Sa l l y Jew el l i s subst i t ut ed f o r her p rede cess o r, K ennet h L e e S al azar, * as Secret ary of t he Int eri o r. Fed

. R

. A p p
. P

. 43 (c)( 2 ).

F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT
*

K AT I E J OHN ; C H A RLES E RHA RT ; A L AS K A I

NT ER -T R I B AL C O U N C IL ; N AT I VE V I L L AGE OF T ANANA ; S T A T E O F A LASKA ,

Plain tif fs , and
A L AS K A F I S H AND W I LD LI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND ; A LASKA F I S H AND W I L DL I F E F ED ER ATI ON AND O U T D O O R C O U N C IL ; J OHN C ONR AD ; M I CH A EL T I NKER ,

Plain tif fs- In te rv e no rsAp pe lla nts ,

v.
U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ; M I KE J OHANNS ; S AL L Y J EW ELL , * Secre tary of the Interior, Defendants-A

ppellees , A L AS K A F ED ER ATI ON OF N AT I VES , Defendant-

Interve nor-Appellee

. No. 09-36122
D. C. N os
. 3:0 5- c v- 00 00 6- HRH 3:0 5- c v- 00 15 8- HRH2 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

K AT I E J OHN ; C H A RLES E RHA RT ; A L AS K A I

NT ER -T R I B AL C O U N C IL ; N AT I VE V I L L AGE OF T ANANA , Plain tif fs , A L AS K A F I S H AND W I LD LI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND ; A LASKA F I S H AND W I L DL I F E F ED ER ATI ON AND O U T D O O R C O U N C IL ; J OHN C ONR AD ; M I CH A EL T I NKER ,

Plain tif fs- In te rv e no rs , and
S T A T E O F A LASKA ,

Plaintif f-Appellant ,

v.
U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ; M I KE J OHANNS ; S AL L Y J EW ELL , Secre tary of the Interior, Defendants-A

ppellees , A L AS K A F ED ER ATI ON OF N AT I VES , Defendant-

Interve nor-Appellee

. No. 09-36125
D. C. N os
. 3:0 5- c v- 00 00 6- HRH 3:0 5- c v- 00 15 8- HRH3

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

K AT I E J OHN ; C H A RLES E RHA RT ; A L AS K A I

NT ER -T R I B AL C O U N C IL ; N AT I VE V I L L AGE OF T ANANA , Plain tif

fs- Ap pe lla nts , and
S T A T E O F A LASKA , Plain tif f , A L AS K A F I S H AND W I LD LI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND ; A LASKA F I S H AND W I L DL I F E F ED ER ATI ON AND O U T D O O R C O U N C IL ; J OHN C ONR AD ; M I CH A EL T I NKER ,

Plain tif fs- In te rv e no rs ,

v.
U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ; M I KE J OHANNS ; S AL L Y J EW ELL , Secre tary of the Interior, Defendants-A

ppellees , A L AS K A F ED ER ATI ON OF N AT I VES , De

fe nd an t- In te rv e no rAppellee

. No. 09-36127

D. C. N os
. 3:0 5- c v- 00 00 6- HRH 3:0 5- c v- 00 15 8- HRH

OPI NI ON4 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Judge B et t y B

. Fl et che r was a member of t he panel but pas s ed away ** af t er o r al arg ument

. Judge C anby was d r awn t o re pl ace he r
. H e h as r ead t he b ri ef s, revi ewed t he reco rd, and li st ened to t he t ap e o f oral argument h el d on J u l y 25, 2011.

T hi s s ummary co ns t i t ut es no p ar t of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s *** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Appea l from the United States District Court

for the D istrict of Alaska H. Russel Holland, Senior District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted J uly 25, 2011—Anchor ag e, Alaska Filed July 5, 2013
Be fore : Wi lliam C. C anby , J r., Andre w J . Kleinfe ld,
and Con su e lo M . Ca lla

ha n, Cir c uit Judg e s. ** Op ini on by Judg e Kl e inf

e ld

SUMMAR

Y ***

Alaska National I ntere st Land s Conservation Act The pa nel af firmed the district c ourt’s dec is ions upholding the 1999 F inal Rules promulgated by the Secr etar

y of the Interior and the Secre tary of Ag riculture to implement part of the Alaska N ational I ntere st L ands C onservation Act
c on c e rn ingsu

bs ist e nc e fi sh ingand

hunti ngri g hts

.5

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND
In Alas k a v . B ab bit t , 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) (“ Kat ie John I ”), the court he ld that, beca u s e C o n g ress include d subsistence fishingin Title VI I I , t h e Act applied to some of Alaska’ s navig able waters. The 1999 Rules identified which
navig a ble wate rs w ithinAl a sk a c on sti tut e d “ pu

bli c land s” under Title VI I I of the Act, whic h provides a pr iority to rural Alaska r esidents for subsistence hunting and fishing on suc h lands.
As t h re shold issues, the panel held that the Sec reta ries appropri ately

used notice- and-c omment rulemaking , rathe r tha n a dju dic atio n, to ide nti fy wh os e wate rs are “ pu bli c land s” for the purpose of deter

mining the scope of the Act’s rura l
su bs ist e nc e po lic y ; and that in c on str uin g the term “p ub lic lands,” the Sec reta

ries we re e ntitled to “some defe renc e.” The pa nel conc luded that, in the 1999 Rules, the Secre taries applied Katie John I

and the fe dera l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts doctrine in a

principled manne r. The pa nel h el d t h at it was
re a so na ble fo r t he Se c re tari e s t o decide that: the “ pu bli c lands” subjec t to the Act’s rura l subsistenc e priority included the wate rs within and adjac en t t o fede ral re servations; and
re se rv e d w ate r r ig hts fo r A la sk a Nativ e Se ttl e me nt a llo tme nts we re be st d e te rm ine d o n a c a se -b y -c a se ba sis

.6 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND CO UN SEL
Mic ha e l G . M itc he ll ( argue d) , M ic ha e l W. Se wr ig ht, As sis tant A tto rn e y s G e ne ra l, Anc ho ra g e , A la sk a ; Will iam P. Ho rn and Jame s H. L ist e r, B ir c h, Ho rt on , B ittne r, and Che ro t, Washington, D.C., for A

ppellant State of Ala ska.
Wil l Sherman for

Appellants Alaska

Fish an d Wil dlife Fe deration and Outdoor C ouncil, Alaska F ish & Wildli fe Conservation F und, Michae l Tinker, and John Conrad.
He athe r K e nd a ll- Mil le r ( argue d) , N ativ e Am e ri c an Ri g hts Fund, Anc horag e, Alaska , for Appellants Katie John, Charles Erhar t, Alaska Inter-T ribal Council, an d Native Villag e of Tana na.
Eliz abeth Ann Pete rson (a rgu ed), United States Depa rtment of Jus tice, Environmenta l & Nat u ral Resources Division, Washington, D.C., for A

ppellees Un ited States of Amer ica, Mik e Johann s and

Sa lly Jew e ll.
Robert T. Ande rson (a rgued), University of Washington Sc h o o l o f L aw , Se att le , Wa s h in g to n , f o r Ap p e ll e e A la s ka F e de ratio n o f N ativ e s. Peter J. Ampe, First Assistant Attorney Gene ral, F eder al and Interstate Water

Unit, Denver , Colorado, for Amicus Curiae St at e of Colorado; Stephen R. Fa rris, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Dire ctor, Water, E nvironment, and Utilities Division, S anta F e, Ne w Mexico, for Amicus Curiae State of New Me x ico; Peter K. Micha el, Senior Ass i s t ant Att orney Gene ral, Cheyenne, Wyo m i ng , for Amicus Curia e State of W y o m i n g.7

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

16 U

. S.C

. §§ 31 0 1

- 3 2 3 3 , P ub

. L. 9 6

- 4 8 7 , 94 Stat

. 23 7 1 (19 8 0 ). 1 OP IN ION
KL EI NFE L D, Senior Circuit J udg e: These consolidated appeals concern the 1999 Final Rules (“1999 Rules ”) promulg ated by the Secr etar

y of the Interior and the Secreta

ry of Agric ulture (“ Secre taries” ) to implement part of the Alaska National Intere st L ands Conservation Act (“A NI L CA”). Th e 19 99 Rul e s id e nti fy wh ich navig a

ble 1
wate rs wi thi n A la sk a

c on sti tut e “ pu

bli c land s” un de r T itl e VI I Iof ANI L CA, which pr o vides a prior ity to rural Ala ska
re sid e nts f

or subs ist e nc e hunti ngand fi sh ingon

su c h la nd s. Plaintiffs-Appellants Katie John, et al., argue that the 1999 Rul e s sw e e p to o n arro wl y , in tha t th e y fa il t o d e signate cer tain navig able water

way s as “public lands” subjec t to the fede ral rur al subsistence pr iority . Plaintiff-Appellant the S t at e o f A l a s k a ar g u e s th at th e 1 9 9 9 R

u l e s s w e e p t o o b r o a d l y, i nth atth e y

i n c l u d e a s “ p u

b l i c l an d s ” s u

b j e c tt o th e pr ior ity water s in which no fede ral int ere st exis ts. The dist rict cour t u p h e ld th e 1 9 9 9 Ru le s a g a in s t bo th s e ts o f c h a ll e n g e s
. We have jur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 12 91 , a nd we a ff ir m.
BACK GR OUND
A. Le ga l an d fac tu al b ac kgr ound
1. ANILCA and the rural subs istence prior ity Congr ess ena cted AN I L CA to preser ve and pr otect

“ natio na lly

signif ic ant n atur a l, sc e nic , h ist or ic , a rc he olo g ic a l, g eolog ical, scie ntific, wilderne ss, cultural, re cr ea tional, and8 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

1 6 U .S .C . § 3 1 0 1 (a )– (b ); se e a lso id

. § 3102( 4) ( def i n i n g “ con s er v at i on 2 sy st em uni t s”)

.
I d. § 3 1 0 1 (c)–(d). 3

I d. § 3114. 4

I d. § 3 1 1 3 (emp hasi s ad d ed ). 5 wildlife valu es” and landsca pes by cre ating“conse rvation sy stem units,” such as nati onal par ks, prese rves, a

nd other fe de ra l r e se rv atio ns
. Congr ess also soug ht to protect the 2 “subsistence way

of life f or rur al residents” and the re source s upon which they

depend, a s well as to obviate t h e n eed for future le g islation reg ardingenvironmenta l conservation and
su bs ist e nc e us e s. 3 To protec t the “subsis t en ce way of life f

or rur al residents,” Title VI I Iof ANI L CA provides that, “[e]x cept a s otherwise pr ovided in this Act and other Fe d eral laws, the takingon public lands of fish and w ildlife for nonwa st eful subsistence uses sha ll be acc orded pr iority over the takingon such lands o f fi sh and wildlife for other purpose s.” 4 “Subsistence use s” ar e def ined as “customar

y and tra ditional
u s e s b y rural

Alaska r esidents of wild, re n ew ab l e re source s . . . .” T h i s fe dera l subsist ence priority for r ural Ala ska 5 residents ther efor e applies to all “public lands,” which ANI L CA defines a s “land situated in Alaska which, af ter Dec ember

2, 1980, are Fe dera l l an ds,” except, as pe rtinent here , “land se lections of the State of Alaska which have be en tentatively

approve d or validly

s el ected under the Alaska Statehood Act and la

nds which have been c onfirmed to, validly sel ecte d by , or g rante d to the Terr itory of Alaska

or the State under

any other provision of Fe dera l law,” a nd “land selec tions of a Native Corpor ation made unde r the Ala ska9

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. § 3 1 0 2 (3). 6

Id

. § 3 1 0 2 (1)– (2). 7

I d. § 3114. 8

Id

. 9

Id

. § 3115. 10

Id

. § 31 1 5 (d). 11 Native Claims S ettlement Act whic h have not be en conve y ed to aN at i v e C o r

p o r at i o n , un l e s s an y

s u c hs e l e c t i o nis deter mined to be invalid or is relinquished.” Fe d er al lands 6
are “lands the title to which is in the United States afte r Dec emb er 2, 1980,” and “ land” is “la nds, water s, and inte r e s ts th e rein.” ANI L CA g ives rura l subsist ence uses 7 “priority over the taking on such l ands of f ish and wildlife for other purpose s.” When it is “ nece ssary to r estrict the taking 8 of populat i ons of fish and wildlife on suc h lands for subsistence uses in order to pr otect the c ontinued viability of such populations, or to continue such use s,” implementation of such r estrictions is subject to a set of c riteria. 9
AN I L CAc ha

rg e s th e Se c re tari e s w ithimp le me nti ngits
r ur a l s u b s is te n c e p r io r it

y in A la s ka. Ho we ve r, AN I L CA

10 states that the Secr etar ies should not take action to implement Title VI I Iif Alaska “ enac ts and impleme n t s laws of g ener al applicability

which ar e consistent with” ANI L CA’s rura l
su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

re qu ir e me nts

. In o the r w or ds , A NI L CA 11 expresses a pr efe renc e for state m anag ement of the rura l10 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

S e e id

. § 3 2 0 2 (a). 12

Id

. § 3117. 13

M c D o w e ll v . S ta te , 785 P. 2d 1, 1–2 ( Al as k a 1989) ( ci t i n g Ch. 151 § 4 14 SL A 19 7 8 ).

I d. a t 2. 15

5 A la sk a A d m in

. C o d e § 0 1 .5 9 7 (re p e a le d 1 9 8 5 ), re p rin te d in 16 Ma d i s o n v

. A l a s k a De

p ’ to f F i s h & Ga me , 69 6 P

. 2 d 16 8 , 17 2 n. 8 (Alas ka 1 9 8 5 ); s ee als o Bo bb y v. A l ask a , 7 1 8 F

. S up p
. 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 (D

. A l aska 19 8 9 ). subsistence prior ity

on “public lands,” but provid es t h at the Un ite d St ate s ma

y ste p in wh e re the State fa ils to a c t. 12 Persons ag g rieve d by

an alleg ed fa ilure to enfor ce the
rura l subsist ence priority

are authorized to “file a

civil action in the United States District Court for the D ist ri ct of Ala ska to require such actions to be taken as ar e nec essar y to provide for the pr iority .” 13
2. The State’s e ff

orts t o protec t subsi stence uses
Alaska ha d addre ssed subsistence uses befor e ANI L CA’s passag e, and ha d taken steps to assume the man age m ent responsibility

that ANI L CA contemplated. A 1978 state law, passed in anticipation of ANI L CA becominglaw, esta blished “that subsistence hunting a nd fishing ha d priority over othe r uses of fish an d game stocks.” The statute identifie d two 14 tiers of subsistence users ba s ed on customary and dire ct depende nce, loc al re sidency , and ava ila b ility of alter native
re so ur c e s. The state J oint B oards of Fish and G ame issued

15 regulations linking subsistence fishing to pa rticular g e ogra ph ic c omm

un iti e s, and eve ntually

introducinga rur al 1611

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

5 A la sk a A d m in. C o d e § 9 9 .0 1 0 (1 9 8 2 ), r epr i n t ed i n Bobby , 17 718 F. Su pp. a t 794–95.

See 5 A la sk a A d m in. C o d e § 9 9 .0 2 0 (1 9 8 2 ) (“ In this c h a p te r, ‘ru ra l’ 18
means out s i de t he r oad connec t ed ar ea of a boroug h, muni ci pal i t y , or ot her
co m m uni t y wi t h a po p u la t i o n of 7 , 0 0 0 or m o re, as d et erm i ned by t he A l aska D ep art m ent of C o m m uni t y and regi o nal A f f ai rs
. ” ), r e

p rin te d in Bobby , 7 1 8 F . S u p p
. a t 7 9 5 ; s ee als o K enai t z e I nd i an Tr i be v. A l ask a , 8 6 0 F .2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ), cer t

. deni ed , 49 1 U

. S. 90 5 (19 8 9 ).

Ma d i s o n v

. A l a s k a D e p ’ t o f F i s h & Ga me , 6 9 6 P

. 2 d 16 8 (Alas ka 19 1 9 8 5 ).

M adi s on , 696 P. 2d a t 177–78. 20 element to the subsistence pre fe rence. The re g ulations 17 init i al l y treated towns with fewe r than 7,000 pe ople as “rur al.” I n 1 9 8 2, the Secr etar y of the I nterior c ertified 18 Al a sk a to mana g e su

bs ist e nc e hunti ng and fi sh ingon pu bli c lands, as ANI L CA and the Ala ska leg islature had intende d.
Ho we v e r , i n1 9 8 5 , th e A l a s k a S u p r e m e C o urth e l d

in Madison that th e re g ulatio ns linkin gsu bs ist e nc e fi sh ingto 19 par tic ula r g e og ra ph ic c omm

un iti e s w e re inc on sis te nt w ith Alaska’ s subsistence statute. The court re asoned that the statutory pref ere nce w as for

subsistence users, whether or not the y we re ru ra l. Many

Al a sk ans depend he avil y on wi ld 20 fish and g ame f

or their pr otein, whether

they live in isolation or in villag es, small t o wn s , or cities. The Secre tary of the Inte ri or no tified the G ov e rn or

of Al a sk a that Madison ’s holding “ raised que stions as to the continuing e ligibility of the State to manag e subsistence on publi c l an d s in Alaska,”
and that A la sk a

ha d unti l June 1, 19 86 to “re vis e its12 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Lett er f rom B i l l H o rn, A ss i st ant S e c ret ary , Fis h and W i l d l i f e and 21 P arks , O f

f i ce o f t he Se cret ary , U n i t ed Stat es D ep art m ent of t he Int eri o r, to B ill S h e ff

ie ld , G o v e rn o r o f A la sk a ( S e p t. 2 3 , 1 9 8 5 ), r epr i nt ed i n Bobby , 718 F. Su pp. a t 813–15.

M c D o w e ll , 785 P. 2d a t 1 ( qu ot i n g Ch. 52 SL A 1986 ); s e e a lso 22 K en a i t ze , 860 F. 2d a t 314.

M c D o w e ll , 78 5 P

. 2 d at 2 (q uo t i ng A l aska St at

. § 1 6

. 0 5

. 9 4 0 (25 ))

. 23

See 5 A la sk a A d m in. C o d e § 9 9 .0 2 0 (1 9 8 2 ) (“ In this c h a p te r, ‘ru ra l’ 24
m ea ns o u ts i d e t h e r o a d c o n n e c t e d a r ea o f a bor ou g h , mu n i ci pal i t y , or o t her com m uni t y w i t h a p o p ul at i o n o f 7 , 0 0 0 o r mo re, as d et erm i ned by t he A la sk a D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m u n ity a n d re g io n a l A ff a irs.” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). su bs ist e nc e pr og ra

m to br ing it ba c k int o c omp liance” wit h AN I L CA ’s ru

ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

re qu ir e me nt. 21

In r e sp on se , th e Al a sk a

le g isl atur e ame nd e d th e state subsistence statute to expressly limit the def

i n i t ion of subsistence a ctivities to those “‘domiciled in a ru ra l are a of the state.’” The amended statute de fined a “rur al ar ea” as 22

“‘ a c o mm

un it y o r ar e a o f th e s tate in w hich the
n o n comm erc ial, customary , and tra ditional use of fish or g ame f or per sonal or fa

mily con s u m p t ion is a principal char acte ristic of the e conomy of the c ommunity

or ar ea.’ ” 23
Und e r th e ame n d e d s tatute , th e St ate d id n o t tr e at the Kena i peninsula as rur al b ec ause it had Sears and Saf ewa y sto re s and

sh op pin gma lls . T hat is , A la sk ans ten ded to u se the word “ rura l” to re fe r t o are as off the roa d sy stem, rather than sparse ly

populated agricultural a reas, there beingfew roads and littl e agr iculture in Alaska

. Acc ording ly , Alaska 24 law h a d pro vid e d a

su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

to p e op le wh o la

rg e ly depende d on hunting a

nd fishing for their

living. Howe ver,13

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

K enai t z e I nd i an Tr i be v. A l ask a , 86 0 F.2d 31 2 (9t h C i r. 19 8 8 ). 25

I d. a t 314 n

. 2. 26

I d. at 31 6 (emp hasi s ad d ed ). 27

I d. a t 317. 28

M c D o w e ll v . S ta te , 78 5 P

. 2 d 1 (A l aska 19 8 9 ). 29

I d. a t 9. 30 in Kenaitze Indian Tribe , the Ninth Circuit rea soned that the 25 Kena i pe ninsula had “a long way to g o befor e it a pproac hes any thing r esemblingan u rb an community .” Kenaitze he ld 26 that the state’s de finition of “rura l”—ec onomi es dom inated by s ubsistence f

ishing a nd hunting—“ would exclude pr a c tic a lly

a ll a re a s o f t he Un ite d St ate s th at we t h i n k of as
rura l, incl u d i n gvirtually the entire ty

of such f

armingand
ranc hing states as I owa a nd Wy omin g,” and w as there fore invalid. “Rural,” Ke na itz e held, mean t something like

27 communities smaller t h an 2,500 people, or towns or cities
outsi de ur

ba n a re a s w ithpo pu latio ns not e xce e din gc e rt a in lim its

. Thus, under Ke na itz e , A NI L CA ’s pr ior ity

a pp lie d to 28 p e o p le in s ma ll c o mm

un it ie s r e g ar d le s s o f

w h e th e r they d ep en d edo nhun t i n g an d fi s h i n g.
In 1989, sever al months after Kenaitze came down, the Alaska Supreme C ourt conclude d in Mc Do we ll that Chapter

29 52 SLA 1 98 6, the ru

ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity chap ter put into the Al a sk a Cod e to co nf

or m to AN I L CA , wa s in te ns ion wi th provisions of the Alaska Constit ution providing for c ommon us e of fi shand g ame and

e qu a lity of a c c e ss am on gtho se simil arly situated. Thoug h a subsistence pref ere nce ba sed 30 on individual charac teristics would satisfy the Alaska14 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 10. 31

I d. a t 10–11. 32

I d. a t 9. 33

See Subs i s t enc e M ana gemen t Regul at i ons f or Publ i c Lan ds i n Al as ka, 34 Su bpar t s A, B , an d C, 57 Fe d. Reg

. 22, 940, 22, 942 ( M ay 29, 1992) (cod i f i ed at 36 C

. F.R

. pt. 24 2 and 50 C

. F.R

. pt. 10 0 ). c on sti tut ion , th e ru

ra l- ur ba n distin c tio n w a s an “ e xtre me ly crude ” means to establish such a pr efe renc e. That is, many 31 of Alaska ’s subsistence use rs lived in what, for Alaska, w ere “urba n” ar eas, a n d m any

people livingin what wer e, under Ke na itz e , “rur al” a

rea s did not ext ensively

rely on subsistence
re so ur c e s. Ac c or din g ly , th e Al a sk a Sup rem e Cour

t he ld 32 that the ru ral subsi stence priority chapte r provided too poor
a fi t w ithAl a sk a

su bs ist e nc e lif

e sty le s to satis fy

state c on sti tut ion a l r e qu ir e me nts

. 33
3. F ederal eff

orts to im plem ent ANILCA’s rural sub sistence prior ity, Kat ie Jo hn I , a nd Kat ie Jo hn II
Fo l l o wi n g Mc

Do we ll , the fe dera l gove rnment denied the
re -c e rt if ic atio n Al a sk a

ne e de d und e r A

NI L CAto m ana g e its own fish and g ame. Implementatio n of ANI L CA’s rura l subsistence prior ity

acc ordin gl y fell back to the fede ral g overnme nt in J uly

1990. In initial regulations promulgated in 1992 (“1992 Rules”), the Secre taries took the position t hat “public lands” under Title VI I I o f ANI L CA, or those lands
su bje c t to the ru

ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity , e xclu ded a ll navig able waters in Alaska

. This positi on g ener ated se vera l 34 lawsu i t s , which we re c onsolidated into a single action. Durin g the cour se of that litigation, the Secre taries c hang ed15

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

A la sk a v . B a b b itt , 7 2 F.3d 6 9 8 , 7 0 1 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ), ce rt

. deni ed , 35 5 1 7 U

. S. 11 8 7 (19 9 6 ).

B a b b itt , 72 F. 3d 698. 36

I d. a t 702. 37

I d. at 70 3

– 0 4 (emp hasi s ad d ed ). 38

I d. at 70 2 (quo t at i o n m arks om i t t ed ). 39

I d. a t 702–03. 40 their position, arguing instea d that some navig abl e waters wer e “public la

nds” by vir tue of the f

eder al re serve d water rig hts doctrine, and the ref ore subjec t to the rural subsistence p r i o r i ty. 35
Th e c on so lid ate d la

ws uit s a g a ins t th e 19 92 Rul e s c ame befor e us in Alas k

a v . B ab bit t

(“ Katie John I

”). We 36 conclude d that, beca

use Cong ress include d subsistence fishing in Title VI I I , AN I L CA applies to some of Alaska ’s
navig a ble wate rs
. We observed that Title VI I Iwas unc lear

37
a s to w h ic hn av ig a

b le w ate r s c o n s ti tute “ p u b li c la n d s , ” b ut reje cted the Kati e John pl aintiffs’ a rgument, with which the dis tr ic t co urt ha d a g re e d, that “ pu bli c land s” inc lud e s “ all navig able waters” in Ala ska. We e x plained that the fe dera l 38 navig ational servitude is a “c oncept of power , not property .” 39 B e c a us e it d id n ot g ive the Un ite d St ate s any pr op e rt y int e re st, th e navig atio na l se rv itu de did no t e sta bli sh“ pu bli c lands,” the sine qua non for a pplication of ANI L CA’s rura l
s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty. Our task, there fore , was to “d ec ide 40 whether the fe dera l ag encie s’ c o nclusion that public lands inclu d e s o me n av ig a

b le w ate r s un d e r

th e r e s e r

v e d w ate r16 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 702. 41

I d. a t 703. 42

I d. 43

I d. a t 7 0 0 , 7 0 4 ; se e a lso id

. at 7 04 ( expr es s i ng “ hope t hat t he f eder al 44 ag en ci es wi l l det er mi n e pr ompt l y w h i ch n av i g abl e wa t er s a r e pu bl i c l an ds subject t o f

ed eral s ub si st ence m anagem ent ”). rig hts doc trine” was “base d on a permissible construc tion of the statute.” 41

We conclude d that it was. We expl ained that the United States, in “rese rv[ing] vast parc els of land i n Alaska f or fede ral purpose s throug h a my riad of statutes,” 42 has also impli ci tly

rese rved a

ppurtena nt wate rs , in clud inga

pp ur te na nt n avig a

ble water s, to the ext ent nee ded to ac complish the purp os e s o f t

he re se rv atio ns. B y

vir tue of its
res erve d water

rig hts, the United States has int e re sts in s ome nav iga ble wa te rs
. Con se quent ly , p ub lic land s su bje c t to su bsisten c e mana g e me nt u nd e r A NI L CA inc lud e c e rt a in n avig a

ble wate rs
. 43
We held that the “f

eder al ag encie s t hat administer the
su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

are re sp onsi ble f

or ide nti fy ingtho se water s.” We rec og nized tha t t h is directive plac ed an

44 “extraordinar

y administrative burden” on the Secr etar ies, that AN I L CAc on te mpl ate d a robus t r ole fo r t

he State in manag ing A

NI L C A’ s rura l subsist ence priority , and that

“ [o]nl y le g isl ativ e ac tio n b y

Al a sk a or Con g re ss w ill tr

uly17

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 704. 45

Subs i s t enc e M ana gemen t Regul ati o ns f o r P ubl i c Lan ds i n Al as ka, 46 S u b p a rts A , B , C , an d D , R e d e finiti o n to In c lud e W a te rs S u b je c t t o Subs i s t enc e Pri ori t y , 64 Fed

. R eg. 1, 27 6, 1, 27 6 ( Jan

. 8, 199 9) ( codi f i ed at 3 6 C

. F.R

. pt. 24 2 and 50 C

. F.R

. pt. 10 0 ).

I d. 47

I d. a t 1, 286–87. 48

I d. a t 1, 28 7. T h es e l an d u n i t s a r e a mi x of AN I LCA con s er v at i on 49 sys t em unit s and o t he r f ed era l rese rva t i o ns. resolve the problem” of how best to manag e ANI L CA’s rura l
su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

vis -à -v is A la sk an w ate rs
. 45

Fo l l o wi n g Katie John I

, the Secr etar ies issued the 1999 Rules, which “a

mend[ed] t he scope and applicabi l ity of the F e de r a l S u

b s i s t e n c e M an a g e m e n tP r o g r ami nA l a s k a to inc lud e su

bs ist e nc e a c tiv iti e s o c c ur ri ng on inl and

navig a ble water s in which the United States h as a r eser ved water right and to identify

specific Fe dera l land uni t s wher e re serve d water rig hts ex ist.” Rather than listing specific bodies of 46 water that are “public lands” by virtue of the fede ral re serve d water rig hts d o ct rine, the 1999 Rules identify “F eder al land units in which re serve d water rig hts ex ist.” The 1999 Rules

47 pr ov ide that th e Rul e s a

pp ly to “ a ll pu

bli c land s in c lud inga ll
no n- navig a

ble wate rs loc ate d o n th ese [ land un its ], on

a ll navig able a

nd non-na v i gable water within the exterior boundarie s of the [ land uni ts] , and on inl and waters adja cent to t h e ex terior bounda

ries of the [l and units].” The 1999 48 Rul e s li st thir

ty -f our se pa rate “ F e de ra l lan d unit s” su bje c t to th i s g e n e r a l r

u l e o f a p p l i c a b i l i ty. T h e 1999 Rules also,

4918 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

4 3 U .S .C . § 1 6 3 5 (o )( 2 ); s ee i nf r a 6 2

– 6 5 (di scus si ng § 9 0 6 (o)(2)). 50

64 Fe d. Reg

. a t 1, 276. 51

See , e

. g. , Un i t ed S t a t es v

. B a ss , 404 U

. S. 336, 349 ( 1971 ) ( “I n 5 2 t r adi t i onal l y s ens i t i ve ar eas , s uch as l eg i sl at i on af f ect i ng t he f

eder al bal anc e, t he r equi r ement of cl ear s t at ement as s ur es t hat t he l egi s l at ur e h as i n f act f ace d, an d i nt ended t o br i ng i nt o i s s ue, t he cr i t i cal mat t er s i nv ol ved i n t he judici al de ci si o n. ”).

See John v. U n i t ed St at es , 247 F. 3d 103 2 (9t h Ci r
. 200 1) ( en banc) 53 (“ K a t i e Jo h n II

”). pursuant to § 906(o)( 2) of AN I L CA, extend rural 50 subsistence prior ity

manag ement “to a ll Fede ral lands selec ted under

the Alaska Native Cl aims Settlement Act and the Alaska Statehood Act and situated within the bounda ries of a Conser

vation Sy stem Unit, National Recr ea t i o n Are a, National Conservat i on Are a, or a ny new national forest or fore st addition, unti l conveyed to the State of A laska or a n Alaska N ative Corporation.” 51

In 2000, the district court, which had re tained jurisdiction
over the consolidated challeng es to the 1992 Rules on remand fr om Katie John I

, conclude d that the action should not serve
as the vehicle for challeng es to the 1999 Rules. Th e c o u rt issued an orde r “r eadoptingall of its rulings on the me rits,” de e min gtho se ru lings fi nal “f or a ll p ur po se s and

to a ll parties,” and dismissing the c ase.
The State of A laska appea led this fina l judg ment, arguing that the “c lear

statement doctrine ” prec lu d ed the 52 de te rm inatio n th at any

na vig a ble wate rs in

Al a sk a c ou ld
cons ti tute “ p u

b li c la n d s
. ” We g r an te d

in it ia l e nb anc re h ea ri n g. In a per curiam opinion, we wrote that “[a]

5319

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 1033. 54

I d. at 10 3 4 (T al l m an, J. , co ncurri ng i n t he judgm ent ). 55

I d. at 10 4 5

– 4 6 (K o zi nski , J. , dis sent i ng). 56

I d. a t 10 46 –4 7 ( K oz i n s k i , J

. , di s s e n t i n g ) (ci t i n g 16 U. S. C. 57 § 31 0 2 (1)– (3)).

I d. at 10 4 8

– 4 9 (K o zi nski , J. , dis sent i ng). 58 majority of the e n banc c ourt has dete rmined t h at the judgme nt rende red by

the [ Katie John I

] panel, and adopte d by the di strict court, should not be dis turbed or altere d by the en banc court.” In a

n o pin ion c on c ur ri ngin t he jud g me nt, 54 three judge s took the position that the fede ral re serve d water rig hts doctrine does not limit the scope of ANI L CA’s rura l subsistence prior ity ; rather , beca use Congr ess was e x erc ising its authority

under the Commerce Clause when it ena cted AN I L CA , th e pr ior ity

a pp lie d to a ll n avi g a

ble wate rs in Al as k a. In a dissentingopinion, three judg es took the

55 position t hat ANI L CA d i d not provide the ne cessa ry “cle ar stat e me n t”

—th at C o n g r e s s s o u g h t t o ta k e aw ay “ im p o rta nt incidents of a state’s sovereig nty ”—to m ake na viga ble wate rs wi thi n Al a sk a su

bje c t to f e de ra l c on tr ol. They

also argued 56 that the United States does not have “title” to Alaskan w ater s or the land s und e rl yingthe m. For these re asons, they 57
c on c lud e d th at no navig able water s are “public lands” under ANI L CA. Since neither of t hese opinions g arne red a 58 majority of votes, Katie John I re m ai n s co n tro l l i n g.20 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I n 2 0 0 5 , th e S e c re ta rie s p u b lishe d a m e n d m e n ts to the 1 9 9 9 R u le s to 59

“ r evi s e[ ] an d cl ar i f[ y ] t he j ur i s di ct i on of t he F ed eral Subs i s t enc e M ana gemen t P r ogr am f or c er t ai n c oas t al ar eas i n Al as ka. ” Su bsi s t enc e M an ag eme n t Reg u l at i on s f or Publ i c La n ds i n Al as k a, Su bpar t A, 70 Fe d. R eg. 7 6 , 4 0 0 , 7 6 , 4 0 0 (D ec. 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 ) (cod i f i ed at 3 6 C

. F.R

. p t . 2 4 2 a nd 5 0 C .F.R

. p t

. 1 0 0 ). T he se am en d m en t s are no t at i ssue i n these ap p ea l s, exc ept wh er e n ot ed bel ow. B. The curre nt litigation
The c ur r e n t l it ig ati o nin c lu d e s tw o c o n s o li d ate d
c ha lle ng e s to the 19 99 Rul e s. In the first challeng e, 59 Plaintiffs-Appellants K atie John, et al., argue that the 1999 Rules violate ANI L CA beca use they fail to provide the r

ural subsistence prior ity for ( 1) the naviga ble wate rs upstream and downstre a

m f rom the conse rvation sy stem units created under AN I L CA , a

nd (2 ) w ate rs a

pp ur te na nt t o la nd s a llo tte d to Alaska N atives under

the Alaska

Native Allotm en t Act of 1906. The State of Alaska intervened a s a def endant. In the second c halleng e, the St ate of Alaska, a long w ith severa l int e rv e no rs , a

rgue , in e sse nc e , th at th e re g ulatio ns vio late AN I L C A b y d e s i g n at i n ga s “ p u b l i c l an d s ” ( 1 ) w at e r

w ays outside the boundarie s of federa l lands, conser vation sy stem units, or national fo re s ts; (2) wate r that constitutes “mar ine
wate r” ; and

(3 ) l and se le c ted forbut no t y e t c onve y e d to Alaska or a Native corpor ation. The Katie J ohn plaintiffs, as well as the A laska F eder ation of Na t ives, intervene d as de fe nd ants

. Thus , b o th

c h a ll e n g e s a s s e rt t

h at t h e Se c r e ta

r ies improperly

interpre ted and a

pplied the fe dera l reser

ved water rig hts doctrine. For the Katie J ohn plaintiffs, the Secr etar ies
wer e too re strained in apply ing the doctrine; for

the State, the Se c re tari e s w e re no t r e str a ine d e no ug h. B oth c ha lle ng e s a lso
asser t that the 1999 Rules are not entitled to defe renc e under21

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND Che v ro n, U. S. A. , I

nc . v. Natural R eso urc es D e fe ns e Cou nc il, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 ( 1984). F inally , the State of Ala ska ar g ues that the Secr etar ies should have use d adjudication, not
ru le makin g , to imp le me nt Katie John I

. T h e d i s tri ctco urti s s u edtwo d ec i s i o n s

— wh i ch we and the pa rt ie s re fe r to a s “ wh at pr oc e ss” and “ wh ich water s” decisions—in which it reje cted all the challeng es to the 1999 Rules. I n its “what proc ess” de cision, t h e district court conclude d that “the Sec reta ries ’ u s e of the rulemaking proce ss to identify

rese rved w ater

rig hts for purpose s of fede ral subsistence manag ement was law ful.” In the “whic h water s” decision, the court discussed the “tes t case ” water way s submitt ed by

the litigants a

nd concluded t h at the Se c re tari e s’ de signatio n o f whic h w ate rs c on sti tut e “ pu bli c land s” wa s “ lawf

ul and r e a so na

ble .” Th e pa

rt ie s ti me ly appea led.
AN AL YSI S
A. Threshold issues
1. The fede r al r e se r ve d wat e r r igh ts doc tr ine
In Katie John I

, we a pproved the Secre taries’ use o f the fede ral re serve d water rig hts doctrine to identify which waters are “public lands” for pur poses of AN I L CA’s rura l subsistence prior ity

. Be cause that doctrine unde rlies the 1999 Rules, the parties’ arguments in this case , an do ur conclusions, some bac kg round on the doc trine and its place i nA l a s k a ’ s h i s t o r

y i s n e c e s s ar

y. Congr ess had unfetter ed power t o regulate the Te rritory of Alaska from 1867, whe n the United States pu rchased the22 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

T h e U

. S. Cons t i t u t i on g i v es Cong r es s “ t h e powe r t o di s pos e of and 6 0

m a k e a ll ne e d ful R u le s a n d R e g u la tio n s re sp e c ting the T e rr ito ry . . . bel on g i n g t o t h e U n i t ed St at es
. ” U

. S. Cons t

. a r t

. I V , § 3.

Uni t ed St at es v

. 32. 24 Acr es of Land , 68 3 F.3d 10 3 0 , 10 3 5 (9t h C i r. 61 2 0 1 2 ) ( q uo t i ng Phi l l i

ps Pet r ol eum Co. v

. M i s s i s s i ppi , 484 U

. S. 469, 474 (19 8 8 ))

.
I d. a t 1034. 62

Pol l ar d v

. H agan , 44 U

. S. 21 2 , 23 0 (18 4 5 ). 63 land from Rus sia, until 1959, when the Ter ritory attained statehood. Under

the “equa l f

ooting” doctrine, when Ala ska 60
wa s “ a dmi tte d into t

he Un ion , it

g a in[e d] ‘ the same ri g hts , sovere ignty

and juris diction in that behalf a s the orig inal States possess wi t h i n their re spective bor ders.’ ” More 61 specific ally , th e equal f ooting doc trine g ave A laska “pre sumptive tit le to its submerg ed lands whe n it join[ ed] the Union.” “ Th e sh or e s o f n avig a ble wate rs , a

nd the so ils 62 under the m, were not gr anted by the Constitut ion to the United States, but were rese rv e d to the states
re sp e c tiv e ly

. . . . Th e newstate s h ave the same ri g hts , sovere ignty , and jurisdiction over this subject a s the orig inal
s tate s.” Thus the State of Ala ska has the sa me rig hts over 63 lands u n der na

viga ble wate rs within it as, say , the State of New Y ork and the St at e of Califor nia do over

such waters within their border s. This authority is co n s trained by

two separ ate f eder al rig hts: the navig ational servitude a nd the fede ral re serve d water

rig hts doctrine.
“It is settled law in this country that lands underly

ing
navig a ble wate rs wi thi n a

state be lon gto t

he state in i ts sovere ign c apac ity

and may b e u s ed and disposed of a s [t he state ] may

e le c t, s ub je c t to t he pa ra mou nt p ow e r o f C on g re ss23

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Uni t ed St at es v

. H ol tSt at e Bank , 27 0 U

. S. 49 , 54 (19 2 6 ). 64

Wi nt er s v. U

ni t ed St at es , 20 7 U

. S. 56 4 (19 0 8 ). 65

I d. a t 577. 66

Ak i a kNa t i v e Cmt

y

. v

. EPA , 62 5 F.3d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 7 3 n. 5 (9th C i r. 20 1 0 ). 67 to c on tr ol s uc h w ate rs fo r t he purpo ses of

navig atio n in
commerc e amongthe states and with f oreig n nations

. . . .” 64 Thus , whe re ri ve rs and

str e ams a

re navig a ble in i nte rs tate c omm e rc e , th e Un ite d St ate s h a s a uth or ity to prot e c t a navig ational servitude, but the states own the rive r beds a nd oth e r s ub me rg e d la

nd s. Since 1908, the cour

ts have a lso rec og nized that a fede ral
rese rvation of land c arr ies with it the r ight to use w ater ne c e ssa ry to s e rv e the purp os e s o f f e de ra l r e se rv atio ns
. Un de r t he fe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine , w ate r r ig hts for f eder al re servations are distinct from the f eder al servitude for navigab le wate rs. So, for example, in W inters v. United States , a non-na

viga b l e stream wa s protecte d upstream 65 de sp ite the a dmi ssi on of Mo nta na to s tate ho od

and de sp ite its
no n- navig a

bil ity , b e c a

us e div e rt ing the up str e am wate r c ou ld turn the downstream I

ndian rese rvation into a “bar ren w aste,” which would be inconsist ent wit h rese rvation of the la nd for the use of the tribe. 66

W inte rs involved an Indian re servatio n , but the fede ral
rese rved w ater

rig ht s d o ctrine a

pplies to all feder al
re se rv atio ns
. The word “re servation” does not mean only an 67 Ind ian r e se rv atio n—

the re is o nly

on e Ind ian r e se rv atio n in Alaska, the Metlak atla Indian Communit y of Tsimshian Indians at the Anne tte I slands Reserve sou t h of24 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Uni t ed St at es v

. Cel es t i ne , 2 1 5 U .S . 2 7 8 , 2 8 5 (1 9 0 9 ); s ee al s o Coeur 68 D ’ Al ene Tr i be of

I daho v

. H am m ond , 38 4 F.3d 67 4 , 69 3 (9t h C i r. 20 0 4 ).

C ap pa er tv. Uni t ed St at es , 42 6 U

. S. 12 8 (19 7 6 ). 69

I d. a t 138. 70

Id

. at 141. 71

Uni t ed St at es v. New M exi co , 43 8 U

. S. 69 6 (19 7 8 ). 72

Id

. at 716–18. 73 K e t c h i k an

— b u tr ath e r

“ an y b o dy o f l an d , l ar g e o r

s m a l l, which Cong ress ha s rese rved f rom sale f

or any purpose.” 68 Reservations in Alaska s erve a var iety of purpose s, such as milit ary bases a nd p arks. Cappaert v. United States , a 69 mod e rn c a se , sh ow s ho w the fe de ra l re se rv e d wat er rights doctrine w orks outside the conte x t of an Ind ian re servation. In Cap pa e rt , the fede ral rese rvation of a national monument fe atur inga

no ta ble po ol o f w ate r r e qu ir e d e no ug h w ate r t o f ill th e p o o l t o p r o t e c t an e n d an g e r e d s p e c i e s l i v i n g th e r e . A s a result, the state c ould not gr ant a pe rmit to a ra n ch two and one-ha lf miles away

to pump so much gr oundwater that the pool (and t h e s p ecie s) would be f urther e ndang ere d. The Supreme Court held that a fede ral re servation acquire s for the fe d era l gove rnment a r ight to “a ppurtena nt water then unappropr i ated to the e x tent neede d to acc omplish t he purpose of

the re servation,” reg ardle ss of whe ther the w ater s are navig able or nonnavig able. The fe dera l rig ht, though, 70 “re serve s only

that amount of water ne cessa ry to fulfill the purpose of

the re servation, no more.” In United St a t es v. 71 New Mex ico , the Court reiter ated that the fede ral re serve d

72 water rig hts doctrine is limit ed t o the quantity of water nece ssary to fulfill the primary purposes of the re servation. 7325

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Id

. at 700. 74

Id

. a t 7 0 8 , 7 1 3

– 1 5 ; se e a lso id

. a t 70 0 ( “ Ea c h t i me t h i s Cou r t ha s 75
a p p lied the ‘i m p lied -re se rv a tio n -o f- w a te r d o c trine ,’ it h a s c a r e fully
exa mi ned bot h t he as s er t ed wat er r i gh t and t he s peci f i c pur po s es f

or w hi ch t he l and wa s r es er ved, an d concl uded t hat wi t hout t he wat er t he pur po s es o f t he res ervat i o n wo ul d be ent i rel y de f eat ed

. ”).

See , e

. g. , Col vi l l e Conf ede r at ed Tr i bes v

. Wal t on , 647 F. 2d 42, 46–47 76 ( 9t h Ci r
. 198 1) ( f

i r s t c o nsid eri ng t he exi s t enc e of wat er r i gh t s an d t hen
co nsi d eri ng t he am o unt of water res erved ). Notably , in these ca s es t he United States soug ht water it s e lf , f o r th e n e e d o f th e r e s e r

v ati o n it s elf. I n W

inte rs , the
wate r w a s n e e de d o n a

n Ind ian r e se rv atio n f

or the Ind ians ’ far ms and ranche s, and in Cap pa e rt for the deep pool of

water for which the fede ral land was rese rved. In New Mex ico the Supreme Court held that fede rally rese rved waters are limited to the primary purposes for which the land w as re served, without which “the pur

poses of the reser

vation would be entirely defe ated.” Applying this na rrow rule, the C o u rt 74 reject ed a f

eder al claim to wate r rig hts for “a esthetic, enviro n me n ta l, r e c r e a ti o n a l, or wildlife-pre serva tion purposes,” beca

use those we re not the p ri m ar y purposes for which the n at i onal fore st lands at issue had orig inally been
rese rved. 75
What makes this cas e d i ff icult is that, unti l now, the fede ral re serve d water

rig hts doctrine has ope rate d in the context of the United States enfor cing its right to that amount of water ne cessa

ry to fulfill the purpose of a particula

r rese rvation. That is, previous applica tions of the fede ral 76
rese rved w ater

rig hts doctrine have focused on the amount of water neede d for a specific fede ral re servation, rather tha n the locations of water sourc es that might g ener ally be nee ded for26 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

K a t i e Jo h n I was i ss ued as a t wo - judge m ajo ri t y , w i t h o ne d i ss ent i ng 77
o p inio n
. See 72 F.3d at 70 4

– 0 8 (H al l , J. , dis sent i ng). I n K a t i e Jo h n II, thr e e j u d g e s c o n c u rr ing in th e ju d g m e n t t h o u g h t t h a t Kat i e John I e rr e d in f ai l i ng t o upho l d a rur al sub si st ence p ri o ri t y o ver all na vi gab l e wat ers and t hree dis sent i ng judges were of t he vi ew t hat i t err ed i n ap p l y i ng t he p rio rity o v e r a n y na v iga b le w a te rs
. See 247 F. 3d a t 1034–50.

K a t i e Jo h n II, 247 F. 3d a t 1033. 78 subsistence living from many such re s ervations. W e, and pe rh a ps the Se c re tari e s, fa ile d to re c og nize the dif fi c ult ie s in
a pp lyingthe fe de ra l r ese rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine in t his novel way , and i n retrospe ct the doctr ine may provide a pa rt ic ula rl y po or me c ha

nis m fo r ide nti fy

ing th e ge og ra

ph ic scope of ANI L CA’s rura l s ub sistence pr iority manag ement when it comes to water.
Of c ours e , we ha d the op po rt un ity to r e vis it Katie John I in K a t i e Jo hn II

, and while a

majority of the e n banc c ourt a g re e d f or div e rg ingre a so ns that Katie John I wa s in c or re c tly decide d, we could not come to a controlling agree ment about why that was true

. W e ac cording ly conclude d that the 77 decision “should not be disturbed or altere d.” Katie John I

78 the re fo re re ma ins c on tr ollin g law , a nd we mus t atte mpt

to apply it in thi s case
. 2. Rulem akin g versus adjudi cation
Th e State argue s th at th e Se c re tari e s w e re re qu ir e d to adjudicate , rathe r than pre s cr i b e by rule, whic h water s the United States has an inter est in b y v i rt u e of the fede ral
rese rved w ater

rig hts doctrine. The State argues that an adjudicative pr ocess “is nec essar y beca use a r ight is being established and on e enti ty ’s wate r rig ht burdens and diminis hes the right and intere sts of another.”27

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

B ec au se the 1 9 9 9 R ules d o n o t a ctua l l y b urd en the S t ate’s right t o use 79 wat er , t hey do not i nf

r i ng e u p o n AN I LC A ’ s wat er r i gh t s s avi ng s cl aus e. See 16 U

. S. C. § 32 07 ( “ N ot h i n g i n [ ANI LC A] s h a l l be c on s t r u e d as l i mi t i ng o r res t r i ct i ng t he po wer an d aut hor i t y of t he U ni t ed St at es o r . . . a s a ff

e c ting in a n y w a y a n y law g o v e rn ing a p p ro p ria tio n o r u se o f, or Feder al r i gh t t o, wat er on l ands wi t hi n t he St at e of Al as ka[ , o r] as e x p a n d ing o r d im in is h ing F e d e ra l o r S ta te ju risd ic tio n , re sp o n sib ili ty, i nt erest s, or ri ght s i n wat er r esources deve l o p m ent or co nt rol. ”). The State is cor

rec t that, until t h i s point, the fede ral
re se rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine ha s b e e n a pp lie d to a dju dic ate competingclaims to water , a task that require s an adjudicator to allocate use o f water amongthe claimants. The State, howeve r, fa ils to appreciate the distinction b etween the
a dju dic atio n of t

he amou nt o f f e de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts
and the ide nti fi c atio n o f t

he g e og ra ph ic sc op e of

tho se ri g hts for p ur p o s e s o f a dmi n is te r in gA

N I L CA ’ s r

ur a l s u b s is te nce priority . The Sec reta

ries we re c harg ed with the latter task, i.e. , identifying those bodies of water t o whi ch the r ural subsistence prior ity

m ight a pply by virtue of the f

eder al
rese rved w ater

rig hts doctrine. Thus, the 1999 Rules identify the bodies of wa

ters in w h i ch the Secreta ries believe the United States has a fede ral re serve d water rig hts interest (for purp os e s o f a dmi nis te ri ngAN I L CA ), but th e y do no t a c tua lly
a llo c ate or

re se rv e any

wate r in the se bo die s. In o the r w or ds , the rules do not purpor

t to assert rig ht s o v era par ticular amount of water, nor do the y do any thing to displace future water rig hts lit igation. The age ncies a re not, ther efor e,

“ de te rm ini ngth eir own w ate r r ig hts ,” no r d oe s th e ir rulemakingburden the State’s rig ht to use water

. 79
Two i mp li c ati o n s f

lo wf r o m t h is o b s e r v ati o n
. F ir s t, as lon ga s w ate r r e ma ins a bund ant i n th e ide nti fi e d b od ie s,28 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See New M exi co , 4 3 8 U .S

. a t 6 9 9 ( r e c o g n iz ing tha t, w h e re w a te r is 80 ab und ant , t here i s no need t o de t erm i ne t he rela ti ve ri ght s o f vari o us cl ai m ant s o f

wat er f rom a pa rt i cul ar s o urce).

16 U

. S. C. § 3124. 81

Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d a t 704. 82 a l l o c at i o no f

th e i r w at e r s m ay n e v e r

b e c o m e n e c e s s a r

y. 80 Se c on d, any

futur e atte mpt

by the Un ite d St ate s to e nf

or c e its
r i g h t t o r e s e r

v e d w at e r i na p art i c u l ar

b o dy c ou ld

burden the S t at e’ s u s e o f wa t er
. At th atp o i n t , th e S t at e c o u l d ch al l en ge the quantitative s co pe of the United States’ re servation. Indeed, in the context of a particula r enf orce ment action, the State c ou ld t ake the po sit ion that no amou

nt o f w ate r f

ro m a particula r identified sourc e is nec essar y to f ulfill the primary purposes of the rese rvation. But, to reiter ate, the 1999 Rules do no t dis pla c e or oth e rw ise a ff e c t futur e wat er rights litigation; they

wer e promulg ated merely for the purposes of
a dmi nis te ri ngTi tle VI I Iof AN I L CAand

c omp lyingwi th Katie John I

. For the s e r e a s o n s , w e h o ld th at t h e Se c r e ta

r ie s appropr iately

used not i ce-and-c omment rulemaking , rathe r tha n a dju dic atio n, to ide nti fy tho se wate rs that are “publi c lands” for the purpose of deter

mining the scope of ANI L CA’s
r ur a l s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty
. T h e u s e o f r u l e m a kin g is consistent with ANI L CA, which re quires the fed er al g overn m en t to “pre scribe suc h regulations as are
nece ssary ,” and with our dec ision in Katie John I , wher e we 81 expressed our “ hope that the fe dera l ag encie s will determine pr omp tly wh ic h n avig a

ble wate rs are pu

bli c land s subj e c t to fede ral subsistence manag ement.” A more pa rticularized 82 approa ch could not have fu lfilled the requir ement that the fede ral a g encie s make their deter mination “promptly ,” since29

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Sa uer v. U

. S. D ep’t

of E du c. , 66 8 F.3d 64 4 , 65 0 (9t h C i r. 20 1 2 ). 83

K a M a k a n i ‘ O K o h a la O h a n a In c . v. W a te r S u p p ly , 295 F. 3d 955, 959 84 (9th C i r. 20 0 2 ) ( i nt ernal quo t at i o n m arks and ci t at i o n om i t t ed ).

5 U

. S. C. §§ 701–706. 85

I d. § 7 0 6 (2 ). T he Stat e i nco rr ect l y argues t hat we m ust revi ew t he 86 K at i e Joh n pl ai nt i f

f s’ a r g u men t s u n der § 706( 1) , f or a g en cy a ct i on “u n la w fully w ithh e ld o r u n re a so n a b ly d e la ye d .” T h e K a tie J o h n p la intiff s cha l l eng e t he val i di t y of an ag enc y ac t i on ( t he 19 99 Rul es ) , not an a g e n c y’s alle g e d failur e to a c t. See No r t on v. S. U t ah Wi l der nes s A l l i an ce , 5 4 2 U

. S. 55 , 62

– 6 3 (20 0 4 ). Al a sk a c on sti tut e s a

bo ut on e -s ixth of

the e nti re Un ite d St ate s, and most of its c oastline. In direc ting the Secr etar ies to make this determination, we could not have intended t o require the ag encie s to init iate individual water rig hts adjudication pr oc e e din g s f

or each id e nti fi e d b od

y of wate r, pa

rt ic ula rl y when the pur

pose of the dir ective w as not to al l ocate water , but to ide nti fy

wh ic h b od ie s o f w ate r c on sti tut e d “ pu bli c l an d s ” f o r p ur p o s e s o f A

N IL C A ’ s r

ur a l s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty. L o gi ca l l y , we i n t en d edth e a g e n ci es t o ac tth ro u gh rulemaking , wher e doingso was fe asible.
3. The st anda r ds o f re vie w and Chevron deference
This case prese nts questions of law, whic h we r eview de
novo
. “De n o v o review of a district c ourt judg ment 83
conce rningthe dec ision of an administrative ag ency means we view the ca se fr om the same position as the district court.” Und er the Ad

min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t, we a sk 84 85 wh e the r an a g e nc y de c isi on is “a rb itr ary , ca

pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or oth e rw ise no t in a c c or da nc e wi th l aw” or

“ in excess of statutory

. . . authority .” 8630 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

C h e v ro n , U .S .A ., In c . v. N a tu ra l R e so u rc e s D e

fe n se C o u n c il, In c ., 87 4 6 7 U

. S. 83 7 (19 8 4 ).

I d. a t 842–43. 88

I d. a t 843. 89 The district cour

t deter mined that, beca

use the Sec reta

ries
are char g ed with adminis t er i ngANI L CA, defe renc e wa s war rante d for questions of statutory interpre tation under Chevron

. Ap p l yi n g Chevron defe renc e involves a two- step

87 inq uir y : if Con g re ss h a s “ dir e c tly sp ok e n to the p re c ise question at is s u e, ” then the c ourt must “g ive ef fec t to the unambig uously

expressed intent of Cong re s s .” I f instead 88 the “ statut e is s ile nt or ambi g uo us wi th r e sp e c t to the sp e c if ic issue,” the c ourt defe rs to the administeringag ency ’s interpre tation as long as it reflec ts “a pe rmissible construction of the statute.” 89 We g ener a lly

a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

tha t Chevron de fe re nc e a

pp lie s to qu e sti on s o f A

NI L CA ’s int e rp re tatio n in th i s c a s e , w h e r e A

N ILC A i s amb i g u o u s a s t o th e an s w e r
. In promul g a tingthe 1999 Rules, the Secr etar ies wer e identifying tho se bo die s o f w ate r i n whic h the U ni ted State s ma y c la im
an inte re st b y

vir tue of the fe dera l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts doctrine, a

nd which ther eby

qualify as “public la

nds” for purposes of a dminist eringANI L CA’s rura l subsist ence pr ior ity . The Se c re tari e s are e xpre ssl y c ha rg e d w ith administeringthat priority when the state does not ena ct law31

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See 16 U. S. C. § 31 15 ( a ) ( 1) ( pr ov i di n g f or s u bs i s t e n c e pr ogr am 9 0 im p le m e n ta tio n b y th e S e c r e ta rie s, in c o n su ltatio n w ith the S ta te ); id

. § 31 15 ( d) ( “ T he Secr et ar y s hal l not i mp l ement s ubs ect i ons ( a) , ( b), an d (c ) of t hi s s ect i on i f

t he St at e e nac t s an d i mp l ement s l aws of ge ner al ap p l i cab i l i t y whi ch are consi st ent w ith, a nd whi ch p rovide f o r t he d ef i ni t i o n, pref

erence, and pa rt i ci p at i o n s p eci f i ed i n .
. . t hi s t i t l e .
. . . ”).

See Kat i e John I , 7 2 F .3 d a t 7 0 2 ; N i n i l chi k Tr ad i t i on al Co un ci l v. 91 Uni t ed St at es , 2 2 7 F.3d 11 8 6 , 11 9 1

– 9 2 (9t h C i r. 20 0 0 ) ( ho l d i ng t hat t he agency’ s i nt erpret at i o n of A N ILC A i s ent i t l ed t o de f erence).

See , e

. g. , M o rr i s v. C o m m o d i t y F u t u res Tra d i n g C o m m ’n , 980 F. 2d 92 12 89 , 129 3 (9t h Ci r
. 1 99 2) (“ W her e t he ques t i on t o be deci ded i nv ol ves m at t ers of p art i cul ar expe rt i se of t he agency, t he d ef

erent i al s t and ard
s houl d be app l i ed. B ut j udi ci al def er enc e i s not ne ces s ar i l y warr ant ed wh er e cou r t s h av e e x per i en ce i n t h e a r ea a n d a r e f u l l y c ompet en t t o de ci de t he i ss ue. ”) ( ci t at i o n om i t t ed ). that im ple me nts it. In construingthe term “ public lands,”

90 there fore , the Secr etar ies are entitled to some defe renc e. 91 We say “some de fer en ce” beca

use this is not a ty

pical administrative law c ase, where an ag ency is simpl y apply ing its ex pertise in implementinga substantive statu t e. I nstead, the Se c re tari e s are a

pp lying , in

a no ve l w ay , a

jud ic ia lly
cre ated d o c tr in e to im

p le me n t A

N I L CA

. T h e c o urts h av e a str on gro le in d e fi nin gthe c on tou rs of su c h d oc tr ine s. 92

B. The m erit s As an initial matter, the State a rgues that the 1999 Rules
ar e i nvalid beca

use they do not expressly

addre ss the

“ e le me nts ” of the fe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine wi th
re sp e c t to e a c h o f t

he ide nti fi e d 3 4 re se rv atio n unit s. Th at is , the Secr etar ies failed to s t at e the pur pose of the la

nd32 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See New M exi co , 438 U

. S. at 698 ( r ecogn i zi ng Co ng r es s i onal 93
au t h or i t y “ t o r es er v e u n appr o pr i at ed wa t er i n t h e f u t u r e f or u s e on a p p u rte n a n t la n d s” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d a t 703 rese rvation and the am o u n t of wate r nec essar y for e ach
re se rv e d unit

. However, these steps wer e not nec essar y for the Se c re tari e s to ide nti fy

wh ic h b od ie s o f w ate r co ns tit ute “public lands” under A

NI L CA. The administrative r ecor d
re ve a ls the ba se s f

or a sse rt ingfe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts with regard to eac h unit, and nothing in the identific ation proce ss pertains to the amount of water reserve d in eac h body of water, whic h is stil l o p en to future deter mination by

the appropr iate adjudicator. I t falls to us t o d etermine whether the Se c re tari e s’ de c isi on s are arb itr ary or c a pr ic iou s.
1. Adjace nt w ater s
The State a

rgues that, in t h e 1 9 99 Rules, the Secre taries imp ro pe rl y

inc lud e d w ith in t

he de fi nit ion of “ pu

bli c land s” water s “adja cent to,” but not phy sically on, fede rally

rese rved land. I n the S tate’s view, fede ral reserve d water rig hts arising by implication ex ist only

within the borders of

the fe dera l
rese rvations, not beyond them. Even if suc h rig hts may be invoked to enjoin the use of w ater s outside the boundarie s of
a fe d e r a l r e s e r

v at i o n , th e S t at e ar g u e s th atth e r i g h ts them s el v es exist onl y

in the water s that are within the boundarie s of the re servation.
We d is a g r e e
. T h e f

e d e r a l r e s e r

v e d w ate r r igh ts d o c tr ine
a llo ws th e Un ite d St ate s to re se rv e wate rs “ a pp ur te na nt” to fede rally rese rved lands in order to fulfill the purposes of that
rese rvation. Whil e the c ases do not define “appur tenanc y ,” 9333

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

( “ U nder t he r es er ved wa t er r i gh t s doct r i ne, wh en t he U ni t ed St at es wi t hdr aws i t s l ands f

r om t he publ i c dom ai n and r es er ves t hem f or a f eder al pur po s e, t he U ni t ed St at es i mp l i ci t l y r es er ves appur t ena nt wat er s t hen unap p rop ri at ed t o t he ext ent ne e d ed t o acco m p l i sh t he p urpo se of t he
re se rv a tio n .” ); W

al t on , 6 4 7 F .2 d a t 4 6 (“W h e re w a te r is n e e d e d to
a c c o m p lish [ the p u rp o se s o f f e d e ra l l a n d w ithd ra w n fro m the p u b lic d o m ai n], a res ervat i o n of ap p urt enant wat er i s i m p l i ed

. ”).

D a v id H . G e tc h e s, Wat e r L aw 3 4 9

– 5 0 (4t h ed

. 2 0 0 9 ); see a lso 94 4 W a t ers a n d W

a t er R ig h ts § 3 7 .0 1 (b )( 3 ) (R o b e rt E

. B e c k e d ., 1 9 9 1 e d ., r epl

. vol

. 2 00 4) (“ [ R ] es er ved r i gh t s may be dra wn f r om wat er s our ces t hat d o not t ravers e o r bo rder o n res ervat i o ns. ”). there is an appa

rent c onsensus that it does not me an phy sical
atta c hme nt:
The re serve d water

rig ht s d octrine holds that the g ov ernme nt i mpl ie dly wi thd re w i ts c on se nt t o c re atio n of pr ivate ri g hts e a c h ti me it e arma rked public lands for a

specific fede ral purpose to t h e extent nece ssary to fulfill that purpose. Thus, the fact that a re servation was detac hed fr om water

sourc es does not prove
an a bs e nc e of int e nt to re se rv e waters s ome distance a

way . J udici al refer ence s to such rig hts being “appur

tenant” to rese rved la

nds appar ent l y

ref er not to some phy sical attachme nt of wa t erto land, but to the leg al do c tr ine tha

t attac he s w ate r r ig hts to l and to the extent necessa

ry to fulfill reser

vation purp os e s. 94
As the district court r ecognize d, “[a]ppurtenancy has to do with the relationship between re serve d fede ral land a nd the use of the w ater , not the location of the w ater .”34 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

C a p p a ert , 42 6 U

. S. at 13 3 , 14 2 (i nt ernal c i t at i o n and quo t at i o n m arks 95
o m itt e d ).

Id . at 1 4 3 ; s ee als o U

ni t ed St at es v. O r r W

at er D i t ch Co. , 600 F. 3d 96 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (r e c o g n iz ing tha t a t r ib e ’s w a te r rig h ts to
s u r f ac e wa t er prot ec t ed i t ag ai n s t di mi n u t i on re s u l t i n g f r om al l oca t i on of gr oundwat er , becau se of t he “ r eci procal hy drau l i c c onnec t i on bet ween ground water and s urf

ace wa t er”).

T he 1 9 9 9 R ul es provide t hat t he re g u lat i o ns wi l l ap p l y t o “ i nl and 97

w a te rs ad

jacent t o t he ext eri o r bo und ari es of ” 3 4 dif f erent “ are a s.” Se v er al of t h e i den t i f

i ed “ ar ea s ” ac t u al l y i n cl u de mu l t i pl e r es er v at i on s or u n i t s
. Si x t ee n of

t h e “ ar ea s ” ar e n at i on al w i l d l i f e re f u g es e s t abl i s h ed, No cour t has eve r held that the w ater s o n wh ich the United States may

exercise its rese rved w ater rig hts are limit ed to the water within the borde rs of a g i v en fede ral
rese rvation. Instead, the Supreme Court has rec og nized that fede ral water rights may rea ch sourc es of wat er that are
se pa rate d f ro m, b ut “ phy sic a lly

int e rr e late d a s i nt e g ra l pa rt s of the hydr a

uli c c y c le ” wi th, the bo dies of wate r p hy sic a lly located on the rese rved la nd. In Cap

pa e rt , th e Cou

rt he ld 95 that the United States could enjoin the u s e o f groundwater two and one- half miles from De vil’s Hole bec ause the fede ral
rese rved w ater

rig h t s doctrine is “ba sed on the ne cessity of water for the purpose of fede ral rese rvation,” rathe r than the locatio n o f the water. The re levant question, then, is not 96 wh e re the se waters are loc ate d, but r athe r whe the r t he se water s are “appur

tenant” to the r eserved land. And if the water s are “appur

tenant” to the r es er v ed land, they may be
su bje c t to f utu re e nf or c e me nt o f f

e de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts if the other r equire ments for a s s er ting a fede ral re serve d
wate r r ig ht a

re me t.
Eac h fede ral reservation listed in the 1999 Rules was
c re ate d f or an e xpre ss set of statut or y purp os e s. Th e se

9735

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

exp and ed o r red esi gnat ed b y A N ILC A

. T welve o f the “ areas” i ncl ud e o ne or mo r e u n i t s of

t h e N at i on al Par k Sy s t em es t abl i s h ed, e x pan ded or r edes i gn at ed by AN I LC A

. T he r emai ni ng s i x “ ar eas ” i ncl ude t wo nat i onal f ores t s ( t he C hu gac h a nd t he T ongas s ) , one N at i onal Co ns er vat i on Area , one N at i onal Recr eat i on Area , t he N at i onal P et r ol eum Res er ve i n Al as ka,
an d a l l compon en t s of t h e W i l d an d Sc en i c Ri v er Sy s t em l oca t ed ou t s i de the b o u n d a rie s o f N a tio n a l P a rk , N a tio n a l P re se rv e s o r N a tio n a l W ild lif e Ref u g es
. O n l y t h e N at i on al Pet r ol eu m r es er v e wa s no t e s t abl i s h ed,
e x pa n de d o r r e de s i g n a t e d b y ANI LC A.

See A N ILC A §§ 20 1 , 20 2 (cod i f i e d a t 1 6 U

. S.C

. 41 0 hh, 41 0 hh- 1 ). 98 Sixt een o f

t he 1 7 N at i o nal P ark Sys t em uni t s l i st ed i n t he 1 9 9 9 R ul es have t he i d ent i f

i ed purp o se “ t o p rotect hab i t at f o r, and po p ul at i o ns o f

” f i sh and wi l dl i f e. T he r emai ni ng N at i onal P ar k Sy st em un i t , t he G l aci er B ay N at i onal P r es er ve, has the pur po s e t o “ prot ect a s egmen t of t he A l s ek R ive r, fish a n d w ild lif

e ha b itats a n d m igr a tio n ro u te s.”

See AN I LC A §§ 3 02 , 303

. Al l 16 o f t he N at i onal W i l dl i f

e Ref ug es 99
nam ed i n t he 1 9 9 9 R ul es have a pri m ary purp o se “ t o co nser v e f i sh and
w ild lif e p o p u la tio n s a n d ha b itats in the ir n a tur a l d ive rs ity. ”

C f . U n i t ed St at es v. A l ask a , 423 F. 2d 764, 767 ( 9t h Ci r
. 1970) 100 ( r ej ec t i n g t h e ar g u men t t h at t h e K en ai N at i o nal M oos e Ran g e di d n ot
re se rv e w a te r righ ts in na v iga b le w a te r b e c a u se this wo u ld le a v e “ o n ly
mo un t ai ns , hi l l s , r i dges , val l ey s and barr en ar eas
. . . f or t he mo ose t o f

eed and breed ”). purposes may

require water

not only from the water sourc es on the lands themselves, but a lso f rom surroundingare as. F or e xamp le , th e ma

jor ity of the fe de ra l re se rv atio ns ide nti fi e d in the 1999 Rules are to be manag ed “to pr otect habitat f or, and populations of” fish and w ildlife or “to c onserve fish and 98 wildlife popul at i ons and habitats.” The State doe s not 99 dispute that the wildlife in these re servations readily use the
wate rs a dja c e nt t o th e re se rv atio ns
. Du e to t he pr oximi ty 100 and conne ctivity

of these a djace nt w ater s to the rese rved la nd,
and g ive n th e fa c t that th e fe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts doctrine a llows the Un i t ed States to exert rig hts over water36 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d at 703 ( “ B y vi rtue of i t s r es er ved wa t er 101 ri ght s, t he U ni t ed Stat es has i nt erest s i n s o m e navi gab l e wat ers
. ”).

C a p p a ert , 426 U

. S. a t 139. 102 that is “phy sically

interre lated” w ith the reser ved land, the Secre taries rea sonably

conclude d that adjac ent wate rs ar e appurte nant to, and may b e n ece ssary to fulfill the primary purposes of, the fede ral re servations identified in th e 1999 Rule, and ar e sourc es fr om which the United States could at some point claim a re servation of water . Acc o rd i ng ly , the Secre taries re asonably

conclude d that the United States has an “inter est” in these adjac ent water s by virtue of the f

eder al
re se rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine su ff ic ie nt t o q ua lif y a s “ pu bli c l an d s ” f o r p ur p o s e s o f T i t l e V III

. 101
There is a broade r point to be made he re. A s discussed above, the fede ral re serve d water righ t s doctrine doe s not ty pically assig n a g eog rap h i c location to im plied fede ral water ri g h ts

. T h e r igh ts ar e c r e ate d w h e nth e U n it e d

St ate s rese rves land f

rom the public domain for a par ticular purpose , a nd the y e xi s tt o th e e xt e n tth atth e w at e r s ar e n e c e s s ar y to fulfill the primary purposes of the rese rvation. The United 102 States may enfor ce this implied rig ht in a p articula r, appurte nant body

of water, a

nd it is at thi s point that the rig ht takes on a

g eog raphic al dimension. T h e exis tence of the rig ht, theref

ore, ha s no phy sical location separate and dist inct from the waters on which the rig ht can be en fo rc ed

. For purp os e s o f t

his c a se , th e n, we mus t in c lud e wi thi n it s potential scope a l l t h e bodies of water on which the United States’ re serve d rig hts could at some point be enfor ced— i.e. , those w ate r s th at a

r e o r ma y b e c o me n e c e s s ar

y to f u lf il l t he pr ima ry purp os e s o f t

he fe de ra l r e se rv atio n at is su e . B e c a us e thi s po te nti a l sc op e in hy po the tic a l sc e na

ri os is i mme ns e ly37

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See A N I LC A § 20 1(7) ( b), 16 U

. S. C

. § 41 0hh( 7)( b) ( provi di ng t hat 103

“ [ n ] o l an ds c on v ey ed t o t h e N on dal t on V i l l ag e Cor por at i on s h al l be
co nsi d ered t o be wi t hi n t he b o und ari es of t he p ark or preserve”). broad, it runs up a g ainst the conc lusion in Katie Jo hn I that not a ll naviga

ble water s are included in the rura l subsist ence priority . That judg ment ref lects th e p ra ctical view

that the fe de ra l r e se rv atio ns are un lik e ly to n e e d a ll the wate r e ve n in
some of the g reatest rivers in the world. It was re asonable for the Secr etar ies to c onclude that a fede ral re serve d water

rig ht exis ted in adjac ent wate rs to serve all o f t h e purpose s of the
rese rvations. The Sec reta ries also co ncluded, howe ver, that the ne e ds of su

bs ist e nc e us e s did not jus tif y e xpans ion

to v a st rea ches of

water s upstream and downstream. For rea sons we will e x plain when we addre ss that issue below, we c onclude that this decision of the Secr etar ies was a lso reasona ble.
2. Specif

ic water bodies The State challeng es t he designation of spec ific bodies of
w ate r a s “ p u b li c la n d s f o r p ur p o s e s f o r A N I L CA

. ” We consider e ach c halleng e in turn.

a. Six m ile Lake
The State a

rgues that Si x m i l e L ake should not be considere d a “public la

nd” subjec t to feder al subsistence
manag ement

be c a us e the L ake ’s sh or e lin e is n on -f e de ra l,
n o n -p u b l i c l an d o wn edp ri m ar i l y

b y th e N at i v e V i l l age Corporation for

Nondalton. T h e r e f

o r e , th e S t at e ar g ue s, 103 Six mile L ake is not within any fede ral re servation and does not touch fede rally

rese rved la

nd.38 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See N at i on al Par k Sy s t em U n i t s i n Al as k a; D es cr i pt i on of 104 B o und ari es, 57 Fed

. R eg. 45 , 1 6 6 , 45 , 2 2 0 (Sep t

. 30 , 19 9 2 ).

16 U

. S. C. § 3103. 105 Howeve r, the a g ency

map of the L ake Clar

k National Park and Pre serve place s the Pa rk ’s boundary at the 104 shoreline of

Six mile L ake. ANI L CA provides that, “[ i] n the
e ve nt o f dis c re pa

nc ie s be tw e e n the a c re a g e s sp e c if ie d in t his Act an d th o s e d e p ic te d o n s u c h ma p s , th e ma

p s s h all be controlling .” The Sec reta ries ther efor e prope rly

conclude d 105 tha t Si xmi le L ak e w a s in f a c t a d ja c e n t to th e L ak e Clark Natio n a l P ar

k an d Pr e s e r v e
. M o r e o v e r , un d e r

th e f e d e ral
re se rv e d wate r ri g hts do c tr ine , the Se c re tari e s mu st s ho w o nly that the wate rs ar e positioned suc h that the United States may need to e x erc ise it s rig hts upon them. For that r eason, the formal owne rship of the land immediate ly alongthe shoreline of S i x m i l e L ake is not dispositive, so long as the lake contains water that is or mig ht be nec essar y to f u l fi l l the primary purp o s es of the L ake Clar k National Park a

nd Preser ve. The S tate does not dispute that, due to its location, th e U n it e d

St ate s h a s s u c haninte r e s t in Si xmi le L ak e
. We the re fo re a ff

ir m th e Se c re tari e s’ de te rm inati on that Sixmil e L ak e is a

“ p u b li c la n d ” s u b je c t t o A

N I L CA ’ s rura l
s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty.
b
. S ev en J u n ea u -a re a s tr ea ms The State argues t hat the Secr etar ies improperly decla red seven stre ams in the J uneau a rea “public lands” under ANI L CA. The upper

rea ches of

thes e s t re ams are in the To ng a ss N atio na l F or e st, but, a c c or din g to the State , th e y a lso flow throug h many

lands i n t he Juneau are a that ar e not federa l l y owned. The State contends that the de termination39

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

S e e Un i o n Oi l C o

. o

f Ca l

. v

. FP C , 54 2 F.2d 10 3 6 , 10 4 0 (9t h C i r. 106 1976) ( s t at i n g t h at r u l ema k i n g i s n ot t h e k i n d of a dj u di ca t i v e pr oce du r e f or whi ch t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve P r ocedur e Act s peci f i es a “ s ubs t ant i al ev i dence ” st and ard o f

revi ew).

See 64 Fe d. Reg

. a t 1, 286–87 ( codi f i ed at 36 C. F. R. § 242. 3( b) , 50 107 C

. F.R

. § 1 0 0

. 3 (b)) that th e Un it ed S tate s h a s an inte re st i n th e se wate rs is
err oneous becau s e they

are “exterior waters downstre am of the re servation.”
Th e pa rt ie s d isa g re e a

bo ut whe the r t

he str e ams i n qu e sti on fa ll co mpl e te ly wi thi n the bo un da ri e s of the To ng a ss National F orest, or whether a portion of the stre ams lies outside of these boundarie s. None of the maps offe red by the parties is entire ly

conclusive. The map up o n which the Secre taries r elied, howe ver, doe s indicat e that the e ntire str e ams f a ll w ith in t

he e xter ior

bo un darie s o f t

he To ng a ss National F orest. It was not unreas o n able for the Secr etar ies to rely on it inst ead of

th e m ap or othe r evide nce of fer ed by the State. We theref

ore uphold the Sec reta

ries’ inc l u s i on 106 of these stre ams within the definition of “public lands.”

c. Wateron in hold ings
Th e Se c re tari e s inc lud e d w ith in t he de fi nit ion

of “ pu bli c lands” a ll naviga

ble and non-navig able water within the outer bo un da ri e s of the 34 lis te d la

nd un its

. With in t

he se un its , 107 ho we ve r, a lso lie State and pr ivate ly owne d la nd s, re fe rr e d to as “inholding s.” ANI L CA expressly provides that lands that have be en conve y ed to Alaska , a Native corpor ati on, or a p r iv ate in d iv id

u a l, e v e n if s u c h la

n d s ar e w it

hin the bo undari es of a

c on se rv atio n s y ste m un it, are no t su bje c t to40 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 0 3 (c). 108

S ee Wi n t ers , 2 0 7 U .S. at 5 7 7 ( h o ld in g tha t t he U nit ed S t ates’ 109

r es er vat i o n o f

wat er i n t he M i l k r i ver f or t he Fort B el kn ap I ndi an R eservat i o n was not rep eal ed w hen M o nt ana was adm i t t ed t o t he uni o n); Ar iz ona , 3 7 3 U .S . at 5 9 6

– 9 9 ; W al t on , 647 F. 2d a t 48–49. regulation unde r Title VI I Iof ANI L CA. The State a rgues 108 that desig natingwater s that lie on s u ch “inholdings” as “public lands” runs contra ry to the principle that only

water s a pp ur te na nt t o r e se rv e d f

e de ra l la nd s c an c on ta in a

fe de ra lly
re se rv e d w ate r r ig ht.
Ho we ve r, water

ri g hts tha

t th e Un ite d St ate s im

pli e dly acquir es ar e not forf

eited or c onv ey ed to t hird parties when the g overnme nt convey s to another party land within a fe dera l
rese rvation. Fur

thermore , fede ral re serve d water rig hts can 109
re a c h w ate rs tha

t li e on inh old ing s a s lo nga s th os e wate rs , based on the ir location and proxi mity to fede ral lands, a re or may become nece ssary

for the pr imary

purpo ses of the fede rally rese rved la

nd. Be cause these water bodies a re actua lly situated wi thin the boundaries of fede ral
rese rvations, it is reasona ble to conclude that the United States has an inter est in such waters for the primary purposes of the re se rv atio ns . We the re fo re up ho ld t he Se c re tari e s’ inclusion of these waters within “public lands.”
d. Coastal waters an d the “headland -toheadlan d” m ethod Section 103(a) of ANI L CA provides th at federa l
rese rvation bound arie s “shall, in coasta l are as, not extend
seaw ard be y ond t h e m ean high tide line to include lands owned b y

th e St ate o f

A la s k a un le s s th e St ate s h a ll h ave41

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 0 3 (a). 110

64 F e d. Re g
. a t 1, 28 7 ( c od i f i e d a t 36 C. F. R. § 24 2. 4 a n d 5 0 C. F. R. 111 § 10 0

. 4 ).

70 Fe d. Reg

. a t 76, 402. 112

I n t he 20 05 amendment s , t he Secr et ar i es cl ar i f i ed t hat t he 19 99 Rul es 113 do not i dent i f

y an y mar i ne wat er s as “ publ i c l ands ” by vi r t ue of t he f eder al
res erved wat er r i ght s d o ct ri ne. 70 Fed

. R eg. at 76 , 4 0 1 (“ [N ]ei t her t he 1 9 9 9 reg u la tio n s n o r t his f i na l rule claim s t ha t t he U nit ed S t ates ho l d s a res er v ed wa t er r i g h t i n ma r i n e wa t er s a s de f i n ed i n t h e ex i st i ng regul at i o ns. ”). concur red in such boundar

y extension.” In th e 19 99 Rul e s,

110 the Secr etar ies define d “inland water s ” as “ those wate rs located la ndwar d o f t he mea

n high tide line or

the wate rs loc ate d u ps tr e am of the str a ig ht lin e dr awn fr om h e a dla

nd to headla nd acr oss the mouths of rivers or othe r wat er s as they fl o w i n t o the sea .” This boundary repr esents the 111 Secre taries’ d et ermination of “ wher e the r iver e nds and the sea be g ins,” that is, the line that separ ates inland waters fr om mari ne wate rs
. Creation of such a boundar y was ne cessa

ry 112 beca use, as the Sec reta

ries rec og nize, f

eder al rese rved w ater ri g hts have ne ve r b e e n h e ld t o e xist in mari ne wate rs
. 113
The State c ontends that the Secr etar ies ’ u se of the “headland-to-he adland” method improperly place s marine
and tid a l w ate rs un de r f

e de ra l ma

na g e me nt b e c a

us e , in § 103(a) , Congr ess pl ace d the boundary of federa l control at the hig h tide line. The Sec reta ries re spond that, beca

use they
can a ssert federa l rese rved w ater rig hts in “tidally

influence d
wate rs ,” the ir

us e of the he a dla

nd -t o- he a dla

nd me tho d w a s a rea sonable wa

y of desig natingt h e boundar y of fe dera l rural
su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

mana g e me nt.42 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 76, 402. 114 We a g re e wi th the Se c re tari e s. Th e bo un da ry Con g re ss set fo rth in § 103(a) establishes only the phy sical boundar

y for the f e d e r a l r e s e r

v ati o n s th e ms e lv e s ; i t d o e s n o t s e t t he limit for the water over which the United Stat es m ay exert any interest. As discussed a

bove, a f eder al intere st by

virtue of the fe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts do c tr ine m ay e xist in water s adjac ent to, but outside the boundary o f, a f eder al
rese rvati o n , as long a s these waters ar e appur tenant to the
rese rvation. B eca

use the he adland- to-hea dland method inc lud e s ti da lly

inf lue nc e d w ate rs that are phy sic a lly
connec ted t o, and indeed prac tically insepara ble from, waters inland of the high tide line (or water s on t h e federa l
re se rv atio ns the mse lve s) , d ra wi ng of the bo un da

ry lin e in t his
manner is c on sis te nt w iththe fe de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts doctrine. F inally , as the Sec reta ri es explain in the 2005
ame ndme nts , “ the re g ulatio ns us e the me tho do logy fo un d in the Convention on the Ter rit o rial Sea a

nd Contiguous Z one from the United N ations L aw of t he Sea f

or closingthe
mou t h s of river s.” For these re asons, using the hea dland- 114 to-hea dland app ro ach f or purpose s of deter

mining the bo un da ri e s o f r ur a l su bs ist e nc e pr iority

mana g e me nt i s a rea sonable wa

y to administer ANI L CA.
3. Upstreamand d own stre am waters The 1999 Rules apply

the fe dera l rural subsistence priority to wa t ers within and adjace nt to the fede ral
rese rvations listed in the Rules. We have e x plained why the State of Al a sk a ’s argume nt—

that the fe de ra l pr ior ity

sh ou ld
no t e xten d to a dja c e nt w ate rs —d oe s n ot h ave me ri t.43

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

T he K at i e Jo hn p l ai nt i f f s’ c o m p l ai nt a sks for “ a d ecl arat o ry judgm ent 115 t h a t r e s e r v e d w a t e r s e x t e n d u p s t r e a m a n d d o w n s t r e a m o f C S Us

. ” “ C S U” sta n d s fo r “c o n se rv a tio n syste m u n it ,” w h ic h is a d e fine d ter m in ANI LC A. T he 19 99 Ru l e s c ov e r s om e , bu t n ot a l l , of t h e ANI LC A
cons er vat i on s y s t em un i t s
. T he 1 9 9 9 Rul es al s o cover s om e f eder al
r es er vat i ons t hat ar e n ot “ cons er vat i on s y s t em un i t s , ” s uch as t he N at i onal P et roleum R eserve i n A la sk a . I t i s uncl ear whet her t he K at i e Jo hn p la intiff s a rg u e tha t up stre a m a n d d o w n stre a m w a te rs a re ne c e ssa ry fo r a ll
o f t he res e rv a tio n s l i st ed i n t he 1 9 9 9 R ul es, or o nl y t ho se t hat are co nser vat i o n s y st em uni t s. I t i s a lso u n cl ear whet her t he K at i e Jo hn pl ai nt i f f s s eek a decl ar at ory judgment t hat appl i es t o cons er vat i on s y s t em uni t s t hat are no t l i st ed i n t he 1 9 9 9 R ul es. B ecause we co ncl ud e t hat t he 1 9 9 9 R ules are rea so na b l e, we ne ed no t reso l ve t he se a m b i gu i t i es. Howeve r, the Secre taries did not make claim t o water s fa rt he r a fi e ld fr om the fe de ra l r e se rv atio ns , w ate rs we re fe r t o as “upstr ea m and downstrea m water s.” The Sec reta ries justified their dec ision to ex clude upstre am and downstream water s on the g rounds that the United States h ad n o such g ener al pra ctice, no I

ndian treaty

rig hts wer e involved, and such re servation “would conflict with t h e p ar ts of the Kat ie John [I] decision holding that ANI L CA d i d n ot ext end subsistence fishingto all navig able waters in Alaska .”
Th e Katie Johnpla int if

fs arg ue tha

t th e fe de ra l pr ior ity should apply

to water s ups t re am and downstre am from fede ral re servations—a position t hat w o u ld subject most of the river s and strea

ms in Alaska to the fede ral priority , since the fe dera l rese rvations l isted in the 1999 Rules cover about one-ha lf of Alaska

. We r ejec t this argument, and hold that 115 th e S e c r e t ar i e s d i d

n o ta c tar

b i tr ar i l y o r c o n tr ar y t o l awin
re fu sin gto e xten d th e fe de ra l r ur a l su bs iste nc e pr ior ity

to wate rs up str e am and

do wn str e am fro m f

e de ra l r e se rv atio ns
. We base our c onclusion on the limits of the fe dera l reser ved water rig hts doctrine, the primary purposes of the fede ral
rese rvations at issue in the 1999 Ru l es, the history (and44 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

G eral d E

. B o wkett , R eaching f o r a St ar 12 (19 8 9 ) ( “I f t here were one 116 sy m b o l of t he eco no m i c d i scr i m i nat i o n A l askan’ s sought t o end t hrough st ateh o o d i t wa s t he salm o n trap , a h i gh l y ef f i cien t m ea ns o f

ca t ch i ng f

i sh
co nt roll ed pri m ari l y by t he b i g ab sent ee canning i nt erest s. ”).

I d. a t 74. 117 limit s) of AN I L CA’s rura l subsist ence priority , and Kat ie John I and II

. As we w ill ex p l ain, t here is no shortag e of water on the ANI L C A re s ervations, so any need f or additional water

beyond adjac ent wate rs for g ener al purposes of wilderne ss preser v ation is too remote to require the Secre taries to ide n t i fy

upstream a

nd downstream water s as subject to a re serve d right. The question t hen is whethe r ANI L CA’s priority

for r ural subsistence uses somehow
re qu ir e s a mor e e xpans ive identif

ic atio n o f r e se rv e d r ig hts

. F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e c on c lud e that it do e s n ot.

a. The hi story of ANIL CA’s r ural sub sistence priority
As our previous discussion makes c lear , ANI L CA makes

“ su bs iste nc e us e s” of

fi shand wi ldl if e a pr ior ity “ on pu bli c lands.” Though stated in broad terms, the priority is not wi tho ut l imi ts. Some historical background provides c onte xt. Amo n gthe major re asons why

Alaskans sought statehood wa s that fede ral re g ulation of terr itorial water s allowed non-A laskan
commerc ial fi rm s t o take sa lmon in “fish traps,” whic h starved loc al Alaskans of the catc h and thre atene d the salmon
ru ns
. In 1 9 4 8 , outside salmon packingcompanies owned 116 383 o f t h e 429 fish traps license d in Alaska. Alaskans 117 tw ic e vo te d o ve rwhe lmi ng ly to e lim inate fi shtr a

ps , but th e se45

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. 118

I d. a t 7 4

– 7 6 ; A la sk a C o n st. O rd . 3 , § 2 (“A s a m a tte r o f im m e d ia te 119 publ i c n ece s s i t y , t o r el i eve ec onom i c di s t r es s among i ndi vi dual f i s her men a n d tho s e d e p e n d a n t up o n the m fo r a li v e liho o d , t o c o n se rv e the ra p id ly d wi nd l i ng s up p l y of sal m o n in A l aska, t o i nsur e f ai r com p et i t i o n am o ng t ho se engaged i n co m m erci al f i shi ng, and t o m ake m ani f est t he wi l l of t he p e o p le o f A la sk a , t he us e of f i s h t r aps f

or t he t aki ng of

s al m on f

or comm er ci al pur

pos es i s her eby pr ohi bi t ed i n a l l t he co ast al wat ers of t he Stat e. ”) ( em p hasi s ad d ed ).

B owk et t , Rea ch i n g f

or a St ar , a t 12. 120 pr e -s tate ho od

vo te s me ant n oth ingbe c a us e Al a sk a

and its pe op le the n ha d no p ow e r t o r e g ulate fi sh e ri e s. One of the 118 first ac ts of the Alaska

Constit utional Convent ion in 1955 was to adopt an o rdi nance prohibiting fish tra ps, to be
su bmi tte d to vo te rs fo r a pp ro va l a lon gwi th t

he state constitution. Be tw ee n 1936 and 1959, whe n fede ral

119 manag ement of A laska’s sa lmon finally ended, pr oduction had fa llen from 8.5 m i l l i on case s annually to 1.8 mill ion
c a se s. 120
Ernest Gr uening , former

g ov ernor of and United States senator f rom Alaska, oppose d the establishment of a fede ral Arc tic Wil dlife R ang e because of federa l mism anag ement of fish and g ame:
I o p p o s e d th e b i l l b e c a

u s e i t s e e m e d to me unthinkable that afte r t h e Int erior Depa rtment’s fa ilure i n the manag ement and
conser vation of Alaska ’s fishery and wildlife
re so ur c e s, the n e w s tate , whic h h a d s e t up its own fa r-mo re-qualified fish a

nd wildlife
or g anizatio n a

nd ha d o ff e re d t o make thi s46 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

E rnes t G rueni ng, M any B at t l es 42 6 (19 7 3 ). 121

16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 0 2 (3). 122

I d. § 3 1 1 1 (1). 123

See i d. §§ 3102( 2) –( 3) , 3114. 124

I d. § 3 1 0 3 (c). 125 rang e a state-mana g ed proje ct, should be asked to turn it back to that discredited f eder al
c on tr ol. 121
Modern e ffor

ts at fede ral re g ulation, includi n g ANI L CA’s rura l subsistenc e priority , rema in intense ly co ntroversia l within Alaska.
A s a r e s u l to f th i s l o n g - r

un n i n gf e d e r a l

- s t at e c o n tr o v e r s y, ANI L CA imposes neg otiated limits on how ce rt ai n natura l
re so ur c e s are mana g e d in Al a sk a . Wh ile AN I L CA emphasizes the importance of “subsist ence uses” of fish and wi ldl if e and g ive s th e m a pr ior ity “ on pu bli c land s, ” it l imi ts the priority

to ru ral su

bs ist e nc e us e s, to c e rt a in ( but no t a ll) public lands, and to fede ral lands. Moreove r, l ands owne d by the United States but subject to valid State and Native corpor ation land selec tions a re excluded from the d ef

inition of pu bli c land s. The priority for “ subsistence uses by rura l 122 resi d ents of Alaska , including both Natives and nonNatives,” applies only

on the spec ified su b s et of fe dera l 123 land s. State, Native c orporation, and private la nds are 124 expressly excluded from the r

ural subsis t en ce pr efe renc e re g ulatio ns
. 12547

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. §§ 31 1 3

– 3 1 1 5 , 32 0 2 (a). 126

I d. § 3 1 2 5 (1)– (3). 127

Coeur D ’

Al ene Tr i be of

I daho , 3 8 4 F .3 d a t 6 9 7 (K le infe ld , J., 128 d i ss ent i ng). F ur the rm or e , A

NI L CAe sta

bli sh e s an elabor ate sc he me fo r coope ratio n w ithstate fi shand g ame a uth or iti e s in manag ing the rura l subsist ence priority and lim i t s fede ral
a u th o r i ty e v e nf

o r p r o t e c t i n gth atp r i o r i ty. Con g re ss 126 prohibits any

construction of the statute “g rantingany proper ty rig ht in any

fish or wildlife,” or

“enla rg ing or dim ini sh ingthe Se c re tary ’s a uth or ity to manip ulate ha

bit at” on the public lands, or re stricting the takingof fish or wildlife on the fe dera l lands for nonsubsistence uses “unless ne cessa ry for the c onservation of healthy populations o f fish and wildlife [or] to continue subsistence use s of such populations.” 127

b. The primar y purpos es of AN I LCA and other fede r al r e se r va ti ons in A las ka
“F rom the 1780s, when the Articles of Co n fede ration g ov e rnme nt e nacte d th e No rt hw e st O rd ina

nc e and its pred ec essors, to 1986, when the Homestea d Act re peal be c ame e ff

e c tiv e in A la sk a , n atio nal polic y on fe de ra lly owned lands w as to sell them chea p or give them awa

y , rathe r than to hold on to them or charter them to g reat companies a s Eng land and Spain had.” 128
Wit h so libera l a policy

of g iving a

way the public domain, the g overnme nt neede d a
me ans to mar

k o ut s ome po rt ion s th at w ou ld48 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. at 698 (f

oo t not es o mi t t ed). H om es t eader s us ual l y wer e r equi r ed 129 t o pa y $1

. 2 5 pe r acre, a pri ce th a t was r ed uced s ub st ant i al l y i f t he l and
w a s n o t p a rtic u la rly d e sira b le

. See ht t p : / / www
. archi ves. go v/ ed ucat i o n/ l ess o ns/ ho m est ead

- act (l ast vi si t ed June 2 6 , 20 1 3 ).

B ure au o f

Lan d M ana gemen t , H om es t eadi ng Fr equen t l y Ask ed 130 Q u e stio n s, a va i l a b le a t htt p : / / w w w .blm

. gov/ ak/ s t / en/ prog/ cul t ur e/ ak_hi s t ory / homest eadi ng / homest eadi ng _Q _and_A

. ht ml #6 ( l as t vi s i t ed June 2 6 , 20 1 3 ). no t b e tur

ne d into f

arm s, min e s, ho me sit e s, tr a d e s it e s , an d a ll th e o th e r c ate g o r ie s of pr ivate owne rs hip . U nd e r t he No rt hw e st Ordina n ce a

nd its J eff

ersonian pr edec essor, l an d was to be reser

ved fr om sale (g iving
awa y land for f

ree wa s L incoln’s subsequent innovation under the Homestead A ct) for such pu rpose s a s sc ho ols a ndtr a ns fe r t o Revolutionary

War veter ans. L ikewise, unde r th e M o rrill L and-G rant Ac t of 1862, lands
we re re se rv e d fr om e ntr

y fo r va ri ou s p ublic purposes, such as schools. Be g inning in 1872 with Yellowstone, re servations from entry
we re ma de fo r p ark s. 129

Ho me ste a din ge nd e d o n Oc tob e r 2 1, 19 76 , whe n Co ng re ss enac ted the F eder al L and Pol icy and Mana g ement Ac t of 1976. “On that da

y , all homestead law s wer e re peale d
natio nw ide , h ow e ve r, a

10 -ye ar e xt ens ion w a s a llo we d in Al a sk a sin c e it w a s a

ne w state wi th fe we r se ttl e rs . T he la st tim e anyon e c ou ld fi le any ty pe of [fe de ra l] ho me ste a d c la im in Alaska wa s on October 20, 1986. After

that day , no more new homeste adingwas allowed on fede ral land in Alaska.” 130 Many o f Alaska’ s fede ral re servations are military
r e s e r v ati o n s , s u c ha s 6 0 7 , 8 0 0 a c r e s n e ar F a ir b an ks for a49

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

E rn e st G ru e n ing , M a n y B a ttl e s 4 1 8 (1 9 7 3 ); see a lso Uni t ed St at es v. 131 N. Am

. Tr ans

p. & Tr adi ng Co. , 2 5 3 U

. S. 33 0 (19 2 0 ) ( res ervat i o n of l and near N o m e f

o r us e as an Arm y po st ).

Se. Al as ka Cons er vat i o n C ounci l, I nc. v

. Wat s on , 697 F. 2d 1305, 132 1 3 0 7 (9t h C i r. 19 8 3 ).

S e e g e n e ra lly 16 U

. S. C. §§ 410h h –410h h

- 1. 133

See i d. § 410h h ( 2) –( 3) , ( 6)

. AN I LCA s t at es t h at “ s u bs i s t en ce u s es by 134 l ocal r es i dent s s hal l be per mi t t ed” i n s ev er al r es er vat i ons , but t hat i s f ar d i f f erent f rom s ayi ng t hat s ub si st ence use is a reaso n w hy t he res ervat i o ns w e re c re a te d

. See i d. §§ 41 0 hh(1), (3), (4)(a), ( 6 ), (7)(b), (9), 41 0 hh1 (3)(a).

I d. § 4 1 0 hh(1). 135 m i s s ile-testingrang e. In1 9 8 0 , A N I L CAd e s ign ate d 131
a pp ro ximate ly

10 5 mi lli on

a c re s in Al a sk a a s p e rm ane ntl y pr ote c te d fe de ra l la

nd s, fo r v ari ou s p ur

po se s g e ne ra lly associate d with wilderness pre servation. 132

Ind e e d, by

and la rg e the re se rv atio ns AN I L CA established ar e not for use by any people who might nee d the water itself in competition with other users. These lands g enerally wer e re serve d from people ( other than subsistence
us e rs ) who might w ant t o li ve the re , n ot for t h em
. For example, ANI L CA sets up seventee n new units within the National Park Sy stem and ex pands t hree others, and list s the “purpose s ” for e ach r eser vation. In s e ve nte e n o f t he se 133 twenty rese rvations, none o f t he “pur poses” include human subsistence, a

nd on l y in three is the pr otection of “ the viability of subsistence r esourc es” mentioned as one among se ve ra l pu

rp os e s. For

example, the Ani akcha

k National 134 Monument is reser

ved to maintain volcanic fe a tures and study the flora and fa una, and to pr otect habitat f or wildlife. The

13550 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. § 4 1 0 hh(3). 136

I d. § 4 1 0 hh(8)(a). 137

I d. § 4 1 0 hh(5) (emp hasi s ad d ed ). 138 Cape Kr usenstern N ational Monument is establ i shed for
arc heolog ical study

and t o prese rve ha

bitat for wildlife. 136 The 6.5 million-acr e Noatak National Preserve has as among its purp os e s maint a ini ngthe ri ve r “ un imp a ir e d b y a dv e rs e human ac tivity .” The purpose of the 567,000- acre Ke nai 137 F jor ds Natio na l Park

is “ [t]o ma int a in u

nim pa ir e d the sc e nic
a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n t e g r i ty o f th e H ar d i n g I c e f i e l d, its
outf low ingg la c ie rs , a

nd c oa sta l fjo rd s and

isl and s in

the ir natura l state; and to protec t s ea ls, sea lions, other mar ine
mamma ls, and

mari ne and

oth e r b ir ds and

to m a int a in t

he ir haulingand bre edingare as in their natu ral state, free of human activity which is di s ru ptive to their natura l proce sses.” The Sec reta ries’ 1999 Rule include s additional 138
rese rvations that also are n o t primarily desig ned for

the p urp o s e o f f

urt h er i n g s u

b s i s t en ce hun t i n g o r f

i s h i n g.
Howeve r, bec ause quite a fewpeopl e, Native a

nd nonNative, a lrea dy

did live on the vast newly rese rved lands, or hunted or fishe d there for their s ub s istence, A NI L CA was shaped to pr eser

ve their interest in subsistence livingfrom the new f eder al re strictions. Accordingly , Congr ess pre serve d subsistence use in many

of the re servations, even thoug h none of the re se rv atio ns li st e d s uc h u se a s th e ir pr ima ry purp os e and mos t did not listsubsistence use a mong the ir purposes at all. The c rucia l point is that human use for subsistence on most feder al re servations in Alaska is a ser vitude imposed as51

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Per h aps t h e bes t e x ampl e of t h e t en s i on be t we en t h e pu r pos es of 139 f eder al r es er vat i ons i n A l as ka— mo r e or l es s of ex cl udi ng hu man ac t i v i t i es— an d t h e pr es er v at i on of r u r al s u bs i s t en ce r i g h t s a s a k i n d of
s er vi t ude i s t he cas e o f

A l ex Sando T ar nai

. T ar nai was a t r apper w ho ha d fled H u n g a ry a fter th e u n su c c e ssfu l 1 9 5 6 u p risin g , a n d w h o b u ilt his c a b in
o n th e N o w itna R ive r in 1 9 7 7 . D a v id H u llen , Tr apper, gov er nm ent wage stra n g e b a ttl e , A ncho rage D ai l y N ew s , N ov
. 19, 1989, a t A1. I n 1980, A N ILC A est ab l i shed t he N o wi t na N at i o nal W i l d l i f e R ef uge t o “ co nser ve w i l dl i f e po pu l a t i on s a nd ha bi t a t s i n t h e i r n a t u r a l di v e r s i t y
. ” ANI LC A § 3 0 2 (6 ), 9 4 S t at. 2 3 7 1

. T arn ai wa s t he so l e h u m a n li ving in t he va st wi l dern es s of

t he new l y cr eat ed 2. 1- mi l l i on acr e r ef ug e, t wo day s ’ dogs l ed t r i p f r om Ruby, Al as ka.

T arna i was s o i s ol at ed t hat he di d not l ear n of AN I LC A un t i l t wo ye a rs a fter it ha d b e c o m e l a w . W h e n fed e ra l o ff ic ia ls lea rn e d tha t a
wom an was pl an ning t o vi s i t hi m f or a f ew w eek s at hi s ca bi n, t hey t hr eat ene d t o t r eat hi s ca bi n as a “ r ecr eat i onal ” rat her t han a “ s ubs i s t enc e” cabi n, s o t hat he woul d be evi ct ed f r om hi s home. T hei r t heor y was t hat i f a wo m an who was not an i m m ed i at e f am i l y m em b er st ayed i n hi s cab i n, hi s us e of

t he cabi n w o ul d becom e “ r ecr eat i onal ” r at her t han

“ s ubs i s t enc e, ” a nd t he s t at ute bars per mi t s f or “ pri vat e r ecr eat i onal us e”
c a b ins

. See 16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 9 3 (b)(2). T arnai a nd his gue st sl ep t in a t ent
o ut si d e hi s cab i n i n m i nu s-tw e n t y - d egree weather t o avo i d a ci t at i o n. T a rn a i l a te r su c c e ssfu lly lit iga te d a g a ins t t h e fe d e ra l go v e rn m e n t,
e sta b lishin g tha t his su b siste n c e u se fo r tra p p ing w a s n o t d e fea te d b y this i nci dent al non- s ubs i s t enc e u s e, an d t hat ev en a “ s ubs i s t enc e” dwel l er was en t i t l ed t o e n g ag e i n a ct i v i t i es i n h i s c abi n y i el di n g c ompan i onshi p or p le a su re , no t ju st a c tivities s u sta inin g li fe. Tarnai v. F i s her , N o. 87- 0068 (D

. A l aska di smi ss ed Jan. 21 , 19 9 0 ). a lim itatio n o n fe de ra l c on tr ol, rathe r tha n a sp e c if ie d p ur po se for whic h the fe dera l reser vation was e stablished. 139

Indeed, not only

are the ANI L CA and o t her f eder al
rese rvations not established for human use of the water in the streams, but most of time, at le ast in the northern ha lf of the
s t at e, th e w at er

i s n o tev en “w at er ” i n t h e s e n s e o f b ei n g a liq uid . It is ic e . N o o ne c an drink it wi tho ut m akin ga

ho le52 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

AN I LCA § 302( 6) ( B ) , 94 St at

. 2371, 2387 ( 1980) ( “ T h e pu r pos es f or 140 wh i ch t h e N owi t n a N at i on al W i l dl i f e R ef ug e i s e s t abl i s h ed an d s h al l be
m anaged i ncl ud e— (i) t o co nser ve f i sh and wi l d l i f

e p o p ul at i o ns and habi t at s i n t hei r na t ur al di ver s i t y i ncl udi ng , but not l i mi t ed t o, t r umpet er swans, whi t e- f

ronted geese, canvasba cks and o t her wat erf o wl and in the ice, a

nd it could not be used for irrigation, if there wer e any thing to irrig ate, whic h by and lar g e ther e is not. There
are no larg e fa

rms or ranches, nor

g reat reser

voirs serving cities, alongt h e g reatest of the waters, the r oug hly two thousand-mile-longYukon, nor a long most of the other rivers and strea ms at issue in this l itigation. This observation distinguishes the fede ral re servations at i s s u e i n this case f

rom much of the A merica n West, where water is sc arc e and where, as i n W inte rs , aridity

can de feat the purpose of a rese rvation. In this case, in contr ast, no one is claiming that the water itself must be reserve d to fulfill the purposes of the ANI L CA rese rvations. T h at i s , there is no sug g estion that any

fede ra l reser

vation alongany

Alaskan water s risks beingturned into a “ barr en wa ste” as in W inte rs , or a substantially

diminis hed pool, as in Cap pa e rt , o r i s in any way short of water. In t h i s way , Alaska’ s fede ral
re se rv atio ns dif

fe r d ra matic a lly fr om t he re se rv atio ns in a

ri d
re g ion s.
Of c ourse, water must be preserve d for the g eese and du c ks , a nd if anyon e we re to d

ra in t he many lake s and po nd s, the re duction in water

quantity would threat en migr ating birds. For

example, the Nowit na National Wi ldlife Refug e, wher e Alex Tarnai l ived, has among its leg islatively stated purposes e nsuringthe nec es sary water quantity “within the ref ug e” to conserve its fish and wildl ife population, including g eese , ducks, moose, pike, salmon, and other wildlife. The

14053

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

m i gra t ory bi r ds, m o o se, ca ribo u, m arten s, wo l ve rines an d o t he r f urb ea rers, sa lm o n , she e fish, a n d no rth e rn p ike ; (ii) t o fulfi ll the inte rn a tio n a l t re a ty
o b liga tio n s o f t h e U n ited S ta te s w ith re sp e c t to fish an d w ild lif e a n d the ir h a b itats; (iii) to p ro v id e in a m a n n e r c o n siste n t with the p u rp o se s se t f o rth i n s ubpara gr aphs ( i ) an d (i i ) , t he op po r t un i t y f or c ont i nu ed subsi s t enc e uses by l o cal res i d ent s; and (i v) t o ensur e, t o the m axi m um ext ent p ra c tica b le a n d i n a m a n n e r c o n siste n t with the p u rp o se s se t f o rth in p aragraph (i ), wat er quali t y and necess ary wat er quanti t y wi t hi n t he ref uge. ”).

16 U

. S.C

. § 4 1 0 hh(9). 141

I d. § 4 1 0 hh(7)(a). 142 Wrang e l l

- S a i n tE l i a s N at i o n a l P ar k an d P r e s e r v e s e e k to protec t habitat for “ fish and wildlife” such as “ trumpeter swans and othe r waterfow l.” And t he L ake Clar k National 141 Park and Pre serve wer e cr eate d “to protec t t h e watershed
nece ssary for perpetuation of the re d salmon fishery in Bristol Ba y .” As for th e people living in or ne ar the se and othe r 142 ANI L CA rese rvations, the utility of the water is g ener ally

as transportation arterie s for rive rboats, sno w m achine s, and
o cc as i o n al l y

d o g t ea m s , an d

fo r f i s h i n g.
ANI L CA’s textand history , as we l l as the history and
rea lities of ru ra l l i ving in Ala ska, thus lead to a c ritical obse r v ati o n : h uma nu s e f o r s u b s is te n c e o nma

n y f e d era l
re s ervations in Alaska, including A NI L CA conser

vation sy stem units, is a servitude imposed as a limit ation on fede ral control, rather than a

specifie d purpose for which most such
re se rv atio ns we re e sta

bli sh e d. F or thi s re a so n, and be c a us e modern fe dera l effor

ts to regulate natur al re source s in Alaska
re ma in c on tr ov e rs ia l, A

NI L CAlim its the a

pp lic atio n o f i ts rura l subsist ence priority

to a ca ref ully deli n ea ted subset of fed e r a l l an d s , an d

e s ta b li s h e s ane la

b o r ate s c h e me f

or54 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d a t 703. 143

I d. a t 700. 144

I d. a t 703. 145

I d. a t 704. 146 c oo pe ratio n be tw e e n the Se c re tari e s and State fi sh and g ame a u th o r i t i e s i nm an a g i n gth e r ur a l s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty.

c. The constraints of th e f ed er al rese rved water r igh ts doc tr ine Recognizi ngthese constraints in Katie John I , we limited fede ral AN I L CA authority over waters outside the bounda ries of re servations to federa lly rese rved la

nds, including “appur tenant waters then unappr opriated to the e x tent nece ssary to acc omplish t he purpose of the re servation.” 143 Th at is , w e he ld t

hat th e AN I L CAru

ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity applied not to all Alaska w ater s subject to the fe dera l
navig atio na l se rv itu de , b ut o nly to tho se “ navig a

ble wate rs in which the United States has rese rved w ater rig hts.” Waters

144
wer e re serve d to the United States only if the United States intended to r eser ve the water

. That intent w ould be infer red “if those water s are nece ssary to acc omplish t he purpose s for which the land w as re serve d.” We n o t ed that the United 145 States had re serve d vast lands i n Al aska f or many differ ent purposes, a

nd left it to the federal a g encie s to identify the

“ navig a ble wate rs in whic h th e Un ite d St ate s h a s a n inte re st by virtue of the res er ved water rights doctrine.” Th e se 146 pr ior ho ldi ng s c on tr ol on the c ri tic a l qu e sti on s i n this litigation.55

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Id

. at 70 3 (quo t i ng New M exi co , 43 8 U

. S. at 70 0 ). 147

S e . A la sk a C o n se rv a tio n C o u n c il , 697 F. 2d a t 1307. 148

T e re sa H u ll & L ind a L e a sk , D i vi di ng Al as ka, 1867–2000: Changi ng 149 Land O wner s hi

p and M anagement , A la sk a R e v ie w o f S o c ia l & E c o n o m ic C o nd i t i o ns, V o l um e X X X II , 6 t b l

. 1 (2 0 0 0 ).

16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 0 1 (b). 150 The Katie J ohn plaintiffs would have us ext end the r ural subsistence priority to a ll waters upstream and downstream from, a n d n o t o n ly a d ja c e n t t o , f

e d e r a l r e s e r

v ati o n s , o nthe theory that what happens elsewhe re may aff ect what happens within a rese rvation. That broad cla im, to federa l regulation of a substantial majority of the river s and strea ms in Alaska, i s unsupported by

ANI L CA’s textand conf licts with Kat ie John I and Katie John II . Our c ircuit is comm itted to the po sit ion that f or the ru ra l sub si ste nc e pr ior ity

to a pp ly to navig able waters outside fe dera l r eser vations, the wate rs have to b e “ a pp ur te na nt t o” the re se rv atio ns and so “ ne c e ssa

ry to acc omplish t h e purposes for which the land w as re serve d” that “ wi tho ut t

he wate r the purp os e s o f t he re se rv atio n w ou ld be entire ly

defe ated.” 147
ANI L CA put 105 mil lion acre s (162,500 squar e miles), of Alaska unde r fe dera l restrictions (beyond the 84.1 million 148
acr es (131,406 squa

re miles) a lr eady

rese rved or

withdrawn when Alaska attained statehood ) for purposes that involve 149 little or no wate r c on sumpt ion and many of wh ic h h ave little or nothing to do with human u se. Cong ress did state at the beg inning its intent in ANI L CA “to protec t the re source s related to subsistence ne eds.” ANI L CA p ro v ides for 150 “continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by

rura l56 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

16 U

. S.C

. § 3 1 1 1 (1). 151

A m o c o P ro d u c tio n C o . v. Vill a g e o f G a m b e ll , 48 0 U

. S. 53 1 (19 8 7 ). 152

I d. a t 545–46. 153

T h e N at i on al Pet r ol eu m R eserv e i n Al as k a wa s e s t abl i s h ed f or 154
e x p lo ra tio n o f p e tro le u m re se rv e s. See 42 U

. S. C. § 6504. residents of A laska” to a void disrupting and destroy ing the 151 human us e s a lr e a dy be ing ma de , but the Sup re me Court he ld in Am oc o Pro du c tio n Co . v . V illage of G am be ll that 152 A N I L CAd o e s n o t m ak e s u b s is te n c e u s e s mo r e im

portant tha n oth e r us e s of fe de ra l land s. Rathe r, ANI L CA simply
re c ognize s su

bs ist e nc e us e s a s “ a public interest” w ithin a statutory “f ra m ewor k for r econc iliation, where possible, of competingpublic interests.” Similarly , the additional (non- 153 ANI L CA) fede ral rese rvations listed in the 1999 Rules were not primarily

withdrawn f

or the stated pur

pose of f urthering
s u b s i s t en ce fi s h i n g o r h un t i n g. As explained above, human 154 subsistence needs are i mposed on all of t hese r eser vations as a kind of serv i t u d e, so that ANI L CA does not destroy the pr e e xistin gwa

y of lif e on tho se fe deral la

nd s. B ut i t is untenable to reason that upstre am and downstre am wate rs ar e nece ssarily

included in the priority g ranted to subsist ence uses on those re servations, pa rticularly when subsistence uses are not amongthe primary purpose s listed in the statutory
se c tio ns e sta

bli sh ingmos t of

the re se rv e s. Ag ain, wate r rig hts may

be esse ntial t o a purpose of the
rese rvation other tha n s ubsistence. Were non-fe dera l activities, such as a

dam or diver sion of a rive r wher e salmon sp awn , o r d

ry ingup of lake s and

po nd s th at mi g ra

tin gg e e se use, to t h re at en the purposes of a f eder al re servation, ANI L CA’s rura l subsist ence priority might come into play as57

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

W e no te , a s d o the S e c re ta rie s, tha t the re is n o sh o rta g e o f wa te rs to 155
serv e the p rima ry pu rp o ses o f t he rese rva t i o ns.
See 438 U

. S. a t 708, 713–15. 156

Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d a t 704. 157 a r e s u lt o f ane n f o r c e me n t a c ti o np arti c u la r iz e d to the particula r purpose s of a pa

rticular r eser

vat i o n
. But no such activity is before us. This is not a par ticularized enfor ceme nt action, and the Katie John plainti ffs do not as kus or the Secre taries to co n s i d er the actua l purposes of a ny of the
rese rvations. I nstead, they seek a g ener alized declar atory judgm e n t “ th at r e s e r

v e d w ate r s e xte n d

u p s tr e am a

nd downstream of” a ll the fede ral re servations li sted in the 1999 Rul e s. 155
Such relief

we c annot g rant. We cannot conclude that the Secre taries a cted arb i trarily , capr iciously , or contra ry to law in decliningto include u p s t ream and downstre am wate rs as curr ently within a rese rved r ight f or purpose s of a r

ural subsistence prior ity , when subsistence uses in many case s we re no t sp e c if

ie d a s p ri mary

purp os e s o f t

he re se rv atio ns
. The Katie J ohn plaintiffs’ demand would require us to ignore the ce ntral role those purposes play in appl y i n g t he fe dera l
rese rved w ater

rig hts doctrine, and to make up out of nothing
a no tio n th at a ll f

e de ra l r e se rv ati on s in

Al a sk a re qu ir e a ll upstream a

n d d o wns tream water s for purpose s we or the plaintiffs, not Congr ess, claim. S u ch a holdi ngwould be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s dec ision in New Mex ico , und e r wh ic h re se rv e d wate r ri g hts e xist to se rv e on ly the primar y p u rposes of a fe dera l reser vation, and

wi th 156 AN I L CA , whic h s imp ly

“ do e s n ot s up po rt

su c h a c omp le te asser tion of fede ral c ontrol.” 15758 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

New M exi co , 438 U

. S. a t 702. 158 I f any of the va rious rese rvations eve r do run short of the water nece ssary

to maintain subsist en ce u ses, the United States may

or m ay not be entitled to that water under the federa l reser

ved water rights doctrine, a f act the Sec reta

ries acknow ledg e. B ut “[ w] here water is only valuable f

or a se c on da ry us e of the re se rv atio n, ” the Un ite d St ate s mu st acquir e the water “ in the same manner as a ny other public or private a ppropriator .” No cla i m s particula rized to any 158 fede ral re servation and its need for water are made in the complaint in this case.

In short, we a g ree with th e district cour t that the Secre taries reasona

bly deter mined that, as a g ener al matter, fede rally rese rved w ater

rig hts may be enforce d to implement ANI L CA’s rura l subsistence prior ity as to wate rs within and

“ imm e diate ly

a dja c e nt t o” fe de ra l re se rv atio ns , but no t a s to wate rs up str e am and

do wnstre am f

ro m th os e re se rv atio ns
. We also ag ree with the district court that the fe dera l reser ved water rig hts doctrine mig ht apply upstream a

nd downstream fro m rese rvations in some circ umstances, we re the re a particula rized enfor ceme nt act i o n for that qua ntity of water neede d to preser

ve subsistence use in a g iven re servation, wher e such use is a primary purpose for which the reser vation
was e stablished. But the abstrac t claim that all upstream a nd downstream water s are nece ssary for a ll th e fe dera l
rese rvations in the 1999 Rules cannot withstand AN I L CA’s text or history , the joint dec ision of th e t wo cabinet
secr etar ies to whom administration of the complex statute ha s been de leg ated, our

decisions in Katie John I and Katie John II , or the fa cts established in this liti g ation.59

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

P ub. L. 59- 17 1, 34 St at

. 197 ( 19 06 , as am en d ed ) ( codi f i ed at 159 43 U

. S. C. § § 2 7 0

- 1 t h r ou g h 270- 3 ( 1970) )

. T h e or i g i n al Act di d n ot i ncl ude Al eut s , or r equi r e f i ve y ear s of

s ubs t ant i al l y cont i nu ous us e.

I d. 160

P ub. L. 92- 20 3, 85 S t at. 6 88 ( 19 71 , as amended) ( codi f i ed at 161 4 3 U

. S.C

. §§ 16 0 1

– 1 6 2 9 h).

43 U

. S.C

. § 1 6 1 7 (a). 162

43 C

. F.R

. § 2 5 6 1

. 3 (20 0 6 ). 163

S om e al l ot ment s gra nt ed pur s uan t t o t he Al as ka N at i ve A l l ot ment Act 164
are w i t hin t he b o un d aries o f t he co nse rva t i o n s yst em un i t s an d fo rest
re se rv e s id e n tif

ie d in th e 1 9 9 9 R u le s. See 6 4 F ed

. R eg
. at 1 ,27 9

. T he se a llo tm e n ts a re a lre a d y su b je c t to A N IL C A ’s ru ra l su b siste n c e p rio rity. I d. 4. Alaska Native Allotm ents
The Ala sk a Native Allotm ent Act of 1906 authorized

159 the Secr etar

y of t he Interior to allot “to any Indian, Aleut, or Es kim o” a

16 0- a c re allotme nt o f u ns ur ve y e d o r o the rw ise unappropr iated land upon proof of “ substantially continuous
us e and oc c up anc y ” of

the land fo r f

ive y e ars
. The Ala ska

160 Native Cl ai m s Settlement Act of 1971 repe aled the 1906 161 Ac t but di d n ot e xtinguis h e x is ti nga llo tme nts or a llo tme nts un de r a pp lic atio n at the tim e of

the re pe a l. Alaska N atives

162 wh o have be e n g ra

nte d a llo tme nts own th e land s c onve y e d to the m in re str ic te d f

e e . T he a llo tme nts are no n- taxab le un le ss authorized by

Congr ess, and they cannot be conveyed without approva l from the Secr etar y of the Interior. 163
The S ecr etar ies did not include withi n “public lands” the water s appurtena

nt to Ala s k a Native a llotments falling
outsi de the land un its lis te d in the 19 99 Rul e s. Rather, the 16460 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

I d. a t 1, 29 0 ( c od i f

i e d a t 36 C. F. R. § 24 2. 10 ( d) ( 4) ( x i x ) a n d 5 0 C. F. R. 165 § 10 0

. 1 0 (d)(4)(xi x))

. 1999 Rules deleg ate to the F eder al Subsist ence Boa rd the
a uth or ity to [i]de nti fy , in a

pp ro pr iate sp e c if

ic insta nc e s, whether there exis t s additional Fe dera l
rese rvations, Fe dera l r eser ved water rig hts or oth e r F e de ra l inte re sts in l and s o r w ate rs , incl u d i n gthose in which the United States hold s le s s th ana

f e e o w n e r s h ip , to w h ic hthe Fe dera l subsist ence priority attache s, and mak e a p p r o p r iate r e c o mm e n d ati o nto the Secret ari e s f

or inc lus ion

of tho se int e re sts within the Fede ral Subsistence Ma nag ement Pr ogra m. 165
Thus , th e F e de ra l Su

bsis tence B oa

rd ha s th e a

uth or ity to make re c omm e nd atio ns to t he S e c re tari e s f

or a dd iti on s, if
n e c e s s ar y , to th e w ate r s th at ar e “ p u b li c la n d s ” b y virtue of the fe dera l reser

ved water rights doctri n e, including wate rs a pp ur te na nt t o th e Al a sk a

Nativ e a llo tme nts

. The Sec reta

ries conc ede t h at the United States ha s c o n s is te n tl y

a s s e rte d aninte r e s t i nN ati v e A me rican allotments by

virtue of their

restricted fee status. The Secre taries a lso recogniz e that, ty pically , “allotments of Indian re servations to i ndividual I nd i an s, as well as the transfe r of these allotments to non-Indians, have be en found to car ry with them a share of the re servation’s [ fede ral
rese rved w ater

rig hts] pursuant to sec tion 7 of the Gene ral61

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

See , e

. g. , Un i t ed S t a t es v

. P o w ers , 3 0 5 U .S . 5 2 7 , 5 3 2 (1 9 3 9 ); W al t on , 166 6 4 7 F .2d at 5 0 (“It is s e t t l ed t ha t Ind i an all o t t ee s hav e a ri gh t t o use r es er ved wa t er
. ”) Allotment Act, 25 U.S.C. § 381.” Although the Secre taries 166 do not take the position that fede ral re serve d water rig hts do not or ca nnot rea ch the waters appur tenant to Alaska

Native allotments, they

argue t h at t he allotments are “unique” and that the “c omplex leg al issues surrounding the question” led them to conclude that identification of whic h water s a pp ur te na nt t o th ese a llo tme nts sh ou ld b e inc lud e d w ith in

“ pu bli c land s” wa s b e st d on e on a c a se -b y -c a se ba sis

. The State a

rgues that the Alaska Native a llotments do not g ive ri se to f

e de ra l r e se rv e d w ate r r ig hts at all . T he State rea sons that, “[u] nlike t h e allotm ents [created under the Gene ral Allot ment Act], Alaska Native allotments are not derive d from a pr evious Indian re serv at ion and, there fore , c an n o ts u c c e e d t o an y W

inte rs water

rig hts associated w ith an In d ia n r e s e r v ati o n
. ” In o th e r w o r d s , f e d e r a l r e s e r

v e d water rig hts emerg e only

out of fede ral re serva t i o n s; they do not
atta c h to Al a sk a

Nativ e a llo tme nt s create d f ro m th e pu

bli c domain.
For their par t, the Katie John plainti ffs c h al l enge the Se c re tari e s’ de c isi on

no t to c ate g or ic a lly

de signate a s “ pu

bli c lands” subjec t to ANI L CA’s rura l s ub s istence pr iority the water s appurtena

nt to all Alaska Native allotm en t s
. The Katie John plainti ffs a

rgue that the Un i t ed S tates has a n inte re s t in the allotments by virtue of their

restric ted fe e status, and t hat water i s nece ssary to car ry out the subsistence purposes for

which these allotments were cre ated.62 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

Kat i e John I , 72 F. 3d a t 704. 167 We n e e d n ot d e c ide wh e the r A la sk a Native a llo tme nts can g ive rise to federa l reser ved water rights. The Secr etar ies
r e a s o n a b l y d e c i d e d t o r e s o l v e th i s d i f f i c u l t i s s u e o na

c a s e - b ycase basis. We uphold the 1999 Rules, and aff irm the district court’s c onclusion that it wa s “lawf ul and re asonable ” for

the Secre taries to dele g ate a

uthority to the Fe d eral Subsis tence Boa rd to dec ide which Native allotments fall i n goutside of fede ral re servations, if any , g ive rise to federa l reser ved water rig hts which justify

imposing ANI L CA’s rura l subsist ence pr ior ity on a pp ur te na nt w ate rs
. Deter mining which w ater s within or appurte nant to eac h
a llo tme nt may be ne c e ssa ry to fu lf ill the a llo tme nt’ s n e e ds is
a c omp lic ate d a

nd fa c t- int e ns ive e nd e avo r that is be st l e ft in the first instance to the Secr et ar i es, notthe cour ts. W e ar e min df ul t hat Katie John I expresses the hope that the fede ral ag encie s will “determine pr omptly which navig able waters are p u b li c la n ds subject to fede ral subsistence manag ement,” and that the parties to this litigation have an 167 int e re st i n a

fi na l de te rm inatio n o f h ow th e Se c re tari e s w ill
m an a g e A

N IL C A ’ s r

ur a l s u b s i s t e n c e p r i o r i ty. A c c o r d i n g l y, while we de fer

to the Secre taries’ deter

mination in the 1999 Rules reg ardinghow bes t t o identify fede ral re serve d water ri gh t s fo r A l as k a N at i v e se t t l em en t al l o tm en t s , we en co ura ge them to undertake that proce ss in a rea sonably eff i ci ent manner
. 5. Se le c te d- but -n ot -y e t- c onv e ye d la nds
The fina l disputed issue is not ab o u t water rig hts, but rathe r about ce rtain lands on which the Secre taries have c ho se n to a

pp ly AN I L CA ’s ru

ra l subs ist e nc e pr ior ity . T he se63

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

16 U

. S. C. § 3102( 3) ( A) ( ex cl u di n g f r om t h e def

i n i t i on of pu bl i c l an ds 168 “la n d se le c tio n s o f the S ta te o f A la sk a w h ic h h a v e b e e n te n ta tive ly appr ov ed or v al i dl y s el ec t ed u n der t he A l as k a St at eh ood Act a n d l an ds whi ch have b een co nf i rme d t o , val i d l y s el ect ed by, o r grant ed t o t he T er r i t ory of

Al as ka o r t he St at e u nder an y ot her provi s i on of Feder al la w ” ); i d. § 3102( 3) ( B ) ( ex cl u di n g f r om t h e def

i n i t i on of p ub l i c l ands “l and s e lect i o ns o f

a N at i ve C o rpo rat i o n m ad e und er t he A l aska N at i ve C l ai ms Set t l ement A ct [ 43 U

. S. C

. A

. § 1601 et s eq. ] whi ch hav e not been
conve y ed t o a N at i ve C orporat i on, un l es s any s uch s el ect i on i s det er mi ned t o be i nval i d or i s rel i nq ui shed”).

43 U

. S.C

. § 1 6 3 5 (o)(2). 169

16 U. S. C. § 31 02 s t a t e s t h a t “ i n t i t l e s I X a n d XI V t h e f ol l ow i n g t e r ms 170
s h a l l h a v e t h e s a me me ani ng as t h e y h a v e i n t h e Al a s k a Nat i v e Cl a i ms Se t t l em ent A ct , and t he A l aska St at eho o d A ct

. ” W e are no t a ware o f any lands—known as “ sel ec t ed -b u t -n o t -yet-c onvey ed” la nds—are fede ral lands that have bee n selec ted by the State or a

n Alaska N ative cor

poration for

conveyance , but h ave not y et been f ormally conveyed fr om the United S tates t o Alaska or the cor poration.
Se c tio n 102 of

AN I L CAe xpre ssl y

e xclu de s se le c te d- butno t- y e t- c onve y e d la

nd s f ro m th e de fi nit ion

of “ pu bli c lands.” For

this reason the State ar g ues that the 168 Secre taries’ decision t o administer them ac cordingto the
ru ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

wa s unla

wf ul. B ut i t is no t so simple. Section 906(o)(2) of ANI L CA, located in T itle IX of the s tatute, provides a competing directive: “Until convey ed, all Fe dera l lands within t he boundar ies of a c onservation sy stem unit, Nation al R ec re at i o nAr ea , Na t i o n al C o n s erv at i on Are a, new

national forest or fore st addition, shall be administered in acc ordanc e with the l aws a pplicable to such unit.” Be cause ANI L CA does not define “F eder al land” f or 169 purposes of § 906( o)(2) , we g ive t h at term its ordinary 17064 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

d e finiti o n o f “F e d e ra l l a n d ” in the A la sk a N a tive C la im s S e ttl e m e n t A c t,
s ee 4 3 U .S .C . § 1 6 0 2 , o r th e A la sk a S ta te h o o d A c t, s ee P ub

. L

. 85- 508, 7 2 Stat

. 33 9 (19 5 8 ).

B l ack’ s La w D i ct i o nary 89 3 (8t h ed

. 20 0 4 ). 171

Ch e v r on , 4 6 7 U .S. at 84 2

– 4 3

. T he d i st ri ct co urt , i n upho l d i ng t he 172 Se cr et ar i es ’ de ci s i on t o a ppl y AN I LCA’ s s u bs i s t en ce pr i or i t y t o s el ec t edbu t

- n ot

- y e t

- c on v e y e d l a n ds, r e a s on e d t h a t t h e pr ov i s i on i n ANI LC A § 80 4, 16 U

. S. C

. § 31 14 , t hat t he s ubs i s t enc e pr i ori t y appl i es “ [ e] xce pt as ot her wi s e pr ovi ded i n t hi s A ct and ot her Feder al l aws ” c ur es an y conf l i ct b e tw e e n § § 1 0 2 a n d 9 0 6 , a n d s u p p o rts the S e c re ta rie s’ d e c isio n to a p p ly th e p r io rit y t o selected

- b ut- no t

- yet- co nv eye d l an d s. W e a re n o t so s an g u i n e. Rea d i n t h e con t ex t of § 804, “ [ e] x ce pt a s ot h er wi s e pr ov i ded” i s mos t n at u r al l y r ea d t o lim itt he appl i cati o n of t he r ur al s ubs i s t enc e meaning , i.e. , “[l] and owne d by t h e United St ates g overnme nt.” Th e reco rd in th is c a se sh ow s th at ti tle to

171 selec ted-but-not-yet-c onvey ed lands re mains with the United State s.
Acc ording ly , in administ ering AN I L CA’s rura l subsistence prior ity , the Secr etar ies fac ed inconsist ent obli g ati o n s
. O no n e h an d , s e le c te d

- b u t- n o t- y e t- c o n v e y ed lands are not “public lands” subjec t to the rural subsis t ence priority . On the other hand, these la nds are “F eder al lands,” wh ic h, un de r § 90 6( o) (2 ), “ sh a ll b e a dmi nis te re d in
acc ordanc e with the laws applicable to” the fe dera l
re s e r v at i o n th at th e y ar e w i th i n
. A N I L C A th e r e f

o r e is ambiguous reg ardingwhether selec ted-but-not-yet-c onvey ed land s “ wi thi n th e bo un da ri e s o f a c on se rv atio n sy ste m un it, National Rec reation Area , National Conservation Are a, new national fore st or fore st addit ion” ar e subjec t to rural
su b s istence pr iority

manag ement, and w e must decide wh e the r t

he Se c re tari e s’ de c is ion—t hat th e y are so subject—is a per

missibl e interpr etation of the statute. 17265

J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

p rio rity, i n d ic a ti n g tha t t h e re m a y b e insta n c e s in w h ic h e v e n “p u b lic la n d s” a re no t sub je c t t o su b siste n c e m a n a g e m e n t. The Sec reta

ries ar g ue that they

resolved this inhere nt c on fl ic t in

fa vo r o f § 90 6( o) (2 ) b e caus e to d o o the rw ise
wo uld make a ll l aws exc ept Ti tle VI I I of AN I L CAa

pp lic a ble to the selec ted-bu t -not -y et-c onvey ed lands within the boundarie s of the conse rvation sy stem units. Admit tedly , by resolvingthe conf

lict in this manner , the S ec re t aries are extending ru ral subsi stence priority beyond “public lands.” Bu t t h eir posit ion is reasona ble. To hold that the selec tedbut-not-y et-c onvey ed lands a re subjec t to t h e same laws as the surr ound ingare a s exc ept ru ra l su bs ist e nce pr ior ity
mana g e me nt w ou ld r e qu ir e the Se c re tari e s to carv e out sm a ll g eog raphic sections from the la rg er f ed er al land units and the n a dmi nis te r t

he ru ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity on a ll l and s but these sec tions. S u ch a r eg ime would be unmana g eable and
c on tr ar y t o th e i n t e n to f

§ 9 0 6 ( o ) ( 2 )

. F urth e r

m o r e , b e c a

u se the title to the selecte d-but-not-yet-c onvey ed land re mains with the United S tates, t here is no prac tical reason to exclude thes e land s f

ro m f e de ra l r ur a l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity
mana g e me nt b e fo re the y

are fo rm ally

c onve y e d to the State or a Nativ e c or

po ratio n. F or

the se re asons, the Se c re tari e s’ rec onciliation of conflict ing pr ovisions in favor of § 906(o)( 2) was a permissibl e construction of an ambiguous statute.
CO NC LU SION
In rea chingour dec ision, we rec og nize th at we a nd the Secre taries have bee n working with imperfe ct tools. Kat ie John I wa s a

pr ob le matic so lut ion

to a c omp le x pro ble m, i n that it sanctioned the use of a doctr ine ill-fitted to determining which Alaska

n water s are “public lands” to be manag ed for66 J OHN V

. A LAS KA F I S H & W I LDLI FE C ONS ER VATI ON F UND

ru ra l su bs ist e nc e pr ior ity

un de r A NI L CA . B ut Kat i e John I
re ma ins the law o f t

his c ir c uit , a

nd we , li ke the Se c re tari e s, must apply

it as best we c an.
We conclude that, in the 1999 Rules, the Secre taries have applied Katie John I and the fe de ra l r e se rv ed wate r r ig hts doctrine in a principled manne r. It was re asonable for the Se c re tari e s to de c id e th at: th e “ pu bli c land s” su

bje c t to ANI L CA’s rura l subsist en ce priority include the waters within and adjac ent t o fede ral re servations; and reser ved
wate r ri g hts fo r Ala sk a Nativ e Se ttl e me nt al lotme nts are be st de te rm ine d o n a

c a se -b y -c a se ba sis

. AF F IRM ED

.