## Facts

- Congress enacted the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (1986) to protect scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources in an interstate region spanning Oregon and Washington while supporting the local economy.
- The Act provided interim federal management by the Secretary of Agriculture and long-term management through an interstate compact entity, the Columbia River Gorge Commission, created by Oregon and Washington.
- Congress gave advance consent to the interstate compact and conditioned that consent on compliance with statutory requirements governing the Commission’s structure and functions.
- The Commission was tasked with developing and implementing a comprehensive management plan governing land use within the Scenic Area, affecting private and governmental actors.
- A property-owners’ organization, Columbia River Gorge United–Protecting People and Property, and other plaintiffs alleged that the Act and compact imposed harmful land-use restrictions and violated federal and state constitutional provisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary and the Commission, rejecting all claims; only the organization perfected an appeal.
- On appeal, the organization pursued federal constitutional claims under the Tenth Amendment, Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Compact Clause, and the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Act and compact violate the Tenth Amendment by infringing state sovereignty through federal control over state land-use functions or by directing the structure and operation of the interstate commission.
2. Whether the Act exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and/or Property Clause by regulating land use within the Scenic Area and establishing a federally structured management regime.
3. Whether Congress’s detailed advance consent to, and conditions on, the interstate compact violate the Compact Clause.
4. Whether differential treatment of landowners within the Scenic Area violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The Act and the interstate compact were held constitutional.
- The court rejected each of the appellant’s federal constitutional challenges (Tenth Amendment, Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Compact Clause, and Fifth Amendment equal protection).

## Legal Principles

- Federalism limits are not violated where states voluntarily enter an interstate compact and Congress consents to it on specified terms, rather than compelling state officers to administer a federal program.
- Congress may regulate land-use-related activity under the Commerce Clause when the regulated conduct substantially affects interstate commerce, including activity tied to an interstate transportation and economic corridor.
- Under the Property Clause, Congress may protect federal lands and may regulate conduct on nonfederal lands when necessary to safeguard federal property or further federal land-management objectives.
- Congress may condition its consent to an interstate compact on detailed operational requirements; such conditions are compatible with the Compact Clause when states accept the arrangement.
- Land-use classifications created by a regional preservation and planning regime are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny absent a suspect class or fundamental right and are valid if reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a congressionally approved Oregon–Washington interstate compact and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, concluding that the cooperative federal–state structure did not violate the Tenth Amendment, fell within Congress’s Commerce and Property Clause powers, satisfied the Compact Clause, and rationally treated landowners for equal-protection purposes.


Columbia River Gorge United-Protecting People & Property v. Yeutter, 960 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1992)