John Sturgeon v. Sue Masica
872 F.3d 927
9th Cir.2017Background
- John Sturgeon sought to operate a hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve to reach moose hunting grounds; Alaska permits hovercraft but the National Park Service (NPS) bans them in Park waters.
- Yukon-Charley is an ANILCA conservation system unit composed of a patchwork of federal, state, Native Corporation, and private lands; ANILCA distinguishes between “public lands” (federal lands after Dec. 2, 1980) and other lands within unit boundaries.
- Section 103(c) of ANILCA limits application of regulations “applicable solely to public lands within such units,” raising whether NPS regulations apply to navigable waters within unit boundaries that may be non‑federal or partly non‑federal.
- The NPS hovercraft ban applies to “waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and to waters where the United States holds less‑than‑fee interests; the question is whether the Nation River is a “public land” (i.e., subject to U.S. interest) under ANILCA.
- Ninth Circuit precedent (the Katie John line of cases) holds the United States holds implied reserved water rights in navigable waters within Alaska conservation units when necessary to accomplish reservation purposes, making such waters “public lands” under ANILCA.
- On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit applied its Katie John precedent and affirmed summary judgment for the federal defendants, upholding the NPS hovercraft ban as applicable to the Nation River.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ANILCA §103(c) prevents NPS from applying hovercraft ban to Nation River | Sturgeon: §103(c) exempts selected/non‑federal lands and thus NPS may not regulate the river | Government: reserved water rights and U.S. interests in navigable waters within units render those waters “public lands” subject to NPS regs | Held: §103(c) does not bar NPS regulation; reserved water rights make the river public land for ANILCA purposes |
| Whether the U.S. has sufficient interest (title/interest) in navigable waters absent submerged‑land title | Sturgeon: reserved water rights are not title and thus do not make waters "public lands" | Government: reserved water rights (and related federal interests) create an interest sufficient under ANILCA | Held: Under Katie John precedent, reserved water rights create a U.S. interest in navigable waters that brings them within ANILCA’s "public lands" definition |
| Geographic scope of reserved water rights for unit purposes | Sturgeon: reserved rights require a demonstrated need for a specific quantity/location of water | Government: reserved rights include waters necessary or potentially necessary to accomplish reservation purposes, including habitat protection | Held: Reserved rights cover waters that "are or may become necessary" to fulfill unit purposes (broad geographic scope) |
| Whether federal Commerce Clause / navigational servitude instead of reserved water doctrine should govern | Sturgeon: (implicit) ANILCA controls; concurrence argues Commerce Clause is the proper basis | Government/Ninth Circuit majority: bound by Katie John reserved water doctrine | Held: Court applies reserved water doctrine (Katie John); concurrence would prefer Commerce Clause rationale but concurs with outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaska v. United States, 521 U.S. 1 (1997) (discusses state ownership of submerged lands and federal reservation of water rights)
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (federal reserved water rights doctrine and inference of intent when waters are necessary to reservation purposes)
- United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967) (federal power to regulate navigable waters as public property for commerce purposes)
- United States v. Cherokee Nation of Okla., 480 U.S. 700 (1987) (federal regulation in navigable waters does not invade private property rights)
- John v. United States (Katie John I), 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (ANILCA public lands include navigable waters in which U.S. has reserved water interests)
- John v. United States (Katie John II), 247 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2001) (endorsing Katie John I holdings)
- John v. United States (Katie John III), 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013) (upheld agency inclusion of waters on inholdings as public lands under reserved water rights)
- City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1986) (navigational servitude distinguished from ANILCA "public land")