Alaska Native Allotments
Alternatives to Address Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way
Gao ID: GAO-06-1107T September 13, 2006
In 1906, the Alaska Native Allotment Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to allot individual Alaska Natives (Native) a homestead of up to 160 acres. The validity of some of Copper Valley Electric Association's (Copper Valley) rights-of-way within Alaska Native allotments is the subject of ongoing dispute; in some cases the allottees assert that Copper Valley's electric lines trespass on their land. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are responsible for granting rights-of-way and handling disputes between allottees and holders of rights-of-way. This testimony is based on GAO's report, Alaska Native Allotments: Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way Have Not Been Resolved through Existing Remedies (GAO-04-923, September 7, 2004). Specifically GAO determined (1) the number of conflicts between Native allotments and Copper Valley rights-of-way and the factors that contributed to these conflicts, (2) the extent to which existing remedies have been used to resolve these conflicts, and (3) what legislative alternatives, if any, could be considered to resolve these conflicts.
There are 14 cases where conflict exists regarding Copper Valley's rights-of-way within Native allotments. These conflicts stem from three principal sources. First, BLM and a BIA realty service provider have applied the relation back doctrine to invalidate or question Copper Valley's rights-of-way in cases where the Native allottee's use and occupancy of the land predates the right-of-way. In these instances, Copper Valley obtained rights-of-way and built electric lines before the land was awarded as an allotment. Second, Interior does not recognize rights-of-way granted by the State of Alaska to Copper Valley to install electric lines within certain highway easements granted to the state by the federal government. Interior's Alaska Office of the Solicitor has taken the position that the federal government did not convey to the State of Alaska the authority to grant rights-of-way for utilities within certain highway easements. Third, Copper Valley constructed electric lines even though they were never issued a right-of-way. Few cases have been resolved using existing remedies. Copper Valley currently has three remedies available to it to resolve conflicts. It could (1) negotiate rights-of-way with Native allottees in conjunction with BIA; (2) relocate its electric lines outside of the allotment; or (3) exercise the power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation, to acquire the land. Since the mid-1990s, Copper Valley has negotiated rights-of-way for 3 Native allotments; however, it has not relocated any of its electric lines and has been reluctant to exercise eminent domain to resolve other conflicts. Copper Valley has stopped trying to resolve these conflicts because it maintains that the existing remedies are too costly, impractical, and/or potentially damaging to relationships with the community. Copper Valley officials told GAO that they should not have to bear the cost of resolving conflicts that they believe the federal government caused by applying the relation back doctrine and by not recognizing their state issued rights-of-way. Copper Valley representatives, Alaska Native advocates, and GAO identified four legislative alternatives that could be considered to resolve these conflicts. Change Interior's application of the relation back doctrine to Alaska Native allotments so that the date an allotment was filed, rather than the date an allottee claimed initial use and occupancy of the land, is used to determine the rights of allottees and holders of rights-of-way. Allow the U.S. government to be sued with regard to Alaska Native allotments so that legal challenges to the relation back doctrine and other legal issues can be heard in federal court. Ratify the rights-of-way granted by the State of Alaska within federally granted highway easements, to provide for a valid right-of-way dating back to the time the state right-of-way was granted. Establish a federal fund to pay for rights-of-way across Alaska Native allotments.
GAO-06-1107T, Alaska Native Allotments: Alternatives to Address Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1107T
entitled 'Alaska Native Allotments: Alternatives to Address Conflicts
with Utility Rights-of-Way' which was released on September 13, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 13, 2006:
Alaska Native Allotments:
Alternatives to Address Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-06-1107T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-1107T, a testimony before the Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1906, the Alaska Native Allotment Act authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to allot individual Alaska Natives (Native) a homestead of
up to 160 acres. The validity of some of Copper Valley Electric
Association‘s (Copper Valley) rights-of-way within Alaska Native
allotments is the subject of ongoing dispute; in some cases the
allottees assert that Copper Valley‘s electric lines trespass on their
land. The Department of the Interior‘s (Interior) Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are responsible for
granting rights-of-way and handling disputes between allotees and
holders of rights-of-way.
This testimony is based on GAO‘s report, Alaska Native Allotments:
Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way Have Not Been Resolved through
Existing Remedies (GAO-04-923, September 7, 2004). Specifically GAO
determined (1) the number of conflicts between Native allotments and
Copper Valley rights-of-way and the factors that contributed to these
conflicts, (2) the extent to which existing remedies have been used to
resolve these conflicts, and (3) what legislative alternatives, if any,
could be considered to resolve these conflicts.
What GAO Found:
There are 14 cases where conflict exists regarding Copper Valley‘s
rights-of-way within Native allotments. These conflicts stem from three
principal sources. First, BLM and a BIA realty service provider have
applied the relation back doctrine to invalidate or question Copper
Valley‘s rights-of-way in cases where the Native allottee‘s use and
occupancy of the land predates the right-of-way. In these instances,
Copper Valley obtained rights-of-way and built electric lines before
the land was awarded as an allotment. Second, Interior does not
recognize rights-of-way granted by the State of Alaska to Copper Valley
to install electric lines within certain highway easements granted to
the state by the federal government. Interior‘s Alaska Office of the
Solicitor has taken the position that the federal government did not
convey to the State of Alaska the authority to grant rights-of-way for
utilities within certain highway easements. Third, Copper Valley
constructed electric lines even though they were never issued a right-
of-way.
Few cases have been resolved using existing remedies. Copper Valley
currently has three remedies available to it to resolve conflicts. It
could (1) negotiate rights-of-way with Native allottees in conjunction
with BIA; (2) relocate its electric lines outside of the allotment; or
(3) exercise the power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation,
to acquire the land. Since the mid-1990s, Copper Valley has negotiated
rights-of-way for 3 Native allotments; however, it has not relocated
any of its electric lines and has been reluctant to exercise eminent
domain to resolve other conflicts. Copper Valley has stopped trying to
resolve these conflicts because it maintains that the existing remedies
are too costly, impractical, and/or potentially damaging to
relationships with the community. Copper Valley officials told GAO that
they should not have to bear the cost of resolving conflicts that they
believe the federal government caused by applying the relation back
doctrine and by not recognizing their state issued rights-of-way.
Copper Valley representatives, Alaska Native advocates, and GAO
identified four legislative alternatives that could be considered to
resolve these conflicts.
* Change Interior‘s application of the relation back doctrine to Alaska
Native allotments so that the date an allotment was filed, rather than
the date an allottee claimed initial use and occupancy of the land, is
used to determine the rights of allottees and holders of rights-of-way.
* Allow the U.S. government to be sued with regard to Alaska Native
allotments so that legal challenges to the relation back doctrine and
other legal issues can be heard in federal court.
* Ratify the rights-of-way granted by the State of Alaska within
federally granted highway easements, to provide for a valid right-of-
way dating back to the time the state right-of-way was granted.
* Establish a federal fund to pay for rights-of-way across Alaska
Native allotments.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1107T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202)
512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on conflicts between
Alaska Native allotments and utility rights-of-way. The Department of
the Interior (Interior) and the State of Alaska have granted rights-of-
way in Alaska for a variety of uses such as electrical transmission
lines, oil and gas pipelines, and highways.[Footnote 1] Some of these
rights-of-way cross Native allotments giving rise to conflicts between
Alaska Natives and holders of rights-of-way. In these conflicts, some
Native allottees claim that utility companies' rights-of-way are
invalid and that the utility is trespassing on the allotment.
Conversely, the utility companies claim that their utilities are not in
trespass and that they have a valid right-of-way to use the land. The
issue of whether utility companies hold valid rights-of-way within
Native allotments is important because it raises fundamental questions
about equity and fairness for owners of Native allotments who may not
be receiving just compensation for use of their land and for utility
companies that believe they constructed facilities in good faith under
valid rights-of-way.
Two agencies within Interior--the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--have key responsibilities with
regard to Native allotments in Alaska. These responsibilities include
adjudicating applications for Native allotments and granting rights-of-
way on federal lands. BIA also contracts with regional nonprofit
corporations or other Native entities to perform realty services for
owners of Native allotments such as sales, leases, mortgages, and
rights-of-way. The Alaska Realty Consortium (Alaska Realty) provides
realty services for over 160 Native allotments in south-central Alaska.
Since 1987, when addressing disputes concerning the validity of rights-
of-way within Native allotments, Interior has applied the "relation
back" doctrine and invalidated utility companies' rights-of-way across
certain Native allotments. Under this legal principle, Interior grants
priority to allottees if the date of the allottee's claimed initial use
and occupancy of available land predates other uses and rights-of-way,
even if the allotment application was submitted after the right-of-way
was issued. The rights of Alaska Native allottees relate back to when
they first started using the land, not when the allotment was filed or
granted. Prior to 1987, Alaska Native allotments generally were subject
to rights-of-way existing when they were approved.[Footnote 2]
In September 2004, we reported on conflicts between Alaska Native
allotments and Copper Valley Electric Association's (Copper Valley)
electric lines.[Footnote 3] Copper Valley is a rural nonprofit electric
cooperative that was formed in 1955 and provides electricity to about
4,000 members in Alaska's Valdez and Copper River Basin areas. As early
as 1958, Copper Valley obtained rights-of-way permits from Interior,
and later from the State of Alaska, to construct and maintain electric
lines. The validity of some Copper Valley rights-of-way within Native
Allotments is the subject of ongoing dispute. Our testimony today is
based on that report and focuses on (1) the number of conflicts that
exist between Copper Valley rights-of-way and Alaska Native allotments
and the factors that contributed to these conflicts, (2) the extent to
which existing remedies have been used to resolve these conflicts, and
(3) what legislative alternatives, if any, could be considered to
resolve these conflicts.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed all 34 Native allotments
identified by Copper Valley and Alaska Realty where conflicts were
suspected to exist. To determine whether there was an actual conflict
between a Native allotment and Copper Valley's right-of-way, we
examined BLM allotment adjudication files and all of the rights-of-way
permits (seven federal and two State of Alaska) issued to Copper Valley
for these allotments. We interviewed representatives from BLM, BIA, and
Interior's Alaska Office of the Solicitor. We also met with officials
and reviewed records from Alaska Realty, Copper Valley, the State of
Alaska, and Alaska Natives. We did not conduct any follow-up audit work
in conjunction with this testimony. Our September 2004 report, on which
this testimony is based, was prepared in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, we reported the following:
There are 14 cases where conflict exists regarding Copper Valley's
rights-of-way within Native allotments. In most of these cases,
Interior has found that Copper Valley is currently trespassing because
either its rights-of-way have been determined to be invalid or it never
obtained a right-of-way. These conflicts stem from three principal
sources.
* BLM and Alaska Realty have applied the relation back doctrine to
invalidate or question Copper Valley's rights-of-way in cases where the
Native allottee's use and occupancy of the land predates the right-of-
way. In these instances, Copper Valley obtained rights-of-way and built
electric lines before the land was awarded as an allotment.
* Interior does not recognize rights-of-way granted by the State of
Alaska to Copper Valley to install electric lines within certain
highway easements granted to the state by the federal government.
Interior's Alaska Office of the Solicitor has taken the position that
the federal government did not convey to the State of Alaska the
authority to grant rights-of-way for utilities within certain highway
easements.
* Copper Valley constructed electric lines even though they were never
issued a right-of-way.
Few cases have been resolved using existing remedies. Copper Valley
currently has three remedies available to it to resolve conflicts. It
could (1) negotiate rights-of-way with Native allottees in conjunction
with BIA; (2) relocate its electric lines outside of the allotment; or
(3) exercise the power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation,
to acquire the land. Since the mid-1990s, Copper Valley has negotiated
rights-of-way for 3 Native allotments; however, it has not relocated
any of its electric lines and has been reluctant to exercise eminent
domain to resolve other conflicts. Copper Valley has stopped trying to
resolve these conflicts because it maintains that the existing remedies
are too costly, impractical, and/or potentially damaging to
relationships with the community. More importantly, Copper Valley
officials told us that on principle they should not have to bear the
cost of resolving conflicts that they believe the federal government
caused by applying the relation back doctrine and by not recognizing
their state issued rights-of-way.
Copper Valley representatives, Alaska Native advocates, and GAO
identified four legislative alternatives that could be considered to
resolve conflicts over the validity of Copper Valley rights-of-way
within Alaska Native allotments.
* Alternative 1: Change Interior's application of the relation back
doctrine to Alaska Native allotments so that the date an allotment was
filed, rather than the date an allottee claimed initial use and
occupancy of the land, is used to determine the rights of allottees and
holders of rights-of-way.
* Alternative 2: Allow the U.S. government to be sued with regard to
Alaska Native allotments so that legal challenges to the relation back
doctrine and other legal issues can be heard in federal court.
* Alternative 3: Ratify the rights-of-way granted by the State of
Alaska within federally granted highway easements, to provide for a
valid right-of-way dating back to the time the state right-of-way was
granted.
* Alternative 4: Establish a federal fund to pay for rights-of-way
across Alaska Native allotments.
In commenting on our report, Interior, the State of Alaska and Copper
Valley generally agreed with the report's contents. The State of Alaska
commented on each of the alternatives, and expressed its support for
alternative three. Copper Valley also commented on each of the
alternatives and specifically expressed support for alternatives one
and three.
Background:
In 1906, Congress passed the Alaska Native Allotment Act, which
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to allot individual Alaska
Natives a homestead of up to 160 acres of land.[Footnote 4] Under
Interior's regulations, the 160 acres may be in separate parcels that
need not be contiguous, but each separate tract should be in reasonably
compact form.[Footnote 5] In a 1956 amendment to the act, Congress
required that "[n]o allotment shall be made to any person under [the
1906] Act until said person has made proof satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Interior of substantially continuous use and occupancy
of the land for a period of five years."[Footnote 6] Initially, the
Native Allotment Act was little used by Alaska Natives. However, before
the law's repeal with passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act on December 18, 1971, roughly 10,000 Alaska Natives applied for
over 16,000 parcels of land. The provision that repealed the Native
Allotment Act preserved any pending Native allotment applications
"before" Interior as of December 18, 1971. While Interior has processed
most of the Native allotment applications, as of March 2004,
applications for about 3,000 parcels remain to be processed.
Interior's policies in the early 1970s required clear, physical
evidence to support a Native's use and occupancy of an allotment claim.
Since traditional Native land uses, such as hunting, fishing, and
gathering, did not leave much physical evidence, Interior questioned
the legitimacy of many allotment applications and eliminated or reduced
the size of many allotments. In response, many Natives appealed
Interior's decisions regarding their allotment applications. In 1976,
Interior was compelled by a federal appeals court decision to provide
hearings before denying any allotment application for factual
reasons.[Footnote 7] In addition to providing hearings for pending
applications, Interior, as a result of this decision, reopened cases
for applicants that had been denied a hearing in the past, slowing the
allotment adjudication process. Also, in 1979, an Alaska district court
ruled that a Native's right to the land was deemed to have vested as of
the date of first use and occupancy, rather than at the time the
allotment was approved.[Footnote 8] Therefore, a Native's use of an
allotment took priority over other land selections made by the State of
Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958.[Footnote 9]
In 1980, in an attempt to get the allotment adjudication process moving
forward again, Congress legislatively approved all pending allotment
applications (with certain exceptions) without regard to the
applicant's actual use of the land, as part of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).[Footnote 10] Although ANILCA
reduced the need for factual investigations and hearings regarding a
Native's use and occupancy of an allotment approved under the act,
conflicting interpretations of the wording and intent of the statute
continued to hamper the allotment adjudication process. In particular,
differing interpretations of the phrase "valid existing rights" with
regard to rights-of-way, set the stage for conflicts between Native
allotees and holders of rights-of-way and resulted in numerous legal
appeals.
BLM is responsible for adjudicating applications for Native allotments
and granting rights-of-way on BLM lands. Once BLM approves an allotment
and passes title to an Alaska Native, BIA, which has a fiduciary
responsibility for Native lands, assumes some management responsibility
for Native allotments. BIA is generally the first point of contact for
an Alaska Native regarding the administration of their allotment. They
provide realty services such as providing advice regarding sales,
leases, granting rights-of-way, and investigating trespass claims.
Since BIA grants or approves actions affecting Native title on Native
allotments, an applicant must work with BIA or its contractor (realty
service provider) to obtain a right-of-way through an approved Native
allotment. BIA's right-of-way application process generally takes at
least 24 months to complete and begins when the applicant contacts the
BIA, or its realty service provider, for permission to survey the
Native allotment. The BIA, or its realty service provider, would then
contact the owners of the allotment to obtain consent to survey. After
surveying the allotment, the applicant submits the right-of-way
application. After the appraisal is conducted, the BIA, or its realty
service provider, will negotiate with the allottees and the right-of-
way applicant to discuss the settlement terms. A right-of-way is issued
after BIA had concurred with and approved the settlement agreement. For
rights-of-way applications within pending Native allotments, BLM grants
the right-of-way after coordinating with BIA. Since BLM has
administrative jurisdiction while the Native allotment is under
adjudication, the applicant would apply through BLM in the survey and
appraisal process to obtain a right-of-way. Under a 1979 Memorandum of
Understanding between BLM and BIA, BLM coordinates with BIA when
processing right-of-way applications for pending Native allotments, and
BIA assumes responsibility for Native allotments once BLM approves the
allotment. BLM's decisions concerning Native allotments and rights-of-
way can be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). The
IBLA makes decisions for Interior on appeals related to actions taken
by Interior officials relating to the use and disposition of public
lands. In Alaska, hundreds of BLM's Native allotment decisions have
been appealed to the IBLA, including those concerning the validity of
rights-of-way within Native allotments.
Prior to 1987, Alaska Native allotments were generally subject to
rights-of-way existing when they were approved. However, in 1987, the
IBLA began applying the relation back doctrine to declare certain
existing rights-of-way null and void. Under the relation back doctrine,
the IBLA gives priority to an allottee if the allottee's claimed
initial use and occupancy of the land predated other uses and rights-
of-way, even if the allotment application was submitted after the right-
of-way was issued.[Footnote 11] Legal challenges to Interior's use of
the relation back doctrine in federal court have been dismissed because
the U.S. government has not waived its sovereign immunity and allowed
itself to be sued with regard to Alaska Native allotments.[Footnote 12]
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that precludes bringing suit
against the government without its consent. Congress has enacted
various statutes setting out the circumstances under which the U.S.
government has consented to be sued. Under the Quiet Title Act, the
U.S. government has waived its sovereign immunity for certain land
issues; however, the waiver in the act does not apply to "trust or
restricted Indian lands." Since Alaska Native allotments are
"restricted Indian lands," federal courts have ruled that they do not
have jurisdiction to review the IBLA's decisions concerning the
application of the relation back doctrine to rights-of-way over Native
allotments.
Conflicts Exist in 14 Cases:
There are 14 cases where conflict exists regarding the validity of
Copper Valley's rights-of-way within Native allotments. (See appendix
I.) In each of these cases, BIA and/or the allottee believes that
Copper Valley has failed to obtain permission for electric lines on
Native property. These conflicts exist for three reasons. First, in 5
cases BLM and Alaska Realty have applied the relation back doctrine to
invalidate or question Copper Valley's rights-of-way. In each of these
cases BLM and Alaska Realty have invalided or questioned Copper Valley
rights-of-way because a Native allottee's use and occupancy of the land
predated the right-of-way. For example,
* In 1992, BLM voided Copper Valley's right-of-way across Evelyn Hash
Koonuk's allotment that Copper Valley held for over 27 years. BLM
determined that even though her application for the allotment was not
filed until almost 7 years after the right-of-way was issued her use
and occupancy predated the right-of-way. (See fig. 1.)
* In 1995, BLM voided Copper Valley's right-of-way across Carol Holt's
allotment that it held for 19 years. Based on the date of use and
occupancy claimed in Carol Holt's application, BLM determined that she
had rights prior to Copper Valley. (See fig. 2.)
Both of these allotments were legislatively approved under ANILCA. In
these two cases, officials from Copper Valley stated that they believe
that the relation back doctrine has, in effect, voided the requirement
in ANILCA that Native allotments are to be approved subject to valid
existing rights. In Copper Valley's view, their rights-of-way are valid
rights, existing at the time the Native allotment applications were
approved. Copper Valley also believes that the relation back doctrine
should be repealed, or at the very least, that an allottee's claimed
date of use and occupancy should not be used to declare their rights-
of-way null and void.
Figure 1: Key Milestones for Evelyn Hash Koonuk's Native Allotment and
Copper Valley's Right-of-way:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Key Milestones for Carol J. Gurtler Holt's Native Allotment
and Copper Valley's Right-of-way:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
[End of figure]
Second, in six cases conflict exists regarding the status of Copper
Valley's rights-of-way within Native allotments because Copper Valley
has a state--but not a federal--right-of-way within a highway easement
granted by the federal government to Alaska. The federal government
transferred the easements for the Richardson and Old Edgerton Highways
to the State of Alaska under the 1959 Alaska Omnibus Act.[Footnote 13]
In 1962 and 1983, the State of Alaska granted Copper Valley utility
rights-of-way within these federally granted highway easements. For
example, in 1983, the State of Alaska granted Copper Valley a utility
right-of-way within the Old Edgerton Highway easement that crosses
Howard Jerue's allotment. Then in 1989, 30 years after Alaska became a
state and was granted the highway easements from the federal
government, Interior's Alaska Office of the Solicitor issued an opinion
concerning whether a federal grant of a highway easement to the State
of Alaska authorized the state to grant a right-of-way within the
highway easement to a utility. The Solicitor concluded that federal,
not state, law governed the issue and that under federal law, certain
federally granted highway easements did not convey to the state the
authority to grant rights-of-way for utility lines because they are not
structures necessary for the use of highway easements but are new uses
being imposed on the land.
Relying on the Solicitor's opinion, Alaska Realty is now requesting
that Copper Valley apply for rights-of-way from BIA on behalf of the
allottee where their electric lines are located within highway
easements that cross Native allotments. Alaska Realty has taken the
position, supported by Interior, that Copper Valley is trespassing on
the allotment because it installed electric lines without acquiring a
federal right-of-way across these allotments. Copper Valley, however,
maintains that its state issued utility easements are sufficient.
Officials from Copper Valley told us that they believe that their
rights-of-way across these six allotments are adequate, pointing to a
1983 Alaska Supreme Court decision that found electric line
construction was an incidental and subordinate use of a highway
easement and that an additional right-of-way from the landowner was not
necessary.[Footnote 14]
Third, in three cases conflict exists because Copper Valley built an
electric line across Native allotments where a right-of-way had not
been issued. In 1965, Copper Valley filed a right-of-way application
with BLM for an electric distribution line, which was built 2 years
later. However, it took BLM until 1982, or 17 years, to act on Copper
Valley's application. In the meantime, several Native allotment
applications were filed where Copper Valley had constructed its
electric lines. BLM received Native allotment applications from Frank
Gurtler, Mary Ann Gurtler, and Florence Sabon in 1972, and they were
subsequently approved in 1983 and 1984. In addition, in 1979, BLM and
BIA signed a Memorandum of Understanding that clarified jurisdictional
responsibilities for granting rights-of-way across pending Native
allotments. Under this memorandum and in accordance with BLM state
director policy, Copper Valley was to have obtained BIA concurrence
before BLM could grant a right-of-way across a pending Native
allotment. As such, in 1982 when BLM acted on Copper Valley's right-of-
way application it determined that Copper Valley's right-of-way
application for the existing electric line would be held for rejection
where it crossed the land of Frank Gurtler, Mary Ann Gurtler, and
Florence Sabon unless Copper Valley received BIA approval to cross
lands that were, at the time, pending approval as Native allotments.
According to BIA officials and Interior records, Copper Valley did not
obtain BIA approval for a right-of-way across these pending allotments.
Because Copper Valley did not obtain BIA approval, BLM's decision to
reject Copper Valley's application where the right-of-way crossed the
three Native allotments took effect.
Exiting Remedies to Resolve Disputes Have Produced Limited Results:
Few cases have been resolved using existing remedies. Copper Valley
currently has three remedies available to it to resolve conflicts. It
could (1) negotiate rights-of-way with Native allottees in conjunction
with BIA or its realty service provider; (2) relocate its electric
lines outside of the Native allotment; or (3) exercise the power of
eminent domain, also known as condemnation, to acquire the land.
Under the first option, Copper Valley can negotiate with Alaska Realty
to secure a right-of-way across a Native allotment. Since the mid-
1990s, Copper Valley began discussions with Alaska Realty to obtain
rights-of-way within 13 Native allotments. Copper Valley had 9 of these
Native allotments surveyed, the first step in obtaining a right-of-way
grant. Ultimately, BIA appraised 7 of these allotments, and Copper
Valley was able to reach an agreement for rights-of-way across only 3
Native allotments. The other 4 cases that were appraised remain in
conflict, and Copper Valley and the Native allottees have been unable
to agree on the terms of the proposed right-of-way. For example, we
spoke with heirs or allottees from Mary Ann Gurtler's and Carol Holt's
allotments who said that for several years they had been negotiating
with BIA, Alaska Realty, and Copper Valley in an attempt to get
electric service to their homes and a right-of-way for the electric
lines that cross their allotments. The allottees claim that Copper
Valley is denying them electric service because of all of the
unresolved conflicts with the rights-of-way in the area. They also
noted that, at this point in time, all they want is to get electric
service and that they are willing to waive compensation for a right-of-
way. Copper Valley in its comments to us disagreed with the allottees'
statements and noted that the association has the goal of servicing all
potentially eligible customers in its service area.
While the amount paid to an allottee for the use of the land in a right-
of-way is generally a couple of thousand dollars, the process for
obtaining a right-of-way can be costly and time consuming. Copper
Valley claims that the cost of negotiating rights-of-way and
compensating the allottees ranges from $10,000 to $30,000 in surveying,
legal, and other administrative costs per allotment and may take
several years to complete. Copper Valley is concerned that purchasing
rights-of-way across Native allotments will, over time, increase
electric rates for members. It is also concerned that purchasing rights-
of-way from select members would alienate members who are not
compensated yet have to pay a higher electric bill for those who do.
Under the second option--relocating its electric lines outside of
Native allotments--Copper Valley officials noted that they had not
removed electric lines from Native allotments as a way to resolve
conflicts over rights-of-way. Removing electric power lines from a
Native allotment and relocating them elsewhere raises cost and
environmental concerns. Relocating electric lines would scar the land
and possibly damage the surrounding areas due to heavy equipment
traversing through the allotment. Copper Valley does not view this
option as very practical given that, in many areas, Native allotments
border the highway on both sides, leaving few options for where to
relocate the lines.
Under the third option, Copper Valley has the authority to resolve
conflicts through condemnation pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 357, in
conjunction with Alaska Stat. § 42.05.631.[Footnote 15] Copper Valley
is opposed to condemnation and is reluctant to secure a right-of-way in
this manner because they maintain they do not have the funds to
compensate the allottees for the land condemned, and because they
believe that condemnation is not politically feasible and may damage
relationships with the community they serve.
In summary, Copper Valley officials maintain that the options currently
available to resolve conflicts over rights-of-way within Native
allotments are too costly, impractical, and/or potentially damaging to
relationships with the community. Furthermore, Copper Valley takes the
position that on principle they should not have to bear the cost of
resolving conflicts that they believe the federal government caused by
applying the relation back doctrine and by failing to recognize state
issued rights-of-way within federally granted highway easements. Copper
Valley has stopped trying to settle these disputes and is now seeking
legislation to resolve the conflicts.
Legislative Alternatives to Resolve Conflicts between Native Allotments
and Copper Valley Rights-of-way Have Been Identified:
Copper Valley representatives, Alaska Native advocates, and GAO have
identified four legislative alternatives to resolve conflicts over
Copper Valley rights-of-way within Alaska Native allotments. These
alternatives may be combined. Also, some of these individual
legislative remedies would address only one specific cause of the
conflicts between Native allottees and Copper Valley rights-of-way.
Alternative 1: Change Interior's Application of the Relation Back
Doctrine to Alaska Native Allotments:
Congress could enact legislation directing Interior to use the date an
allotment application is filed, rather than the date an allottee
claimed initial use and occupancy of the land, to determine the rights
of allottees and holders of rights-of-way. This option, which would
rescind application of the relation back doctrine to Native allotments,
would allow Copper Valley to keep its federal rights-of-way as long as
the right-of-way was issued before the allotment application was filed.
Implementing this option would likely benefit Copper Valley by favoring
the holders of rights-of-way and might result in legal challenges by
Native allottees claiming that this action constitutes a taking of
their property. If such challenges were successful, the federal
government would have to compensate Native allottees.
Alternative 2: Allow the U.S. Government to be Sued with Regard to
Alaska Native Allotments:
A second option is for Congress to allow the U.S. government to be sued
with regard to Alaska Native allotments by waiving the U.S.
government's sovereign immunity so that legal challenges involving the
relation back doctrine can be heard in federal court. Under this
option, IBLA decisions regarding the relation back doctrine could be
appealed to the courts, providing an opportunity for judicial review of
these administrative decisions. While this option would allow Copper
Valley and others to challenge Interior's administrative decisions, the
courts may well uphold Interior's decisions. Moreover, appeals would
entail legal costs to Copper Valley and the federal government. In
addition, even if Copper Valley were to prevail, a solution to the
conflict may take years to achieve as these cases make their way
through the courts. Also, a decision would need to be made regarding
whether this alternative would only apply to future IBLA decisions or
whether old cases could also be refiled. For this alternative to apply
to old cases, like the Copper Valley relation back cases from the
1990s, a special exemption would need to be crafted that waived the
statute of limitations for these older cases.
Alternative 3: Ratify Rights-of-way Granted by the State of Alaska
within Certain Federally Granted Highway Easements:
Congress could ratify the rights-of-way granted by the State of Alaska
within certain federally granted highway easements. This option could
provide Copper Valley with a valid right-of-way across the allotments
dating back to the time the state right-of-way was granted. Legislation
providing a right-of-way across Native allotments would have legal and
financial implications. For example, such legislation might constitute
a taking, for which compensation is required.
Alternative 4: Establish a Federal Fund to Pay for Rights-of-Way:
A fourth option is to establish a federal fund to pay for rights-of-way
across Native allotments. This option would benefit both Native
allottees and Copper Valley by compensating allottees for use of their
land and by not requiring Copper Valley to pay for the right-of-way
across a Native allotment. Under this option, the federal government
and taxpayers would bear the entire cost of resolving the conflicts.
However, the cost of alternative four would be similar to the combined
cost of alternatives one and three if they are determined to be takings
that require federal compensation.
In conclusion, some of the conflicts over the validity of Copper
Valley's rights-of-way within Native allotments date back over 30
years. Since the mid-1990s, Alaska Realty, as the new realty service
provider for BIA, has been pursuing Copper Valley to resolve these
conflicts. Despite trying to resolve these conflicts intermittently
over the past 9 years, existing remedies have generally been
unsuccessful in settling disputes between Native allottees and Copper
Valley. While we have identified several legislative alternatives to
address the issues at the root of these conflicts, we do not hold an
opinion as to which, if any, of these alternatives might be preferable.
Further, while we did not determine the financial costs or the legal
ramifications on the property rights of the Alaska Native allottees
associated with any of these options, these costs and legal
ramifications would need to be assessed.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro on (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony and the report on which it was based are Doreen Stolzenberg
Feldman, José Alfredo Gómez, Roy Judy, Mark Keenan, Jeffery D. Malcolm,
Paul Staley, Carrie Wilks, and Arvin Wu.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Cases Where Conflict Exists between Native Allotments and
Copper Valley's Electric Lines:
BLM and Alaska Realty have applied the relation back doctrine;
Name of Native allotment applicant: Markle F. Ewan, Sr;
Native allotment serial number: A-046337.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Peter Ewan[A];
Native allotment serial number: AA-5896-A.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Evelyn Hash Koonuk;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7242-B.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Carol J. Gurtler Holt;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7552.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Tazlina Joe;
Native allotment serial number: A-031653.
State issued utility rights-of-way within federally granted highway
easements.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Etta Bell;
Native allotment serial number: AA-6014-B.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Bacille George;
Native allotment serial number: A-043380.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Howard J. Jerue;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7059.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Bernice E. Mai;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7600.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Harvey B. Seversen;
Native allotment serial number: AA-8032.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Roxy Venner;
Native allotment serial number: AA-6034.
Copper Valley was never issued a right-of-way;
Name of Native allotment applicant: Frank Gurtler;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7553.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Mary Ann Gurtler;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7554.
Name of Native allotment applicant: Florence Sabon;
Native allotment serial number: AA-7336.
Sources: GAO analysis of BLM, BIA, Copper Valley, and Alaska Realty
data.
[A] This parcel encompasses 29.02 acres. In 1992, BLM reinstated a
claim by Peter Ewan for an adjoining 130 acres, designated as Parcel B
(AA-5896-B). As of April 2004, BLM was working with the State of Alaska
for a reconveyance of this property. Depending on the specific terms of
the reconveyance from the state, Parcel B may eventually have the same
right-of-way conflict as Parcel A.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The terms right-of-way and easement are used interchangeably to
describe the right of one party to use a specific part of the land of
another for certain designated purposes, such as building, using, or
maintaining a road or utility line.
[2] See, e.g., Golden Valley Electric Ass'n, 85 IBLA 363 (1985),
vacated, 98 IBLA 203 (1987).
[3] GAO, Alaska Native Allotments: Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-way
Have Not Been Resolved through Existing Remedies, GAO-04-923
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2004).
[4] Act of May 17, 1906, ch. 2469, 34 Stat. 197 (1906). Repealed by
Pub. L. No. 92-203, § 18(a), 85 Stat. 688, 710 (1971).
[5] 43 C.F.R. § 2561.0-8.
[6] Act of August 2, 1956, ch. 891, 70 Stat. 954 (1956). The 1956 Act
also authorized Native allotees, or their heirs, to sell their
allotments.
[7] Pence v. Kleppe, 529 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1976).
[8] Aguilar v. United States, 474 F. Supp. 840 (D. Alaska 1979).
[9] Pub. L. No. 85-508, § 6(a)-(b), 72 Stat. 339, 340 (1958).
[10] Pub. L. No. 96-487, § 905(a), 94 Stat. 2371, 2435-36 (1980).
[11] See, e.g., Golden Valley Electric Ass'n (On Reconsideration), 98
IBLA 203, 207 (1987); State of Alaska, Golden Valley Electric Ass'n,
110 IBLA 224 (1989).
[12] See, e.g., Alaska v. Babbit (Foster), 75 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1995);
Alaska v. Babbit (Albert), 38 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1994).
[13] Pub. L. No. 86-70, 73 Stat. 141 (1959).
[14] Fisher v. Golden Valley Electric Ass'n, Inc., 658 P.2d 127 (Alaska
1983).
[15] Lands allotted in severalty to Indians may be condemned for any
public purpose under the laws of the State or Territory where they are
located in the same manner as land owned in fee may be condemned, and
the money awarded as damages shall be paid to the allottee (25 U.S.C. §
357). Under Alaska state law a public utility may exercise the power of
eminent domain for public utility uses (Alaska Stat. § 42.05.631).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: