An Act relating to management of fish and game in and on the navigable waters and submerged lands in Alaska.

This bill affirms that the State of Alaska has not assented to federal control of fish and game in and on the navigable waters and submerged lands of Alaska. The actions of former Governor Knowles by not appealing the John v U.S. case to the United States Supreme Court prompted introduction of this legislation.

In 1953 the U.S. Congress passed the Submerged Lands Act, which affirmed constitutional doctrine giving state sovereignty over all navigable waters within their borders. This sovereign power was devolved to the State of Alaska on equal footing in the Statehood Act and Compact. In an Anchorage Daily News article dated March 3, 2000, former Governor Knowles said, "No governor of any state would - or should - ever voluntarily relinquish authority back to the federal government." He went on to say, "As Alaska's governor, I believe it is my clear responsibility, even in the face of a difficult political battle, to vigorously defend this important aspect of state sovereignty." Unfortunately he made a political decision and relinquished our sovereign authority to the federal government.

Additionally, former Governor Knowles said, "The Alaska State Supreme Court has ruled exactly the opposite of federal court and unanimously said the State of Alaska controls all navigable waters." Again, former Governor Knowles also chose to ignore the Alaska Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not simply "commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." New York v United States, 505 US 144, 120 L Ed 2d 120, 112 S Ct 2408 (1992).

In the Alaska Digest Email News of September 3-9, 2001, former Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski supported appealing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Murkowski said, "I don't believe such an appeal would endanger justified subsistence protections, but it would protect the rights Alaskans thought they had secured at Statehood. An appeal would actually help to end the discord over subsistence by providing finality to the legal arguments. That would help all Alaskans come together and settle this in Alaska, where it should be settled."

SB 39 codifies the Alaska Supreme Court's position with language asserting that the State may not expend funds to adopt or enforce the implementation of federal regulatory programs for control of fish and game in or on the navigable waters or submerged lands in the state. It does not, however, prevent authorities from conducting emergency, life saving, or other appropriate activities.

Last Updated: 02/14/2003

# # #