Opinion ID: 2756499
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The United States’ Grant of Title V Permits

Text: As to three of the Cave Lakes roads (K1070, K1075 and K1087), the district court found that the BLM’s grant of Title V permits to private entities provided an additional ground for “disputed title” under § 2409a(a). On July 25, 2008, the BLM issued Title V permits to a private entity to use these three roads. Supp. App. 337–55. The Title V permits grant the right to “construct, operate, maintain, and terminate an access road for the purpose of accessing private property on public lands.” Id. at 337. The permits state that roads must be “surfaced to specifications set by Kane County for a subdivision road and to Kane - 14 - County standards for subdivision roads with a travel surface of 28 feet.” Id. at 338. The permits are “not intended to extinguish or limit any R.S. 2477 right-ofway,” and if an R.S. 2477 right-of-way was found by a court or the Secretary of the Interior, the permit “would be superseded thereby.” Id. The district court held these permits “conflict[ed] with Kane County’s ability to manage its alleged rights-of-way” and thus amounted to a dispute of title under 2409a(a). Kane I, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 1358. We disagree. Nothing about the grant of Title V permits to third parties expressly or implicitly disputes Kane County’s right-of-way. “Easements and servient estates can (and usually do) peaceably coexist.” George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942, 947 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, the permits require that the roads be maintained in accordance with Kane County standards. Further, like the Kanab Field Plan, the Title V permits state they do not affect R.S. 2477 rights-of-way; even more, they explicitly state they are “superseded” by any R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. The permits, if anything, seem a deliberate attempt not to dispute Kane County’s title. To be sure, “owners of the dominant and servient estates ‘must exercise [their] rights so as not unreasonably to interfere with the other.’” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 746 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, 174 P.2d 148, 158 (Utah 1946)). But, Kane County has produced no evidence as to how the permits interfered with any development plans. Absent such evidence, we must - 15 - conclude that the Title V permits do not create a “disputed title” under § 2409a(a). Thus, as to all four of the Cave Lakes Roads (K1070, K1075, K1087 and K1088) we reverse the district court’s finding of jurisdiction under the QTA.