There is a thread regarding federal takeover of all navigable waters on the main page. I'm curious of other Alaskans opinions on this.

https://trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/7116684/navigable-waters#Post7116684

That seems as though it should be pretty straight forward but of course it won't be. It makes me think about the recent victory at SCOTUS by John Sturgeon concerning his use of hovercraft on state waters within federal lands. Just how, or if, the Sturgeon decision may apply............I can't guess. It may in fact be harmful to these guys in WA.

I have to wonder why it is not legal to transport your own customers by boat but it is ok to transport them by float plane ??? Landing on, taxiing on and docking on the lake, are all forms of navigation. In fact it is referred to as "sailing & docking".

Of course there is licensing of the pilot at the very least, but that is a federal issue. If it is done by an air taxi using part 135 certificate, that too is federal.

In Alaska I believe a transporter's license is required by the state for commercial use of state waters. I had a transporters license years ago but you would understand those regs today, much better than I do Tom.

If SCOTUS rules against WA, does that mean that the states can no longer require licensing for those types of activities ? What if there was no charge for the transportation ? Is it still a commercial activity ?


EDIT: it may be analogous to state funded roadways that everyone uses to access businesses located along those roads. You have to be licensed to drive on them.........but not use a bicycle......... Your truck/car has to be licensed & insured. And the users pay taxes to maintain them.

I will be surprised if these guys are successful.

2 SCOTUS decisions granted state control of Navigable waters in Alaska. I thought all navigable waters in this country were owned by the state the water is in. Not sure how that applies to rivers.
The case Tom referenced I think is about monopolizing commercial activity on state owned waters. I didn't watch the whole 15 minute vid. tho.

White... I believe a lot of the Sturgeon case hinged on what Alaska was granted under ANILCA. So it would be interesting if it applied to any other State.
The Submerged Lands Act granted the States all rights to lands under navigable waters. The Feds have been fighting the definition of "navigable" for years,
But with decisions such as the Gulkana one, Alaska has fought back.

The mining district here has for years argued/fought the feds over river bottom mining claims. With the help of PAAD (Public Access Assertion and Defense) unit here in Alaska
we have had some wins in fighting the Feds on navigability, ie Mosquito Fork river.
.

Fascinating case....!

I agree with Chickenminer, in that Sturgeon was decided based on provisions of ANILCA not the Submerged Lands Act. Navigability was never an issue in Sturgeon. The courts had ruled on the navigability of the Nation back in the late 70's, finding for the State of AK and Doyon, (and against BLM,) that the Nation and the Kandik Rivers were indeed navigable. The case was notable in that the court used rather Alaska-unique methods to determine "use of the waterway for interstate commerce." Forms of transport such as dogsled, tunnel boats, and lining of boats UP-stream to support the project of clearing brush/timber along the Canadian border, etc. This case was groundbreaking. I was privileged to sit in on it in the federal court in Fairbanks while it was argued. It was in my formulative years as a bureaucrat (I'm pretty well recovered now....!") I was working in the Water Section at DNR at the time and our interest was intense.

If BLM had prevailed and the court had found that the beds of these two rivers were NOT navigable, it would have meant that Doyon would have been forced to include the acreage of the riverbeds as part of their regional selections, thus cutting back on the number of acres of uplands they could select and ultimately receive title to. MORE IMPORTANTLY... but unknown at the time..... the beds of the rivers would have become part and parcel of the Yukon-Charley Preserve (upon passage of ANILCA) and thus the National Park Service could have told John Sturgeon and the rest of us, to pound sand! (Which ironically would have saved John a couple million dollars!)

I'm not seeing that navigability is the major issue here in the WA case. More likely the main issue is the inherent unfairness of the St of WA maintaining control that enables a monopoly on the ferry service on Lake Chelan. No one is arguing that the lake is or isn't navigable. Only that under the 14th Amendment, said navigability implies more lenient public use.

Again, it is a fascinating case.

Pete

Thanks Pete ! I agree it isn't about navigability but it is about constitutionality.

I looked at a map of the upper end of the lake and there seem to be several businesses located there. I have to wonder how customers access those businesses ??

For many states, it depends on the statehood act that they were accepted under as to who owns what. Some places, the land owner on each side may own to the middle of the river as well, and if you own both sides, you own that section of river, creek, etc. Some states were able to negotiate better terms than others.

-TJ

This argument I don't believe is about the feds or the states rights to navigable waters, but to the individual's use of these navigable Waters. Upon statehood the feds appear to have created a right to the individual to use these navigable waters that the state could not then usurp. Neither can the feds then neglect their obligation to protect an individual's right to use navigable Waters whether federal or state.
The current case is not about a federal takeover of navigable waters, but about the feds protecting the rights that they gave to the individual upon transfer of the lands from the federal government to an individual State.

Thanks everybody for weighing-in on this. I am always wary when it seems the Feds control is being extended....never seems to end! Waggler comment above sounds good hope that is the case.

Tom,

You are spot on for highlighting this. While we tend to get our BP up over outright anti-trapping stuff, we can be complacent about ACCESS issues that will ultimately have the same affect!

Pete