Friends of Willow Lake, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Division of Aviation & Airports
2012 Alas. LEXIS 103
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Willow Lake is a float-plane facility operated by the State of Alaska’s DOT & PF; BAL, Inc. (Willow Air) conducts commercial operations on Willow Lake.
- FOWL, a nonprofit formed to protect Willow Lake users’ interests, sues DOT & PF and Willow Air challenging the Willow Lake Use Plan (WLUP) adopted in 2008.
- WLUP sets summer-use rules balancing recreational and aircraft activity, including avoidance areas for boaters and aircraft-specific restrictions.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for DOT & PF, holding FOWL lacked standing and WLUP was not a regulated rule; Coast Guard inland navigation rules were not triggered; APA rulemaking not required.
- The Alaska Supreme Court held FOWL has associational standing, remanded for preemption and navigability record development, and held WLUP not a regulation under the APA; Coast Guard navigability issue remanded for further development; FAA preemption to be considered by superior court; attorney’s fees vacated.
- The court affirmed the non-regulation characterization of WLUP, reversed the standing ruling, vacated Inland Navigation Rules ruling and attorney’s fees, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is FOWL’s suit maintainable under associational standing? | FOWL's members have injury-in-fact and germane interests. | FOWL's participation and injuries are not required; association cannot represent without member testimony. | Yes; FOWL has associational standing. |
| Is WLUP a 'regulation' requiring APA rulemaking? | WLUP imposes new rules beyond existing regulations. | WLUP is a common-sense interpretation of preexisting powers, not a regulation. | WLUP is not a regulation requiring APA rulemaking. |
| Do Coast Guard Inland Navigation Rules apply to Willow Lake? | Willow Lake may be navigable water; Inland Rules preempt state actions. | Record insufficient to determine navigability; Coast Guard not listed Willow Lake as navigable. | Remanded for development of navigability record; rule vacated pending further consideration. |
| Is WLUP preempted by FAA regulations? | WLUP conflicts with Federal Aviation Administration rules. | Not addressed below; potential preemption to be reviewed on remand. | To be considered on remand. |
| Are attorney’s fees proper given associational standing? | Fees should reflect prevailing party status. | Statutory fee rules hinge on standing determinations. | Fees vacated as standing reversed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraternal Order of Eagles v. City & Borough of Juneau, 254 P.3d 348 (Alaska 2011) (recognizes associational standing principles in Alaska)
- Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. State, 80 P.3d 231 (Alaska 2003) (agency interpretations of regulations not always 'regulations')
- Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 3 P.3d 906 (Alaska 2000) (criteria for associational standing)
- Trs. for Alaska v. State, 736 P.2d 324 (Alaska 1987) (third-party standing principles and relatedstanding)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. State, Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 145 P.3d 561 (Alaska 2006) (rulemaking is not required for plain or predictable interpretations)