Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Agrc
| Citation | 2008 UT 88,200 P.3d 643 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 20060813.,20060813. |
| Parties | SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, a Utah nonprofit corporation; and the Wilderness Society, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The AUTOMATED GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CENTER, within the DIVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; and the Utah State Records Committee, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Joro Walker, David H. Becker, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Roger R. Fairbanks, Bradley C. Johnson, David W. Geary, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendants.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) appeals the district court's order affirming the State Records Committee's denial of records sought by SUWA from The Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC) pursuant to the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). The district court denied summary judgment to SUWA and granted summary judgment to the AGRC. We reverse.
¶ 2 The legislature created the AGRC, part of the Division of Integrated Technology (the Division),1 to provide geographic information system services (GIS)2 to state agencies, the federal government, local political subdivisions, and private persons under the rules and policies established by the Division. Utah Code Ann. § 63F-1-506 (2008).3 Section 63F-1-506(2)(c) also requires the AGRC to manage the State Geographic Information Database (the SGID). Id.
¶ 3 SUWA seeks records from the AGRC relating to rights-of-way, the ownership of which the State and Emery County (the County) claim pursuant to the now repealed federal Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 2477). R.S. 2477 granted rights-of-way for "construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses." Mining Act of 1866, ch. 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253 (1866), repealed by Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-579, § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743 (). As this court explained in Lindsay Land & Live Stock Co. v. Churnos, 75 Utah 384, 285 P. 646 (1929), with R.S. 2477
the [federal] government consented that any of its lands not reserved for a public purpose might be taken and used for public roads. The statute was a standing offer for a free right of way over the public domain, and as soon as it was accepted in an appropriate manner by the agents of the public, or the public itself, a highway was established.
Id. at 648 (quoting Streeter v. Stalnaker, 61 Neb. 205, 85 N.W. 47, 48 (1901)). Then, in 1976, the federal government shifted its federal land use policy to favor federal retention of public lands rather than development and private ownership of such lands. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 425 F.3d 735, 740-41 (10th Cir.2005). That year Congress repealed R.S. 2477 with the Federal Lands Policy Management Act, but preserved rights-of-way established before October 21, 1976. See Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-579, § 706(a), 90 Stat. 2743 (). Today, the identification of routes that are valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, established prior to October 1976, is an ongoing controversy.
¶ 4 The State of Utah and many of its local municipalities4 have been at the heart of this controversy because a high percentage of public land in Utah is owned by the federal government. Accordingly, the State and counties have alleged numerous rights-of-way that run through undeveloped federal lands that might otherwise qualify for wilderness designation, across now privately held lands, or within federal parks or forests created after the rights-of-way were allegedly established.
¶ 5 To protect alleged R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, the Utah Legislature enacted several pieces of legislation. First, in 1978 the legislature passed legislation that requires each county to prepare and file maps with the Utah Department of Transportation identifying "roads within its boundaries which were in existence as of October 21, 1976." 1978 Utah Laws 27 (codified at Utah Code Ann. § 72-3-105(5) (2001)). Then in 1993, the Utah Legislature passed the Rights-of-Way Across Federal Lands Act. H.B. 6, 50th Leg.2d Special Sess., 1994 Utah Laws 34, (codified as amended at Utah Code Ann. §§ 72-5-301 to -307 (2001 & Supp.2008))5. The Act codified existing law regarding R.S. 2477 rights-of-way and also included provisions addressing mapping and record gathering. Id. Particularly, the Act required the AGRC to "create and maintain a record of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on the Geographic Information Database." Utah Code Ann. § 72-5-304(3)(a). Finally, in 2003, the Rights-of-Way Across Federal Lands Act was amended to indicate that acceptance of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way vests title in the State and municipal body, and further amended the Act's definitions. 2003 Utah Laws 1368 (codified at Utah Code Ann. § 72-5-308 to -310 (Supp.2008)).
¶ 6 In addition to the legislative efforts to preserve R.S. 2477 rights-of-way, the State and several counties have been involved in litigation regarding alleged rights-of-way. The State and Garfield County have been involved in suits with both the federal government and environmental groups regarding the scope of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way on the Burr Trail. See Sierra Club v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 362 (10th Cir.1991); Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir.1988), overruled on other grounds by Vill. of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Marsh, 956 F.2d 970, 973 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc). On June 14, 2000, the State of Utah, on behalf of itself and its counties, notified the U.S. Department of the Interior, via a Notice of Intention to File Suit (Notice of Intent), that it would be filing a quiet title action regarding the ownership and scope of routes located throughout Utah, which it claimed the State and counties acquired pursuant to R.S. 2477. On August 31, 2004, the State and Emery County filed another Notice of Intent indicating that they intended to sue to claim ownership of ten rights-of-way in Emery County. The State and County filed an amended Notice of Intent on November 3, 2004.
¶ 7 In October of 2004, SUWA sent a letter to the Governor and the attorney general's office, pursuant to GRAMA, requesting "all records" concerning certain routes over public lands in Emery County that the State and County claim as R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. In particular, the request sought photographs, GIS Arc/Info coverages or shapefiles, email and telephone communications, affidavits, declarations, maintenance and funding records, and notes relating to the routes referenced in the State of Utah's Notice of Intent filed with the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2000. The attorney general's office released some documents, such as maintenance agreements, but withheld most of the requested records, arguing that under GRAMA the records were protected from disclosure.
¶ 8 Subsequently, on December 2, 2004, SUWA submitted a record request to the AGRC. This request was more specific than the request to the Governor and Attorney General and many of the records related to information contained in the SGID. Specifically, the SUWA requested the following documents:
1. Any and all maps and GIS data (or other electronic data) depicting Class D roads6 in Emery County which were in existence as of October 21, 1976....
2. Any and all maps and GIS data (or other electronic data) depicting Class D roads in Emery County which were established or constructed after October 21, 1976....
3. Any and all maps, GIS data (or other electronic data) and/or information contained in or by the [SGID] depicting, in any way, "R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" in Emery County....
4. Any and all records or information, dated prior to June 14, 2000, including "cartographic, topographic, photographic, historical, and other data" available to the [AGRC] and/or contained in or maintained by the [SGID] and/or the [AGRC] relating to, in any way, "R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" in Emery County....
5. Any and all records or information, dated on or after June 14, 2000 but before August 31, 2004, including "cartographic, topographic, photographic, historical, and other data" available to the [AGRC] and/or contained in or maintained by the [SGID] and/or the [AGRC] relating to, in any way, "R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" in Emery County....
6. Any and all records or information, dated prior to June 14, 2000 provided to the [AGRC] by any agencies and/or political subdivisions of the state relating in any way to "R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" in Emery County.
7. Any and all records or information, dated on or after June 14, 2000, provided to the [AGRC] by any agencies and/or political subdivisions of the state relating in any way to "R.S. 2477 rights-of-way" in Emery County.
8. Any photographs, including aerial or on-the-ground photographs, or any digital or electronic photographs or similar media, taken prior to, or depicting conditions prior to June 14, 2000, of or depicting the ... routes in Emery County identified by the State of Utah in its notice of intent to sue of August 31, 2004....
9. The current plats and specific descriptions of the county roads in Emery County and any electronic or GIS data relating in any way to these plats and descriptions....
10. Any oral histories or similar historical accounts, prepared prior to June 14, 2000, relating in any way to the [alleged] routes in Emery County.....
11. Any and all correspondences, including emails, and any records relating to correspondences, including emails and telephone calls with and from the United States Department of Interior and any of its subdivisions, ... related in any way to roads, including Class A-D roads, and R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in Emery County.... (footnote added).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peak Alarm Co. Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp.
...436 (Utah 1982)). We review legal questions for correctness, granting the district court no deference. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 2008 UT 88, ¶ 12, 200 P.3d 643.I. THE DIRECTED VERDICT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AND THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE FAILS TO ......
-
Ferguson v. Williams & Hunt, Inc.
... ... No. 20080273 ... Supreme Court of Utah" ... July 31, 2009 ... [221 P.3d 209] ... \xC2" ... Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 2008 UT ... (Utah 1994), which involved the mayor of a small, southern Utah town about whom a local newspaper allegedly published ... ...
-
McLaughlin v. Schenck
...genuine issue of material fact and where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 2008 UT 88, ¶ 12, 200 P.3d 643. Accordingly, when "reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment, we review the......
- State v. Vallejo