In Ahtna, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Public Facilities, the supreme court held that, under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (“FAHA”), a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse. In 1961, the U.S. Government a right-of-way grant to the State for a road building material site without an expiration date. Ten years later, the U.S. Government conveyed both the surface and subsurface estates of the same material site to Ahtna. However, because this conveyance was subject to the State’s right-of-way grant, the State continued to remove material from the site until 1988. When it resumed removal operations in 2008, Ahtna insisted the State stop and give compensation for what had recently been removed. On appeal, Ahtna argued the right-of-way had expired or had been abandoned. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that FAHA authorized the State to determine the grant’s termination procedure. Consequently, the State’s consent was necessary to terminate the right-of-way since the grant explicitly had no expiration date.Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse.