arrangement between the State and Alyeska, this fact merely supports its reasonableness. As Mr. Justice Jackson said in United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., 318 U.S. 206, 211, 63 S.Ct. 534, 536, 87 L.Ed. 716 (1943): [I]t has long been both customary and lawful to stimulate private self-interest and utilize the profit motive to get needful services performed for the public. The State appears to be doing no more than that. 186