Land ahoy! Fishermen challenge presidential designations of ocean monuments
Originally published by the Washington Examiner June 30, 2018.
This month, the Antiquities Act turned 112 years old. Originally conceived to protect Native American artifacts in the Southwest, the law has, like so many federal laws, been twisted over time by power-hungry government officials.
Controversy over the law’s abuse is coming to a head in New England, where fishermen are locked out of a large section of their fishery by the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. After spending years working to recover fish stocks and promote more sustainable fishing methods, they rightly see this move as a betrayal that threatens their livelihoods.
Why is a 112-year-old law so controversial today? The answer lies in the aggressive reinterpretation of the law by presidents seeking to expand their power.
What explains this explosion? It’s the interpretation of a single word: “land.” Congress limited the president’s monument power to “land owned or controlled by the Federal Government.” Most of us would have no trouble figuring out what “land” means: If you look at a map, it’s the part that isn’t blue.
At first, presidents respected this limit by designating monuments on federal land and other lands the federal government controls. But in 2006, President George W. Bush began claiming that the ocean is “land” and, therefore, it too was within his power. He did so in a transparent attempt to circumvent the limits Congress imposed under another law that, unlike the Antiquities Act, is directed to the protection of ocean ecosystems.
The presidents’ assertion of this power is a direct attack on the Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress, not the president, has the sole constitutional authority to write the law. It has directly provided for the protection of important ocean ecosystems under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
This law sets up a science-based approach to designating marine sanctuaries according to clear factors set by Congress. It also requires an open, public process to ensure accountability. The Antiquities Act, in contrast, provides no public process and no standard to apply.
Tellingly, several marine sanctuaries were established under this law, prior to 2006. But that stopped when presidents began proclaiming that the ocean is land. Since 2006, no further marine sanctuaries have been designated.
In other words, presidents have abused the Antiquities Act in an attempt to circumvent the limits and the principles of public transparency Congress imposed under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. That is a significant attack on the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Some may dismiss these constitutional concerns on the assumption that ocean monuments are good for the environment. But it’s not so clear cut. By breeding conflict and resentment, huge monument designations may undermine other successful programs to promote healthy fisheries. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 91 percent of all fish stocks in U.S.-regulated waters are no longer overfished and many have rebounded, thanks to a collaborative and public fishery regulations process.
When the New England ocean monument was proposed, the eight regional fishery management councils — the authorities responsible for the recent fishery recoveries — warned “marine monument designations can be counterproductive as they may shift fishing effort to less sustainable practices.” The logic is simple: Restricting certain areas puts more fishing pressure on other areas, depleting fish populations there.
Jonathan Wood is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation and represents commercial fishing groups in their challenge to the Northeast Canyons and Seamount Marine National Monument.
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›