Kane County, Utah v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22659
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kane County (with Utah intervening) sued under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, asserting R.S. 2477 rights-of-way over 15 road segments on federal land; the district court held QTA jurisdiction and found rights on 12 roads.
- The United States and amici challenged jurisdictional bases for several roads and the district court’s factual and legal rulings (including required proof standard and right-of-way widths); this appeal arises from two district-court orders dated March 20, 2013.
- Key factual settings include BLM management actions: the 2008 Kanab Field Office plan (and republished maps), 1926 Public Water Reserve No. 107 (PWR 107), Title V permits issued by BLM, and the 1980 Paria-Hackberry Wilderness Study Area (WSA) designation.
- Procedurally, the appellate court reviews de novo whether the QTA’s jurisdictional prerequisites are met (United States “claims an interest” and title is “disputed”), and treats the QTA limitations provisions as jurisdictional.
- The court frames: (1) appropriate showing to satisfy QTA “disputed title,” (2) whether certain BLM actions/maps/permits or wilderness/withdrawal designations triggered QTA limits or created disputes, (3) whether PWR 107 reserved lands from R.S. 2477, (4) standard of proof, and (5) proper method for setting right-of-way widths.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| QTA "disputed title" standard and jurisdiction for Sand Dunes/Hancock/Cave Lakes roads | Kane: BLM plan omission, later online map changes, Title V permits, and the U.S. pleading denials created a dispute clouding title and thus QTA jurisdiction | U.S.: omissions, map changes, Title V permits, and pleadings did not expressly or implicitly dispute title; mere ambiguity or denials at pleading insufficient | Court: For QTA jurisdiction, plaintiff must show the U.S. expressly disputed title or took action that implicitly disputes it; ambiguity, map omissions, Title V permits, and defendant’s pleading-denials were insufficient — reversed jurisdiction findings for Sand Dunes, Hancock, and all four Cave Lakes roads |
| QTA limitations period for North Swag Road | Kane/Utah: limitations not triggered by BLM’s 1980 WSA designation or 1991 meeting; no notice of exclusive U.S. control | Amici/U.S.: publication of Paria‑Hackberry WSA and BLM interactions gave notice of an adverse/exclusive federal claim, starting the QTA clock | Court: WSA designation and 1991 meeting did not amount to an exclusive‑control claim; limitations not triggered as to North Swag — jurisdiction sustained |
| Effect of PWR 107 (1926) on R.S. 2477 rights | Kane/Utah: PWR 107 did not reserve lands "for public uses" so it did not bar R.S. 2477 rights-of-way across Swallow Park parcels | U.S.: PWR 107 reserved parcels for public water use and thus removed them from R.S. 2477 | Court: PWR 107 is a withdrawal, not a reservation that defeats R.S. 2477; reversing district court, plaintiffs may establish R.S. 2477 across those parcels |
| Standard of proof for establishing R.S. 2477 rights | Kane/Utah: preponderance of the evidence should apply | U.S.: district court applied clear-and-convincing | Court: Did not decide because jurisdictional reversal as to several Cave Lakes roads made the question unnecessary for those roads (issue left unresolved on merits) |
| Scope/width of rights-of-way (North Swag/Swallow Park/Skutumpah) | Kane/Utah: widths set by district court (24 ft for narrow roads, 66 ft for Skutumpah) adequate to allow maintenance and safety improvements | U.S.: widths must be limited to what was reasonable and necessary based on pre-1976 uses; courts may not authorize unspecified future improvements without BLM consultation | Court: Rights preserved as of FLPMA repeal (1976); width must be determined by what is "reasonable and necessary" in light of pre‑1976 uses and improvements require BLM consultation — remanded for reconsideration of widths and to avoid authorizing unspecified future improvements |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1983) (waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly)
- San Juan County v. United States, 754 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 2014) (QTA limitations triggered only where U.S. claims exclusive control over roads)
- S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes withdrawals from reservations for R.S. 2477; scope of pre-1976 rights)
- George v. United States, 672 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 2012) (public rights-of-way may coexist with federal ownership; QTA/RS2477 principles)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (QTA limitations and jurisdictional principles)
- Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2000) (past federal assertions may create a present cloud on title; discussed and limited)
- Mills v. United States, 742 F.3d 400 (9th Cir. 2014) (QTA "disputed title" element must be read narrowly; mere agency ambiguity insufficient)
- Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States (Leisnoi II), 267 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes elements of § 2409a: U.S. "claims an interest" and title is "disputed")