Does the U.S. Secretary of the Interior have jurisdiction to regulate commercial activity on waterways within Voyageurs National Park? U.S. v. Armstrong, 1999 WL 560644 (8th Cir. 1999) Appellants, tour boat operators on Rainy Lake, were convicted in federal court of violating a National Park Service regulation prohibiting business operations within Voyageurs National Park (VNP) without an NPS permit. Appellants contended that NPS regulatory authority extended only to the land and not to the waters of VNP. The Court of Appeals rejected the appellants' arguments, citing United States v. Brown as precedent. 552 F.2d 817, 819 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 (1977). In Brown, the court ruled that the United States has jurisdiction to enforce regulations controlling activities on waters within the boundaries of VNP, because the state had impliedly ceded regulatory authority over those waters in 1971 when VNP was created. Legislation passed by the Minnesota legislature in 1995 stated that jurisdiction over the waters of VNP had not been ceded to the federal government. See Minn. Stat. ¤ 84B.061. However, concluded the court, once ceded by the State, jurisdiction could not be unilaterally reasserted. Under authority of Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court also rejected appellants' argument that the Commerce and Property Clauses of the Constitution did not support the federal statute authorizing the NPS to promulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on waters within VNP. Finally, appellants argued that the regulation of tour boats in VNP violated two treaties with Canada: the Root-Bryce Treaty of 1909, 36 Stat. 2448, and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, 8 Stat. 572. These treaties provide that both countries will leave the navigation of the boundary waters free and open for the purposes of commerce, subject to any non-discriminatory laws and regulations of either country. The court found that the regulation requiring a permit was applied equally to members of each country, and therefore was non-discriminatory.
|
||
 |
||