Opinion ID: 2636853
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DNR's grant of a right-of-way permit is a disposal of an interest in land under AS 38.05.035(e).

Text: Alaska Statute 38.05.035(e) provides: Upon a written finding that the interests of the state will be best served, the director [of the Division of Lands] may, with the consent of the commissioner, approve contracts for the sale, lease, or other disposal of available land, resources, property, or interests in them. Although DNR here asserts a contrary position, we note at the outset that DNR regulationsnamely 11 AAC 55.040specifically indicate that grants of rights-of-way or easements for electric utility lines are disposals of an interest of land under AS 38.05.035(e) subject to the best interest finding requirement. [21] Notwithstanding this important admission, we will address the parties' arguments in turn. First, DNR maintains that a revocable right-of-way permit is not an interest in land. [22] Indeed, both the permit itself and the decision on remand state that the permit does not convey an interest in land. But focusing on substance rather than form, we note that licenses, such as revocable land use permits, [23] are generally considered interests in land. [24] Courts have generally denied licenses the status of interests in land for the limited purposes of constitutional protections [25] and compliance with the Statute of Frauds. [26] Given the broad constitutional mandate to protect the public interest in dispositions of state land, [27] we construe interests in land to include interests such as licenses. The parties also disagree about whether the grant of a right-of-way permit is a disposal for purposes of AS 38.05.035(e). Northern Center argues that the existence of a specific exemption in AS 38.05.035(e)(6)(C) for permits indicates that the definition of disposal would include permits in the absence of such an exemption. Indeed, a leading treatise on statutory interpretation confirms this position: statutory exceptions exist only to exempt something that would otherwise be covered. [28] This rule comports with our rules of statutory interpretation: It is an established principle of statutory construction that all sections of an act are to be construed together so that all have meaning and no section conflicts with another. Further, where one section deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the two should be harmonized, if possible. [29] These rules of statutory interpretation support Northern Center's argument that revocable permits are included within the term disposal. DNR contends that the grant of the right-of-way permit is not a disposal because of its limited duration and subject matter. First, DNR claims that the general and technical meanings of disposalas defined in dictionaries, case law, and Alaska Attorney General Opinionsrequire a final and irreversible conveyance of property rights. [30] Under the very terms of AS 38.05.035(e), however, a disposal need not be a permanent conveyance of property rights. Alaska Statute 38.05.035(e) provides that the Division of Lands can, with the consent of the commissioner, approve contracts for the sale, lease, or other disposal of available land, resources, property, or interests in them. By using this language the legislature manifested its intent that leases be included in its definition of a disposal. According to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, when a general word follows a list of specific persons or things, the general word will be construed to apply only to persons or things of the same type as those specifically listed. [31] A lease is generally defined as an [a]greement under which the owner gives up possession and use of his property ... for definite term and at end of term owner has absolute right to retake, control and use property. [32] Thus, under the principal of ejusdem generis, the term disposal as used in AS 38.05.035(e) is not limited to final and permanent conveyances of property rights but rather includes property interests of limited duration such as permits and leases. [33] Second, DNR argues that the grant of a right-of-way permit is not a disposal because it does not convey an exclusive possessory interest. DNR contends that, under the ejusdem generis principle, the specific terms sale and lease require the general term disposal to encompass only transfers of possessory interests. But leases do not necessarily convey such interests. Certain leasesincluding leases of tideland, shoreland, and submerged land; [34] grazing leases; [35] and mining leases [36] convey nonexclusive possessory interests. A right-of-way permit for a transmission line similarly constitutes a nonexclusive possessory interest. For example, the state could concurrently grant a grazing lease on the Intertie right-of-way. Because both leases and right-of-way permits may convey nonexclusive interests, DNR's ejusdem generis argument fails. Further, the legislature has clearly indicated that disposals under the Alaska Land Act may convey a very narrow bundle of interests. Former subsection (a) of AS 38.05.321 provided: The sale, lease or other disposal of state land classified as agricultural land transfers only rights for agricultural purposes, and all other interests in the land remain with the state unless otherwise required by law. [37] Thus, the limited nature of the rights transferred by the state does not remove the issuance of a right-of-way permit from the scope of the term disposal. DNR also argues that reading disposal to include right-of-way permits would create an impermissible inconsistency in the statutory framework. Under AS 38.05.035(e), disposals require the approval of the Commissioner of Natural Resources. But under AS 38.05.850(a), rights-of-way, easements, and permits may be issued without the prior approval of the commissioner. DNR argues that these conflicting provisions indicate that right-of-way permits are not included under AS 38.05.035(e). Northern Center contends that this framework favors overlapping applicability, not mutual exclusivity. We agree. In order to give effect to each statutory provision, we interpret AS 38.05.850(a) as exempting certain disposals of interests in landpermits, rights-of-way, and easements granted for particular enumerated usesfrom the approval requirement. [38] Alaska Statute 38.05.850 does not serve to exclude these grants from the purview of AS 38.05.035(e) altogether. We note that sales of an interest in land worth no more than $50,000 and leases with an average rental value of less than $5,000 similarly do not require commissioner approval under AS 38.05.035(c)(4) but they are still subject to the best interest finding requirement. Applying principles of statutory construction, we conclude that AS 38.05.850 exempts right-of-way permits from the approval requirement but does not exempt such disposals from the AS 38.05.035(e) best interest finding requirement. In conclusion, we hold that the issuance of a right-of-way permit is a disposal of an interest in land for purposes of AS 38.05.035(e).