Can a city annex an unincorporated area surrounded on three sides if the fourth side borders Corps of Engineers lake property?

Plain-English summary

Senator Johnny Key asked AG Dustin McDaniel whether U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land at Bull Shoals Lake would qualify as a "military reservation" or "military base" for purposes of Arkansas's surrounded-lands annexation statute, as amended by Act 1243 of 2013.

A.C.A. § 14-40-501(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a city to annex an unincorporated area when the city's incorporated limits have "completely surrounded" the area. Act 1243 added a special rule: the area still counts as completely surrounded when the city covers only three sides, if the fourth side is a state border, a military base, a state park, or a national forest. That made Senator Key's question matter: if Corps of Engineers land counted as a "military base," cities adjacent to lake property could use the new three-side rule to pick up unincorporated pockets.

The AG declined to apply the statute to specific land but offered a strong hint. "Military base" is not defined in the statute, and absent a statutory or judicial definition, the AG looks to common usage. He pointed to the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition: "a place used as a center of operations by the armed forces or others; a headquarters." Corps of Engineers land at Bull Shoals Lake, per the Corps's own description, is managed as a civil works project for outdoor recreation, not as a military headquarters or operating base. "Assuming the land under your question is part of this Corps civil works project, it seems highly unlikely that such land constitutes a 'military base' for purposes of A.C.A. § 14-40-501."

The opinion is careful: the AG does not formulate his own definitions where the legislature has not, and he does not apply state law to specific tracts. The conclusion is a forecast of how a court would likely read the term, not a binding determination.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What does "completely surrounded" mean for municipal annexation in Arkansas?
At the time of this opinion, A.C.A. § 14-40-501(a)(1)(A)(i) let a city annex an unincorporated area whose boundaries the city's incorporated limits had fully encircled. Act 1243 of 2013 added a fiction that surrounded-on-three-sides counts as "completely surrounded" if the fourth side is a state border, military base, state park, or national forest.

Why was the Bull Shoals question important?
Bull Shoals Lake covers a huge area on the Arkansas-Missouri border, with the Corps owning approximately 60,000 acres of surrounding land. If Corps lakefront land counted as a "military base," a city whose limits stopped at the shoreline could annex unincorporated pockets adjacent to the lake using the three-side rule. That would substantially expand annexation authority.

Why was the AG unwilling to give a yes-or-no answer?
Per A.C.A. § 25-16-706, the AG's role is general interpretation of state law for legislators and certain state officials. "A definitive application of the law in question to any particular situation or any particular land is outside the scope of an opinion from this office." The AG's office also declines to fill statutory definitional gaps where the legislature has not done so.

What dictionary definition did the AG rely on?
The "chiefly Military" sense in the New Oxford American Dictionary: "a place used as a center of operations by the armed forces or others; a headquarters." Civilian-recreational Corps land does not fit that meaning.

Does this opinion settle the issue?
No. An AG opinion is persuasive but not binding. A municipality that tried to annex around Bull Shoals using the three-side rule would risk litigation, and any court would have to reach its own statutory construction. The AG's forecast suggests the city would likely lose.

Background and statutory framework

Surrounded-lands annexation under A.C.A. § 14-40-501 lets a municipality propose annexation of unincorporated pockets enclosed by city limits. The 2013 amendment by Act 1243 broadened "completely surrounded" to cover three-sided pockets where the fourth side is a defined natural or governmental boundary.

The AG's analysis follows standard Arkansas statutory construction:

• Give effect to legislative intent.
• Use ordinary meanings of words in the absence of ambiguity (citing Talbert v. U.S. Bank, N.A.).
• Dictionary definitions are appropriate when a term has no controlling statutory or judicial definition (K.N. v. State; Arkansas Tobacco Control Board v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company).

The Corps of Engineers' Little Rock District operates Bull Shoals and Norfolk Lakes "to provide opportunities for quality outdoor experiences through sound stewardship and responsible management of the natural resources on public and private lands and water." That is a civil works mission, not a military operations mission.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 14-40-501(a)(1)(A)(i) (Supp. 2013) (surrounded-lands annexation, three-side rule)
• Act 1243 of 2013 (amending the annexation statute)
• A.C.A. § 25-16-706 (Repl. 2002) (AG opinion authority)
• Talbert v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 372 Ark. 148, 271 S.W.3d 486 (2008) (statutory ambiguity standard)
• K.N. v. State, 360 Ark. 579, 203 S.W.3d 103 (2005) (common meanings)
• Arkansas Tobacco Control Board v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, 360 Ark. 32, 199 S.W.3d 656 (2004) (dictionary definitions)
• Op. Att'y Gen. Nos. 2010-002, 2008-116, 1998-025 (declining to formulate definitions)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2009-168 (statutory construction principles)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dustin McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-139

February 27, 2014

The Honorable Johnny Key

State Senator

Post Office Box 350

Mountain Home, Arkansas 72654

Dear Senator Key:

You have requested my opinion regarding Act 1243 of 2013, which amended the
law on the annexation of surrounded lands by a municipality. You state that a
question has arisen regarding this law and land owned at Bull Shoals Lake by the
Unites States Corps of Engineers, and you ask:

Does land owned by the United States Corps of Engineers, a branch
of the United States Department of the Army, qualify as a military
reservation and/or military base?

RESPONSE

A definitive application of the law in question to any particular situation or any
particular land is outside the scope of an opinion from this office, which extends
primarily to the general interpretation of state law.' This opinion is therefore
limited to the scope of your general question and should not be interpreted as a
conclusive determination regarding any specific set of facts.

The law in question, as amended by Act 1243 of 2013, provides in relevant part as
follows:

' See A.C.A. § 25-16-706 (Repl. 2002) (requiring the Attorney General to render his opinion to legislators
and other state officials on certain matters of state law).

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 LitTLE Rock, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * Fax (501) 682-8084
INTERNET WEBSITE * http://www.ag.state.ar.us/

The Honorable Johnny Key
State Senator

Opinion No, 2013-139
Page 2

Whenever the incorporated limits of a municipality have completely
surrounded an unincorporated area, the governing body of the
municipality may propose an ordinance calling for the annexation of
the land surrounded by the municipality.

(ii) Subdivision (a)(1)(A)(i) of this section shall include situations in
which the incorporated limits of a municipality have surrounded an
unincorporated area on only three (3) sides because the fourth side is
a boundary line with another state, a military base, a state park, or a
national forest.’

The answer to your question thus turns on the meaning of “military base” as used
in this statute. There is no controlling statutory definition of the term, and this
office cannot provide a definition where the legislature has not done so.’ We are
guided, however, by well-established principles of statutory construction in
determining its meaning. As I have previously observed:

With respect to a single statute, the fundamental rule of statutory
construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. In the
absence of ambiguity, legislative intent is determined from the
ordinary and usually accepted meanings of the language used. Ifa
statute is clear and unambiguous, it is given its plain meaning,
without further search for legislative intent. In such a case, there is
‘no need to resort to rules of statutory construction.”*

Additionally, the Arkansas Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a stated
definition, it is appropriate to give the words of a statute their commonly
understood meanings.” The court has sometimes resorted to dictionary definitions

2 A.C.A. § 14-40-501(a)(1)(A)(i) (Supp. 2013) (emphasis added). Act 1243 of 2013 added the emphasized
language.

3 See Op. Att’y Gen. Nos, 2010-002 and 2008-116 (and opinions cited therein), See also Op. Att’y Gen.
1998-025 (“This office has consistently taken the position that in the absence of a legislatively-or
judicially-formulated definition, it is inappropriate for the Attorney General, being a member of the
executive branch of government, to formulate a controlling definition.”),

• Op. Att’y Gen. 2009-168 (internal citations omitted, observing that “[a] statute is ambiguous only where it
  is open to two or more constructions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable
  minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning,” citing Talbert v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 372 Ark. 148,
  155, 271 S.W.3d 486 (2008)).

• KN. v. State, 360 Ark. 579, 584, 203 S.W.3d 103 (2005).

The Honorable Johnny Key
State Senator

Opinion No. 2013-139
Page 3

in order to determine the meaning of a word or phrase.° In this regard, the New
Oxford American Dictionary 136 (3d ed. 2010) defines the term “base,” in the
“chiefly [mlilitary” sense, as “a place used as a center of operations by the armed
forces or others; a headquarters[.]”

In my opinion, a court would likely look to this common definition to interpret the
term “military base” as used in A.C.A. § 14-40-501. According to the U.S. Corps
of Engineers’ (“Corps”) Little Rock District website, the Corps owns
approximately 60,000 acres of land surrounding Bull Shoals Lake, and it manages
Bull Shoals and Norfolk Lakes “to provide opportunities for quality outdoor
experiences through sound stewardship and responsible management of the natural
resources on public and private lands and water.”” Assuming the land under your
question is part of this Corps civil works project, it seems highly unlikely that such
land constitutes a “military base” for purposes of A.C.A. § 14-40-501. As
indicated above, however, a definitive application of A.C.A. § 14-40-501 in any
specific situation is not a matter that falls within the scope of an Attorney General
opinion.

Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion,
which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

v,

Attorney Gené€ral

DM:EAW/cyh

° E.g., Arkansas Tobacco Control Board v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, 360 Ark. 32, 39, 199
S.W.3d 656 (2004).

7 See http://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation.aspx (under “Bull Shores Lake” and
“Missions”).