Opinion ID: 203581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preemption by the WSRA

Text: FitzGerald's broader preemption argument rests on the policy embodied by the WSRA in 16 U.S.C. § 1271 that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. FitzGerald asserts that the outstandingly remarkable value for the AWW is that it provides a wild condition for a wilderness canoe experience. He contends that the Maine statute threatens the wilderness condition of the AWW by permitting motor vehicle traffic close to the AWW and by installing six permanent bridges over the watercourse. Specifically, this level of accessibility, FitzGerald argues, is contrary to the WSRA's definition of a wild river area, which the statute specifies is one that is generally inaccessible except by trail. Id. § 1273(b)(1). Further, FitzGerald claims that the management plan embodied in Me.Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1882 is contrary to the state's duty under the WSRA to protect and enhance the special characteristics of the AWW that caused it to be included within the system of protected rivers. 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a) (Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values.). He argues that Maine's obligation to protect and enhance the wilderness character of the AWW is perpetual because the WSRA charges the states with permanently administering section 2(a)(ii) rivers as wild and scenic rivers. Id. § 1273(a)(ii). These three arguments, based on FitzGerald's reading of the policy set forth in § 1271, on the management obligations in § 1281(a), and on the permanently language in § 1273(a)(ii), do not establish preemption. FitzGerald reads these phrases in isolation from the specific command in the text that the administration of section 2(a)(ii) rivers is to be by an agency or political subdivision of the State or States concerned. Id. § 1273(a)(ii) (emphasis added). The WSRA does not mandate that states adopt management plans for section 2(a)(ii) rivers which meet any specific standard. Instead, the statute embraces flexibility as to management plans, recognizing that [m]anagement plans for any such component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of the area. Id. § 1281(a). FitzGerald attempts to buttress his reading of the term permanently by pointing to Department of the Interior guidelines, which use the term must: The values which cause the river to be qualified for the National System must be assured of permanent protection and management by or pursuant to State statute.... [T]he State must adopt a program of action which will provide permanent protection for the natural and cultural qualities of the river and adjoining lands. 45 Fed.Reg. 63,148, 63,149 (Sept. 23, 1980). But earlier departmental guidelines permit the reclassification or withdrawal of section 2(a)(ii) rivers. See U.S. Dep'ts of the Interior & Agric., Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Under Section 2, Public Law 90-542 6 (1970). Thus, the rivers are not necessarily a permanent part of the system. Maine is obligated to administer the AWW in such manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in the system of protected rivers. Id. But the statute leaves the determination of how best to administer the AWW to meet those objectives to Maine. There is at most a disagreement between FitzGerald and the state regarding how best to administer the AWW to meet those ends. That sort of disagreement does not give rise to a viable claim of preemption. The cases that FitzGerald cites as supporting his preemption argument all involve claims that federal authorities are violating the WSRA in the management of federally-administered rivers. See, e.g., Wilderness Watch v. U.S. Forest Serv., 143 F.Supp.2d 1186 (D.Mont.2000); Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Singleton, 75 F.Supp.2d 1139 (D.Or.1999). Those cases involve challenges to permits issued by federal agencies allowing certain usages of land along federally-administered rivers and are reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See, e.g., Wilderness Watch, 143 F.Supp.2d at 1203. FitzGerald argues that this caselaw must be applied to state-administered rivers if the WSRA is to have any meaning, otherwise section 2(a)(ii) rivers will receive a lesser level of protection. [4] But that argument would require us to ignore the clear text of the federal statute and its recognition of state authority over state-administered wild rivers. See 16 U.S.C. § 1273(a)(ii). Further, the WSRA defines a limited role for the federal government, a role primarily of cooperation with and assistance to the states in the management of section 2(a)(ii) rivers. See id. § 1281(e) (The States and their political subdivisions shall be encouraged to cooperate [with federal agencies] in the planning and administration of components of the system which include or adjoin State or County-owned lands.); id. § 1283 (The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, ... or other department or agency head shall, where appropriate, enter into written cooperative agreements with the appropriate State or local official for the planning, administration, and management of Federal lands which are within the boundaries of any rivers for which approval has been granted under section 1273(a)(ii) of this title.); cf. id. § 1282(a) (The Secretary of the Interior shall encourage and assist the States to consider... needs and opportunities for establishing State and local wild, scenic and recreational river areas.). The WSRA does address preemption, but in ways distinctly unhelpful to FitzGerald. Specific provisions of the WSRA limit any federal displacement of a state's authority over its section 2(a)(ii) rivers. Even on federally-administered rivers (unless within a national park or monument), state jurisdiction over hunting and fishing laws is unaffected by the WSRA. Id. § 1284(a). With respect to state water rights, the WSRA is neither a claim nor denial on the part of the federal government of state jurisdiction over the waters of any included river. Id. § 1284(d). Moreover, the WSRA expressly disclaims preemption of a state's right to access the beds of component rivers. Id. § 1284(f). And the WSRA specifically prohibits federal condemnation of state-owned lands. Id. § 1277(a)(1). The WSRA's overarching respect for a state's authority over its own designated rivers refutes FitzGerald's claim of conflict preemption.