Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 55% of United States seafood production and accounts for approximately 40% of Alaska’s international exports. Congress did not relinquish its constitutional authority and confer upon states title to, or exclusive regulatory authority over, fish in navigable waters within state boundaries by enacting the Submerged Lands Act (SLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 130Í-1315. Rather, Congress expressly “retain[ed] all its ... rights in and powers of regulation and control of ... navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce.... ” Id. § 1314(a); see also United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121, 127, 88 S.Ct. 265, 19 L.Ed.2d 329 (1967) (concluding that the SLA “left congressional power over commerce ... precisely where it found [it]”); Alaska v. United States, 754 F.2d 851, 853 n. 3 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The SLA conferred upon states concurrent 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters (B) recognizing that navigable waters railroads and highways are channels of commerce which can be regulated under congress commerce powers (C) holding that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to require private riparian land owners to obtain a license prior to construction of dams even where the river in question was not navigable but could potentially have been made navigable (D) holding that state ownership of submerged lands remains subject to congress paramount power over navigable waters under the commerce clause (E) holding that sovereign immunity barred suit by indian tribe seeking to compel state officials to turn over ownership and control of disputed lands and waters
Output (English): holding that congress had the authority under the commerce clause to require private riparian land owners to obtain a license prior to construction of dams even where the river in question was not navigable but could potentially have been made navigable