U.S. Supreme Court
Jan. 22, 2016
Alaska land regulation case could have unintended consequences
The alarming militia standoff in Oregon has focused on attention on public land management just as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that could strip the federal government of its ability to protect Alaska's national parks from damage. By Miyoko Sakashita
Miyoko Sakashita
The alarming militia standoff in Oregon has focused attention on public land management just as the U.S. Supreme Court hears Sturgeon v. Frost, 14-1209, a case that could strip the federal government of its ability to protect Alaska's national parks from damage.
At issue is whether the National Park Service has the authority to regulate activities on navigable waters within park boundaries where the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act restricted its authority over upland inholdings within the state's national parks.
The appellant, John Sturgeon, challenged a 2007 warning by the service that he could be criminally prosecuted for using a hovercraft prohibited by park rules on the Yukon and Nation rivers during his moose-hunting trips to Alaska's Yukon-Charley National Preserve. Sturgeon's petition for review argued that because the riverbed is state property, the service acted beyond its authority.
It's obvious that the service needs to be able to regulate the use of rivers within park boundaries for the protection and conservation of these treasured natural areas. Congress formed that preserve specifically to protect those rivers for wildlife, tourism and future generations. While the law guarantees access for hunting and fishing via motorized transportation, the ban on noisy hovercrafts that violate the tranquility of the park and give unlimited access to remote areas is a reasonable restriction. And ANILCA specifically calls for the regulation of boating by the federal government.
Both the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the service indeed retains that authority over navigable waters under ANILCA, the core provisions of which extend to all "conservation system units" in Alaska, which cover 136 million acres and 3,210 miles of rivers.
But here's where the case gets tricky - and a little bit risky for conservation interests. The service has the duty to protect our parks from degradation and harm, while the state of Alaska does not. Sturgeon is overreaching, agitating to allow activities in the parks that were never contemplated by ANILCA - and if he prevails it could erode the ability of the service to manage boat traffic, speeds and other activities that could damage our natural heritage, protected so magnificently in Alaska's national parks.
The service has, and must have, the ability to regulate loud, disruptive equipment such as hovercrafts within parklands that are often important habitat for protected species. And there's nothing within ANILCA that contradicts that authority as Sturgeon's attorneys have alleged. Losing this case could impede the service from enforcing subsistence hunting and fishing regulations, preventing pollution of waterways, or implementing seasonal closures to protect king salmon migration into Canada, as required by an international treaty.
But in the emotionally charged political environment that has been stirred up by gun-toting militia members and right-wing politicians who want to roll back the government's authority and ability to manage public lands, this case could take on new and unexpected dimensions.
The ruling should cover only navigable waters within the state of Alaska, an issue so narrow that some observers were surprised the Supreme Court even accepted the case. But if the justices continue to broaden the scope of this case and find larger constitutional issues at play, the ruling could ripple across this divided country in dangerously unpredictable ways.
Miyoko Sakashita is senior counsel and oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland. She filed an amicus brief in Sturgeon v. Frost with a several other environmental advocacy organizations.
Submit your own column for publication to Diana Bosetti
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com