DBP4RTMBNT af the INTERIOR
news release
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
For Release: June 1, 1993
JuneWrona (
(202) 208-5717 >
FINAL REPORT ISSUED ON RIGHTS-OF-WAY LEGISLATION
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt today released a report
requested by the U.S. Congress examining the impact of Revised Statute
(R.S.) 2477, an 1866 law that granted rights of way for constructing public
highways over public lands. Secretary Babbitt is recommending new
administrative rules to bring this 19th century right-of-way law into the
framework of contemporary public land management. The Secretary did
not recommend any formal congressional action at this time.
R.S. 2477, enacted during a period when the federal government was
aggressively promoting the settlement of the West, provided a direct grant
from Congress for state and local governments to build public highways on
public lands with no other federal approval or documentation required.
Although repealed nearly 17 years ago, the law's impact is still being felt
because those highways established before 1916 were protected as valid
existing rights of way.
The Department will start work immediately on regulations that will
provide an orderly way to explore the complicated legal and policy
questions surrounding this issue. Part of the complexity stems from the
fact that thousands of miles of undocumented roads were constructed across
public lands in the Western United States under R.S. 2477.
The majority of R.S. 2477 public highways are located on public
lands administered by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The BLM is responsible for examining new claims
(assertions) of highways across public lands that existed prior to 1976 and
either acknowledging or denying their validity. Until the new regulations
can take effect, Secretary Babbitt announced, "I've told the BLM not to
process any more R.S. 2477 assertions, except where there is a
demonstrated, compelling need."
BLM Director Jim Baca, whose agency had the lead in preparing the
report for the Department, stated, "I think this study puts an important and
often misunderstood public land issue in perspective. The final report
looks at the history, status, and impacts of R.S. 2477. Now we have to
grapple with some very basic questions about issues such as valid existing
rights and the relationship between R.S. 2477 and modem legislation."
Among the objectives for this new rulemaking (a process that
involves public participation) will be appropriate definitions of such
statutory terms as "construction," "highways," and "public lands not
reserved for public purposes." The rules will also consider recordation
requirements, elements of proof for an R.S. 2477 claim, and public
notification and administrative appeals processes.
Copies of the fmal report will be sent later this month to all those
who requested the draft report. Others may obtain a copy by contacting
Ted Stephenson, BLM Utah State Office, Post Office Box 45155,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155; telephone (801) 539-4100.
-BLM-
~· THE SECRET.ARY OF THE INTERIOR
Honorable Sidney R. Yates
Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Yates:
WASHINGTON
May 28, 1993
In the Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1993 Appropriations Bill for Interior and Related
Agencies, Congress directed the Department of the Interior to study the history, impacts, status,
and alternatives to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and to make sound recommendations for assessing
claims. The Department understands that its recommendatioqs must take into accmtnt the intent
of R.S. 2477 and the Fede!<ll Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and that any
proposed changes in use of valid rights-of-way u)ust be in accordance with applicable law.
The Department directed the Bureau of Land Management, Utah State office, to take the lead
in investigating this issue and preparing a report to Congress. Public participation was obtained
in two stages. Preliminary "scoping" meetings were held in December 1992 and January 1993
in eight western cities. Over 6000 pages of public; comments were received and reviewed.
These comments were instrumental in preparing the March 1993 draft report, which was
circulated to approximately 4000 interested parties. Seven additional public meetings were held
on the draft report and attended by nearly 400 people. Approximately 1000 pages of further
comments were provided to the Department. AU comments rec.eived before May 7 were
reviewed in preparation of the final report, even if received after the public comment period
closed.
The Department's draft report outlined five general alternatives for addressing R.S. 2477. These
alternatives were intended to generate comment and discussion that would aid the Department'
in making recommendations in the final· report. The comments received were beneficial in
development of the recommendations that foJlow.
Although R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 by FLPMA, a law that charted new directions for
public land management, valid existing rights under R.S. 2477 at the time of repeal were
protected. The final report contains extensive information about the history, status, impacts, and
alternatives to R.S. 2477. It is intended to help Congress and the puqlic, as well as the
Department, to understand this often misunderstdod issue and put it in perspective.
I
Honorable Sidney R. Yates 2
To provide sound recommendations, the Department must move beyond description and
discussion. It must grapple with unresolved conflicts and must help provide· answers to several
important. questions, including: what are valid existing rights, what are the proper roles of
holders of those rights and the managers of the land they traverse, and what is the relationship
between R.S. 2477 and the modern legislation that dictates current federal responsibilities.
Some of these answers must ultimately and fmally be provided by the courts. But the
Department of the Interior should be engaged in these questions, to'bring its expertise to bear
on them. To this end, I have directed appropriate officials of the Department to begin work
immediately on a formal rulemaking on R.S. 2477, and to publish proposed regulations
promptly. The process of rulemaking will furnish a regularized process for exploring and
resolving the many legal and policy questions inherent in this issue, providing ample opportunity
for the public, affected states, other federal agencies, and Congress to participate.
Questions that will be addressed in the rulell}aking include:
*
*
*
*
*
*
Appropriate definitions of the statutory terms constru' ction, highways, and public .
lands not reserved {or public pmposes.
The respective roles of, and relationships between, federal and state Jaw in defining key
terms and resolving other issues.
The extent of the Department's authority and obligation to manage R.S. 2477 rights-ofway
on federal lands, including whether some of the processes in FLPMA Title V
might be used to channel the Department's management.
Recordation requirements.
The elements of proof for an R:S. 2477 claim.
Public notification and administrative appeals processes.
The Secretary of the Interior has broad authority to regulate the management of the public lands,
but the Department will consult with Congress on whether, and the extent to which, further
Congressional action is needed.
Until final rules are effective, I have instructed the Bureau of Land Management to defer·any
processing of R,S. 2477 assertions except Jn cases where there is a demonstrated, compelling,
and immediate need to make such determinations.
>
't
(·
Honorable Sidney R. Yates 3
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service suggests consideration of options that would preserve R.S. 2477
as a tool to maintain historic public access to federal lands across private lands. For example,
Congress could provide mechanisms for assuring that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way continue to
provide important public access where such access is necessary and appropriate. Such
mechanisms might include federal assumption of management under temporary leaseholds or
cooperative agreements.
I am pleased to recommend this report to you and anticipate steady progress on resolving this
issue.
Sincerely, .
;!:Zff~
"'·
~I
~ryour r In.fopnation
From tht! tlivlson
of
Congressional
A,ffairs
Bureau of
Lantl M•m,,.~~;~ij~
*' --~ ...... __ L·~-Jl
w...:--~
•
U.S. Department of the Interior v Bureau of Land Management .
·
;,., I ·h.'
.
:
'
~· '•
~
•• ;< ·ulnted states :;;;,~ . " rt''
'" .~-l;:
,.
·•);~. f' ,.
June 1993
~
!.. ~·
Reporq~L,~, .
On ... .:~ ~•" .' . t' . ·, • ~~
' •'·
¥,.....1J.~;~\t~·'""
11',- ~
:.:: i.!P'· -~,...
R S 24. 77 ~~·-·'.,:· ,, .,.c-It<;:::··>:~ .. '.,
·~- .ij ' ""· : Jtr'f. ..... ·•r:( :::·•' '\"
• • . ' ; ., ' • ~ ' Q·~ '• _.,
• ' l:·'>="'"".tkH}; :_,. • ~ •- "'l.(.;•kt!o~ _t,'l!"!
~ .... • ~.J • •• _ ,.t;;~· ~-;·· w ,;...~' ,...., . ',;·· \.'
>."• ;;.._." '(;~ ~~- •. .~ ~. ~f: ,'·,·;~ ~t:':i.'i.le :~- ~~ ; <t;~\i.·~·:;p.l\ .., .:;., ~: :•
'i1 -.,•<(i '.f ' ,.t -.l. ~inl'· •' -· ·"' : ..
.. ~. >JI;:: '1.i:·1 ,"';) ·--~~ -~- ~ til ·:..- • "·
- • ,J, ~ '0,.) ~~ 'J! I-·· {I"'..::.)£.. At ....~ -. -~"::.~
' 1. -p ....~ ~ .._ <l 14"""'·'\';'>" ¥ ,;J -·,.,
''· ., ·~ ,,<W· '"'"'•·>:'~~,. ., .. ,. - ~ Histoi1f:,ilfid. 1\J~tf~geiuent
!u The
f R S '2477~·~,,..?7Ji~f-~t.~,.~.il>.~".:1#:.! ... "'·-.. ~'· ... ·.
0 ' .. ~ ... .:_• ;.,... ·-~·1:-r:- 11
• • -~ - ~ ~l·-t~""'Sd$: •. , ~ .. . ":.";f..<.t.:~:~ ••. :.. r. ·;
; ~ .~ p ~~~8;~~li
'i • . ~,.. .,. , ~ 9f .• -· 0 , ...
,,
·~"
. ,
'
Right~~P(;~Wav~Cl~uJ..~
on Federal v U.J.""J. ,.L.Ju..LJ.as
-:t
. ,.·,.,~_ ~-""' i1~' "', --·~~~-:v,_.,v":; f»-,.~ '<;f'mli ,_'J.. _~ · , "'; -,~A:~'!irii1.!'t.,,, . ·~·1f'
.o:~~~;-ti·~il¥ ~!(~:::W~or~· . .
~· :-
;
c~ ,<;
r
~
.·•,
l~.,s.r.~~-i~-~~ ~ ~~~l<i::J'4 i,1!; J,,··l ''
··.:,
•
·,
;r<--,~~
••
r,
•',:;'
r :o. ·~ .....
~~·
.,
,..
J
·. ....
0
•ioi:
~~ .
FRANK L. FRY, JR.
5686 MILLDAM PLACE
BOISE., IDr)HD 1~::!/l.'+
E~V.lB ···.'37'l····f.)~:S9/'
TO' IDAHO ELECTED OFFICIALS
F~ECEIVED
93Mr..Y27 PM\2:1,9
t\EP. LARRY UI,~OSCO
WASH. DC 205b
Th<-:-~ ''p·t'C)po~;t.-~d l1 .. F~ .. :J.V.l9'C::. 11
, l(~)E.~d Conn·r·es~l.:~.~ 1~:;t; St:·~S!:~i<:)n,, July E~4
(l(·?!l:i.~;l(;\tiv~~~ d<':\y,, July E~) 199:1 .. , ·r·f~ad b€-~foT·.f..:o thE~ B<·?natt:-~ Commit;t;t::-~E-~ on
Eni~.:OT'HY j:\ncl i"li:\'t:u·rc.\1 l:<e~i-DU't'C€~s, WII ... I... CF<E~:JTE un·t;c)ld f'i'conomie havoc
within tl1e State of Idaho, and ttle other ~·ublic Domain Statesp
H .. f~. HJ96 (19'31), ·the Januwr·y 1:0, 1~~93 CF<S REPOFn FCH~ CmiGF~EHS "
HI GHl~f1Y f~ I GHTS OF W11Y" THE CONTf~OVEf,BY ClVEf( Cl..f.lli'IS UNJlEF< f(. S ..
tf~.l+77'', <..1.nd t:h~: subr:~E~qut:-~nt: USDI 'J JvJa·rch 1'3'33 D·r·aft; F<<::·~pc)·p·t; ·l:;o
Con!P'""'" "F(. S. i.~ltT7 THE HISTOF~Y AND l'lf'li•IAGEI"'IENT DF 1'~ .. <>. c!.4Tl
1'-:IGHTB···OF .. ·l4f1Y Cl...i-iii~S DN FEDEI'~f'll.. fiND OTHEI'~ l...i-iHDS'' HRE hi~lhly, ,,,nr:l
delib•rately bia,; again,;t the FEDERAL. R.S. 24// GRANTS OF PUBLIC
1': I GHTB .... (JF .. ·~JAY ., br~two?en Ju 1 )' 1".6 ., 1 H6C:. anr:l Clc·to bo>·r- 26, 19"7(:.. The
United ~3tate!i 110 longer has title to these statutory grants~
Thf:~ i;\bove ·r'f?fe"Pf?ne£.~d clocumentr:~ <":\rf.\\ dE-:-l:ibE:·~·pc\tE~ly mi!:i.-~labf?lE:-:od (":\nd
very highly bias against tt}e ~itated purposes~ The issues discussed
ARE NOT tho,;e of R.S. 24/"7, but rather very pointedly direct•d to
th<-? SPECI(.lL II\ITEI=~EST Gf<OUPS w:ir:;h:in~l t;o '~lc)ck up'J, a!:; vJild(-:~·f'l"if?~::.!:)
areas, all remaining federal lands and incllldin~l ttlose privately
owned lands whe1·e the patents were issued SUBJECT "f() AND ENCUMBERED
BY 1'<. S. c~lt// PUBLIC F<IGHTS .. ·DF· .. Wf:IY.. How m«ny t>f "l;ho''""' :imp.c,cter:l
jJrivate land owner~i are advo(~ating the revocation of their public
access to their privately owned lands?
Wil,ierness Areas DO ACTlJAI-LY EXIST al1d an appropriate sized areas
should b(·:-~ !ii-f.-:ot····a.:::.id€·~ and p·pot:ectt:~d as !:;uch .. Thf.·~ artif:i.cial c~·p(.:..\at:ion
of ''l!Jild(·:·~·f'n(-:..\ss a·t~E-::oas'' "f·r·om cu·r~·r·en·bly "f'Oaclecl fe<:IE-:·~T·al lc"\nds i~;
economically inappropriate and unsound ~)Llblie land management
practices~ The original legislative intent that created the R .. S ..
2477 public rights--of-way !;TI~L EXISTS and stlould not be sacrificed
by the majority of the American public for ttle ~benefit' fo~ the
p·rivileged ff:ow ..
Only a few of these special interest advocates actLlally know the
definl.tl.on of th{:·~ l(·:·~!jisla"t;ivt:·~ tf.::-·r·m ''w:i.ld<·:..j·rnt:·~::;~:~··.. Tc) m<·:\ny nf thf.·~~:~f.-:>
pt?opl(·?, thr~ t;t~~·pm ''wildf:·~·r·ne~s!:~'' :i.ncludt:·~::; f.lL..L.. of t:hf.-:o loci:\1 pnpuli:\t:i.on
(~enters of Idaho~ inclllding the enti1•e State of Idaho as being a
''w:ild(·::O"f'rlf·:\'~:>s t:\"f'(·::O(;\'' ..
For examr)le, how many people in northe~n Idaho~ oT in sollthern, OT
<·:-:oa!:;tt-::-·c··n Idaho m:i. ~lh"b p·pc)pOS(·:·~ t:ha.t: thE~ 1::: .. S.. 2-'%77 public h :i. f:lhW<":\}'
·ri!~ht::~:;····<:J"f····way fo·t· h:i.Bhwayr:~ U .. B .. 9~5 and Idaho ~:;;~:; b<·:·~ i:\boli~:>h£;'d :in
favor of wildeTness aTeas? It is also possible that parts of I-84'J
and the other Interstate Highways in Idaho ancl other public domain
states~ might be }(Jcated upon original RNS .. 2477 public rigtlts-of·W<:
l.y.. ThE~s£-:o would bE-:- t:\u·l:;omc"ltical J.y ''c"\banclonecl und<·?·r th£-:> p·r·opof.>f.·~d
].(::!~i!a.l(:..t;i(Jn.. That :i.!:~ t::oxe\ctly t:hf.·:> ~~ol<·:·~ :i.nt;e·.--.t; <:)f H~ F~ .. 1~)9(:.~ (199J.
/'.- ,1"
1:H::-~;;.~:;.i<Jn) ..
l'he proposed legislation is 6imply that of destroying the federally
granted ptlblic access for'the develo~)ment and settlement of the
public domain •tate•. THIS PURPORTED R.S. 2477 ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN
PROPERLY RAISED NOR ADDRESSED in the above TefeTenced publications.
Th<-::- a·rt::i.'ficial c·r~t:.)c:1tion of ''w:ildt~·rne~;.'!i~ i:\'l'~:·~i:\5;.'' ir:; 'l'ept..:oc\tl~~dly 'Pc:'\ised
in the above referenced reports"
NumeroliS federal and state Cottrt Decisions ruling Llpon the iss;.tle of
R.S" 2477 public l'ights-of-way grants, a CC)mmon factor in these
De(~isions reads similar to:
Gt~nE''l'!',\l p·r·:i.nc:iple:.• thi:\t; a conc:l:i.t;ion C)nce shown t;o f:·~XiE;t; i::)
presume<j to continue ..
Congress lacks the constitutional attthority to 11 Teclaim1
', without
payment of JUST COMPENSATION, tho•e R.S. 2477 public Tights-of-way
gTants issued foT ttle expansion~ settlement and development of ttle
PUBLIC DOMAIN TERRITORIES AND STATES.
Payment C)f Ju~=~t Compc.;:on~:~at:ion :i.!:> t:otally :imp·r•ac·t;:ical !:>inc£·~ ·t;ht~
identity of the total number of individual pe1·sons to be
compensated cannot be Teadily identified~ noT calctllated~ How do
you measLlTe economic and peTsonal value of the lin-welcomed
11 i:\band onmc-?nt 11 ~J f pub 1 i c in !;l·~·t~'!:~s t;o and e ~1'1'<-:-~~=>~:> f·rnm y<:)l.I'P pe·p~;t)na 1
homf;o., f(:'\·Pm, ·t•anch.1 t:-:otc:-.? How cnuld thE~ l<:>!:>~; of t;ht;~ £~cc:>nt1m:ic
industTies of this great 11atiOll continue without public access?
Unt;:il d'r'i:'lft;in~l t;hi!:; cove'f' l<·:~tt;E··p, I tl:i.d nc)t ·p£~alize t;hat t;h:i~:;
p·rc:>pc)St·:·~d b i 11 was ''·r·E~ad :i. n t;h f~ Sc~.;.ni:\ tE·~·· :i. n 1991.. l'~'ly i:\ ·t;tach E·~cl d ·pa ft
V(·?'I'Y b"f' i (·? f '('(-?~;) p0l1!5(·? on th :i !:; P'f'D PD£>~':'1. 1 (H .. f~ u :L el':'~(:. ~.. 1.9'~) 1) Wi:\S
presented to tt1e Uni·tecl States Bu·reau of Land Management at the
''Public Jvlc·?E-?t:in!~'' hf.::old in Bc:>isc-:-:o, Id,':\ho, Ap·t•:i.l 12, 19':13. t:v:i.dt·?n"l:;ly
·the required public HEARING process has NOT been annoLlnced ncr l1eld
in Bc]:i.!:;£·~, Idaho~ \'1(:)'(' :i!:; the~)'/'(·:·) t:\ll)l c-:~v:icl<::-~llC€~ thoc":\t c':\dvanC£·~ no·t:icE~
!liven to the Governor nor the legislatlJ~e about the intent of the
UBBL..IYI t:o C'('<-:~at;e t:he trlc~·pch l993 ''F~oUJ;Ih D·r·aft:'' ....
J'tlus'l:; VJ£0 phy!a:i.c~~.~lly dest:·~'(]y 127 Y1:::t.:1f~S o'f p·roJ;J·t•c-:·)S!:>, sc-::ott.lem<·:-)n"l::'J
dc.;:.vt:.~lopmt-:·~nt., and live::)!:; and l:i.VE~lihc:)()ds o'f m:i.llj.on!:; of p<-:-~oplc-:-~., ·to
a·rtificially e·t'E-:-:-i.~tE-:-:o 1'-101'-i .... EXI~:;TII ... IG acldit:i.o·..-.a.l. 1'w:iJ.de·f·ness'' i:\nd
''i=~oi:"td1t:~!.:;~; 1 ' (.~·~-~~as?
In my Vf?'f'Y b't' :i. t-:·~ f cJ·t•a f"b 'f'f.·)!:; pons€~, I eq ua tE·~cl -t;he f.·~conom :i. c c':\ nd
pc-?'f'!:>0'•1c.1.l havoc br.·~in~J c:~·pc-::-atc·:-)cl by th:i.~; p·t'opo!.:;E-~d H .. 1=~ .. 1.(-!-)(:'jf, (1{::1'::-li)
l<·?!;l:i.s>li?.tivE· p·t'DPC:)f:>al, 1:;c:) that; c·t't-:·~at:r~d by Hu·p·,~:ica·..-.e •'f.:lnd·Pt:.~w'' ~'il.cT·oss
a !;mall portion Df the State FloT:ida" I honestly and thoroughly
believe this <~omparison to be very conservative, both in economic
impact upon the State of Idaho and the Public Domain States, and
"l";hc.~ pe'r~:>onal hi:\voc be:i.n~1 c·r<~~i:\tf.·~cl upon un1:;oJ.cl m:i.llic)n!:; of
individ\Aals and t11eir families.
Idaho's State and local highway systems c~ould be totally destroyed
by t:he p·r(::.J;aD~:>~?d unc:~<Jn!:;ti·l::ut::i.c:)nal f'AI<IJ-..1(3 of:: (j_) fc·:·~d€·~·r·a1J.y G·rant:<·?d
·r·:i.~lh't£, of public :ing·r-e~:;s 't;o c'il.nd f:.~!]'f'e"Et!:; ii\ncl f·pom.J i:\nd ~:tc·ro!:;r:;,
privately owned lands, which weTe patented subject to these
p·r·f~V:i.t]usly !l'f'ant:E-::-d 'f'ight~:>, (t~!) Fedc·:·~·r·ally J;~Ti:\ntt:-~d public ·t·:i~th1:;!:>R-
.,
'·-
-------------------------------- -------------------- ·-
of-way of ing·ress to and egress from, and across, the public lands
IJ'f th£-~ FE·~ciE·~·pal, Si";atE-:-~., and loci:\l MDV<·:·~"l'rliH€:~nts and oth£1'1' public
entities, (3) destroy the underlying public rights-of-way be11eath
ou·r· state., county e:'tncf o"bhe::·l' 'local hiflhwc'y !:;y~;t:E-:-ms ... <1+> df::O!:;t·I'OY thf:~
un<ierlying public rights-of-way beneath hundred, if not thousan<is
of mile5; of tt1e State of Idaho Higt)way Systems, etcM This; partial
list IS NOT all inclusive.
C<Jnsider the ecc)nomic impact of tt1e state and local tax bases when
all C:)f t:h:i.!:; p·rivat:ely C:)Wned l.c:\nd'J i:"\ncl i"l:;s; :imp·r-ov£·?m(o:~nt~;.J losr~s; it
economic value because of the loss of public rights of ingress and
C·?!a'f'(·?1:;~:>.. Thc-z.~;c.? pr:i.v'"'\tc.?ly owned P"f'()pt::-·r'ti(~S would (:..utomatic·c:1lly
become land-locked with absolLltely no remainin~1 economic taxable
ba1;i1a ..
Consider the cost and inconvenience to the
9ovarnmants during tha RE-ACUUISITION of public
the historic public hi!lhway systems of the State
otheT pul)lic domain States.
State and local
Tights-of-way for
of Iclaho~ and the
CmHd d ~'·r th a cost a ncl :i neonveni ence ·to tho> FEDU<nl... GOVEI'<~Ii'IENT
during tha RE-ACQUISITION of destroyed historic public ingress to
and egTess from Federal Lands ..
l,.Jolumf?!5- of infc)Tma"':.;:i.c)n,, includ:in~1 Ft:-~dE~·r'al a11d St:ate Cou·r't
deci1;i(ll1s, orl the R .. S .. 2477 Federal grants of pllblic rights-of--way
issLles aTe readily available ..
THE R.S. 2477 REAL. ESTATE TITLE I...EGOI...I...Y POSSED FROI'I THAT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO THAT OF THE USING PUBLIC. Privata lands within
the PL1blic Domain States are SUBJECT TO R~SM 2477 rights~-of-way and
a·l'f" fu .,,th <?"I' l)EPEt-IDENT l.JPDN f( .. B.. E!<+7"1 "I' i!] ht;c;····of --w,,y f 0"1' ·t;h <? :i .,,
<·?conom:ic e::~xir:~tf:-~nct:-~.. ThE-~ F"t:lCT o"f :it1:~ t:-~xis;te::-~ncf~ :i!:> :its factue:1J.
presence upon the ground.. If the higtlway, trail, or road is theTe,
then volLlmes of case law a·re available to determine whethe1' or not
it ir:; a F~ .. S .. i.~'~7"7 h:i.!;lhWi~y.. 1"'1<:; othf:·~·r i~:>!:>u<-:·~, t;han its fc\ct;ual
physical exi!stenc~e, is .involved in this determination"
I doubt :if the USDI, or any other ODMINIBTRATIVE OGENCY, has any
l~2gal s~t;andin~l to 1'aclm:inist·ra-t;ively "f'Ulf.-? 11 on thE·~ :i.$SU<~"! of t;he lt?!aal
holde'f' <)f "f't:~~:~.l <.z:.r:;ti:\'t:t::- t:i.·t;lc:~ t;c) the::-~~;E~ Fed<~~·l'i:\lly !;l'l'i:\ntt-:-cl "t'C·?al
property rights-of-way.. I would believe that this legal issue is
properly addressed by the appropriate Courtsft ~lost landowners and
the general pLlblic are being mis-treated and intimidated in and by
thfi- ~·:\dminis·t;·pat:i.Vf.-~ P"''()Cf~~r:;s t":\nd ~lf:.'n£·~·rally lt":\Ck -t:h£-~ f:i.n(:\ncial and
<:>th<·?"f' i nfo·pm.:~,t;i<:)n up<ln wh :ich t:o • p·t•oi.;ect th<·:-:•11\S(-?.I.Vt:~S dU"l'i nn "l";h(~~
''aclm:i.n:i.~;t·pat::iv£-~ p·r·oct:-~~~!:~' 1 ancl to ~:~df:.~qua.tf.-~ly appeal thesE-:- adve·p£;e
''c.\clm:i.nist·ri:tt:ivf:? dc·?cision~5 11 .. Budd(-:-~nJ.y, thf.-:- C\dm:i.n:i!:;·t·P-c:"\tivr~ a!:lt·~ncy
VJ<":l.n"b!:~ tc:> ~ clc:)~:>f:? o·,- abandon' hist<:)"f•ice:\lly exist:inJ;I h:igh\.oJa.ys to
pacify <:)'{' c\ppea~:;.f.-~ 'l';he!:;t~ '!:;.pf.-~cic\1 in·b<-:-:··r'c.:-:-st.' ~l.f'C)Up1:;,, C:\ncl t:h<-:·~ p·p:i.vc\t:t.:landcwner
ar~d otheT pllblic L\sers are loc~ted out without the ability
or opportullity to exercise theiT constitutional rights"
lh :i !:> ''D·r-a ·ft; l~t..:;o po·t·t 1
' d i scussf::-?'!:~ Sect :ion 6fla <:)f FL.Pivlfl which ma nd c1"bE-~s;
BL.N "t'E-~Vif.-~W ·fc)"l' EXISTING, not: i:\"Pt;:i.f:i.ci.i\lly c·r'E~i:\tE·~d., w:i.ldE-:-·rl1E~!:~s;
characteristics and roadless areas" IF AN Rp Sk 247"7 HIGHWAY~ or
a tlighway under any cthe·r definition EXIS"fS, the a.Tea under review
<Joes l1ot, A~ID CAN ~lOT, qLlali·fy 05 a roadless or wilderness area by
r·
·- '
definition, if not by ott)eT standards" I realize that many people
have cthe~ idea• about HOW CAN THEY MIGHT CONSIDER A HEAVILY ROADED
AI~Efi f.lS A "fWADl..EBS AF~EA", em WH.llEf(NESf:> Af(EA". Th:i!;; de>fJs; no·t
equat<·?.. H<:lW many ·r·oad~;, fJ·r· m:il(o:·~~;. C)f ·r'oadm .. J (':\'f'<·? pE:~·r·mi·t;t:t:-~cl in i:\
''F~Di:\dl<·?ss'' a·t·E-~a? I beli<·:·~Vt:·~ t.:hat thf:~ cl<-:·~finit.::ion <lf a ''W:ild£-:o·rnt:·~sr::.
A.,, c"' " ·r· '"I t<:i. ·r· '"'; HH' <' .,, e a t r:> ·r-od' 1 <> c ·t t; h <> 1... !1 C K D F FW IH! S AH !) (.l NY Cl T H Ef(
EVIJ)ENCE OF MAN; the~efe>~e, by d<>finition, indicating NU ROADS e>~
HIG~~WAYS or ethel' signs of man-made facilities exist~
Th <·? Un :i. t:c·?d St:a t<~;~~:; ·r·<·:~t:a i n~?d
rigtlts-of-way as tt1at cf
landownE-?'f'!:i.hip'J (~~) a mr1mbe·p
appu~tenant landownership,
its US(~-!' of th'~'se 1:~ .. S.. 2't 17 publ :i<::(
1) an individual, (2) individual
of the ge}1e~al public, (4) at)Lltting and
< ~:.; > f.d:;c ..
The fecleral and state Courts, without exception, t~ave ruled that
the United States granted, dedicateci'J acquiesced, reserved from the
public <j<Jmain, and by other means p1•ovided by State Statutes, the
real proJ)erty ri~1t1ts of public rights--of-way.. In othe~ words, the
United States deliberately erlcumbe~ed its public domain lands with
a dominate estate public rights-of-ways <R .. SM 2477). Therefore, if
the United States NOW wishes to control the public's use of these
yranted and dedicate<i public rights-of--way, the United States must
offer just compensation to a11 tlnknown, but very large, numbers <Jf
landowners and the general ptlblic~
Th<·:~ 11 D·rc'\ ft.: f( E·~ p (;) '(' ·t; II to"t;c\11>' fa:i.l!:> 't;n
right1; and interests of ott1er Fecleral
h :i !]hW<':\Y 1:\utho·pi t:i.(·:~~o., -t:o i n~J'PE~s~:. t<:)
1 <':\11d 0Wll(·~'f'!5h :i p~:;. ..
add 'Pf:~ss ·t;h e ·r<-:~a 1 p·ro p€-~·r·ty
~~~Jenc:i.£-:o'!:;-s St(·:-..t(·:·~ and l<:)c,':\1
ancl egress from their
ThE.' ••n·r·.c:\ft l=<e:~'po·pt•• ct:,·r··t'E-::•ct:ly J.de-~nt;if:i.f~f:i. ·l·;h€·~ ·r·t·:·~i:'\1 p·t·ohlE·~m of lack of
:in'fo·r·mc:\'l:::i.on.. A1::. I undt~·t·s~tc\nr.l f·pom ot:hF.~'t' pe1oplE-!', includ:in~1 StatE~
land n1anagement offic~ials, that the public hearing or other methods
of d:i.s;p€-!-TS:.inn :i.nfo·t·mai::ion t;o C'f'f..~ilt:t::·~ t;his 11 D'f'l':\ft r~r~po·r·t 11 , ·t::hE-:~ Stat;<·:·~
Agencies and the general pllblic are even i·IOR£ conflAsedu
1·1ow does this l'eport, if discussed at all, address the protection
of tt1e historically existing Ru S" 2477 public rights C)f in~1·ess; to
and eg1·ess f~om ttle several and collec~tive private land owne·rs who
have historically 1·elied upc,n R. S .. 2477 for ingress to and eg1•ess
from there properties ac~oss the private properties of nLlmeroLlS
in<jividual an(j c<Jllective land owners.
There exists 127 years of case law whictl has been established upon
the use of an<1 creati<Jl1 of public rights-of-way under U" S" 2477 ..
Such his·to1•ic public ingTess to and eg·ress fTom fede·ral and st~te
public land• ARE ALSO DEPENDENT UPOH R. S. 2417 PUBLIC RIGHI'S-OFWRY.
~~s a Right-of-way Specialist for the Boise National Forest~ Ug S~
Forest Se1•vice, I met with the State Offi<~e of the LJ" Sk BureaLl of
Land l''lana~Jf:~mf£ol1t t;o ' 1 i:\!:~s~£.:O'I'"t;'' th<-:-:- 1:~~ B .. (:.!.477 public:· 'f'ights .... of .... vJay
across federal larlds manar1ed t)y the Forest Se1•vice and ttle adjacent
lal1(1s managed by the BureaLl of Land Management" I woT~ted with tt)e
loca 1 i:\ nd Stat<-:~ Df fi C~(':·,!::. b(·:~cau~::.<·':~ th 1::~ 11 .c"\SSE-!''f''t; ion 11
, <:\ 't;t~·pm I nt-:~v,.;-:-·p
h <-?a ·pd C) f unt i 1 th <0 i ~:;.~:;.ua.nc(·? o "f 'bh is F~Dl.lfl h l)·r·a ft ••, C1'o~:~~=>ecl sev<·?"f'i:\ 1
BL .. M DistTict boundaries~
~.
'·
·-411
ThE~ 11 a~:;~:>f?rt;ion 11 I fil~?d compli<::~d w:i.t;h thE-~ !:;p<::~c-if:ic ·tf?"f'nl!:~ e:"\ncl
requireme11ts of f"LPMA and tt1e na·tio11al Coopel·ative Agreemen·t
between the Fc"('est Service and tt1e BLMb 1"he State Office of BL~I
offici~-.. 11 y ace·<·? ptt?d, a pp·rov<-?d., not;ed <:ln its ·r·eco·r·d ~:;, ~~~t:c .. ,
everything necessary for the valiclation of these RhSn 2477
11 c":\SSf?·r·tion~:~ 11
..
To my know1f::d~JE~.J t;h<·:-~ Bo:i.~:~E· 1"-la"l:;:i.c;nal Ft)T·es;"t; im. ·the only 1'-le:"\tional
Fo·r'e!:>t t:c; filE-~ j":"\ Fo·t·t~!:;·(:;-··vJ:i.de 11 i:\S!:~~:-?·t•t:ion'' in<::-lud:i.n~l 1\1,-:~ot:ional Fo·pf.:o!:~-t-;
and adjacent BLM managed lands" Seve"('al years later, a new person
at the District or Area Office o·f BLi·l., ~Anilaterally~ and
a·rbit·r,:n·:Lly df:-d.r.~·ted all of ·tiH? 11 at~Sf:.~·ptions" approvt:~cl by thE:• St:at.:t.:;o
OffiC(\\~'J i:\C"f"C)!:~!;~ BLIYI mc':\na~Jed lc:"tncl!:>~ ''beCiiU~:;t:-:r t:hE:~S€-~ lE!]i:\lly P"l'f:·~p~""I.T'E~cl.,
submitted a11d officially aJlproved assertions were now in conflict
wi"t;h i:\pplicat;ion!:~ fo·p p'l'ivate ea~::.E·IY•£-?nt: ac·ross t.:hf:~ F.<Lt-1 mc':\ni:"\~lt\'d
land~:;.. Tht:-~ ·rat.:i<Jnalt:-~ i:tppea·r·E-~cl to be t'hat: i"f tht-:z F.il...lrJ we·r·£-~ to
continue to r€·~CD!Il"liZE' ·th<·:-.' l.)"f'i~J:inc"\1ly r:>ubmitt:c::\d ''a!';m.£:'·r~-t::ic)n!i> 1 ' by t;hr.~
FO"i'€!5-t BI-?"('V:i.Cf.:O
FLPMA c~eat:ed a cut-off date as o"f the date of F~L.PMA's enactment"
Th:i.!:; i!:> i:'llso ·t;he Df'fic:ii:\lly <~·~nacted SUI'-IBET I::.:UL.E.. Case li':\W,s a!::.
l'elate<j to Fede1•al Lands, State and athe·r State Agencies, A~ll) MORE
IM~1 0RTANT PRIVATE L"ANDS, has been createcl over the past one t1undred
and thirty !SCJme years~
I·t :i.!:; :i.mpc)ssibl<-:-~ "l";D :insu·t'€1 t:hc':\t.: incliviclu<:\l li:\nd C)WnE:>"f'!:; w:i.ll b<-?
given adeqLlate advance info·rmation 1'0 MEET A NEW St.JI~SET CL.AlJSE.
Indl.vidui:tl l~;.nd <:)wn<~-~-,~c,:; DO 1\IOT kno1..v of ·bh<~~!:>f:~ t:·,·an!:~i:\et;:ions ur.t::i.l
anoth<~"f' land <JVJ\l(·?·r 11 1...ockc;;; ·t;hE?m ou1·; 1
' o"f ·t;ht~:i.·t~ h<:~mf~~~. Th<·:·~ Ft~df.::>'t•al
Government has tl1e funds and expertise to ·take legal action, but
~arely does, agair)st a new land owne1' who locks out pttblic ingress
to and egress from its landsu Most p·rivate land owners lac~( the
funds and expertise for a legal action~ therefore causing them to
have thei·r ~)roperty valtte reduced to ze1·o, yet the State any L_ocal
Agencies assess taxes at: the value of p·roperty with p11blic ingress
to i:\l1d enreSS frDm ttleSe lOC~(-OUt propertiesN
Th :i !::. ' 1 D·t~i:\ ·ft F~.-.:-~ po·pt: ' 1 d DE·s not i:td d ·r•t::.~~;s t;h e d i "f f e·l'<-:-~r-.c~f:~ bf:.~t;we€·~n t;h e
hi!;tol'ically existing F~.Sq 2477 highways crcssin~1 private larlds to
oth(-?"f' p·P:ivat;E-:r land!:~.s nc)·p a<:~·t·oss f<~tl€~-~·t'al l,·;~.nds to P'f'iv,:tt:f.-~ li:\ncls.,
1-::"!l::C"
ThiE> 11 l)"f'i:"\ft: F~e.. p!:)·r·t•• on h:i!:;·t;o·f':i.c F~ .. S .. 2'•77 ~1-''c':\n·t;£-:rcl public r.i~lhts~-of-..
way is ~1rossly mis--leadingft RuSu 2477 case law has been developed
ove~ tt)e period of 127 YEARS, involving hundreds, if not tt1ousands,
of judi<:ial decisions (both Federal and State) imphcting numerous
:i.ndiv:i.duc:\1!:; :in t-:·~ach dt-:~c:i.~:;:i.on, y(-:-~t; t;h<-:-~ ~":'l.ut:ho·''!:; of t;hi!:; 1'DTaft
l::.:~?po·r·t•' ·r<-?ly up<:~n a s:i.nfll£-~ !:;t,:t"t;<-?.>mf.·~nt; ext:·t'c:\t:-tt-:ocl.) t)llt of cont:t-.::-xi::,
from fourteen (14) very carefully and deliberately selected CoL1rt
Decisions~ l'hese careft1lly selected fotL·rt:een (14) cases do-in-fact
fully !:'>Uppc)"f't: th~-:.~ D"t':i~J:i.ni:\1 l€~~1:i.!:;l,-:lt:ive :i.ntE·····.t of tht-i:t ft-:.;.dE!''Pal
Con ..:"'""" ~ ~~
(f~f(Y.. JF<) '(;! -
L::•
.J
., -
[13..8. N 1Lh_J:J3.Y_._ . ..llh.
;?_t-ar; J:Lf u .. P..B.l'L P u~ <;;_t;;;
Ji! 0 I .tlh ... I D A H 0 ___ 8 :3 "ll'.t
i:l0 §.::·a 'Z..Z.::.:Qli2:Z.
COMMENTS ON USDI R. S. 2477
DRAFT REPORT TO CONGRESS
[1 A R CJL1.:~.2J.
It is obvioLU5
de pendent u p<)n
pE-?'I"'Sona 1 h om<::-~s.
that
F~ .. B ..
·t::h e au ·th O'I"'S
<~'•"1'7 public
(.1f thi$ D·l"'aft F~E.1 po·rt a·l"'£~ no-t:
-l"'ights·--of-w(,;,y to a(:-C(-?ss ·t:hei·r
This report in reality was not prepared as a basis for selecting
from the sev£~-l"'a 1 ·r·c:-~C(JmmE~ncl cd:.: ions, but w~·:vr:; s peci fica 11 y w·ri tten and
pTepaTed to justify the PRESELECTED alteTnative.
Question: What do you call a roadless a~ea with 200 miles of roads?
Anr:;w(-?'1"': A wil<ier11ess- stu1Jid!
Duplication h(·:-~·t'f.~:i.n :i.s~ cle::-~libe::-~~<:'\tf.-~ fo·r· adcl·rc)s~c::;in£1 s:i.miJ.,;\·r issues
bei11g add~esse(j.,
Thes;E~ commE.1n·ts consicle::-~·r thE~ definition Df "highway 11 to nH?c'"tn cl.ny ~·:\nd
all ••public way!:;••., as dc:~fined in Blacks l_aw Dict;iona·ry. l=~oe:\CI.,
t·rails., pentways., •'p·rivat(-? ·poads"., and othe·r te·l"'ms US(-?d to de-fine
11 a public way"., a·r£-~ consicle·reHI to be va·l"':iC)U~; const·ruction standa·rcfs
used for the construction of public highways. At the time of the
passage of RMS. 2477., in 1866, the existing highways ac~oss federal
LtlYrese·rv(·?d public land~=- W(·?'l"'f? "Indian T·l"'ai ls".
I thcnq1ht, that clu·r~ing ·the ·p£~C£·:orl·t -national <llld local c,:-~l:ections,
that the c:i.t:izen~:) and t;hE~:i.·r <·2'1E-H:~ted officials) wc:~-rt·:·} Llnanimously
mandating cha11ge :i.n gove~nment p~oceedings a11d regulatio11.
The "D'I"'c'\ft Repo·rt 11 co·r·rE.~ctly identifj_E:~s the
th<e of l,,ck of publ:i.c info·rmation. Th<»
collecting and dispe~sing info-rnlation to
created even MOI~E a11d adver!5e confusionM
·r·ea 1 p·ro b J. em
met:h ocJ S) LlSE.:Ocl
c:·Pec'"tt£-~ 'l';his
a~; bein~J
f o·r 'the
F~e pc)·rt,
The o·ri~linal ~rr,'i\nt., wh,':\t;E-~ve::~-1"' may be its fo·r·m., i~) 'l';h(·? fi·r~;·t
link in ·the chain of title., and wheneve::-~-1"' p·l"'actic,':\blf::- should
constitute the initial item of the abst~act, as the basis upon
wl1ich all after--acqtli~ed titles and derivative inte~ests ~est.
Abstracts and
<Chicago Bas)
Title to
1954, P .. 14
F~ <::-~a J. P·rc>pe·rty by Logan D. Fitch
The purpose of the congressional gr~nt OT dedication is to
enable the public to acquire a roadway over public lands. The
me·th od by which the 'f"'tJ(,;dway is ttJ b.:? <~!=-tab 1 ish (~d is not
specified; and it must be held, therefore, that the Congress
intended that any acts by which th£~ public migh't; c:\cqui·re a
public Toadway oveT private property, other than by puTchase,
would be sufficient to constitute an acceptance of this gTant
o·r dedic:a.tion.. It is then a ·pule., ·l"'eco~p1izecl by the Land
DepaTtment and by the Supreme CouTt of the United States, that
1.
·.
wh enevf~·r i:t ~rra n"t: of dedi cat i c)n is ace<·~ pt:E·~d, ~;uch acce pta neE·~
relates bac~~ to tl1e date <Jf the grant or dedication, and any
one who takes the la~cl after the acceptance of tt~e donation
does so subject to the right which the public has acquired.
These pri11ciples are well established.
Wallowa County v. Wade, 43 OR 253, 72 Pac. 793
Smith v. Mitchell, 21 WASH 536, 58 Pac. 667, 75 Am. St. Rap.
858
Walls v. Pennington County, 2 S.D. 1, 48 N.W. 305, 39 Am. St.
1::: (•? p N "7 ~5 \ij
McRose v. Bottyar, 81 CAL 122, 22 Pac 303
Streeter v. Stalnaker, 61 NEB 205, 85 N.W~ 47
The most cost effective alternative is the management of R.S. 2477
as set out in 126 years of case law, including the protection under
FLPMA; a11d manageme11t of R.S. 2477 under FLPMA as set out in the
present statues and pertine11t regulatio11s.
This !haft
1~.s. 2'•'77,
iSSLH? of
vJ i ld f.·~·rn<-?s~::.
Th i ;; D·r,, ft;
to FL S ..
hi!~hways,
19/(:,.
F~e po·rt: :is pu·r po·rt.;:.~cll y cl :i. ·recttHI tow a ·rd s man,':\ g f~ment of
while in reality it is about another special inte~est
the a~tificial c~eation of so-called roadles;s and
1.\·r·ea!::. ..
Report is grossly deficient in its contents, as related
2477 public rights-of-way for the constrllction of
JJhysically, or otherwise, created PRIOR to Octobe~ 26,
This ·repo·rt.: e"\clcf·re'!:;sEHi- F~ .. S.. 2't77 as "a centu·ry old (ill'f(-?'r·ring
ob~:i-<Jl<·?·te) statutE·~··.. While 1:-..: .. f:i. 2477 o·ri~JinatE-~d as section 8 of ·the
Ret of July 26, 1866, R.S. 2477 has bean fully validated under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of Octobe~ 26, 1976 as being
an impo·r·l::c.-l.nt pa·rt of- ·btre Fede·ral- Land Jtf-ancqJenH:·nlt Polic:i.E.\S and
Practices of tl1e lJ11ited ~5tates. FLPI1A specifically validates and
acce~)ts ALL EXISTING R.S .. 2477 rights-of-way, whether or not made
(Jf public record, as a part of the federal land management policies
and practices of BLI1 and other federal land ma11agement agencies ..
EACH R.S. 2477 CASE MUST BE TREATED ON ITS OWN MERITS, and not by
a b~oad stro~te actio\1 to artificially c~eate thi11gs wl1ich did not
exist as of the effective date of FLPMA. FL_PMA's specific intent
was to continue manage R .. S" 2477 rights-of-way whic:h exj.sted as of
it~:; 0~ffective date; whilt~ di·r<·::-cting the mani:\~jement policy of
inventorying the Roadless and Wilderness a~eas as they existed as
of its effective date.
Tha Burr Trail decision, SIERRA CLUB v. HODEL, 848 F. 2d 1068 (10th
Ci·r. 1988), ve·ry ;;peci.ficall.y show,;; to viablE! ,~nd p-rope·r FLPMR
manageme11t of 1~ .. 8. 2477 in connection with subseqLlently created WAS
AI~ERS.
Gene·ral p·rincipl€·~ tha·l:: a conditicn1 once shown tc) t~xist i~ipresumed
to continue.
Central Pacific R. R. v~ Alameda County, 284 U.SN 463 (1932);
~:.)2 B. Ct .. 225; '76 L. Ed .. 402
Ba·rnes v. Fwbe·rt;son, 156 IOWA 730; 137 N. w. 1018
EtfliC'kwith v .. Whalen, E..5 N .. Y 322
Eklon v. Chelsea, 223 MASS 213; 111 N. E. 866
,,_,
•,
Taeger v. Riepe, 90 IOWA 484; 57 N. W. 1125
Oyster Bay vN Stehli, 169 AppN Div. 257; 154 N. Y. Supp.
849
Broder v. Natoma Water & Min Co., 25 L. ED 790; 101 U.S. 274
Okanogan Co. v. Cheetham, 80 P" ~62
Historical condition leading to enac:tment of 43 USC 932.
Anderson v. Richards, 608 P. 2d 1096 CNEV 1980)
Central Pacific R. R. v. Alameda County, 284 U.S. 463 <1932);
52 S. Ct. 225; 76 L_u Ed. 402
Flint & Pere Marquette R/R Co. v. Gordon, 41 MICH 420; 2 N.W.
648 (1879)
TtH-;:> Fc::-!-ciE~T'c"\1 Govf.Yf"nme::~nt: ha~) i"E;Slt<::~cl thousands, if not millions, (Jf
Land r~atents, subject to the encumbrance or the appurtenance of R.
S. 2'f77 public ·rights-·o"f-·way easemen·t!:>, which subr;i.equE~ntly have
bee11 subdivided into smaller parcels and which are:
1. Subject to the pre-axisting R.S. 2477 public right-ofway
grants crc,ssing the area patented, as existin~l dominate
estates, the ~)atented area being the subservient estate being
e11cumbered IJy the Federal Grant ..
2n InclLlding all the real estate rights and interests of:
(.~.) th(·? -c.~ppu·rtent.1.nt: land OWlH?·r,
BN> the abutting land owner,
C.> tl1e subservient estate lan(j owner~
D .. ) all (J'the·r ·ri~1hts and in·te·re·~~;t£; <Jf ing·rE~ss 'l:.:o and
egress from their property as available to the individtlal
and several owners of real llroperty.
At the same time of granting R .. S .. 2477 right-of-way and/or issuing
th (-E< 1 and patent, tta-;;o Fed e·ra-1 · Gov.:~·rnment 'f"i:·~tai ned its;· ·r-ea 1 ·<-::-~:;··tate
·rigl1ts and interests of:
Including all the ·r-eal estate rights and intere~;ts of:
A.> the appurtena11t land owner,
B .. > thE~ ctbuttin~r lc:1llcl ownE·~·r,
C.) the s~bservie11t estate la11d owner,
D .. ) all otl·u?·r ·ri~jhts and ill't:e~·r-E:·~st~; of in~rf'e~~-;~; ·to and
egress from their property as available to the individual
and several owners of real property, and,
E .. ) ·r-i£rht <Jf <-?minE·~nt dc)IUclin to ·reacqui·f'f.~ any and all
·real p·rope·pty i ntE~'f'E~sts neeciE~cl 'f<J'r the gc)od of the
!~r~nf.H'al public ..
Doing anything, other than the status quo, is to create state-wide
economic, and individual, havoc of major proportions. The adverse
land in!~'f'f.iiS~:; and E'tP'<·?S!:l land manc'\tlf?nlf.·~nt impa.c'l:; upon p·rivate 1':\lld
public lands could <=~xce:~ecl, by huncl·ped~; en· even thou:)a.ncls times
ove·t·, the ntunbe'f'·s of individuals and economic impact of thc:d::
c·r(-?at<·?d by Hu·r·ricanf:? ''And·re-?w''.. Ecc)nomic los~; C<:)ulcl f.·?aE;ily excE·?ecl'.l
multiples by hundreds or even thousands times over, the economic
los~:; caus<·::od by Hu·r·rict:\ne "And·rew" ..
The 12 years statute of limitations ocl sovereign immunity relates
to the United States taking possession of real property from public
o·r p·c-iVt.1.te individual~;. This statu·te:~ (J'f limitations apply ONLY
when the F <-?d (~·ra 1 Gov<·?·r-nment active 1 y d emonst·ra t<-?S 12 ye-c.'\·rs of
3
----------------------------------------------,
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958
.__:_ .. ~,.
TES'l'IMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
. ,x._\'J\:..V SUB COMMITTEE ON
~~t_.C '\iMJTIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
. :\ \ '-1 ~"' .... 1,.,9_.~Jm CONGRESS OF 'DHE UNITED STAT-ES
e;?J "'~ )>.'?Slv BY
RJ:.~'{ \..?()S\S PETE T. CENARRUSA
'(<.t\'~~s\\· \\u--~..._ SECRETARY OF STATE
STA'I'E CAPITOL
BOISE, IDAHO
MAY 18,1993
10:00 A.M.
Mr. Chairman and member of the Committee on National
Parks Forest and Public Lands. Thank you for the opportunity to
make this presentation with respect to H.R. 1603.
The State of Idaho recognizes that ,exil;lting f~d.ez:~lJl!nd .rights J
tb.f..W.ay:ar.e.·!'l.xt~y::i;n;tpQr.t..atit tll atl..Df tdah.o'$ citizerftf: In
addition as a ~:JEber-of t.h. e- State Board of ~~J?.d C<;>Pl.tni~jpne.@>, ... -- -., .... -- '
I can say that it is important to the State of Idaho and to the
school children of the State of Idaho tCJsQIUply With t:O.!il f3tl;!te
@o!!§tilutien' which provides a mandate to acquire the maximum
amount of financial gain for the public school endowment and
other institutional endowments. Therefore it j~_i:rg_Eo!tant tp.at
~ta·te ·land~b;;:ty_e P.JJ..hlic:'£;l..£.~ess.in .tlie.case. of land.lo~k.e_<iiso-l_?.tedW.
l!!:£~U" .of:S.tate:la:nds.
Two-thirds of Idaho's land is y_n<:J.er CQ!ltl'!>l of the federal
government and access to such federal lands is integral to public
use.
1
. . ~
The Idaho Department of Land~anages over two and
one-half million acres of surface ownership of State trust lands
with~he State of Idaho.
Much of the State ownership is now or has been intermingled
withlederal .. nds.
Primary uses of the land include livestock grazing, timber
harvesting, mining, and recreational activities. State lands are
open to the public for general recreational uses.
The State of Idaho sells endowment lands from time to time
and w.itlw.!lt 'l!cc:e~ar they have very little value.
Obviously, ~~~stgte· t:rus:t..larfdbLQf..:w;j.w_a!Y i!PP£!]-"tan~J
ttr.tlre:-.Sf"a~ and our lessees and prospective buyers.
IJ.t:~31.7~7.:iigh1 8 .of."W.ay.s-araan~ihip.i.Il':tant_ @.ti.ialid.metnoc];of.
t§.~111"ilig . .fhat::lkcea:s:..i.rr. §..Q.m~ £.l}s es ..
Federal actions regarding R.S. 24 77 can have a significant
impact regarding management of4ate lands and their resources.
We urge Congress to fttk:~::Q.£U.!cti0l1 tha.Lw.otild limit'tlie.stat.!J,::. - J~
it.h'.ei.r l_es~s, ~ !l}e p':_lbl~cj; _?P.P_ortJ:Ip.i_t;y..t9. access.ftate.lands. _
We request that we be heard regarding any legislation which
may diminish the management of state lands for the purposes
they were intended.
2
•
The J::g:ano:Legislature recognizes the necessity for
Jl: ~~l.i:ahU;tg:~r.p.It5te.dufa.foddentifYi:hg.:land_coiifirini"iig.::the.
existe~O"Qrr.e:Y"i!wsl:JL.es.ta.b!i.s.lwl. ~:ml::rightfi .Qf_ vy_a_y, to
pibtet.t..i;hoS£Lf:ights.p:r:ev.iousLy_gran tetl-£5-and- vested in. the.
Ccitizeil.S~f"i<ta-h"<>";'
My principle concern with H.B. 1603 is that @.t 12~ts.fili,ng -~
~7J...riglitS...o£w-a:y en ·J an-uaey..1,-1994.,, This doeS. fii>t:"gi:v-.e.J
~la.of IdanoJ~nough:fimairi.wh:i.~h .tb make_suchJililf"gs.~{!!
g.!!Y."Qf_Q.Ut".f.OadS:ar.e. s.ti1Lsnb1\c ~o~ll-iut!i:n.Qt vi~;~:i:bje.
A group of citizens representing the Idlalm..Legislatu:re, the
iBlue:Rioboii.Coalition, an Advocate of Public access roads and
Natural Resource Development & Conservation, rt;]!aFa:rni
!EfU.F:eait'jJN atural Resources representatives, G:ffi:s&n>ots for.
. .........
' 1
l'
'}-¥.-
Multiple Use, ~:p.d_my--of-f-ic,:~·have filed for the record, l:l.JJ..am.~n<l~~ , ' tversioii...Of.M.R. -1~03-:iharketl EXhibit No.--i. We hope that your /
committee will favorably consider the amended version. J;ffit' • ;( •
Sotl:'!most we-favor-sta-tes'' a~dminist:r:atlon.by State. law.
1
The 52nd Session of the Idaho Legislature enacted H:B....388
into law March 25, 1993, signe..ctoy:.'GO;yerrior..C.e!ill.:D..-.Alldr.us":''
The past Idaho Legislature, not only passed statutory legislation,
it also approved a memorial to congress which I have submitted
for the record.
3
~
...
H.B. 388 is marked Exhibt No. 2 and H""ailse.Joint Memorial ·
N~wJ!rke.d.Exhibit.:Nn~-3:nei=ewitW.
The statutory legislation defines "Federal land rights of way"
within the context of revised statute 2477.
The statutory language fiP.§gkS'"t.Q.·the~method of abandonment.
:::-- ..... -- - "" ... - -- -
of such roads or rights of way. New state law also spells out the
ttn:m.hmt:of t:~Gor.dat.io:rf_ apsJ. ~ckJ.lq,w.l~l;!g_ewttiJ.t.Qf R:s::247'7'-roaas j
within the State of Idaho.
Since the issue is primarily one of state's rights, the Idaho
Legislature urges congress to recognize the legislation as such in
H.B. 388 of the 52nd Idaho Legislature.
Therefore Vie in.ldJilnr.P.r~.ftlt:Srates-rights.wJ.th.respect .to/
rr-cmds-~nq.rtgb,ts·of-wy;administered by State law rather than
Congressional Legislation as proposed in H.R. 1603.
I have submitted for the record more detailed testimony.
I thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before
this ~l!§j; ~tti:LComrrnrt.~9fthe 103rd Congress.
To continue on with my testimony I herewith submit to the
Sul:(Committee testimony in the words of Mr. Phillip Nisbet
from"Grassroots for Multiple Use" who serves on our Ad Hoc
committee.
4
••
"For the record, I am submitting additional testimony. I have
reviewed the proposal by Congressman Bruce Vento on H.R. 1603
with respect to H.R. 2477 Rights of Way. Please consider the
following:
1. Tliai.SS:UB-isi)r-imarili<me..O£.State's..rights."1
a. H.R. 1603 attempts to impose an abandonment procedure
for roads and rights of way-involved in intra state travel. The US
Constitution is quite specific in delegating only the right to
regulatetil).l.et.~state.iravel within the federal venue. Travel t -
t11m!t:rntl..t.O.the.j.:U:i'iS.di.Ct1onal·boundaFies-ef-a-sta teJ.las· li:e~!lJ
@"ew.eq ~~- ~ta.-~e's:rigJ:.Wand has only been restricted by the
courts where individual rights might be involved. The current
issue is not related to individual rights, but rather is one in which
)( ....
•
the federal government seeks to impose its collective will against
the rights of individuals and the various public lands states.
b. !Rtg}lta"ofN8¥-are.pr.oiJ.e:r:t:JL.n"ghts, Existing federal law
does not leave the federal govemment much latitude for acting as
a repository ofland ownership information.
5
Jt..~) _.-..-
~Iie...Ciosing=ef.-th.e "federal.:gQv.e/m,nfs-Gena::ru":Land: ,
r 0ffi:¢es1 the states and·c,;QJ.t.l!:llil§-lu:rfe.:l>ll-~11-.tbe plru.:Etfor- -.
c::e_2:r:.Y;gj1ori. of titles to pro-p-e-?-(-0' "origr:e"S'S.:d:i:rected:t~e-~~rious land managing agenci~s'at that tim...'..;..). o place all records with
~ -- -- state and local government. The sole remaining exception has
been mining claim information, which has been properly viewed
as a;:p~sio:b::ab property right within the sf>l1t..estate; subject to
annual requirements which if not fulfilled retum the grant of
mineral ownership to the grantor. R8:2.477 .rights...ofW.ay . .have...no: J
Cl?~evt_si_~p.j~.l: O)VJ)-!il.tShip..feqnii':emenfs and @1'!-Y A~ ,consider.ed.to.:b.a .:
c_per.:ffi'ltua:lt as 11-r.e: fue..§.imiU"e...11.i:b."{Jert:¥- rignts .. .!_Uh:e f~d.~If\t::
cgb'li€n~iii:nenF1:n fen<fs.-ta-entef.. :tlie 15usiness- ef'ree~rd'ing-all:~
t:Q!YJrol'B'hips:::Il'i.:pi::opeH:rt th~ ~~adi.t!o:r;u:~l- wo:r:k o_f county . 1
ctoy~rp.Pltl'Ilt, it must first rs:e.t:up.a..leg:iil-:fra:fuework detihe.atj.v.g.it§.. J
rl.!'l_g~l-r;.e_snQns.ibiliJ;ies.i!,rtfl.~-~ea:.t The current \[ento· BilLdoes..not.
~cl.ll}l..SllCh~an aglfucy-or.:.gme'.any .cons.traint. t~.the-B£19.1:--as ·to~itsr-
r~s_pQ_~iP.Ui1A~J3 .:(QI th€l·:m:~inteua.nc_g_ 2fthef?e pro12erty recor<!~ . ...,
other then the requirement that they be filed and acknowledge or
denied. This is an area best left to the states and counties.
6
'~
c. Congressman Vento's Bill gt§.rf!ga:t:ds:federaU~Wfwh~<ili
tarulJ!iftc_?ijy -st~!_t~§_ th.i;!.t. th e:feder.al.g.O.JLet:iilllllrtt: s. ;lgenci.'M ·;mE.:
c:rgerrts will be bound by the laws both civil and criminal of the
jurisdiction in which their property holdings occur.
;I'!?:~J:l',W".e uwhez:ship_ofl~tnd.J>y.the.rederlil gmrE!nm:tSl:Q.t pas pet
t aet:;p.:E9_nside.r.-ed. t<i exe"mptit .from 7fol-lowing-tlie.law.s...o£1\!c:ab
.. government& with regards to·4jgl}.;yJ!y§:;:COunty' and.st~te
L ... ~- -.. ~
r ~~e=~~~-nt~:c~n s_et the.sp:eea·:At which vehicles will be allowed to
travel, the weight and safety requirements for movement on
highway and the standards of highway maintenance. 'ir.he-fecler-a1 rr ~o_::e!nment~~~ul~~~n~e~:.a Ji~~~r~a-0:-authet-l.~y undet..flre ' . . •
/ . c.n.m.wSllltv.entu1egJ.s1atwn,.W.J.tn-ili.e I'l.ght.to..<fenne-wb.at-a-read·:tS· J l (.@Q.:"tQ·JY.h.gLstgnda_rg"§_i.f.m..J.I..:s.Lb:f: SQll,!'t:tl:Y«..t~d _t9;:.b_~ £21l§ideresla; ...
~ t:r..Oaa! :C::til'"Bl"ntly..ma.tters for:state:an"thotit;y-l The example of the
(
55 mph speed limit is i:qstructive. In that case, the federal
government wished to impose a standard for fuel and safety on
"•4-/··\~ state and county highways, but lacked the legal means of doing
/')!, <. so. By applying the pressure of restriction of highway funds for
l ; those states which refused to impose th,e new limit, the federal·
' t government forced all states into compliance. This.Jegislation
\~oi}~'Qe.x,o.nd .simple funding .hl~~k1J;tait'
7
Under Vento's plan the st!il.t~:_~!!t tQ r~gyJate.itS.."hig.hway
(~s:tem_will.J:>enbfia since the federal government will define the
conditions of use. Thi~ m~U..alao_effecf.e'fher--areas:;and ®.t:~L
tp:r:m;ed.~ce for federal actions on highways, such as, the safety~
r·t~ye.Landf'<&etghf.requirements/for the transportation of,'foxic, ~p~m-i~nll' other federally generatedcwM.teS within a state's
·borders.
2. The proposed legislation is a direct as&ault on ownership
of property and attempts to exchange the court's authority in the
area of eminent domain with administrative rule. l:h~~.rigl;!ts·~.f
!:'Y.!!Y.:)'Ll:!r.e· gt.anted:to. ilie -gf:meFai pubJ..:l.e -upoii:. th'eil:.iriltial
~o:u:.s.tr.uction:and:t!l.ll_t:..~t:ar.go::v.effimen t:ia-.on:ly: th:e::se:r.lfient-7
t:::e~t!tteo:wiier"J Under the Vento Bill, the owner of the servient
estate, the federal government, would have the ability to set up a
procedure for determining if adverse claimants to its property
were legitimate. This traditional judicial right would be usurped,.
allowing one of the combatants in the legal proceeding to be the
l judge and jury in the matter of who owns what. 'F.his...lra:!:l-b"een
.,...)(' tpropg_sei. i-n Qrde.r to :;i.Y9i"<t·.haYing t.o.fulfilLs"'ta'i'fuard emihe:ritl
•
8
. •.
•
The federal government has ample recourse at present and doesn't
need to break down our system of checks and balances simply to
avoid a few court costs .
.,. ~., .;:.". ' 3. The :tt@iQr_r~.a§qn .:(or tbi§J.f:lgislation ·a.nd its strongest
~~ "'\ (I backers are tlro'Se:w.lio'.advocate wilderness· and 1
.., ; illJ.NQllll$JJ.tl3.1ism. The Wiider.ness-Act-o'f 19.64_wa~ q:Uite specific
t i_i'l..r:BCogm:iing' prior .existing-:r:iglila a:rui.i):)._aiJ{titrgJ;hat r.oa.®d .an£1
tihlrab'it.t;!'d'.arn1!§! .P.~~tlllde.d:f!<irrl_(:lesigmiteEl·wiidernesS. In the
RARE II process, private property, roads and whole former town
sites were included as Wilderness Study Areas and in some
instances as wilderness.
This clearly violated the law. In order to continue designating
more wilderness and to post facto validate inappropriate
designations, the agencies involved in the process redefined what
a road was. Such an action by a federal agency is clearly beyond
their authority and the V..errto Bill is designed. to ex.:p~ost-facte
("1 -val!Clffte:ih~iJ· ill:egai act_ipiJS. ,If Congre§s. )Yisb.eS" tn inchtd.~-'
J.~: (J'_oa~d--~~~s _!:n ~~der:ress ~r- gi~e-Wilderne~s desl~~tions to,
·" '1 P.ri:vate P...r.QP~rtyjt ~houltl:mmsi't.tlie-oFigimil~ac11. The V..e-n.w:Bill, ...,
"- as an ex post facto imposition of road definitions, is cl-e.l;.l.t}y ~2t
•:€.Pnsti.fiitionall;r' valid.
9
' .
~;J
:r The intent of Congress in preserving existing rights in tl!,e
"I'
I
I' I
~
~
original Wilderness Act is not for the current Congress to decide,
but is a matter for the courts. ReJ>resentative Vento and his
backers should either let the courts rule in this process or more
clearly state their case for changing the WildernesS' laws of the
11 ·
f nation, not.:±cy-to.slink-around bl...th.EL<iatltiif.night to cha~_g~ iW~
c:::«thole-oF-.Aine"ricaB.-j)roper,ty.:Ia;w-to-pr.'esel'.ve-jl1eO'ar actions.·i
~ ~ -~-- -~
I shall appreciate, in I!JI@ll& I 3 tf those who participated on this
.tHr 1 Wmmittee, your genuine consideration with respect to the
testimony herewith submitted.
10
. . ' ' 'Rsc9J.{ -:t-7-
/. -· "·11·9 3
-
.-April 12, 1993.
Mr. Ted Stephehson
RS -2477 Project
Bureau of Land Management
Utah State Offi~e
·P.o. Box, 45155· _
Salt Lake City, UT 84·145-0155
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
~
REP. lARRY LAROCCO
.WASH. DC 20515
-#
S.O.A.R., Inc., Save Our Access an~ Rights-of-Way, is a member-supported,
non-,profit: corporation with a broad base of membership in Idaho. -,
:I want to document and clarify the informat1on I provided at•your'hearing
·in .Boise on· April 12·, 1993. M'y commerits~are as follows: ' .
1. On_page 6,. Idaho should'be added to'the states listed in the
third paragraph. in. the Constituency Positions .Section. My
organization has- .been ·working with all levels of state government,
the Forest Service, and-the BUreau of Land·Managernent for
over two·years on these access concerns.
2. We are concerned about the weight given to the: congressional
Research Service ~eport. Some of the conclusions in the report
are far-'too narrow. It is biased towards a special interest
grqyp i3J!.d ll@kes tbe ·~w,;u.r.aft Report less than vali~ .to ·
·meet."the reques£6"of Congress:
•
3. RS 2~v7 rights-of-way are critiQal for the economic survival
of rural counties in Idaho.
·4. We strongly favor alternative number one, the-existing policy.
5.
,.. . -~
States and·counties would iose important segments to their
·road and highway systems under the other alternatives! and
Another alternative or approach might be to have the Federaf
Agencies (Forest Servfpe,. BLM·, etc •. ) work with. the states
and::counties 'to fdenMfy- and document ah remaining_RS 2477 •
"Rights-of-Way •... rf;'this :were.'financeid arid· coinpfeted''in a timely
. mariner, tl')e ·fisi:::ai .'impact would :be less~ned over tl).e years. . .
·\Thanks for letting us_ conunent Ol} your Draft Report •. We request that you
'
Working for the restoration. maintenance and perpetuation of pi./bJic <!CCess to public land
<''
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14 e 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 e 39
40
41
LEGISLA'j:URE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Fifty-second Legislature ,First Regu,lar Session- 1993
I~ THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSE BILL NO. 388
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO HIGH~AYS AND FEDERAL LAND RIGHTS OF WAY; EXPRESSING LEGISLATIVE
INTENT; AMENDING SECTION 40-107, IDAHO GODE, TO DEFINE FEDERAL LAND RIGHTS
OF WAY; AMENDING CHAPTER 2, TITLE 40, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
SECTION 40-204A, ID~O CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR DOCUMENTATION, ABANDONMENT,
USE, VALIDATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FEDERAL LAND RIGHTS OF WAY; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT. The State of Idaho recognizes
that exist~&_ ~e~eral Iand rights uf way~4fe extremely important to at! of ,
rdaho"' s cit Hens''. Two-thirds of Idaho's land is under control of the federal
-g~~ernment -~~d access to such federaJ lands is integral to public use. The
Idaho State L<!gistai:llre _r_ecognizes the necessity for esta17lishipg ,a' procedure
.f.~!"""i.dentifying •and confirmi'!g' "th~. eJ>.iStensEJ of JU"eviO!;!Sly essabli;hed .fe~er'!J: 1
rX&.ht.s of wayJ to protect those rights previously granted to and vested in·,
the citizens of Idaho.
SECTION 2. That Section 40-107, Idftho Code, be, and ~he same is hereby
amended to read as follows:
40-107. DEFINITIONS-- F.
(1) 11Facilities" mean t·t"acks, pipes, mains, conduits, cables, wires,
towers, poles, equipment and appliances.
(2) "Family" means two (2) or more persons living together in the same
dwelling unit who are related to each other by blood, marriage, adoption or
legal guardianship.
(3) "Farm operation" means any jl.Ctivity conducted primarily for the production
of agricultural prod~cts or comffiodities, including timber, for sale
and home use, and producing agricultural products or commodities in sufficien~
quantity to contribute materially to the ·operator's support.
(4) "Feeder highway" means any highway which, in the op1n1on of the
transportation board, is needed to create or facilitate access to a turnpike
project upon which a toll is charged for transit.
(5) "Federal land rights of way" mean rights of way on federal land
within the context of Revised Statute 2477, codified as 43 United StaCes Code
"932, and other federal access grants and shall be considered to be any road,
trail, access or way upon which_construction has been carried out to the standard
in which public rights of way were built within historic context. These
rights of way may include, but not be limited to, horse paths, cattle tra-i"l"s, ·"
'"'.irrigation canals, waterways, ditches, pipel~ines Or other means of water .... ;
transmisSion add thei~ at.tendant access for ~maintenance, wagon r..oads, jeep-.,;
·trails/ loqging roads, homestead roads, mine tO "'market ro2qs arld al1. 6th"'er
Vays\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.. -----
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
~---·
2
SECTION 3, That Chapter 2, Tit!·e lfO, Idaho Code, be, and
hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be
ignated as Section 40-204A, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:
t~he 'same is
known and des-
40-204A. FEDERAL LAND RIGHTS OF WAY. (1) Tne state recognizes that the
-act Qf con~trllction ~nd. first use constitute the· a"cce.pt-lihc"e of the. grant gi~en,
-xo the public foe fed~r~l l~na:fi~~s 9f ~ay, and that -once acceptance of the
grant has been established, the grant shall be for the perpetual term granted
by the congress of the United States.
e
(2) The o!l).y ;Deth<Ut.fOr the all,andonmen(.ot ,hhese __ r_igqt,s of '!i'X: shall be.
(ilat • .of .etnin~nt "'dorilaip .P.roce'l_ding"s. in wqfch tf[e tal<ifig "oJ. 1:he pub~ic·' ~ right
•t(J ilcces S shall be justly-"compensat;ed;, ~j. ther •. th<i._ri)ej'l_ .P,i!JiSage Of t if1)e nor
the frequency of use shall b~ consj_~_r_!'d. a •justification for consi<t"et;in~ thes_e • .,
ri~hts of way to have been abandoned.7 · · - -
(3) All of the said rights oi way shall be shown by some form of documentation
to"have existed prior to the withdrawal of the federal grant in 1976 or
to predate the removal of land through which ·they transit from the public
domain for other public purposes. Documentation shall take the form of at
least a map, and an affidavit. Surveys, books and other historic information
may also be included.
(4) These rights of way shall not require maintenance for the passage of
vehicular traffic, nor shall any liability be incurred for _injury or damage
through a failure to ~aintain the access or to maintain any highway sign.
These rights of way shall b!' tt"ayeled at the risk of the user and niay be maintained
by ~he public through usage by the public.
(5) Any member of the public, the state of Idaho and ~ny of its political
subdivisions, and any agency of the federal government mi'y choose to seek validation
of its rights under law to use granted rights of way either through a
process set forth by the state of Idaho, through_processes set forth by any
federal agency or by proclamation of user rights granted under the provisions
of the original act, Revised Statute 2477.
'!!ibe: "rights of way <!hall not; ~e required .. to 'pqss!i_ss centerllne_,surveys
ty\)ical 9£. publicly m_a:int;ll.itt!'d roads, .. but .'l!:>al1 _be survef!'d priar- to oe-ing
accepteg 'ivto ~!:>e maintaiqed publi~ highway system,
Neither the granting of the orig"inaf right of way nor any provisi'on in
this or any other state act shall be construed as a relinquishment of either
federal ownership or management of the surface estate of the property over
which the right of way passes.
(6) Persons seeking acknowledgement of federal land rights of way shall
file with the county recorder the request for acknowledgement and for any supporting
documentation, The county recorder shall place the acknowledgement on
the official county road system map.
•
42 SECTION 4. An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby
43 declared to exist, this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its
44 passage and approval,
•
,.
. .. • ;I ,. •
: ~ 1 • - u
E.:_~:·.:~; ;' ~ /."";"E
H.R. 1603
·o,.., "00 2G n,-~, 8 ~~. 1 ..J\..1 1 d 1\
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 1, 1993
Mr. Vento introduced the following bill; which was referred
jointly 'to the Committees on Natural Resources and Rules
A BILL
To authorize appropriations for programs, functions, and activities
of the Bureau of Land Management for fiscal years 1994 through
1997; to improve the management of the public lands; and for other
purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
2 the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION
4 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
5 may be necessary for programs, functions, and activities of the
6 Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior (including
7 amounts necessary for increases in salary, pay, retirements, and
8 other employee
Exhibit Ill
•
11
1 (b) The table of contents of the Act is amended by
2 inserting after the item relating to section 707 the following
3 new item:
"Sec. 708. Judicial review.".
4 SEC. 14. CLAIMED RIGHTS-OF~WAY
5 The Act is hereby amended by adding at the end of title III
6 the following new sections 319 and 320:
7 "SEC. 319. RECORDATION OF CLAIMED RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
8 "(a) FILING REQUIREMENTS.--(!) Any party claiming to be a
9 holder of a right-of-way across public or other Federal lands
10 for the construction of a highway pursuant to a grant made
11 by Revised Statutes section 2477 (43 u.s.c. 932) that became
12 operative before repeal of such section on October 21, 1976
13 shall, on or before January 1, ~. l997 file for record in
14 the office or offices of the Bureau of Land Management
15 responsible for management of public lands within the state or
16 States wherein such claimed right-of-way is located either a
17 notice of intent to hold and maintain the right-of-way or a
18 notice of abandonment of such party's claim to be the holder
19 of such right-of-way. A notice of intent·to hold and maintain
20 such a right-of-way shall be accompanied by information con-
21 earning the actual construction, maintenance, and public use
22 on which such party bases its claim to have established
23 such a right-of-way, and by such other information regarding
24 the uses, location, and extent of such cl~imed right-of-way
. '
12
1 as the Secretary of the Interior may require. The secretary
2 may allow information already in the possession of the Bureau
3 of Land Management to be included by reference to the documents
4 in which such information is recorded.
5 "(2) A par~y filin~ Upon receiving a notice pursuant to
6 paragraph (1) the BLM shall also simu1taneeusly file within
7 30 days a copy thereof in the appropriate office of any other
8 agency responsible for management of any Federal lands traversed
9 by the claimed right-of-way, and shall give public notice of the
10 party's intention to hold and maintain or to abandon the claimed
11 right-of-way by publication of information concerning such
12 intention in one or more newspapers of general circulation in
13 the areas where affected lands are located.
14 ~ fbt EFFECT. --(1) The failure of any party subject to
15 the requirements of subsection (a) (1) to file the notices er te
16 publish the inferma~ien required te se filea ana puSlisaea sy
17 such susseetien \iithin the time specified sy such subsec~ien
18 shall be conclusively deemed to constitute an abandonment and
19 relinquishment of a right-of-way with respect to which such
20 filing~ ana.puSlicatien is required by suefi subsee~ien.
21 "(2) Receraatien Filing pursuant to this section shall not,
22 of itself, render valid any claim which would not otherwise
23 be valid under applicable law or provide a basis for changing
'
~if\
~t
13
1 the scope, alignment, or character or exterit of use of any
2 claimed right-of-way; and nothing in this section shall be
3 construed as waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting any
4 terms or conditions applicable to any right-of-way under
5 this Act or any other applicable law.
6 "(c) INVESTIGATIONp--(1) ~Within 45 days of receipt of
7 a notice filed pursuant to subsection (a) ~ that a party intends
8 to hold and main~ain a claimed right-of-way involving any lands
9 specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secreta~
10 of the Interior, acting through an appropriate officer of the
11 Bureau of Land Management or (if any portion of a claimed
12 right-of-way covered by this subsection is located within a
13 unit of the National Park System) of the National Park
14 Service, shall may conduct and shall be completed within 30
15 days following an investigation to determine the v~lidity of
16 each claimed right-of-way. Such investigation shall ~at change
17 current or proposed use. The Secretary shall may provide an
18 opportunity for the public to contest or request arr
19 investigation a period of 30 days· from publish date of the
20 validity of any other claimed ri9ht-of-way.
21 "(2) (A) The Secretary shall may investigate the validity
22 of each claimed right-of-way any portion of which involves--
23 "(i) any lands within the National Park System,
24 the National Wild and Scenic River System, or the
25 the National Wilderness Prese~ation System; or
-::>
jJ~'
'
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958
l ·The Roads to Heaven Are Paved
With Struggles for Control
The fate of Western wilderness may ride on a simple right of way
By bn Kenwanhy
W~Pos'StaffWrYw
M OAB, Utah-From its starting point alongside the
Colorado River, the Moab Rim Trail traces a steep,
circuitous route up a bluff that overlooks this southern
Utah town that is a mecca for mountain bikers, river rafters
and off-road vehicle enthusiasts.
To all but the most intrepid owners of four-wheel drive vehicles,
the Moab Rim Trail is impassable by motorized transit as
it climbs up and across land owned by the federal Bureau of
land Management (Bl.M).
Were it not for a steady splatter of oil stains from leaky
crankcases, in fact. the trail's almost impossibly steep, rocky
and rutted route would barely be distinguishable from the
largely untouched terrain that surrounds it
But thanks to an obscure Civil War-era federal law, the
Moab Rim 'Trail could be officially designated as a county
road, thereby keeping some of the surrounding federal land
from qualifying as a wilderness area under legislation pending
in Congress.
To the uninitiated, the title of that old law may sound like
the latest sportS sedan from Mazda or a French abortion pill.
But local officials in southern Utah know exactly what R.S.
(Revised Statute) 24 77 is: The best weapon they've ever found
against efforts to turn millions of acres of U.S. governmentowned
land in th~i{ state into feqerally 11rotected wilderness.
The growing movement to employ RS. 2477 as a means of
preserving access to federally owned land is in part economic,
since this is a region whose meager income potential has aJ.
ways depended on cattle grazing, oil and gas development and
mineral extraction.
But on a more fundamental level it is philosophic, part of an·
angry backlash against the federal governmen~s control of
the land and attempts by environmental groups to set aside
more wilderness.
People here feel strongly that they have been caring stewards
of these lands for many decades, and resent outsiders
telling them the land should be incorporated into wilderness
....,as closed to motor vehicles and activities such as milierai
development and logging.
Hence the importance of R.S. 2477. Enacted by Congress in
1866 as a way to facilitate mining, it is surely one of the shortest
public laws on reeord, consisting of one sentence: "The
right-of-way for the construction of highways over public land.
not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.·
Yet it has large implications for how the federal government
manages millions of acres of range and forest land, parks and
wildlife refuges. Though R.S. 2477 was repealed with passage
of the 1976 Federal land Policy and Management Act, existing
rights under the old statute were preserved.
What that means is this: If a county or state can document
. that a road or even a donkey path was built across unreserved
federal land before 1976, it can ci3im an R.S. 2477 right of way.
The same applies to land specifically reserved for such uses as
wildlife refuges and national parks, as long as it can be docu_
mented that a right of way ;>re-<lated tl\e time when the federal
land was reserved for a particular use.
F'Jghts over R.S. 2477 rights of way, rare only a few years
ago, are now becoming more commonplace in the public land
states of the West
In Alaska, for example, the state government is preparing to
assert almost 1,500 rights of way, some of them across nation-al
parkland that most people assume is inviolate. led by Li.
Gov. Jack Coghill, Alaska is even eyeing an old right of way •·
through Denali National Park-home to Mt McKinley-for a
road that park officials fear could have an impact on: the caribou,
grizzly bear and other wildlife that inhabit one of the
country's premier national parks.
Coghill says the state's broad-based effort to claim rights of
way is cruciiU because the state was largely developed by airplane
and thus lacks the road network of states in the conti-nental
United States.· -·--·--- --· ··· .... __ _
"The R.S. 2477 process gives us the access we need to traverse
across the land, • says Coghill. "l~s pure and simple access
.... We're opening the beauty of Alaska to common peo-ple."
'
But environmental groups see a more nefarious agenda: to
open_ up areas for development that previous Alaska lands legislation
protect"\i.
"It has to do with mining, with timbering._with opening up
the whole interior of Alaska to commerce." says Allen E.
Smith, head of the Wilderness Society's Alaska office. "It's the
dream of the last of the big boomers. •
H ere in the ruggedly beautiful but sparsely settled
counties of southern Utah, the R.S. 2477 movement is
even stronger. In many of these counties, as much as 80
percent or 90 percent of the land is owned by the federal
government, and opposition to making much of that land
wilderness runs just as high.
To county officials here, R.S. 2477 represents a golden opportunity
to frustrate the designs of those. such as Democratic
Rep. Wayne Owens of Utah, who would put up to 5.7 million
acres of Utah permanently off limits to development and motorized
vehicles.
Because wilderness. areas by definition must be roadless, .
R.S. 2477 has the potential to disqualify large areas from being
included in Owens's proposed legislation, which is supported · ·..r
by a coalition of conservation organizations. '
County officials iii Utah are preparing thousands of RS.
2477 right of way assertions to present to the BLM, whose officials
will decide which are valid and which are not
Some officials portray the effort as a means of preserving
economic development options in an area that once boomed
with uranium mining and might have large petroleum or other
mineral reserves.
But others coucede that their drive to assert almost 1.100
RS. 2477 rights of way is about keeping some measure of control
over public lands .
"We are going to try to eliminate wilderness in Emery"'
COunty." says County Commissioner Dixie K. Thompson, flatly
stating the goal behind the,R.S. 2477 road assertions.
Such bald assertions of intent underscore the deep resentment
that runs through southern Utah toward the federal gov·
ernment and those conservation organizations that would restrict
or further regulate the use of federally owned land.
• ·4 ... ••
