Moose, Hovercrafts, and the Regulation of Waterways

Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 17-949, 2019 WL 1333260, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2294 (March 26, 2019).

By: Cameron Robichaux

(Note: This is a more detailed synopsis of an earlier post.)

John Sturgeon, an Alaskan hunter, frequently used a hovercraft to traverse the fierce Alaskan wilderness and the Nation River, which is part of the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Sturgeon claims that Congress created an Alaska-specific exception to its broad authority when it enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Justice Kagan as the voice of the unanimous court agrees.The question of law is whether Alaskan park rangers can regulate a preservation area that contains both public and private property. Further, does the federal government own the Nation River within the preserve?  At the time of the original Alaskan Purchase, the federal government owned all the land in Alaska in a fictitious landlord-tenant relationship with the people. Upon giving land to Alaskan citizens, Congress retained federal land and established parks under the ANICLA. In sketching boundary lines for the new preservations, Congress made an uncommon choice to follow “topographic or natural features” rather than enclose only federally-owned lands. This choice led to compromises in regulations made to protect private property enclosed in the new preserves, specifically, the inability to regulate private lands inside nature preservations.The current statute in dispute reads, “Only those lands within the boundaries of any conservation system unit which are public lands (as such term is defined in this Act) shall be deemed to be included as a portion of such unit. No lands which, before, on, or after [the date of ANILCA’s passage], are conveyed to the State, to any Native Corporation, or to any private party shall be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within such units.”[1]The Court explained the water is not owned in title, but instead, the federal government has rights that are “usufructuary” in nature. This means that they are rights for the Government to use, whether by withdrawing or maintaining, certain waters it does not own. These usufructuary rights do not give rise to “public lands,” and the interest is only to maintain flows. The right cannot condone the regulation of hovercrafts.The analysis continues to address if the federal government has the authority to regulate private lands. In every state except Alaska, the petitioner’s claim would be dismissed because the federal government has the authority to regulate without ownership. However, because of the compromises mentioned above, Mr. Sturgeon claims a carve-out in the law. This exemption says that no state, Native, or private lands “shall be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within [system] units.”[2] This is abundantly clear when read in pari materia with the next clause,  “the Secretary may acquire such lands” from “the State, a Native Corporation, or other owner.”[3]The Court unanimously agreed with Mr. Sturgeon declaring that the park service does not have the authority to regulate the Nation River with regards to hovercrafts. In dicta, the Court opined “[these] lands, of course, remain subject to all the regulatory powers they were before, exercised by the EPA, Coast Guard, and the like.” Reversed and remanded.[1] 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c) (2018).[2] 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c) (2018).[3] 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c)(2018).