How much of a township road right-of-way must an adjoining landowner clear of vegetation under SDCL 31-31-2, and when does farming, fencing, or altering the grade of a section-line highway cross the line into illegal obstruction?
Plain-English summary
Ipswich Township in Edmunds County observed two recurring problems on the township's section-line highways. Some adjoining landowners were farming within the right-of-way. And some of the rights-of-way were overgrown with vegetation. The Township Board asked the AG five questions to clarify how far the township could and should push on each.
The 2018 AG worked through each question.
On vegetation (Question 1), SDCL 31-31-2 puts the duty on landowners and occupants of land abutting township roads to "cut, remove, or destroy ... grass, weeds, trees, and brush growing on or in the right-of-way of such roads." There is no statutory limit to the shoulder; the duty extends across the entire 66-foot right-of-way (or wider if the township has formally widened it). The qualifier is that the remaining vegetation must be such that it can be cut with a mower. So the landowner must remove woody growth and brush that a mower could not handle, leaving grass and weeds for routine mowing.
On farming or grade-altering as obstruction (Question 2), there is no per-se rule. SDCL 31-32-9 lists rocks, stones, glass, and irrigation flooding as obstructions, but does not name farming. AGO 85-40 (Attorney General Meierhenry) already held that obstruction was a factual determination, and AG Jackley adopted the same approach. The township has to look at the specific situation: is the farming or grade alteration actually obstructing public use of the highway? Case by case.
Fencing has its own framework. SDCL 31-25-1 lets a county commission authorize fences across a public highway in certain circumstances. SDCL 31-25-1.1 lets a landowner fence across an unimproved section-line highway provided that gates allow suitable public access. Properly authorized fences with public-access gates do not obstruct in the legal sense.
On farming as injury to the highway (Question 3), SDCL 31-32-7 prohibits "removing, destroying, or otherwise altering the grade constructed for such highway or by filling, obstructing, or otherwise altering the ditch [that] drains the grade." Again no per-se prohibition of farming. The question is whether the particular farming activity has actually injured the highway as defined in the statute. Factual determination case by case. If the township concludes yes, SDCL 31-32-8 provides civil and criminal remedies via circuit court.
On maintenance level (Question 4), the township's choice of full, minimum, or no maintenance under SDCL 31-13-1.1, 1.3, 1.4 does not change the obstruction-or-injury analysis. The factual question is the same regardless of designation. Even on a no-maintenance section line, the township still has to remove manmade obstructions and remains a trustee for public access (Douville v. Christensen).
On signage (Question 5), nothing in state law transfers the township's signage obligations to a landowner who farms a section-line. The township remains responsible for signage. Farming does not shift that duty.
The opinion also dropped a footnote noting that an earlier opinion (AGO 16-01) had distinguished between noxious weeds (township removes) and other weeds and woody growth (landowner removes). And a second footnote declined to opine on whether SDCL 31-18-5's recreational-use liability protection survives a landowner's farming or fencing of an unimproved section line, because that is a personal-liability question rather than a township-duty question.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2018. 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. SDCL Title 31 has been amended in various places since 2018, and the specific section-line and township-road provisions should be checked directly. The general framework (state-controlled public rights-of-way along every section line, township maintenance authority, factual obstruction analysis) is stable, but particular rules may have changed.
What the opinion meant at the time
For Ipswich Township and other SD townships in 2018, the opinion gave them an enforcement playbook. On vegetation, they could send notice to adjoining landowners to clear the full 66-foot ROW, not just the shoulder, with the mower-cuttable cutoff. On farming and grade alteration, they had to make a written factual finding that the activity actually obstructed the highway or injured the grade before pursuing relief. On fencing, they had to check whether SDCL 31-25-1 or 31-25-1.1 had been complied with (county commission authorization or unimproved-section-line with gates).
For SD farmers adjoining section-line highways, the opinion meant the legality of plowing or grazing into the right-of-way was case-specific. Routine farming on an unimproved no-maintenance section line that did not actually obstruct anyone might be fine. Plowing across an actively used section-line connecting two farms or two communities would likely be an obstruction subject to enforcement.
For county state's attorneys advising townships, the opinion meant the typical complaint required a factual record. Photographs, traffic patterns, the maintenance designation, and what the alleged obstruction actually did to public access all mattered. A bare statutory-violation argument without facts about the specific situation would not succeed.
For SD Department of Transportation and county highway staff dealing with similar issues on county and state highways, the opinion's framework was instructive even though it specifically addressed township roads. The factual-determination model from AGO 85-40 (still applied in AGO 18-01) is the consistent SD approach to obstruction questions.
For rural landowners considering fencing across an unimproved section-line, the opinion confirmed SDCL 31-25-1.1's gate-permitted-access rule. Fencing without gates would be unlawful obstruction; fencing with gates allowing public access would be lawful.
Common questions
Q: What is a section-line highway?
A: Under SDCL 31-18-1, there is by operation of law a public highway along every section line in SD (66 feet wide, taken equally from each side of the line), unless lawfully vacated or moved. These rights-of-way exist whether or not the township has actually built or maintained a road there.
Q: How wide is the right-of-way I have to clear of vegetation?
A: 66 feet (33 feet on each side of the center line), at minimum, unless the township has formally widened it. SDCL 31-31-2 requires removal across the entire width, not just the shoulder.
Q: What if vegetation in the ROW can be mowed?
A: Routine grass and weeds that can be cut with a mower do not have to be removed by the landowner; they can be left for routine mowing. The landowner has to remove woody growth, brush, and other vegetation that a mower could not handle.
Q: Is farming the section-line ROW always illegal?
A: No. The opinion does not treat farming as a per-se obstruction or per-se injury. It requires a factual determination case by case. Farming an unimproved no-maintenance section-line where nobody travels and no traffic is obstructed may be lawful. Farming across an actively traveled section-line where farming blocks passage is likely an obstruction.
Q: Can a landowner fence across a section-line highway?
A: Under SDCL 31-25-1.1, yes, but only across an unimproved section-line (not altered for vehicular passage), and only with gates that allow suitable public access. SDCL 31-25-1 lets a county commission authorize fences across highways in other situations.
Q: What about altering the grade of a section-line?
A: SDCL 31-32-7 prohibits altering the grade or ditches in a way that injures the highway. Factual determination case by case. If the alteration injured the highway, SDCL 31-32-8 provides civil and criminal remedies through circuit court.
Q: Does the maintenance level matter?
A: For the obstruction and injury analysis, no. Full, minimum, and no maintenance designations under SDCL 31-13-1.1, 1.3, 1.4 control what the township must do; they do not change what landowners can do.
Q: Does the township still have to put up signs if landowners farm a section-line?
A: Yes. Nothing in state law transfers the signage obligation to landowners. The township's signage obligations under SDCL 31-13-1.2, 31-13-1.5, 31-13-1.7, 31-25-10, 31-25-11, 31-28-6, 31-28-7, 31-28-13, 31-28-21 remain its own.
Q: What about the SDCL 31-18-5 recreational-use liability protection?
A: The opinion explicitly declines to address whether a landowner who farms or fences an unimproved section-line loses the SDCL 31-18-5 protection (no duty of care for outdoor-recreational entry). That is a personal-liability question, not a township-duty question, and AG opinions are limited to the official duties of the requesting officer.
Background and statutory framework
SD's public highway system rests on a network of section-line rights-of-way that exist by statute along every section line in the state. The 66-foot width (taken 33 feet from each side of the center line) is set by SDCL 31-3-1 and SDCL 31-18-2 and is the standard width for highways "located by operation of" SDCL 31-3-6 to 31-3-3, which translates as four rods (the historical unit). Thormodsgard v. Wayne Township Board of Supervisors (1981) confirmed the section-line rule, and SD AGOs have repeated it for decades.
Townships are responsible for maintaining section-line highways within their jurisdiction (SDCL 31-13-1). The Legislature added flexibility by letting townships designate each section-line as full maintenance, minimum maintenance, or no maintenance (SDCL 31-13-1.1, 1.3, 1.4). A no-maintenance section-line still has a public right-of-way that the public can use; the township just doesn't have to "construct, repair, and maintain" the surface for vehicular traffic. The trustee duty for public access remains (Douville v. Christensen, 2002).
Adjoining landowners have a parallel duty to clear vegetation. SDCL 31-31-2 requires owners and occupants of land abutting or adjoining township roads to remove grass, weeds, trees, and brush "on or in the right-of-way of such roads." The qualifier in the statute is that the road must be "left in such condition that any and all undergrowth thereby or thereon can be cut with a mower." The AG read that as imposing a duty across the entire width of the right-of-way, not just the shoulder, with the mower-cuttable threshold determining what the landowner must remove versus what is left for routine mowing.
AGO 16-01 (Marty Jackley, 2016) had split the weed-removal duty: townships must remove all noxious weeds; landowners must remove other vegetation. AGO 18-01 carries that forward in a footnote.
Obstruction enforcement runs through SDCL 31-32-9, which directs the governing body to remove "rock, stone, glass, or other obstruction" placed in the highway, plus flooding by irrigation water. The municipality, township, county, or other public corporation can recover removal/repair costs (plus reasonable attorney fees) from the person who placed the obstruction or allowed the flooding. AGO 85-40 (Attorney General Meierhenry) read SDCL 31-32-9 as not naming farming as an obstruction, but requiring case-by-case factual determination of whether farming actually obstructs in a given situation. AGO 18-01 carries that forward unchanged.
Injury-to-highway enforcement runs through SDCL 31-32-7 and SDCL 31-32-8. The statute prohibits unauthorized destruction of the grade or alteration of the drainage ditch. SDCL 31-32-8 provides civil and criminal remedies via circuit court. Again, the AG reads farming as not per-se illegal but case-by-case based on actual injury.
Fencing operates on a separate framework. SDCL 31-25-1 gives county commissions the authority to authorize fences across a public highway in certain circumstances. SDCL 31-25-1.1, as interpreted in Douville v. Christensen and Alto Township v. Mendenhall, lets a landowner fence across an unimproved section-line "that has not been altered from its natural state in any way for the purpose of facilitating vehicular passage," provided gates allow suitable public access. The framework preserves public access even where private fencing is allowed.
The signage framework is in SDCL 31-13-1.2 (full maintenance signs), 31-13-1.5 (minimum maintenance signs), 31-13-1.7 (no maintenance signs), and various 31-25 and 31-28 provisions. All operate on the township as the responsible entity. Nothing transfers the duty to a landowner who farms the section-line.
The opinion's overall move is to give townships a structured analytical framework without creating new bright-line rules. The factual-determination approach for obstruction and injury places the analytical burden on the township and creates a record that can support either enforcement or non-enforcement decisions. The clear duty on vegetation (full ROW) gives townships a definite enforcement basis where landowners have left brush and trees growing in the right-of-way.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 31-3-1, 31-3-18 (public highway widths)
- SDCL 31-13-1, 31-13-1.1, 31-13-1.3, 31-13-1.4 (maintenance levels)
- SDCL 31-13-1.2, 31-13-1.5, 31-13-1.7 (signage)
- SDCL 31-18-1, 31-18-2 (section-line highways)
- SDCL 31-18-5 (recreational-use liability)
- SDCL ch. 31-25, 31-25-1, 31-25-1.1, 31-25-10, 31-25-11 (fencing and signage)
- SDCL 31-28-6, 31-28-7, 31-28-13, 31-28-21 (signage)
- SDCL 31-31-2 (vegetation removal duty)
- SDCL 31-32-7, 31-32-8 (injury to highway)
- SDCL 31-32-9 (obstruction removal)
Cases:
- In re Estate of Ricard, 2014 S.D. 54, 851 N.W.2d 753
- In re Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, 856 N.W.2d 805
- Thormodsgard v. Wayne Township Board of Supervisors, 310 N.W.2d 157 (S.D. 1981)
- Douville v. Christensen, 2002 S.D. 33, 641 N.W.2d 651
- Alto Township v. Mendenhall, 2011 S.D. 54, 803 N.W.2d 839
Prior AG opinions:
- AGO 85-40 (Meierhenry, obstruction factual determination)
- AGO 87-42 (section-line cited)
- AGO 16-01 (Jackley, noxious vs other weed removal split)
Source
Original opinion text
QUESTIONS:
-
Whether SDCL 31-31-2 requires the removal of vegetation only from the shoulder of a public highway right-of-way?
-
Whether the farming, fencing, or altering the grade of any portion of a section-line highway violates SDCL 31-18-1 in that it denies the general public access to the section-line highway?
-
Whether SDCL 31-32-7 prohibits farming of an unimproved section-line highway?
-
If landowners and occupants of land adjoining and abutting section-line highways are authorized to farm unimproved section-line highways, then may they farm those section-line highways designated as full maintenance, minimum maintenance, and no maintenance?
-
If a landowner is allowed to farm a section-line highway, does this alter a township's obligation to provide signage on the section-line highway?
ANSWERS:
-
SDCL 31-31-2 requires removal of vegetation from the entire right-of-way to the extent that vegetation left in the right-of-way can be cut with a mower.
-
The answer to your question depends on a factual determination regarding whether farming or altering the grade of a section-line highway is an obstruction under SDCL 31-32-9, or whether a fence was erected in accord with SDCL ch. 31-25.
-
The answer to your question depends on a factual determination as to whether farming of an unimproved section-line highway violates SDCL 31-32-7.
-
A section-line highway's statutory maintenance level does not factor into the factual determination as to whether farming constitutes an obstruction or injury to a section-line highway under applicable statutes.
-
Nothing in state law indicates a township's obligation to provide signage transfers to landowners or occupants of land adjoining or abutting section-line highways if they are permitted to farm a section-line highway
FACTS:
The Board of Supervisors for Ipswich Township, in Edmunds County, observed that some landowners and occupants of land adjoining section-line highways under the township's jurisdiction were farming in the right-of-way of those highways. The Board also observed that some of those section-line highways were overgrown with vegetation.
IN RE QUESTION 1:
The South Dakota Supreme Court has continually reiterated the purpose of statutory construction is to discover a statute's true intent primarily through an analysis of its language. In re Estate of Ricard, 2014 S.D. 54, ¶ 8, 851 N.W.2d 753, 755-56. As a result, "[w]ords and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect." In re Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, ¶ 6, 856 N.W.2d 805, 806-07 (citations omitted). A statute that has clear, certain, and unambiguous language does not need interpretation; a court need only declare the Legislature's clearly expressed intentions. Id. The clearly expressed intentions "must be determined from the statute as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject." Id. When construing statutes together, "it is presumed that the [L]egislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result." Id. (alteration in original).
According to SDCL 31-31-2, the owners and occupants of land abutting or adjoining township roads must "cut, remove, or destroy or cause to be cut, removed, or destroyed, grass, weeds, trees, and brush growing on or in the right-of-way of such roads, provided that such roads are left in such condition that any and all undergrowth thereby or thereon can be cut with a mower" (emphasis added). You have asked whether the duty imposed by this statute applies only to the shoulder of a township highway right-of-way.
In South Dakota, any public highway dedicated to the public through continuous use "shall be sixty-six feet wide and shall be taken equally from each side of the road bed center line." SDCL 31-3-1. Further, any public highway located by operation of SDCL "§§ 31-3-6 to 31-3-3, inclusive, shall be not less than four rods in width…" SDCL 31-3-18. Four rods is equivalent to sixty-six feet. Rod, Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014). Also, there is, by operation of law, a public highway along every section line, unless lawfully vacated or moved, that is at least "sixty-six feet wide and taken equally from each side of the section line[.]" SDCL 31-18-1, and 31-18-2; AGO 87-42 (citing Thormodsgard v. Wayne Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 310 N.W.2d 157 159 (S.D. 1981)).
SDCL 31-31-2 contains no language that limits the duty it imposes to only the shoulder of a right-of-way. It is my opinion that "right-of-way," as used in SDCL 31-31-2, includes all the land comprising the full width of the right-of-way of any township highway. This would be, at the very least and unless widened by further action by a public body, the sixty-six feet of land that comprises the right-of-way of a public highway in South Dakota. See Douville v. Christensen, 2002 S.D. 33, ¶ 11, 641 N.W.2d 651, 654 (citations omitted). The statute, therefore, mandates the landowner or occupant of any land abutting a highway under a township's jurisdiction must remove "grass, weeds, trees, and brush growing on or in the" entire width of the right-of-way to the extent that the vegetation remaining in the right-of-way may be cut with a mower. SDCL 31-32-2. [1]
IN RE QUESTION 2:
As recited above, the purpose of statutory construction is to discover a statute's intent through an analysis of its text. Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, ¶ 6. As such, "[w]ords and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect." Id. No interpretation is needed when a statute's language is clear, certain, and unambiguous. Id.
A public highway exists along every section line in the state unless it has been lawfully vacated or moved. SDCL 31-18-1. Those section-line highways are open to travel by the public and may not "be lawfully obstructed by private citizens absent legal authority to do so." Douville, 2002 S.D. 33, ¶¶ 11-12 (citations and footnote omitted); AGO 85-40 (quoting 1947-48 AGR 140). You have requested my opinion as to whether farming, fencing, or altering the grade of any portion of a section-line highway denies the general public access to the highway and thereby violates SDCL 31-18-1.
To ensure all streets, roads, and highways remain free of obstruction the Legislature enacted SDCL 31-32-9. This statute provides:
[t]he governing body or board having charge of any street, road, or highway shall cause rock, stone, glass, or other obstruction placed in the street, road, or highway, to be removed, or in the event that the same is flooded by irrigation water, the street, road, or highway shall be repaired. The municipality, township, county, or other public corporation is entitled to recover from any person placing the obstruction in the street, road, or highway, or allowing the water to flow upon the same, the amount necessarily expended in the removal or repair, including a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, and the action may be commenced in any court in the county having jurisdiction. This section does not apply to the placing of rock or stone in the streets, roads, or highways temporarily for building purposes.
SDCL 31-32-9.
One of my predecessors previously reviewed the requirements of SDCL 31-32-9. Applying the principles of statutory construction, Attorney General Meierhenry observed that, while the statute "enumerated rocks, stones, and glass as obstructions [that] must be removed," it did not define farming as an obstruction requiring removal. AGO 85-40. Attorney General Meierhenry concluded the governing authority had a duty to make a factual determination as to whether farming obstructed the section-line highway. Id.
The definition of what constitutes an obstruction in SDCL 31-32-9 has not been amended since AGO 85-40 was issued. I find that Attorney General Meierhenry's interpretation of the statute remains persuasive today. A township must undertake a factual determination, on a case-by-case basis, to decide whether farming or altering the grade of a section-line highway constitutes an obstruction that denies the public access to the highway. AGO 85-40.
Turning to your question regarding whether fencing a portion of section-line highway violates SDCL 31-18-1, the Legislature has provided limited legal authority for the placement of fences on section-line highways. SDCL 31-25-1 & 31-25-1.1. First, SDCL 31-25-1 grants a board of county commissioners the power to authorize the erection of fences across a public highway under certain circumstances. Alto Twp. v. Mendenhall, 2011 S.D. 54, ¶ 4 n.3, 803 N.W.2d 839, 841 n.3. Second, SDCL 31-25-1.1 allows a landowner to erect a fence across a section-line highway "that has not been 'altered from its natural state in any way for the purpose of facilitating vehicular passage,' so long as gates are present to permit suitable public access[.]" Douville, 2002 S.D. 33, ¶ 11 (quoting SDCL 31-25-1.1). Put differently, a landowner may put up a fence across an unimproved section-line highway so long as a gate allows the public access to the highway. SDCL 31-25-1.1. Both of these statutes contain language that preserves the general public's right of access to a public highway.
A township must make a factual determination as to whether farming or altering the grade of a section-line highway obstructs the highway such to deprive the public access to the highway. The fencing of a public highway is statutorily allowed in limited circumstances. If carried out under the provisions of the applicable statutes, erecting a fence on a section-line highway would not deprive the public access to the highway.
IN RE QUESTION 3:
According to SDCL 31-32-7, "[n]o unauthorized person may injure any highway by removing, destroying, or otherwise altering the grade constructed for such highway or by filling, obstructing, or otherwise altering the ditch [that] drains the grade of such highway or otherwise injures such highway in any manner." A violation of the statute may result in liability to the alleged perpetrator, either criminal or civil. Id.; SDCL 31-32-8. The statute's plain language evinces the Legislature's intent to prevent activity that may have a deleterious effect upon a highway's grade, or otherwise alter the ditch that drains the highway. SDCL 31-32-7.
You have asked whether SDCL 31-32-7 prohibits farming on unimproved section-line highways. As discussed above, Attorney General Meierhenry has already opined that a public body must make a factual determination as to whether farming constitutes an obstruction of a public highway. I conclude, similarly, that for a violation of SDCL 31-32-7 to lie, there needs to be evidence that farming of the unimproved section-line resulted in an injury to the highway as contemplated by the statute. A factual determination must be reached, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether farming on a particular section-line resulted in any of the harmful effects prohibited by the SDCL 31-32-7. See AGO 85-40. If a township determines the section-line highway has been injured in a manner proscribed by the statute, the township may seek relief in circuit court in accordance with SDCL 31-32-8.
IN RE QUESTION 4:
A township is responsible for the maintenance of all section-line highways under its jurisdiction. SDCL 31-13-1. It may determine the level of maintenance for each section-line highway by designating the highway as full, minimum, or no maintenance. SDCL 31-13-1.1, -1.3, and -1.4. Section-line highways designated as full maintenance require a township to "construct, repair, and maintain" the highways. See SDCL 31-13-1. Those highways designated as minimum maintenance "may be maintained at a level less than the minimum standards for full maintenance roads, but shall be maintained at the level required to serve the occasional or intermittent traffic." SDCL 31-13-1.1. Section-line highways designated as no maintenance do not require a township to "construct, repair, and maintain" the highway, except to remove manmade obstructions. SDCL 31-13-1, and -1.4. Regardless of designation, a township must still act as a trustee in ensuring the public has access to the section-line highway. Douville, 2002 S.D. 33, ¶ 12.
Based on the principles of statutory construction recited above, it is evident that SDCL 31-13-1.1, 31-13-1.3, and 31-13-1.4 only contemplate the level of maintenance required for section-line highways under a township's jurisdiction. These statutes have no bearing on whether a landowner or occupant of land adjoining or abutting a section-line highway may farm a portion of the highway. Whether a landowner or occupant of land adjoining or abutting a section-line highway may farm a section-line highway necessitates a factual determination as to whether the section-line has been obstructed or its grade altered or damaged. See supra Answers 2 and 3.
IN RE QUESTION 5: [2]
Finally, you have asked whether townships are responsible for signage if landowners or occupants of land adjoining or abutting section-line highways are authorized to use section-line highways for farming. After reviewing the applicable statutes, nothing indicates a township's responsibility to post signage transfers to landowners or occupants of land adjoining or abutting section-line highways if they are permitted to farm a section-line. See SDCL 31-13-1.2, -1.5, -1.7, 31-25-10, -11, 31-28-6, -7, -13, & -21.
CONCLUSION
It is my opinion that SDCL 31-31-2 requires removal of vegetation from the entire sixty-six foot right-of-way that comprises a public highway. Further, a factual determination must be made as to whether farming a section-line highway constitutes an injury as contemplated by SDCL 31-32-7; and whether farming, fencing, or altering the grade of any portion of a section-line highway is an obstruction within the meaning of SDCL 31-32-9. The level of maintenance assigned to section-line highways does not have, in my opinion, any bearing on the above-referenced factual determinations. Finally, nothing in state law indicates that a township's responsibility to post signage transfers to a landowner or occupant of land abutting a section-line highway if that person is permitted to farm the section-line highway. The opinions issued herein are based upon existing law, and it's important to recognize that the Legislature is free to provide greater clarification of these issues through its statutory enactments.
Sincerely,
Marty J. Jackley
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MJJ/CPM/SRB/lde
[1] Regarding the control and removal of weeds under SDCL 31-31-2, I have previously opined that a township must remove all noxious weeds from township roads, while the abutting or adjoining landowner is responsible for the control and removal of all other weeds on or in the township road right-of-way. See AGO 16-01.
[2] You have also asked whether a landowner loses the liability protection provided by SDCL 31-18-5 if the landowner farms or fences an unimproved section-line highway. SDCL 31-18-5 states that no landowner owes a duty of care to keep an unimproved section line highway safe for entry or use by a person entering for an outdoor recreational purpose or tourism activity. Official Opinions of the Attorney General are issued only on questions of law related to the official duties of the requesting officer or public entity. The individual legal liability of landowner is not a question of law related to the duties of a township or its board of supervisors.