Opinion ID: 765581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutional and Treaty-Based Challenges To Jurisdiction

Text: 27 While we understand Minnesota's cession of the lands and waters comprising VNP to foreclose any argument concerning Congress' power to unilaterally enact regulations governing commercial activity within the park, we nonetheless address these arguments in the interest of finality. Brown and Armstrong argue that Congress did not have the power under the Commerce and Property Clauses of the Constitution to enact 16 U.S.C. § 1a-2(h), authorizing the NPS to promulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within areas of the [NPS]. 16 U.S.C. § 1a-2(h) (1998). The district court properly ruled that Congress does have such authority and that it provides an additional basis for jurisdiction independent of the jurisdiction Minnesota ceded to the United States. (Memorandum and Order, at 4.) 28 In Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 546 (1976), the Supreme Court held that Congress may make those rules regarding non-federal lands as are necessary to accomplish its goals with respect to federal land. This court followed Kleppe in Brown I, where we stated:The crucial question is whether federal regulations can be deemed needful prescriptions respecting the public lands. This determination is primarily entrusted to the judgment of Congress, and courts exercising judicial review have supported an expansive reading of the Property Clause. In light of these general standards, we view the congressional power over federal lands to include the authority to regulate activities on non-federal public waters in order to protect wildlife and visitors on the lands. 29 552 F.2d at 822. We again followed Kleppe in Minnesota by Alexander v. Block, 660 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981). In Block, the state of Minnesota contended that Congress did not have the power to enact motorboat use restrictions on surface waters within a wilderness area. The district court rejected the state's claims and we affirmed, stating: 30 Under this [Property Clause-based] authority to protect public land, Congress' power must extend to regulation of conduct on or off the public land that would threaten the designated purpose of federal lands. Congress clearly has the power to dedicate federal land for particular purposes. As a necessary incident of that power, Congress must have the ability to insure that these lands be protected against interference with their intended purposes. 31 Id. at 1249. 32 We are unable to distinguish the facts here from those in Kleppe, Brown I, and Block. In each case, Congress invested the Department of the Interior with the power and authority to impose reasonable regulations with respect to conduct occurring within the boundaries of public lands under the department's control. Here, the regulation requiring that commercial tour boat operators obtain a permit before operating commercial tour boats within VNP is well within the authority of the NPS. 33 Not only is the regulation relating to the permitting system consistent with the purpose of VNP, 34 to preserve, for the inspiration and enjoyment of present and future generations, the outstanding scenery, geological conditions, and waterway system which contributed a part of the historic route of the Voyageurs who contributed significantly to the opening of the Northwestern United States, 35 16 U.S.C. § 160 (emphasis added), but also Congress has specifically directed the NPS that, 36 in accordance with the fundamental purpose of conserving their scenery, wildlife, natural and historic objects, and providing for their enjoyment in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, the Congress hereby finds that the preservation of park values requires that... public accommodations, facilities, and services as have to be provided within [park system] areas should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that heavy visitation will not unduly impair these values, 16 U.S.C. § 20. 4 37 Defendants additionally contend that regulation of tour boats in VNP violates the Root-Bryce Treaty of 1909, 36 Stat. 2448, and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, Aug. 9, 1842, 8 Stat. 572. The 1909 treaty provides: 38 The High Contracting Parties agree that the navigation of all navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purpose of commerce to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within its own territory, not inconsistent with such privileges of free navigation and applying equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats of both countries. 36 Stat. at 2449 (emphasis added). 5 39 We disagree with defendants' contention. The treaties make clear that both the United States and Canada may adopt laws and regulations not inconsistent with the privileges of free navigation, so long as the laws and regulations are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. Certainly, requiring a tour boat operator in a national park to obtain a permit is not unreasonable and is not inconsistent with the privileges of free navigation. Moreover, it is clear that the regulations are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. The regulation is equally applicable to American and Canadian citizens who seek to operate a business operation in VNP. 40 We face here with the same argument raised by defendants in Block, 660 F.2d at 1240, respecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. In that case, we concluded that the free and open provision of the treaties did not preclude either signatory to the treaties from enacting reasonable regulations affecting commerce along the waterways, as long as the regulations apply equally to citizens of both countries. Id. at 1258. In reaching this decision, we gave weight to an opinion of the State Department which stated: 41 We believe that the intent of the free and open provision for these waters was to ensure that this important route remained open, on an equal basis, to the nations of both countries. It would not be correct, however, to interpret free and open so broadly as to prohibit either United States or Canadian authorities from imposing any limitation upon the manner in which such waterways and portages may be used. In agreeing to free and open use of these waterways and portages, neither party intended to relinquish its sovereign role of imposing statutory limitations on behavior which would not be in the best interest of the respective country. 42 Id. at 1258 (quoting Letter from Robert J. McCloskey to Hon. James L. Oberstar) (quoted in National Ass'n of Property Owners v. United States, 499 F. Supp. 1223, 1234 (D. Minn. 1980)) (footnote omitted). 43 We find no relevant difference between the BWCA regulation which precluded motorized use, except on designated lakes and rivers, and VNP regulation which prohibits business operations in VNP, except pursuant to a permit or other written agreement with the United States. 6