Katie John v. Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fed
720 F.3d 1214
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- This consolidated appeal concerns the 1999 Final Rules implementing part of ANILCA to identify navigable waters in Alaska that are “public lands” subject to rural subsistence priority.
- Katie John and allied plaintiffs challenge the scope/definition of public lands; Alaska challenges overbreadth.
- The district court upheld the 1999 Rules; the Ninth Circuit affirms.
- The Federal reserved water rights doctrine underlies the 1999 Rules and the scope of subsistence priority.
- Katie John I and Katie John II guide the framework for how waters adjacent to reservations may be treated, with upstream/downstream waters contested.
- The 1999 Rules apply the rural subsistence priority to waters within or adjacent to listed federal units, not to upstream/downstream waters absent a case-specific need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of rulemaking vs adjudication for water rights | Katie John contends rulemaking improperly identifies waters. | The Secretaries may use rulemaking to identify waters under ANILCA. | Rulemaking appropriate; not arbitrary. |
| Whether adjacent waters qualify as public lands | Waters adjacent to reservations should be included. | Adjacent waters may be appurtenant and thus public lands. | Adjacent waters can be public lands. |
| Extent of reserved water rights (upstream/downstream) | Rural subsistence applies to upstream/downstream waters. | Reserved rights limited to waters within/adjacent to reservations. | Upstream/downstream waters not generically included. |
| Alaska Native allotments and water rights | Allotments may yield reserved water rights. | Case-by-case determination appropriate. | Delegation to Federal Subsistence Board upheld; case-by-case approach allowed. |
| Selected-but-not-yet-conveyed lands under ANILCA | These lands should not be subject to rural subsistence priority. | §906(o)(2) governs administration; priority may apply. | Rule to apply priority was permissible where consistent with §906(o)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Katie John I, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (waters identifying public lands under ANILCA rural subsistence)
- Katie John II, 247 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc decision reiterating Katie John I framework)
- Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1908) (federal reserved water rights doctrine—reservation needs govern)
- Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1976) (reserved water rights attach to land to fulfill reservation purpose)
- New Mexico v. United States, 438 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1978) (reserved water rights exist to serve primary purposes of reservation)
- Walton v. United States, 647 F.2d 46 (9th Cir. 1981) (appurtenancy and scope of reserved water rights)
- Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1987) (subsistence rights as public interest within a framework for reconciliation)
- United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1978) (limits on reserved water rights to primary purposes)