Opinion ID: 1119802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Statutory Claims Regarding Gates' Property

Text: Gates argues that under AS 09.45.235, her agricultural operation (various plants which she grew on the land behind her fence) was not a private nuisance, and thus the city's disruption of it was improper. Leaving aside Gates' claims for damages to her plants, Gates has no recourse under AS 09.45.235. As the city points out, that statute is designed to provide a defense against a nuisance action, not against a permit revocation under city ordinances. This claim is therefore without merit. Gates also makes a claim under AS 46.09.020, alleging that the city spilled a barrel of fuel oil on her property. Assuming for the sake of argument that a spill occurred and that it affected Gates' property, the statute she cites provides her no relief. Alaska Statute 46.09.020 concerns spills of hazardous substances, a term which is defined for the purpose of the statute in AS 46.09.900(4). Uncontaminated refined oil is not a hazardous substance under AS 46.09.020. Thus, Gates' claim under this statute also is without merit.