Opinion ID: 1145227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the state's appeal as to boysen's property

Text: The discussion in this section concerns the plaintiff's eighth claim for relief, which is reflected in the second and third paragraphs of the judgment. This discussion is also relevant to the second claim for relief relating to feeder roads. Because specific facts concerning the Hansen parcel require that it be treated differently, we exclude it from this discussion and focus instead on the Boysen property. This aspect of the case involves an additional public land order that was not involved in the discussion of the Pease case. This order, PLO 1613, was promulgated April 7, 1958. 23 Fed.Reg. 2376, 2378 (1958). PLO 1613 revoked PLO 601 which, as modified by PLO 757, had withdrawn and reserved for highway purposes 150 feet on each side of the Seward Highway. Id. at 2376. PLO 1613 converted the 150 foot Seward Highway right-of-way to an easement of the same width. [12] The Boysen parcel consists of some 80 acres joining the Seward Highway. The patent was issued to Boysen's predecessor on May 15, 1952, under the Homestead Act. The homestead entry was made January 2, 1951. The patent contains a blanket reservation for road rights-of-way as required by 48 U.S.C. § 321d. See page 718 supra. Setting aside the possible effect of the section 321d reservation, the homestead entry of Boysen's predecessor in January 1951 fixes the date from which the property rights of the owners of the parcel are to be measured. [13] As of that date, PLO 601 had withdrawn 100 feet of land from each side of the center line of the Seward Highway. 14 Fed.Reg. 5048 (1949). The superior court was apparently of the view that unless the State had fully occupied or staked this 100 feet before the effective date of the Right-of-Way Act of 1966, that act eliminated the withdrawal. We disagree. The Seward Highway was in existence by the time of the homestead entry. The superior court apparently imposed the staking requirement because of section 3 of DO 2665. [14] For the reasons we have expressed with respect to the Peases' property, the superior court's conclusion concerning the applicability of the staking requirement to the Seward Highway is erroneous. The Seward Highway was not new construction in 1949, when PLO 601 was promulgated, or in 1951, when DO 2665 was promulgated. It had a fixed location and the boundaries of its right-of-way were ascertainable by referring to the applicable PLO and measuring from its center line. In addition, the 100 foot right-of-way first created by PLO 601 does not depend for its existence on the reservation placed in the patent under section 321d. PLO 601 was issued pursuant to Executive Order 9337, 8 Fed.Reg. 5516 (1943), under which the President of the United States delegated his authority to the Secretary of the Interior under 43 U.S.C. § 141, ch. 421, § 1, 36 Stat. 847 (1910), repealed by Pub.L. No. 94-579, Title VII, § 704(a) (1976), authorizing withdrawal of public lands in Alaska for specified public purposes. [15] As previously noted, the Right-of-Way Act of 1966 applies only to rights-of-way acquired under section 321d reservations. For the above reasons the second paragraph of the judgment as it relates to the Boysen property must be reversed. The preceding discussion also requires, as did our discussion in part I concerning the Peases' property, reversal of the first paragraph of the judgment. We do not reach the question whether a full 150 foot easement became fixed across the Boysen property by operation of the section 321d patent reservation and promulgation of PLO 757, and thus may be unaffected by the Right-of-Way Act of 1966. This question was not specifically addressed by the superior court nor is it presented in the briefs before us.