## Facts

- The State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), sought to acquire Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate’s Anchorage property for the “A–C Couplet” highway project.
- The State proceeded under Alaska’s declaration-of-taking (“quick-take”) eminent domain statutes, under which title passes upon filing the declaration.
- Ship Creek objected, arguing the State failed to satisfy statutory requirements that a project be located to achieve the “greatest public good” with the “least private injury,” including adequate consideration of alternatives.
- The superior court held a four-day evidentiary hearing featuring competing engineering testimony about route and design options and their impacts.
- The superior court upheld the taking, declining to divest the State of title or possession.
- Ship Creek sought Alaska Supreme Court review, relying on amended quick-take requirements and prior decisions requiring individualized consideration of private injury.

## Issues

1. What level of agency consideration and record support is required to satisfy the statutory requirement that the project be located in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury in a quick-take proceeding?
2. Whether the landowner proved the declaration’s statutory statement was untrue, requiring divestiture of title or possession under AS 09.55.460(b).

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order upholding the condemnation.
- The court held that the amended quick-take statute requires individualized consideration of injury to affected landowners and, where appropriate, approximate cost estimates of feasible alternatives.
- The court rejected a requirement that the condemnor produce a formal written “decisional document” with findings comparable to an administrative adjudication.
- The court concluded the record showed DOT/PF considered alternatives and engaged in a good-faith balancing of public benefits and private harms.
- Ship Creek did not carry its burden to prove the statutory “greatest public good/least private injury” statement was untrue; divestiture was therefore unwarranted.

## Legal Principles

- In Alaska quick-take proceedings, the condemnor must support the statutory declaration that the taking is necessary for a project located in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (AS 09.55.430(7))
- Courts may divest the condemnor of title or possession if the declaration’s statutory statement is untrue. (AS 09.55.460(b))
- The required showing includes individualized consideration of private injury to each affected landowner; in appropriate cases, this may require approximate cost estimates for feasible alternatives.
- Judicial review examines whether the condemnor made a reasonable, good-faith evaluation of alternatives and impacts; review remains deferential on technical and planning judgments and does not replace the agency’s choice among reasonable options.
- The landowner bears the burden to prove the declaration’s statutory necessity and location statement is untrue.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the State’s quick-take condemnation because the record supported that DOT/PF reasonably considered alternatives and balanced public good against private injury, and the landowner failed to prove the statutory declaration was untrue, so divestiture of title or possession was not authorized.


Ship Creek Hydraulic Syndicate v. State, 685 P.2d 715 (Alaska 1984)