ELR Citation: ELR 20947
No(s). 90-35588 (9th Cir. Mar 30, 1992)

The court holds that the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, enacted in 1986 to establish land use development standards to protect the economy and enhance the natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington, is constitutional. The Act details the manner in which the Columbia Gorge Commission, an agency established by compact between Oregon and Washington, is to function in creating a management plan for development in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Act conditions Congress' consent to the compact upon compliance with those details. The court first holds that the Act does not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The court next holds that the Act is not violative of the Property Clause or the Tenth Amendment, because it is within the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and so cannot constitute an exercise of a power reserved to states. The court then holds that the compact between Oregon and Washington is valid under the Compact Clause of the Constitution because it requires congressional consent, which was given in advance and appropriately conditioned. Finally, the court holds that the Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Although residents outside the Gorge area may vote for their land use planners, while those inside the Gorge area may not, the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when a geographic area is singled out for differential treatment.

[A previous decision in this case is published at 20 ELR 21162.]

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
Tod True
Sierra Legal Defense Fund
203 Hoge Bldg., 705 2nd Ave., Seattle WA 98104
(206) 343-7340

Gary Kahn
Reeves, Kahn & Eder
610 SW Alder, #910, Portland OR 97205
(503) 227-5144

Before Goodwin and Noonan, JJ.