Opinion ID: 1362228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use and Maintenance of Barge Stall

Text: We next consider appellant's claim that sporadic use and maintenance of a barge stall or ramp constructed by the Corps of Army Engineers cannot accrue to appellee's benefit in acquiring a preference right because appellee itself did not establish the improvement. It appears from the evidence that the Corps of Engineers leased a portion of the area under consideration from appellee for a nominal rental. The Corps' occupancy extended through World War II and until approximately 1948. During its occupancy the Corps constructed a barge ramp on the property in question and a storage shed. Both were abandoned when the Corps terminated its lumber activities in the area. Since the departure of the Army, appellee had used the barge ramp from time to time, had leased it on occasion and had kept it in repair. Appellee took possession of the storage shed and had, since the departure of the Army, leased the shed to Juneau Motors for indoor storage purposes. In our view the barge stall was an improvement as similar to wharfs, piers, dry docks listed in section 120.214 as could have been constructed on the fill, considering that it had been built up to such a height that it no longer constituted tide or submerged land. Appellant's criticism that the use of the barge ramp was sporadic cannot be controlling since it would appear that the demand for such a facility in the existing state of the economy of the area did not justify any greater use. The testimony was that appellee did in fact maintain the ramp. We conclude therefore that the installation, its use and its maintenance were all factors that accrued to appellee's benefit for the purpose of determining whether it was entitled to preference rights. We hold that the shed, abandoned by the Army when it terminated its activities, and taken over by appellee constituted a permanent improvement which, although not established or constructed by appellee, was under its control and being put to a beneficial use by appellee's lessee. Appellant argues that the phrase and/or maintained in section 120.214 is part of an interpretative regulation which is in conflict with that portion of AS 38.05.320(d) (4) requiring that the improvement be established. We do not so construe it. Its use would appear to supply an alternative to constructed, to provide for the situation where applicant may not have actually constructed the improvement but had nevertheless caused the improvement to be on the land for a beneficial use or purpose.