State of Alaska

Decision Date28 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 96-36041,96-36041
Citation201 F.3d 1154
Parties(9th Cir. 2000) STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior; TOM ALLEN, Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management; ROBERT BARBEE, Field Director, Alaska Field Office, National Park Service, and DAVID ALLEN, Alaska Regional Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants-Appellants. Office of the Circuit Executive
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

COUNSEL: Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellants.

Joanne Grace, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, Alaska, for the plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska James K. Singleton, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Before: Thomas M. Reavley,1 Robert Boochever and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a dispute between a state government and the federal government over title to the beds of three rivers. The issues arise under the Quiet Title Act.

FACTS

Judgment was on the pleadings, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), so we take the facts as pleaded.

Three remote Alaskan rivers are at issue, the Kandik, Nation and Black. They are about 200 miles east and a little north of Fairbanks, Alaska, near the border with the Yukon Territory. Alaska was admitted to the Union as a state on January 3, 1959. Navigability as of that date determines which government owns the riverbed. If the river was navigable at statehood, then the state owns the bed; if not, the federal government owns it. It is undisputed that when the Union was created, each of the thirteen original states retained title to the lands covered by navigable waters, and that under the "equal footing doctrine" each new state succeeds upon statehood to the federal interest in these lands. The Submerged Lands Act gave Alaska title to the beds of navigable rivers on January 3, 1959.2

The State of Alaska pleads that the three rivers were navigable at statehood. The United States does not deny the fact. That would be the end of the case, but for the intricacies of the Quiet Title Act.3 Under that statute, as is explained in more detail below, the federal government takes the position that its sovereign immunity shields it from the state government's claims until the federal government itself makes a claim. Because Alaska is very large, much of it is wilderness, and there are innumerable waters, the federal government has not had time yet to determine what claims it wishes to make. Therefore, the state government must wait until the federal government makes a claim, if it ever does, before settling whether it has title.

The Kandik and Nation Rivers

Alaska pleads that the United States has asserted claims to two of the three rivers. The context was a dispute with a native corporation after the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed. That act provided that Alaska Native regional groupings and villages were to establish corporations, which would receive about $1 billion in cash and forty million acres in land.4 Their land selections were limited to those lands not already owned by someone else, such as the State of Alaska.

When Doyon, Ltd., a regional corporation in Interior Alaska, made its land selections, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") made a decision that the Kandik and Nation Rivers were non-navigable at statehood. Doyon did not claim the rivers. What it claimed was that the rivers were navigable at statehood, so the state owned them. Doyon's interest was in claiming navigability, so that it could get more land outside the riverbeds, and not have the riverbeds charged against its acreage entitlement. But the Bureau of Land Management claimed that the rivers were nonnavigable at statehood, so that Doyon would be stuck with them and its dry land acreage entitlement reduced accordingly.

Doyon appealed the BLM decision. The administrative law judge took extensive evidence and decided in favor of Doyon. He found that the rivers were navigable at statehood, so the state owned them, they were unavailable for selection by Doyon, and they could not count against Doyon's entitlement.

The area has temperatures varying from 70 below Fahrenheit to 90 above. Much of the time all water is frozen, but when it rains, permafrost prevents water from soaking into the soil. The streams vary a great deal, sometimes braided and nearly dry, sometimes flooding, sometimes blocked by logjams, sometimes open and four or five feet deep. Few if any people lived in the area in the 1950's, but people did live there by hunting, fishing, trapping and trading in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1960's. The Kandik was used by a man who had a supply contact with the International Boundary Commission in 1910-1912 to poll and line two tons of supplies upstream to the Yukon border by scow. It took a month to get the supplies upstream, but only six hours to get down, because a cloudburst immediately before the return trip made the river high and swift. The ALJ concluded that it was likely that supplies were similarly brought up the Nation River to Hard Luck Creek.

Fur prices stimulated the heaviest trapping in the area in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's. During that period sternwheelers would deliver supplies at the mouths of the Nation and Kandik, and the trappers would haul them upstream by boat or canoe in the summer, or dogsled in the winter. There were two known trappers on the Kandik in the 1920's and 1930's, and both poled boats up the stream. A trapping family used a boat with an inboard motor to get supplies up the Nation. Several other trappers used boats and canoes to get supplies up the Nation and furs down ( to be taken to Eagle for sale to middlemen) in the 1930's.

The ALJ found that after statehood, the Kandik and Nation became popular recreational streams. This popularity was measured by Alaska standards, with at least two parties on the Kandik in 1978, when the evidence was taken, and three parties in one day on the Nation.

The ALJ made a finding of fact that both rivers, the Kandik and Nation, were "navigable all the way from the Yukon River to the Canadian border." He expressly determined that the test was navigability for purposes of title in the State of Alaska; navigability in each river's natural condition at the time Alaska obtained statehood. Because there were (and are) no roads in the area, people bringing supplies upstream or furs and game downstream could hardly put their canoes on cartops and drive them from one good channel to another; they had to get them from the mouth to their cabins, and the cabins to the mouth, dealing with shallows by such means as poling and lining. Although a decline in fur prices had caused all activity on the rivers to cease as of the time of statehood, their use before and after showed that they remained navigable. That the rivers were frozen for seven months of the year did not defeat navigability, because the rivers were the only means of ground transport (as opposed to bush planes) between breakup and freeze up.

The BLM, having lost on its claim of non-navigability before the ALJ, filed exceptions, maintaining its position of non-navigability which would cause the riverbeds to be charged against Doyon's entitlement. The Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board adopted the ALJ's findings, conclusions and recommended decision.5 The BLM took exception on the basis that use by a few trappers was not enough to establish historical navigability. The Appeal Board held that because there were no settlements on either river at any time, that a few trappers used the rivers showed the existence rather the nonexistence of navigability. During the twenty years before fur prices dropped, 21 trappers used the Kandik, and 7 used the Nation, by the canoes, motor boats and pole boats that were regularly used to transport freight in that region, which in the Alaska wilderness was enough to establish historical navigability.

The Black River

As explained above, Doyon won its case establishing that the Kandik and Nation Rivers were navigable at statehood, so the rivers belonged to the State of Alaska and could not be counted against Doyon's acreage. The Bureau of Land Management had fought the case, claiming that the Kandik and Nation were nonnavigable at statehood, so belonged to the United States (and after its land selection, Doyon). After Doyon won the Kandik and Nation Rivers case, the BLM had its historian prepare a study of the Black River. It is another obscure river in the exceedingly lightly populated eastern part of Interior Alaska.

The Black flows about 300 miles toward the northwest, from some mountains north of the Yukon, past an abandoned Indian village called Salmon Village, through the Yukon Flats near the presently occupied village of Chalkytsik, and into the Porcupine River about 25 miles upstream from where the Porcupine flows into the Yukon. Before the Alaska Purchase in 1867, the Hudson's Bay Company maintained an important post at Fort Yukon just below the confluence of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, and mapped the Black River, so probably was buying furs from trappers up the Black. The economy probably declined after the United States purchased Alaska, because the War Department compelled the Hudson's Bay Company to move its trading post up the Porcupine River to Rampart House, on the other side of the Yukon Territory border.

During the first half of the century, local Athabascans, the Tranjik Kutchin, traveled upriver in the fall in canoes for winter hunting in the headwaters, and came downriver in the spring for fishing. White trappers and prospectors explored the area beginning in the first decade of the twentieth century, and operated several trading posts from time to time along the river. Trading posts sold some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Sturgeon v. Frost
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 2, 2017
    ...that the Nation River was navigable at statehood and that Alaska took title to the riverbed at that time. See Alaska v. United States , 201 F.3d 1154, 1160, 1166 (9th Cir. 2000). But lands submerged beneath inland waterways are distinct from the waterways themselves.5 "Ownership [of submerg......
  • Chinatown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Harris
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 27, 2015
    ...to grant leave sua sponte. Even making the charitable assumption that this argument was preserved for appeal, see Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1163–64 (9th Cir.2000) ( “Where a party does not ask the district court for leave to amend, the request on appeal to remand with instruct......
  • Partners v. U.S.A
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • April 20, 2010
    ...not remand with instructions to grant leave to amend unless the plaintiff sought leave to amend below.”) (citing Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2000)). “Five factors are frequently used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undu......
  • Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 28, 2013
    ...not remand with instructions to grant leave to amend unless the plaintiff sought leave to amend below.") (citing Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2000)). "Five factors are frequently used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) und......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Laws governing recreational access to waters of the Columbia Basin: a survey and analysis.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 33 No. 2, March 2003
    • March 22, 2003
    ...672 F. 2d at 795-96. (47) Puget Sound, 644 F. 2d at 788 (quoting Appalachin Elec. Power, 311 U.S. at 416). (48) Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that trappers using canoes to bring supplies upstream and furs downstream may demonstrate navigability at (49......
  • Forfeiture at the Pleading Stage: Ask Permission First, Don't Apologize Later
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation (CLA) No. 28-1, 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...amend is normally forfeited if not expressly sought from the district court. (See, e.g., State of Alaska v. United States (9th Cir. 2000) 201 F.3d 1154, 1163-1164.) Further, local rules in many districts require that a proposed amended complaint be submitted concurrently with a request for ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT