October 22, 2020

Volume X, Number 296


October 22, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 21, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 20, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The Supreme Court Decides the United States Cannot Have Title to Running Waters

The Supreme Court determined in Sturgeon v. Frost that the Nation River, located near Alaska’s eastern border, is not public land for purposes of regulation by the National Park Service (NPS). This case arose due to a conflict over who governs lands subject to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). This ruling provides for expanded uses of waterways within the millions of acres of ANILCA lands. While this decision construes ANILCA and applies directly within Alaska, its reasoning also may serve as a check on federal regulation of other non-federal inholdings within conservation areas delineated by natural features rather than federal land boundaries.


Enacted in 1980, ANILCA set aside 104 million acres of federally owned land in Alaska for special environmental protections. The boundaries follow natural features throughout the state instead of enclosing only federally owned lands. As a result, the Act designated more than 18 million acres of state, Native, and private land as protected land. Congress subsequently added a provision to the law stating that NPS has broad authority to administer both lands and waters within the “public lands” set aside through ANILCA. Yet, section 103(c) of ANILCA states that “only” the “public lands” within a conservation system are under NPS’s authority.

The Nation River lies within the boundaries of the Yukon-Charley Preserve, a conservation system under ANILCA and administered by NPS. John Sturgeon travelled for decades up a stretch of the Nation River via hovercraft until rangers informed him that NPS prohibited operating a hovercraft on navigable waters located within a national park’s boundaries. The State of Alaska, however, permits travel by hovercraft on the River. 

This case previously reached the Supreme Court in 2016 on Sturgeon’s request for an injunction allowing him to utilize his hovercraft. The Court remanded the case to consider whether the Nation River qualifies as a “public land” under ANILCA. On remand, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Nation River was a public land, and therefore NPS had authority to regulate hovercraft activity on the River under ANILCA. Sturgeon appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Reserved Water Doctrine Does Not Qualify Nation River as Public Lands

The Supreme Court unanimously found that although public lands under ANILCA includes lands, waters, and interests to which the United States holds title, running waters cannot be owned. Therefore, the United States does not have title to the Nation River. Although the Federal Government may retain rights to the specific amount of water needed to satisfy reservation of public land, the government would only have a specific interest in the reserved water, still not making the river a public land subject to NPS recreational use regulation.

Alaska Maintains Regulatory Authority of Hovercrafts on the Nation River

Given that the Nation River is not a public land for purposes of ANILCA, NPS’s ban on the use of hovercrafts cannot apply. While no one owns the river, Alaska owns the submerged lands beneath the river. Therefore, the use of hovercrafts is governed by the authority of the State of Alaska, not NPS. 

Importantly, the Court noted that this decision does not preclude NPS from exercising any regulatory authority over the Nation River. The holding only prevents NPS from regulating the Nation River as if it were within the National Park System. NPS may still regulate the public lands flanking rivers and enter into cooperative agreements with States, as owners of the submerged lands, to preserve the rivers themselves.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 150



About this Author

James M. Auslander Natural Resources & Project Development Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC

James (Jamie) M. Auslander's legal practice focuses on project development, natural resources, and administrative law and litigation.

Mr. Auslander co-chairs Beveridge & Diamond’s Natural Resources and Project Development Practice Group, including its Energy Practice. He focuses on complex legal issues surrounding the development of oil and gas, hard rock minerals, renewable energy, and other natural resources on public lands onshore and on the Outer Continental Shelf. He frequently litigates appeals before federal courts and administrative bodies regarding rulemakings, permits...

Kirstin K. Gruver Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Seattle, WA

Kirstin Gruver is efficient and responsive to clients' needs.

She maintains a diverse environmental litigation and regulatory practice, working with clients nationwide across industrial sectors with a focus on wetlands and water issues. She also has experience in product stewardship and sustainability matters.

Prior to joining Beveridge & Diamond, Kirstin worked as a deputy prosecuting attorney at the Clark County Prosecutor's office. She also worked as a legal intern with the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, and as a summer clerk at Earthjustice.

Kirstin attended law school at the University of Washington School of Law, where she served as an extern at the Attorney General's Office of the University of Washington and as a legal intern at the University of Washington Tribal Defense Clinic. She also acted as the Notes & Comments Editor of the Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy.

Before attending law school, Kirstin served a year with AmeriCorps working in the Flathead Valley doing watershed conservation and restoration work on the Flathead River, working with local farmers to create and implement restoration plans for their riverbanks. She also led environmental education sessions at her local Boys and Girls Club on the importance of wetlands and sustainable water resources.

Kirstin has also taught a portion of an environmental law class at the University of Washington School of Law, walking students through a case study of the practical application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (known as CERCLA or Superfund) in the context of the Portland Harbor Superfund site.

Lucy K. Infeld Environmental Regulatory & Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Seattle, WA

Lucy solves problems in creative ways, relying on her expertise in water rights, natural resources, and land use issues in Washington state and the western U.S.

She is an experienced environmental regulatory and litigation attorney on nationwide issues, with a focus on water rights, the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA), as well Washington state environmental statutes.

She assists on Superfund allocations in advocating for clients, working with experts and other attorneys to...