Buckley

Buckley v. City of Redding

Good Law
66 F.3d 188·95 Daily Journal DAR 12347·1995 WL 545047·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25822·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 13, 1995No. 93-17277California2,874 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hug, J.

In this ease, we must determine whether the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (“the Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 777 -777k, confers a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to access certain waterways for specified recreational purposes. We hold that the Act does confer rights enforceable under section 1988 and, accordingly, reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary.

FACTS

The City of Redding, California, is located on the Sacramento River. In 1990, in response to a citizen petition, the City passed Ordinance No. 1944, prohibiting the operation of personal watercraft in the Sacramento River. See Redding Mun.Code § 10.26.040. The ordinance defines personal watercraft as:

Redding Mun.Code § 10.26.020(B).

In 1990, the State received funds under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act to help construct a boat launch facility on the river at South Bonnyview Road. To receive this funding, the state assented to the regulations and provisions of the Act. 50 C.F.R. § 80.3 . The Act imposes a number of requirements upon fund recipients to further the purposes of the Act. 50 C.F.R. § 80.24 states that at least ten percent of the funds allocated to a state under the Act…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.