Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/660/735/42120/
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 09:14:50
Document Index: 271907345

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 551', '§ 1281', '§ 1274', '§ 460', '§ 551', '§ 1281']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Hells Canyon Guide Service, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Andforest O. Garrigus, Jr., Individually, Appellants, 660 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Hells Canyon Guide Service, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Andf...
United States of America, Appellee, v. Hells Canyon Guide Service, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Andforest O. Garrigus, Jr., Individually, Appellants, 660 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 660 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1981)
Argued and Submitted Sept. 8, 1981. Decided Nov. 2, 1981
16 U.S.C. § 551 gives the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the use and occupancy of the national forests. This authority is assimilated into 16 U.S.C. § 1281(d), giving the Secretary the authority to regulate the use and occupancy of components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The portion of the Snake River involved in this dispute is a component of this System. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(a) (12). Section 1281(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System Act illustrates the recurring motivation of Congress by giving the Secretary a clear instruction regarding the administration of his regulatory power:
We are convinced that in enacting 16 U.S.C. § 460gg-7, Congress did not intend to strip the Secretary of his other regulatory powers. When statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of courts, absent a clearly expressed Congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 155, 96 S. Ct. 1989, 1993, 48 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1976); SDC Development Corp. v. Mathews, 542 F.2d 1116, 1120 (CA9 1976). The authority granted the Secretary under the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act was intended by Congress to be cumulative, not independent and exclusive. We, therefore, find that the authority conferred upon the Secretary by 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 16 U.S.C. § 1281(d) is more than sufficient to validate the use of a permit system by the Forest Service to regulate the activities that form the basis of this controversy. Appellants were clearly in violation of this permit system, and thus, the granting of a permanent injunction against appellants' commercial boating operations was proper.
Appellants also complain about the administration of the permit system by the Forest Service. The interpretation of an administrative regulation by the agency or officers charged with its administration is to be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864, 872, 97 S. Ct. 2150, 2155, 53 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1977); Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S. Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L. Ed. 1700 (1945); Ventura-Escamilla v. I.N.S., 647 F.2d 28, 32 (CA9 1981). We find that the administration of the permit system by the Forest Service is neither.