National Park and Conservation Ass'n v. Stanton
48 ERC (BNA) 1882, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9090, 54 F. Supp. 2d 7 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal agency cannot delegate its congressionally mandated management responsibilities to a non-federal entity, particularly one dominated by local private interests, unless the agency retains final reviewing authority over the entity's actions and decisions.
Facts:
- In 1991, Congress designated portions of the Niobrara River in Nebraska as a component of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers system.
- The Niobrara Scenic River Designation Act of 1991 tasked the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service (NPS), with administering the designated river segments.
- Recognizing that much of the land was privately owned, Congress encouraged local involvement and created an advisory commission to help the NPS develop a management plan.
- The NPS developed a General Management Plan and chose an alternative that established a 15-member local Niobrara Council to manage the river.
- The NPS had only one voting member on the Council, with decisions made by a simple majority, and the Council was encouraged to seek outside funding to avoid having its decisions 'dictated' by the NPS.
- The Council was given responsibility for key management duties, including monitoring resources, providing law enforcement and emergency services, and managing public access and visitor use levels.
- The NPS's only explicit power over the Council was the ability to terminate the entire cooperative agreement if the Council failed to manage the river consistent with the general plan.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Parks and Conservation Association and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Director of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior.
- Plaintiffs challenged the defendants' management plan for the Niobrara National Scenic River, alleging it was an unlawful delegation of authority.
- Plaintiffs also challenged the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement created for the plan under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Park Service's plan to delegate its statutory management responsibilities for the Niobrara River to a local council, over which the NPS lacks final reviewing authority, constitute an unlawful delegation of its duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Kessler, District Judge.
Yes. The National Park Service's plan constitutes an unlawful delegation of its duties because a federal agency cannot completely abdicate its statutory responsibilities to a local entity without retaining sufficient final reviewing authority. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act unambiguously charges the Secretary of the Interior with the duty to 'administer' the Niobrara, meaning to manage and superintend its execution. While cooperative agreements with local entities are permitted, they cannot be used to completely shift this core federal responsibility. Here, the NPS has only one of 15 votes on the Niobrara Council, cannot veto Council decisions, cannot control its funding, and has no final authority over its actions or inaction. The only power retained by the NPS is the 'draconian weapon' of terminating the entire agreement, which is not a substitute for ongoing final reviewing authority. This structure effectively cedes control to a body dominated by local commercial and land-owning interests that may not share the national perspective NPS is mandated to uphold, violating the unlawful delegation doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that federal agencies cannot contract out their core statutory duties, especially to entities with potential conflicts of interest. It establishes that for a delegation of authority to be lawful, the federal agency must retain substantive, ongoing oversight and the final say over the delegatee's actions, rather than just a remote power to terminate the relationship. The ruling sets a significant precedent for how federal land management agencies can structure partnerships with state and local governments, ensuring that federal accountability is not lost. Future cooperative agreements will likely be scrutinized to ensure they maintain this required level of federal control and final reviewing authority.
