struck when it acting and a note is unique and represents a series of bargains and compromises a centerpiece of this balancing was ensuring that the over eighteen million acres of nonpublic lands and waters about to milk as parks and preserves and specifically exempting them from park management regulation i'm sorry but i know in many places put statutory duty on the government on the park service so for example the statue expands the glacier bay national monument it says that the money i'm in shall be managed for the following purposes among others to protect of segment of the river fish and wildlife habitats and migration routes and a portion of the fair weather range or take another example and creates the kopechne valley national park which it says shall be managed for the following purposes among others to keep it in an undeveloped state so the agency has a statutory duty to manage these parks for the purpose of maintaining the river the elastic river and other rivers if the park service can't do what you say any regulation on these rivers how can the secretary between federal lands or between state lands and i mean not waters but lands in terms of the territorial lands how does the park service engage in obligations if it can't do what you say the park service for all those purposes it can regulate submerge lands and waters where title did not pass to the state and statehood it can manage public water it can manage any non navigable water there is no public waters of the preservation so the rivers that the act closes upon the park service it cannot do any of that work it cannot do that work on any of the specific navigable waters but it can protect the watershed the yukon charlie is a very good example that the yukon charlie again think of the balancing of an old code that this court recognized some of its conservation purposes it is equally important to balance the economic needs of the state of alaska the yukon charlie met goal number one by putting one point seven million acres of land into the preserve to protect lakes streams and the watershed and you protect the river by regulating those one point seven million acres public lands that's regulating the water river no it's not your are the wild and scenic rivers act was even specifically amended by and milka to make sure it wasn't covering state land that goes into the side of the river and the wild and scenic rivers out itself recognizes state ownership of submerged lands and the banks of a river are public lands but still the federal government cannot regulate the river running through those lands the federal government may the park service may not that was a power that was not delegated to the park service an example that concerns but i'm wondering if those concerns have a lot of weight if what you're really saying is not this agency but that agency when it comes to interpret in the organic act against section one hundred three c those are necessarily implicated of control ownership of the resources within it is a hallmark of state state sovereignty in all market federalism where the clear statement rules comes into play is the park services fallback argument here which is well if you look at reserve water rights this can turn into public lands and actually make these part of the park and there's nothing in the military that's a clear statement saying we're going to take the states to merge lands make them public lands and actually include them in the parks when we were here last time we talked about when that happens  parks or it's not that we don't like the park services it's that layer of regulation that was not supposed to apply on top desk mr chief justice i was exactly right which sentence of section thirty one of three  i think wins this case for you the second sentence does the most work but the such second sentence needs to be read in conjunction with all three sentences and in conjunction with the context of the statute i've burned up an awful lot of gray cells trying to put together the pieces of this statute could you just take me through the second sentence and explain why that wins the case for you and thank you so you'd be the first one to section one of three ca just told you that any nonpublic land whether it's a unit but not be a portion of the unit is kind of a nice question i don't think there's a slam dunk answer to that one way or the other would you agree and i would agree but the court doesn't need to reach that issued to the second sentence with  says no lands which on or before december second one thousand nine hundred been conveyed to the state native corporation or private person again for hand nonpublic and they should not be subject to regulations of political soliah public lands within the units and what that is telling you is not one more question related to this i understand that land is defined by and milka to include water into waters and interests there and but the second sentence after referring to lands then refers to a conveyance which i take it means the transfer of title and nobody really has title to navigable waters so what do we do with that and the two parts of that first of all the i take it title in the united states but the united states does not have title to navigable waters is that right that is definitely right and they don't claim so here could i ask you to go back to time to put just as  i ask you to go back to the a put the regulations a picabo soley to public lands and you suggested that that language is what distinguishes park service regulations from let's say e p a regulations but when i read that language regulations are political silly to public lands it seems to be making the distinction between regulations that apply solely exclusively to public lands and those that apply more broadly to both public and private lands that seems to be the distinction this makes on its face so i guess i don't quite get how how you make it into something different yes and mr surgeons if you take out the word soul this this is saying so only the public lands as compared to what as compared to the public lands and something else meaning nonpublic lands and that seems to be the distinction it's drawn only applies to public lands a second sentence fast to have meaning and if it doesn't prohibit the park service from issuing the exact regulation or to issue here which is a regulation designed to touch both public and on public land that sentence actually doesn't prohibit anything that needs to ha is fact if you want to understand its behavior of the fact you look at this came into the statute it was not a last minute technical addition it was introduced in the house by representatives sidling a year and a half before know it was passed and he specifically said the fact that these public lands were within the units drawn of them out does not change the status of that state needed for private land and that goes back to it for about the surrounding these lands with the parks they were already subject to rich matrix of federal regulations before milka you're not going to any new array of federal regulation merely because of them being surrounded by the park i understand what i think that's a good point the point you make about look if it were so public lands versus public and on public lands this would not be doing very much  but i guess what i want to know from you is that when i pick this language to convey what you want to convey i mean how do i have to manipulate this language to get it to me and what do you want to me i'm i can't answer why congress chose hostess if it were said i mean what what what could you do to this language to make it more like what you're suggesting that means because i look at this language it just doesn't say it's just not anywhere close to what it soley land management power but what you're the soli is drawing that distinction of the regulations that only could come into play after the passage of a notepad it's important to keep in mind that without provisions like i mean that seems a question to me that the park service has a reg imagine that says no bonfires in yellowstone within the boundaries of yellowstone when congress rounded many of these crucial state waterways with federal park areas it consciously chose not to take away state control over these crucial rivers instead congress left them under state control as part of its commitment to providing adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the state of alaska and its people this court should reject the park services continuing attempts to commandeer control of alaska's navigable waters because that is not what congress intended commandeer strong language but what do you say for the the park services argument that with respect to their reserved water rights and so on that you would be absolutely knew that both because it created islands of private and native corporation land that were beyond the reach of park management regulation and similarly with the waters and that's consistent with the default way that water management is done in p p l montana park service apart from any holdings has authority with respect to the land how do you resolve conflicts that are inevitably going to arise what congress did was manage mandated cooperate of management as a primary management tool in these parks so and this gets back to the first question from the court justice sotomayor asked how can the park service to fill its statutory mission if it doesn't have title to all the lands and waters what congress said is you work together and create a management plan for each area identify areas of concern on public and on public lands and work with landowners and the state of alaska to try to cooperate if we resolve those conflicts because congress knew it wasn't giving sole and exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government if there's any doubt about that you're i don't think you've answered my question how is the government the federal government supposed to fulfill that statutory duties there are many rivers here that they're given explicit obligations you're basically saying one of the three c tribes that doesn't make much sense to me if a statute tells the government do this and at the same time to reserve some rights to the state doesn't the federal government's obligation to do this the explicit obligation to deal with certain rivers in a particular way trump any other exemption that you might h no your honor because the statutory mission is limited to regulation on the public lands on the federal congress reserved state lands non public lands to alaska private landowners or native your honor was said you know when congress names the rivers as part of a watershed in part what it's saying is on the public lands of your statutory mission is to regulate in a way that protects these watersheds protects access to the watersheds protects the watershed but at the same time it is the state that has jurisdiction over the water in themselves and if there's any doubt about this if you look through title sixteen when congress created different national parks it used vastly different jurisdiction the language when congress created yellowstone which just prior mentioned this is what it said the yellowstone national park as its boundaries now are defined or as they may here after be defined or extended shall be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the united states that's a very clear statement that says we drew a circle and everything within it is federal the park service can manage it it does violence to congress's differing intent to interpret section one of three c to mean the same as what sole and exclusive federal jurisdiction and congress have fairy good reasons for giving alaska more sovereign power reserving more sovereign power to alaska than it did to wyoming because this statute is not a pure conservation statute this is also a statute that fills the promises made to alaska at statehood and in the need of claims settlement act about local control and self decisions should be retained i don't know how we can get different meaning to public lands in two provisions of the same act your honor giving effect to congress intent and milk does may require preserving the rural subsistence priority in title eight of the legislation even if it does require a different statutory definition now no party has challenge the current federal substance ma subsistence regulations the briefing certainly reflects this is an issue of great concern to the people of alaska and it's where all residents and the court should not upset those settled expectations of alaskans today a different definition in these titles does reflect congress's very different intent in title eight title eight could have been its own statute it has its own statement of purpose it has its own is the only place in this extensive law where congress specifically exercise its commerce power and it has a federal takeover provision that says congress was so concerned that there be in four and enforceable subsistence priority that it gave explicitly the federal government the right to regulate that if the state could not accordance with your views put it in accordance with the government's current view and the katie decisions for you this then you don't win here the statute does contain one definition we've cited to the court in our brief cases that do suggest in these long complicated statutes we do look to congress's intent and the context of the statute and that can mean that a term does have different meaning in different sections when that is what congress so why  references to the government's control of rivers in the sacked a similar statement of purpose because of those need to be read in the context of one o three c which doesn't say the federal government can come in and regulate these rivers if we don't or regulate so us is students living but you're arguing that the purpose of the statute is reflected in its structure and words and the structure and here are giving the government defined statutory duty for any number of rivers within this com i don't see the difference in the lo you run or the statutory duties that the park service is given is delegated to regulate for non subsistence purposes is limited by section one hundred three c and you had read a meaningful restriction you agree with the k kora we are not challenging the federal subsistence management reg if you are going to do that is the state of alaska agree with those decisions your honor the reasoning of those decisions  be appropriate for the limited purpose of affection even table but should not be expanded to change the federal reserve water rates doctrine throughout the circuit for all purposes and certainly congress had good reasons for treating alaska differently then other states in the main body of the statute because this comes back to the congress a special solicitude for alaska and its uniqueness which are concerns of the court spoke about in its two thousand and sixteen opinion this is not a situation where we're talking about taurus who might be disturbing a wilderness area this is a situation where people are living and working along these rivers and using them for transportation for commerce for fishing and these are exactly the reasons that states were given justice me and may have please the court i'd like to identify at the outset two statutes that have not been discussed which we think are very important to understand the provisions of a note at issue here the first is a general statute in  hundred seventy six and added to the park service as general authorities which is reproduced in our in our brief a page a day and it says the secretary under such terms and conditions etc have the authority to issue regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to water located within system units that is a general authority contrary to petitioners argument that specifically delegates to the park service along with the coast guard direct power to regulate navigable waters in the national park system so the question here is whether that was somehow abrogated when it comes to alaska and i think the answer to that question is in another provision that it is not to mention before we get to the abrogation question yes i'd just like to understand your argument on the terms of the seventy six act itself a little bit better says the secretary may prescribe regulations concerning boating and other activities on a relating to water within system units and i'm paraphrasing but i think that's i don't understand your argument better i think if so if the statute read that the secretary could regulate water in or relating to system units so not just water within system units but also water outside system units like the water here that might have some downstream effects but that's not what the statute says it says that the rate may prescribe regulations concerning boating as or other activities that themselves relate to water in system units so i would think the government have to prove some nexus between boating or the other activities and the water within the government's system units and i just didn't see that story told here how mr sturgeon's hover craft would in some way impact water within the within the unit itself well that goes directly to the ok but assume for the second for the moment that i'm i'm persuaded that it's not within the unit ok and that you have to rely on relating to the unit all right what's your been determined to be navigable but it is it is within the federal the federal bound ok and maybe if i don't buy that argument then do you have anything left well it would it would affect the not novel waters within the area there could be promise would have any effect on the water within the system unit well it has it has a hovercraft could have the very loud they're unsightly and i don't i don't read this to say that the a fact has to be on the water it the purpose of giving the regulation regulatory authority to the park service is to enable it to fulfill the purposes of the park as a whole not just the water we know from the record that hovercraft could be heard within the system unit itself well let alone seen there were federal lands on the on both sides of the of the of the water so so as not when operating i think it can surely be ok you heard on the lands but if i could go to the second statutory provision i want to wanted to areas or established by the foregoing sections of a new book of the one that lists the parks in accordance with the organic act as amended in supplement it in other words in accordance with the general authorities which includes the  act your point here which will hear something about probably a rebuttal is that there are some of the statutes here that whatever it says in one of the three see give direct authority to the secretary to do this i see where you're driving out but i'd like to go back to one of the three see because the question that justice kagan asked was a question that was in my mind too and it is to do with the words and you can he can answer this on rebuttal to if you want  magine something like yellowstone not perfectly but it's a square and it is mostly it's federal but there are a few houses belonging to smith and jones that are private and the  pass a statute reg in the reg says no bonfires within the boundaries of the park which means smith can't do it either now is that a r is a reg so relating to lands to which the us has title well i can the argument that it couldn't possibly be for the purposes of this statute if you wouldn't it you wouldn't need sentence to at all if that were the case you just wouldn't need to period because it wouldn't apply to the river regardless because it says it  sentenced to must have some purpose and therefore when the national park system has a reg which says applies within the boundaries of a national park that  is a rule that relates only to public lands and if it doesn't say without doubt this meat is meaningless and so it must mean that and so it must be that that kind of thing is what you can't do to on claves within public lands in this area and the river is such an on clave because it is not a piece of property to which the united states has title now that i think is their argument i've had a hard time grasping the arguments in this case but i think that that is their argument if i am right what's the answer to it if there is one a number of answers to that in the several respects in which one of the three see the second sentence is an applicable perhaps the most basic is the fact that one of the three see that second sentence refers to  excuse me refers to land no lands which have been conveyed to a state the submerged lands act conveyed to the state only submerged lands and interests and waters it could not convey the waters themselves and so that so the second sentence of one of the three c does not affect the park services regulation of not a lot of it is there another would because that when i don't know water is stuff you could convey and i don't know art but  but is there another one just if i could just find i'm not going on no that's that's critical to the point i was making before that the one nine hundred seventy six act is one of general applicability specifically giving the secretary the authority to regulate water including navigable waters and the other statute i mentioned specifically says that the secretary may regulate the water added to these park units according to the general authorities which includes the seventy six act and that ties directly to the fact that the waters the now the global waters were not conveyed to the state and therefore the secretary's regulatory authority over such waters is not is not affected at all by the second i ask the question in reverse what can under your reading of the statute what sorts of regulations can't you pass because if you can identify a permissible and in permissible you're giving meaning to this if you don't you're basically saying there's no meaning and i think it is useful to distinguish two different types of of non of land not owned by the united states the one where the in holdings so the issue here was that was different about alaska was that within the outer boundaries there were land selected by the state or selected by native corporations and congress did not want them to be administered just like the park service lands themselves the usual park service lands one of them to be set apart the other cut and that is that is what the legislative history that the other side refers to was all about was preserving the ability of the native corporations to use the large tracts of land that they had comes to water does the government claim plenary authority over all waterways in alaska you know we're only took we're only talking here about water weight navigable waterways within national park right but everything relates all waterways are connected and you say it's not just a waterway but anything related to that waterway that you own or that you claim to have a land of well the size of so where is the limits well it's well established under under the navigational i mean it's really about if alaska decided to you know build a bridge across the river and things like that i don't know that it reaches far to justify any type of regulation on the water well congress regulates again outside of parks regulates  navigational servitude applies i think they agree that the reserve water rights apply there but they don't agree is that that is a lever that gives you authority to do the sort of day to day regulations such as you know the hovercraft traffic well the well you may think hundred crafters unsightly i mean if you're trying to get from point a to point b it's pretty beautiful while they're there but there are there are a number of instances within the op to which congress has had specifically required the secretary to accommodate to take into account what's different about alaska by requiring a to accommodate methods of transportation like air we mentioned boating the fact that the secretary is permitted to regulate boating only subject only reasonably means that he can regulate boating means the national park service can regulate boating so in lying on the waters within the park can i summarize what i think you said are you saying that one of the three c basically because of the navigational serv e the other regulations you pointed to doesn't permit the government to regulate activities on the territorial lands or or on the submerged lands but it does give it basically planetary authority over inapplicable waters i hesitate to say plenary i think it gives it preserves for the through the park service whatever the scope of authority that that congress would have or the federal government wooders are part of that charge yes and the uplands are different and that's really what drove one of the three see was to make sure that these land selections were not going to be subject to the general regulations of the park service and in fact that's been exactly true there are there are  really only three sets of regulations that the park service has applied in and outside of federally own lands one is the regulation of navigable waters pursuant to an express statutory authorization and the seventy six act the other two had have to do with the regulation of solid waste pursuant to specific statutory directive to regulate within the boundaries of national park units just like this statute talks about within system units and the other is mining in areas of the national park system which the park service has supplied regulations they're all three pursuant to specific statutory direct not done more than that so you think the states argument works with respect to solid land land land well that there is only because you don't think that  water is included in public lands that their argument doesn't work you know that well it's because it's wrong because it is water water water was not conveyed to the state that's the first story you meant the second argument is if you have a regulation that in the case examples i mentioned regulations issue pursuant to statutory directive to apply to both public and nonpublic lands within the national park that comes within the reference they are not regulations applicable soley  one of your arguments that causes me concern because you're saying that if the regulation applies to the private or state land then it is not a regulation soley optical to public land and therefore it's not covered but the sentence is obviously designed to protect the state the natives and the private land holders against the federal government or the park service to whatever extent we can debate but to say that all the park service has to do to get around it is say oh and this applies to the in holdings it can't be right well i'm not saying it's not in fact i would disclaim the proposition that the park service could treat them as as as the same way a treats regular park service lancet cannot do that and the only examples where it has issued regulations that go beyond that are pursuant to specific statutory directive of which the one nine hundred seventy six act right regulating waters is one that if i understand your view mr kneedler what you're saying is this means is that non public lands sh not be subject to regulations that are replicable only to public lands and you don't need a statute to tell you that of course non public lands aren't subject to regulations a political soley to public lands if that's what the statute was saying it would need a statute well i i think the purpose of the statute and again i think this comes through in the legislative history that decided on the other side the native groups were concerned as was the state that because large tracts of land that they had selected were going to be included within the in the in within the outer boundaries that they were not going to be that they would be treated just like they wanted insurance that they wouldn't be treated just like park service and that's what this did it's important to recognize that this is subsection c of a section that deals with maps it isn't it doesn't you would think if there was some major substantive change work that this was supposed to do aside from the subset of regulations it would appear elsewhere and there may be i think is just on the face of things mr nadler if the park service issues a regulation and the regulation says this applies only to public lands within a park right and you are not a public land within a park  private land within a park what kind of assurance do you need that's like you know that you are not a public land so it doesn't matter that you're in the park you don't need a special statute to tell you that do you that you all mean is you need a special statute if the special statute exempts you from something that would otherwise apply to you with all respect i don't think that's correct i think that think that there was a lot of debate about about different versions of the statute and i think if you recall as i said this was in a section dealing with maps in the statute required that the that the that the law the boundaries that maps be published identifying what the parks were those maps might have and in fact i think did just outline the outer boundaries third sentence i mean trying to minimize it by saying it's maps the third sentence has to elucidate the first two and what it sends is if the state in need of owner wants to convey lands to the secretary it can in other words if you the secretary feels that you need to have with already over areas that you don't it tells you in the third sentence how to do it get the state or the native corporation to convey it to you now would be an odd sentence to include if this were not if this were a protection you could write around just by saying oh and by the way this applies to the the in whole i don't think so at all i mean i think i think this provision was in there because if the if you had native or state selected lands or native lands the court the native corporation they were if they decided to sell their land that's just says that the park service could purchase i think what you claim i'll back to this question because this is obviously the question that's bothering some o and it seems to me you've sort of answered it both ways you're not started out thinking that if a reg applies to mr smith's in holding in yosemite because it applies to all of yosemite that that is soley public lands why because if the only things that count as a reg for public lands do we've said this three times are are those regs  say they don't apply dismiss in holding you don't need this statute ok that's the basic thing now some of what you said seems to agree with that and some of it does not but what i took your basic arguments to be one th water unlike mr smith's cabin is close enough to public lands that it's out of this thing two even if it doesn't they're all the statutes that give specific a for to the government to regulate the water and one of them might be general one of them might be the ones you've just started up your argument with and one of them might be there two or three on that now i think i've got this very helpful or much right at least of what you're arguing and is there something else or do i have it so wrong it's hardly worth and so i think it's i think it's basically correct but there is the category of regulations that are not applicable soley to public lands because because they have been made out clickable to in holdings within the park service or whether or not that valid in any particular case is a different matter but there are three as i mentioned that were done pursu statutory authorization and those i think must be valid because congress has authorized them how that is not really involved here here we're only talking about waters which are not just alito has been trying to answer a question thank you justice i just wanted to ask you a question about implied reserve water rights in the cases where we have dealt with that the government has been asked to show in detail the purpose of the reservation and the volume of that's necessary to achieve that purpose do you have to make any kind of showing like that here well in the one nine hundred ninety nine regulations that congress allowed to go into effect the park service by rule identified the park service units or areas added into expanded by an orca in which there were reserved water rights and when you look at the purposes for which these units were established it's clear that water was a central purpose of them in fact the one we have here is that you can charlie rivers national preserve and it's specifically defined as one of the purposes to preserve the entire charlie river basin including streams and lakes so that  clearly identifies the protection of the integrity of those waters and the and the the senate the senate values associated with and that's why we have national parks not why we have this national preserve so  i think it's clear that water is reserved for the purposes of these reservations every one of which either refers to specific bodies of water or to aquatic activities such as fishing so what has been recent what has been observed here particular location of a reserved water right has not been decided if there is an adjudication down the road that the reserve water right does not extend to some stretch or another area that could be resolved but what the what the interior department had to do in light of the k t john decisions was to identify the areas that for the time being in its view were subject to reserve you know i was asking about the geographical limits of what i'm asking about the regulatory limits as to eight that i that i mentioned which i think directly you don't have to go through the reserve water rights approach to get there with the national parks the john subsistence use could have been satisfied by relying on the one thousand nine hundred six act and not relying on reserve water rights and all we have here are now available waters with the national parks but no i the extent of what regulatory power might be triggered would be different if i could go back to that could i just listen and watch your question since you referred to katie to k john i ask you the same question was asked of counsel for alaska if we were to rule against you here with that necessarily mean that the key to john decision was incorrect i would certainly hope not but it but i mean i  in the state of a difficult argument because katie john and the regulations implementing it once the congress specifically allowed to go into effect with full knowledge that katie john was out there it turns on the definition of public lands which is a term that runs throughout the act which is we think a good reason why why it should be upheld at the very least haiti john demonstrates the importance of federal regulation of water as within these areas in that instance for  subsistence uses if i could just finish the answer about sentence three of one or three one of three c one of the one of the things the park service could never do is grant access to private lands the park service not only regulates things that you can't do in national parks but things that they have to allow like access camping picnic obviously the park service cannot allow people to have private have access to the private in holdings so one of the reasons why the park service might want to acquire the adjacent lands or the in holdings would be for the purpose of allowing act public access to those areas but i also want to underscore that there are so many provisions of the no code that specifically refer to water and in fact the regulation of water one of the ones i mentioned thirty one seventy specifically allows the park service to regulate boating in these areas that picks up on the one thousand nine hundred seventy six act the general application that is made specific  by allowing regulation of voting there is thirty one twenty one b which requires access for civs subsistence unit units there uses there's the wild and scenic rivers act which the whole purpose of designating a river within these national parks is to preserve but there's nothing that says that the park service has plenary authority over all the navigable rivers within the conservation system unit nor is there any indication by any member of congress of such  a authority well that putting to one side whatever we might mean by plenary the nine hundred seventy six acts specifically gets the park so this would have a fair idea of our water source in iraq this would have been a huge deal for the people of alaska and the representatives two that i mention specifically says that the waters added to these areas are subject to regulation of the park service and general authority which includes the one nine hundred seventy six act i think the extraordinary thing would be to say that that the federal government through the park service did not have the authority to regulate navigable waters not just any natural navigable waters but now the global waters in park areas set aside for the very purpose often express purpose of preserving the values of the rivers and lakes and streams that were in their midst the this this is a very water centric statute and i think it would turn it upside down to say the congress of all things was incapable of regulating the navigable waters within within the park system well but i mean the waters are very important to alaska and way of life in the way they aren't elsewhere and i guess the argument on the other side it would be pretty extraordinary if you go to the trouble to say you only can regulate lands with respect to which you have title and you say from that you get the authority over the rivers even though title in the submerged lands in the state well our argument doesn't depend on the title question of our control over navigable waters but the title question is involved in it if on the on the on the k t john rationale but on the point you mention and look at itself in bodies the compromise or the or the balance of the competing values in most parks you can't hunt hunting is permitted in national preserves including this one in most places you can have airplane use while here you are allowed to have their plane use their specific provisions for access to in holding something that you don't normally have in other national parks but because they were in holdings there are provisions for that there's provisions for foreboding another access to subsistence uses the very things that make alaska different are accommodated in the statute but one of the things it does that is not different about alaska is the importance of the federal government having control over the navigable waters that are the centerpiece of the parks what is different about alaska is the large tracks in holdings which is really what the focus of one of the three see was and in that situation and only in very limited circumstances has the park service ever applied regulations go beyond simply the public lands to and to embrace the broader broader system of lands and again this is the yukon charlie rivers national monument it would be a national preserve it would be extraordinary to conclude that the park service without some express statement to that effect and in the statute could not regulated and as i say this statute giving it the authority to regulate waters is explicit on that point thank you counsel  federal government does not title it's not public land and it's not part of the park and it's there to prevent the park service from using its organic act authority to regulate extraterritorial e to land that it's not our problem is you don't have as someone having title to them but we do think of them as having interest in them and if there is to interest the federal government said the states don't they win because if they have an interest they happy public interest that by statute is being directed when there are twenty six rivers designated as wild scenic rivers here there are all sorts of stuff and i mentioned this repeatedly all sorts of statutory obligations that the government's being given under this particular act to preserve these waterways in a particular way so i don't understand if you don't have title does this at least with respect to the map of the borders do you have any claim whatsoever what matters here is that the united states does not have title to those waters and does not have title to the submerged lands once that's the case they are public lands they are part of these units and the park service may not use its organic authority to reach out and regulate them you ask park service early on very foundational question what does one or three c prohibit in your view and twenty minutes later if there was no answer from the park service the reality is in their view any time they feel it is necessary appropriate to regulate outside the boundaries of public lands they feel they can do that how they feel we haven't done it that often but this is exactly what section one of the three see was designed to prevent they're looking at seven fifty  question come in and they're looking at seven fifty one b and they are relying on that phrase activities on are related to water to justify regulating water that is not part of the unit and there's no limiting principle to that activities on are really into water could very easily be read as activities taking place on native corporation land within the unit all of that is actually territorial regulation that is what section one of the three c was specifically designed to prevent so every time the park service wanted to probably get a regulation to reach out to nonpublic land that is not part of the unit the state of alaska a native corporation or a private party did not have to go petition to court and say please don't do this that was the central deal and milka and the waters were as crucial to that as a native intoning as my friend from the state made very clear in for the state of alaska the rivers are the roads and while the act constantly references rivers and waters you need to give fact to both do a balancing act congress  doing by adding over one hundred million acres of land public land to these units you are refusing significant protection of the waters and you're also protecting all waters where the where the state does not own the submerged lands so regulation of those public lands indeed protects the waters what we are talking about here is the state's authority to retain primary control over the use of its rivers that run by the parks and are surrounded by the parks the federal government of course retains control of the rivers as we've talked about the clean air act applies guard regulations apply federal criminal law applies these rivers are already significantly protected when the hovercraft will come back what brought us here today why is that rule there it's not there to protect the quality of the river it's there because of sound and it's  there because the park service wants to restrict access to remote areas of the parks well the state of alaska has a very different view about access to remote areas of the state and that's a judgment call that an ill kids should leave to the state of alaska thank you