Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/503/569/
Timestamp: 2019-08-24 22:37:35
Document Index: 430598186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 13', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 403', '§ 13', '§ 10', '§ 13', '§ 10', '§209', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1312', '§ 10', '§ 1313', '§ 1314', '§ 1331', '§ 1332', '§ 10', '§320', '§209', '§ 10', 'art. 8', '§ 706', '§ 320', '§ 10']

United States v. Alaska :: 503 U.S. 569 (1992) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 503 › United States v. Alaska
United States v. Alaska, 503 U.S. 569 (1992)
(a) This Court's review of the Corps' construction of a statute that it administers involves an examination of § 1O's language, this Court's decisions interpreting § 10, and the Corps' longstanding construction in fulfilling Congress' mandate. On its face, § 10-which prohibits the building of any structure in navigable waters of the United States "except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army"-appears to give the Secretary unlimited discretion to grant or deny a permit for construction of a structure such as the one at issue. While both the RHA's legislative history and § 10's statutory antecedents offer little insight into Congress' intent, the idea of delegating authority to the Secretary was well established in the immediate precursors to the RHA. This Court's decisions also support the view that § 10 should be construed broadly, see, e. g., United States ex rel. Greathouse v. Dern, 289 U. S. 352, to authorize consideration of factors other than navigation during the permit review process, cf.
(c) There is also no merit to Alaska's argument that, even if the regulations are valid, they do not authorize the Corps to force a coastal State to abdicate rights to submerged lands as a condition to a permit's issuance. It is untenable to say that the United States' legitimate property interests fall outside the relevant criteria for a decision that requires the Secretary to determine whether a permit's issuance would affect the "public interest." And it would make little sense, and be inconsistent with Congress' intent, to hold that the Corps legitimately may prohibit construction of a port facility, and yet to deny it the authority to seek the less drastic alternative of conditioning the permit's issuance on the State's disclaimer of rights to accreted submerged lands.
* A brief of amici curiae was filed for the State of Alabama et al. by David C. Slade, James H. Evans, Attorney General of Alabama, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Thomas F. Gede, and Special Assistant Attorney General, Charles M. Oberly III, Attorney General of Delaware, Robert Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia, Warren Price III, Attorney General of Hawaii, William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Michael C. Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Dan Morales, Attorney General of Texas, C. C. Harness III, Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General of Virginia, and Kenneth Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington.
1 This recitation of the facts is drawn from the Joint Stipulation of Facts filed with the Court on September 6, 1991.
"1. Subject to paragraph 4 below, the State of Alaska agrees that the coast line and the boundaries of the State of Alaska are not to be deemed to be in any way affected by the construction, maintenance, or operations of the Nome port facility. This document should be construed as a bind-
3 The Department of the Army permit was later modified to reflect changes in the project. See id., at 5. These changes are not relevant to the legal issues presented in this case.
4 Although the bidding period closed without receipt of any bids, both sides agree that a live controversy exists in light of their continuing disagreement as to the location of the federal-state boundary and the prospect of future lease sales in the area. We agree that the controversy is not moot, since it involves a continuing controversy about territorial sovereignty over these submerged lands. United States v. Alaska, 422 U. S. 184, 186 (1975).
The statutory antecedents of this provision similarly offer little insight into Congress' intent. The precursors to § 10 of
The substance of the RHA has been unchanged since its enactment, and the Court has had only a few occasions to decide whether to construe it broadly or narrowly. In one
Nor has such a broad interpretation of the RHA been exceptional. In United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 362 U. S. 482, 491 (1960), the Court observed: "We read the 1899 Act charitably in light of the purpose to be served. The philosophy of the statement of Mr. Justice Holmes in New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 342 [1931], that 'A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure,' forbids a narrow, cramped reading of either § 13 or of § 10." And as we stated in a later case: "Despite some difficulties with the wording of the Act, we have consistently found its coverage to be broad. And we have found that a principal beneficiary of the Act, if not the principal beneficiary, is the Government
Without specifying the factors to be considered, § 10 provides that "it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building" of any structure in navigable waters of the United States "except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army." 33 U. S. C. § 403 (emphasis added). In light of our holding in Pennsylvania Chemical Corp. that the Secretary's discretion under § 13 was not limited to considering the effect of a refuse deposit on navigation, it logically follows that the Secretary's authority is not confined solely to considerations
5 Alaska reads Pennsylvania Chemical Corp. differently, suggesting that the case does not relate to the scope of the Corps' permitting authority under RHA § 10, but instead is confined to the issue of how broadly the agency's prosecutorial discretion should be defined. We disagree. Our analysis of the RHA in that case was not at all contingent on the underlying issue relating to a prosecution rather than a permitting decision. We placed great weight on the reading by the federal courts, which "almost universally agreed, as did the courts below, that § 13 is to be read in accordance with its plain language as imposing a flat ban on the unauthorized deposit of foreign substances into navigable waters, regardless of the effect on navigation." 411 U. S., at 671. Alaska also cites Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U. S. 367, 418 (1929), for the proposition that § 10 only authorizes considerations of navigability in permit issuance decisions. We do not read the case in the same way. In our view, Wisconsin v. Illinois is more properly read to limit the Secretary's authority to issue a permit for nonnavigability reasons when an effect of the project would be to obstruct navigation. Id., at 417.
6 The prior version of this regulation stated that "[t]he decision as to whether a permit will be issued must rest primarily upon the effect of the proposed work on navigation." 33 CFR §209.330(a) (1967).
7 Alaska acknowledges, for example, that the Secretary can take into account the polluting consequences of a project, see Brief for Alaska 17, though the language of § 10 includes no mention of such effects. And a brief filed by numerous States and the Coastal States Organization as amici curiae appears to go even further by suggesting that "the Army Corps may deny a permit for the construction of a harbor facility if it is determined that the construction or facility would result in an obstruction to navigation, endanger human health or welfare, the marine environment, or the economic potential." Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae 17 (emphasis added). Plainly these factors are not mentioned in RHA § 10. As our analysis will make clear, the United States is fundamentally correct that there is no legal basis for authorizing the Secretary to consider these factors but not the effects of a project on the federalstate boundary.
Alaska's first argument proceeds from the premise that the SLA trumps the RHA for purposes of determining whether the Secretary may condition issuance of a permit on the State's disclaimer of sovereignty over the accreted submerged lands. The SLA establishes that a coastal State's boundary extends seaward "to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line." 43 U. S. C. § 1312. The seaward boundary of state-owned lands is measured from a base line that is subject to change from natural and artificial alterations. See United States v. California, 381 U. S. 139, 176-177 (1965); United States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary Case), 394 U. S. 11, 40, n. 48 (1969). In applying these rules, Alaska asserts that because the SLA extends a State's boundary seaward three miles from its coastline and
We find the United States' argument to be the more persuasive one. Contrary to Alaska's position, the agency here is not usurping authority. The Secretary is making no effort to alter the existing rights of a State to sovereignty over submerged lands within three miles of the coastline. The SLA makes this guarantee and nothing in the Corps' practice, as exercised in this case, alters this right. What the Corps is doing, and what we find a reasonable exercise of agency authority, is to determine whether an artificial addition to the coastline will increase the State's control over submerged lands to the detriment of the United States' legitimate interests. If the Secretary so finds, nothing in the SLA prohibits this fact from consideration as part of the "public interest" review process under RHA § 10. Were we
8 Indeed, the SLA also excepts from its operation "any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right." 43 U. S. C. § 1313(a). Furthermore, as to the lands granted to the States, the SLA provides that "[t]he United States retains all its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs." § 1314(a).
9 Alaska's argument is also weakened by the existence of the OCSLA, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq., which provides that the United States has "jurisdiction, control, and power of disposition" over the Outer Continental Shelf, submerged lands identified by Congress as a "vital national resource reserve" of great value. §§ 1332(1) and (3). The "public interest" review undertaken by the Secretary in determining whether to issue a § 10 permit explicitly considers "the effects of the proposed work on the outer continental rights of the United States." 33 CFR §320.4(f) (1991). Such a consideration in some form has been part of the equation of factors subject to the Secretary's review process since 1969. See 33 CFR §209.120(d)(4) (1969). It is perfectly consistent with the OCSLA for the Secretary to consider a project's effects on United States' rights to submerged lands in deciding whether to issue a § 10 permit.
10 Under international law, artificial alterations to the coastline will extend a country's boundaries for purposes of determining the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, 15 U. S. T. 1607, T. I. A. S. No. 5639, art. 8; Brief for United States 25, n. 6 (stating that "[t]he United States has not ratified [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea], but has recognized that its baseline provisions reflect customary internationallaw").
12 Alaska also suggests that the regulations at issue in this case conflict with our decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), which held that a coastal commission could not condition the granting of a construction permit on the conferring of a public access easement across a landowner's beach. Alaska quotes language in Nollan to the effect that "unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an 'out-and-out plan of extortion.'" Id., at 837. This rule, however, has no applicability in a situation such as this one, in which we evaluate the statutory authority underlying an agency's action. Id., at 836. Even were the Nollan situation analogous to that presented here,
we note that Alaska would gain no benefit because the purpose behind imposing a condition for issuance of the permit-to protect federal rights to submerged lands-is the same as that for denying the permit.
13 The State also contests the legality of the Secretary's actions in this case under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706, especially the regulations at 33 CFR § 320.4(f) (1991) that authorize the Secretary to take into account changes in the base line in making § 10 permit issuance decisions. Contrary to Alaska's contention, these regulations were adopted through notice and comment proceedings, see 39 Fed. Reg. 12115 (1974); 38 Fed. Reg. 12217 (1973), as were subsequent amendments, see 51 Fed. Reg. 41220 (1986); 42 Fed. Reg. 37122 (1977).
"In consideration of the issuance, by the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, of a permit for construction of an extension to the ARCO dock at Prudhoe Bay for purposes of the waterflood project designed to result in substantial secondary recovery from the existing Prudhoe Bay oil and gas field, pursuant to the application filed by ARCO and SORIO, the State of Alaska agrees that the shoreline, coast line, and boundaries of the State of Alaska are not to be deemed to be in any way affected by the construction, maintenance, or operation of such extension. This Agreement should be construed as a binding disclaimer by the State of Alaska to the effect that the State does not, and will not, treat the ARCO dock waterflood extension as extending its coast line for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act." Joint Lodging of Permits and Disclaimers 5(a)2.
Opinion Announcement - April 21, 1992
503 U.S. 569