State of Alaska v. Babbitt
| Decision Date | 19 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-35481,Nos. 94-35480,s. 94-35480 |
| Citation | 72 F.3d 698 |
| Parties | 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,369, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9660, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,808 STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Katie JOHN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Joanne M. Grace, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiffs-appellants-plaintiffs-appellees.
Elizabeth Ann Peterson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees-defendants-appellants.
Robert T. Anderson, Native American Rights Fund, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant-appellee-plaintiff-appellee.
Richard L. Young, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Peratrovich, et al., as amici curiae.
Michael A.D. Stanley, Juneau, Alaska; Marc D. Slonim, Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley & Slonim, Seattle, Washington, for Peninsula Marketing Association, et al., as amici curiae.
Clive J. Strong, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, Idaho, for States of Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, as amici curiae.
Carol H. Daniel, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska, for Native Village of Quinhagak, et al., as amici curiae.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Before: WRIGHT, HALL and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
The opinion filed April 20, 1995, and published at 54 F.3d 549 (9th Cir.1995) is withdrawn. It is replaced by the opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order.
These appeals arise from the efforts of Katie John, Doris Charles and the other upper Ahtna Athabaskan Indians of Mentasta Village to continue subsistence fishing at Batzulnetas as they and their ancestors have done since time immemorial. 1 The fishery at Batzulnetas lies near the confluence of Tanada Creek and the Copper River and within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. They also involve the claim by the state of Alaska that the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, on behalf of the federal government, are attempting to exercise too much control over fish and wildlife management within the state.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3101 et seq., requires that subsistence fishing and hunting be given a priority over other uses of fish and wildlife on "public lands." The sole issue remaining in this appeal concerns the meaning of the definition of public lands in Sec. 102 of ANILCA. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3102. 2 Specifically, the parties dispute whether navigable waters fall within the statutory definition of public lands and are thus subject to federal management to implement ANILCA's subsistence priority. 3
The district court adopted a highly expansive definition of public lands, holding that the subsistence priority applies to all Alaskan waters subject to the federal navigational servitude. We disagree. Instead, we hold that the subsistence priority applies to navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights. We hold also that the federal agencies that administer the subsistence priority are responsible for identifying those waters. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 1958, Congress preserved aboriginal fishing rights in the Statehood Act. Act of July 7, 1958, Pub.L. 85-508, Sec. 4, 72 Stat. 339. But in 1960, after assuming responsibility for fish and wildlife management, the state closed the fishery at Batzulnetas and other traditional subsistence fisheries. In 1971, Congress extinguished aboriginal fishing rights. 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1603(b).
Congress expected that the state and the federal agencies would protect subsistence hunting and fishing. 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2247, 2250. In 1980, frustrated with their failure to do so, Congress enacted ANILCA. Title VIII of ANILCA required that rural Alaska residents be accorded a priority for subsistence hunting and fishing on public lands. 16 U.S.C. Secs. 3113, 3114. Pursuant to Sec. 805(d) of ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3115(d), Congress gave the state authority to implement the rural subsistence preference by enacting laws of general applicability consistent with ANILCA's operative provisions. In anticipation of ANILCA's passage, the state enacted laws consistent with Title VIII which gave rural residents a subsistence priority. In 1982, after Congress enacted ANILCA, the Secretary of the Interior certified the state to manage subsistence hunting and fishing on public lands.
Congress could not have anticipated the next chain of events. In 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the state act granting the rural subsistence preference as contrary to the Alaska state constitution. McDowell v. Alaska, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989). It stayed its decision to give the legislature an opportunity to amend the constitution or otherwise bring its program into compliance with ANILCA. The legislature, however, failed to act during either its regular or special session.
In 1990, the federal government withdrew Alaska's certification and took over implementation of Title VIII. The Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of all concerned federal agencies, published temporary subsistence management regulations that adopted a very narrow definition of public lands, explaining that "navigable waters generally are not included within the definition of public lands." 55 Fed.Reg. 27,114, at 27,115 (June 29, 1990). The final regulations did not differ significantly. See 57 Fed.Reg. 22,940, at 22,942 (May 29, 1992).
Katie John and the state brought separate actions against the federal agencies; Katie John challenged the regulations that provided that public lands excluded navigable waters and the state challenged the federal government's authority to regulate in this area at all. The district court ordered these actions consolidated and that other actions raising similar issues be jointly managed. 4 After consulting with counsel for the parties in the jointly managed cases, the district court decided to address the fundamental issue of whether navigable waters are public lands before resolving other issues. 5
Katie John argued that public lands include virtually all navigable waters, by virtue of the federal navigational servitude. The state contended that public lands exclude navigable waters. Prior to oral argument before the district court, the federal agencies agreed with the state. But at oral argument, those agencies modified their position, arguing that public lands include those navigable waters in which the federal government has an interest under the reserved water rights doctrine.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded that public lands include all navigable waters encompassed by the navigational servitude. Subsequently, the district court stayed its decision and certified the issue of whether public lands include navigable waters for interlocutory appeal. 6 Both the state and the federal agencies appeal.
We consider two questions when we review an agency's construction of a statute that it administers. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). First, we consider "whether Congress 'has directly spoken to the precise question at issue' either in the statute itself or in the legislative history." Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. ICC, 784 F.2d 959, 963 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. at 2781). Second, if Congress has not directly spoken to that precise question, we consider "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2782.
Under ANILCA, "the term 'public lands' means land situated in Alaska which ... are Federal lands." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3102(3). "The term 'Federal land' means lands the title to which is in the United States." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3102(2). And "[t]he term 'land' means lands, waters, and interests therein." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3102(1). In other words, public lands are lands, waters, and interests therein, the title to which is in the United States. Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 548 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 1406 n. 15, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987).
As noted above, the parties dispute whether navigable waters are public lands. At one extreme, the state maintains that ANILCA's definition of public lands excludes all navigable waters because the federal government does not hold title to them by virtue of the navigational servitude or the reserved water rights doctrine. At the other extreme are Katie John and amici curiae Peratrovich Plaintiffs who argue that all navigable waters are public lands. Katie John says this is so because the navigational servitude defines the scope of public lands. The Peratrovich Plaintiffs say this is so because, in ANILCA, Congress expressed its intent to exercise its Commerce Clause powers to regulate subsistence fishing in navigable waters. 7 In the middle are federal agencies contending that public lands include certain navigable waters, defined by the reserved water rights doctrine. 8
ANILCA's language and legislative history indicate clearly that Congress spoke to the precise question of whether some navigable waters may be public lands. They clearly indicate that subsistence uses include subsistence fishing. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3113. And subsistence fishing has traditionally taken place in navigable waters. Thus, we have no doubt that Congress intended that public lands include at least some navigable waters. 9
Unfortunately, ANILCA's language and legislative history do not give us the clear direction necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturgeon v. Frost
...United States v. Va. Elec. & Power Co. , 365 U.S. 624, 627–28, 81 S.Ct. 784, 5 L.Ed.2d 838 (1961) ). We expanded that holding in Alaska v. Babbitt (Katie John I ), deciding that Congress did not intend "to exercise its Commerce Clause powers over submerged lands and navigable Alaska waters"......
-
U.S. v. Wall
...national and what is local' ") (quoting United States v. Pappadopoulos, 64 F.3d 522, 526-27 (9th Cir.1995)); Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698, 707 (9th Cir.1995) (Hall, dissenting) (concluding that a statute giving subsistence fishing priority on public lands to navigable waters within those ......
-
State v. Fed. Subsistence Bd.
...in fact, on at least two prior occasions deferred to the Secretary of the Interior's interpretation of ANILCA.") (citing Alaska v. Babbitt , 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) and Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States , 35 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1994) ). In Ninilchik , the Ninth Circuit reasone......
-
John v. United States
...and therefore subject to the rural subsistence priority. 35 The consolidated lawsuits against the 1992 Rules came before us in Alaska v. Babbitt (“Katie John I ”).36 We concluded that, because Congress included subsistence fishing in Title VIII, ANILCA applies to some of Alaska's navigable ......
-
A Comity of Errors: Why John v. Baker Is Only a Tentative First Step in the Right Direction
...also been the center of other major legal controversies regarding the self-determination of Alaska Natives. See, e.g., Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1187 (1996), reh'g granted en banc, 216 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2000). [122]See John, 982 P.2d at 743. [12......
-
Beyond Chevron's Domain: Agency Interpretations of Statutory Procedural Provisions
..."it is unclear whether deference is appropriate" when the question is whether there is rulemaking authority at all); Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698, 703-04 (9th Cir. 1995) (deferring on a jurisdictional issue involving the definition of "public lands"); Cavert Acquisition Co. v. NLRB, 83 F.......
-
Case summaries.
...natives challenged Secretary's exclusion of navigable waters from ANILCA management and Alaska's jurisdiction over those waters). (537) 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1095) (Alaska sued the federal government, asserting its right to regulate navigable (538) 16 U.S.C. [section] 3117(a) (2000). (539) ......
-
Case summaries.
...Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, 57 Fed. Reg. 22, 940, 22, 942 (May 29, 1992). (237) Alaska v. Babbitt (Katie John I), 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995). The Secretaries' interpretation would have prevented all subsistence fishing from being given priority under ANILCA. Plaintif......