No Roads Lead to Stehekin
Lake Chelan is a narrow, 55-mile-long lake in Chelan County, Wash. It is nestled in the northern Cascade mountains amid beautiful scenery and idyllic surroundings. The unincorporated community of Stehekin, home to about 75 year-round residents, is located on the northern end of the lake within the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. For more than 100 years, it has been a popular summer resort for Washington residents and visitors from outside the state. The state’s official tourism website describes Stehekin as a “wilderness hideaway”—a “favorite among locals and tourists” that boasts “plentiful trails, camps and special places waiting to be discovered.”1
But contrary to the claim made by many tourist destinations, not all roads lead to Stehekin. In fact, no roads lead to Stehekin. If you want to get there, you must make the trek by plane or by a ferry that departs from Chelan, on the lake’s south end. And to enjoy the horseback trips, bicycle rentals, guided raft and kayaking adventures and local attractions, such as Rainbow Falls, that the area has to offer, you must tack on at least one extra day to your trip. That is because the state of Washington has given one company the exclusive right to provide ferry service on Lake Chelan, placing tourists, as well as Stehekin residents and business owners, at the mercy of an inefficient and unresponsive government-enforced monopoly.
Much of the year, the existing ferry company operates only one boat, which makes only one trip per day in each direction, three days per week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday. During peak months—June through September—it operates two boats daily, but each still makes only one trip per day in each direction and, absurdly, both boats depart Chelan at the same time, headed in the same direction. The impractical schedule means vacationers, especially those arriving from Seattle or Spokane, often must arrive a day early and stay overnight in Chelan in order to catch one of the two early morning ferries for Stehekin. And because both boats travel in the same direction on Lake Chelan, three hours is the most a visitor can spend in Stehekin without staying overnight.2 In other words, a daytrip from Chelan is little more than a really long boat ride. Not only is this nonsensical schedule strangling economic opportunity for Stehekin businesses, it is discouraging tourists from discovering this “wilderness hideaway.”
The inflexible ferry schedule is just one of the challenges facing residents and tourists who are forced to use the monopolist ferry operator to reach Stehekin. But without any competition, the existing operator has no incentive to improve its customers’ experiences. The message to riders is clear: Go with the flow and don’t rock the boat.
The Courtney Brothers’ Plan for a Stehekin-Based Ferry
Jim and Cliff Courtney are brothers who have long suffered the Lake Chelan ferry monopoly. They are fourth-generation residents of Stehekin, which their great-grandparents helped settle. They and their siblings have several businesses in and around the community, including a pastry shop, the Stehekin Valley Ranch (a rustic ranch with cabins and a lodge house), and Stehekin Outfitters, a recreation company that offers white water river outings and horseback riding.
For years, Jim and Cliff listened as their customers complained about the inconvenience and less-than-satisfactory service of Lake Chelan’s lone ferry operator. They began exploring the possibility of offering Stehekin’s visitors and residents another choice: a Stehekin-based ferry that runs at more convenient times and that has all the modern amenities of a first-class vessel. Jim and Cliff’s boat would be insured, inspected and certified, and their captain would be licensed with extensive safety training. The boat would not only benefit Courtney family businesses and patrons—it would provide a boon to other Stehekin-based businesses and the wider community.
There is only one problem, however: An invidious provision in Washington law called the “public convenience and necessity” requirement has repeatedly thwarted attempts to provide this alternative to the Lake Chelan ferry monopoly.
The “Public Convenience and Necessity” Requirement: Neither Convenient Nor Necessary
Regulation of ferry service on Lake Chelan began in 1911, when the Washington legislature enacted a law addressing ferry safety issues and requiring that fares be reasonable.3 Initially, the law did not impose significant barriers to entry, and by the early 1920s, there were at least four competing ferry companies operating on Lake Chelan.4
In 1927, however, the legislature effectively eliminated competition when it passed a law prohibiting anyone from operating a ferry without first obtaining a government-issued certificate declaring that the “public convenience and necessity” required the ferry.5 In October of that year, the state issued the first—and, to this day, only—certificate for ferry service on Lake Chelan. At least four would-be competitors have applied for a certificate since then—in 1953, 1972, 1976 and 1997—but in each instance the existing ferry company protested the application and the government denied a certificate.
Applying for a certificate is not simply a matter of filling out a few forms. Even before asking the government to consider the possibility of allowing it to go into business, a prospective ferry provider has to assemble substantial assets and be able to guarantee at least 12 months of ferry service.6
Then, after spending months or even years on business development without knowing whether the government will actually let its business proceed, the would-be ferry provider has to disclose its private business plans to the government and to any existing ferry providers. This includes revealing financial data, ridership forecasts, revenue projections and proposed ticket prices.7
After the application materials are submitted, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) provides notice of the application, and of the time and place of a hearing on the application, to the would-be ferry provider’s competition—namely, “all persons presently certificated to provide service” and “any common carrier which might be adversely affected.”8 These existing ferry providers then have 30 days to file a “protest” with the WUTC.9
The WUTC then holds an “adjudicative proceeding” on the application, and any protesting ferry provider may participate as a party. The adjudicative proceeding is like a mini lawsuit, with motions, depositions, briefs, arguments and a hearing, among other things.10 If the territory in which the applicant would like to provide ferry service is already served by a ferry, then the applicant must prove that the existing certificate holder “has not objected to the issuance of the certificate,” has failed or refused to furnish “reasonable and adequate service” (a term that is not even defined), or “has failed to provide the service described in its certificate.”11 The applicant effectively needs a team of attorneys to endure the proceeding, and, even then, a certificate is almost sure to be denied.
In effect, the public convenience and necessity requirement allows existing businesses and government bureaucrats—rather than consumers and entrepreneurs—to decide when a new business is warranted. This turns the principles of free enterprise on their head. It is no surprise that only one certificate has ever been issued for Lake Chelan.
Public Convenience and Necessity Hurts Entrepreneurs and Consumers
For nearly 15 years, Jim and Cliff Courtney have pursued their dream of running an alternative ferry service on Lake Chelan. Time and again, however, the public convenience and necessity requirement has sunk their efforts. Rather than exerting its authority to protect the rights of individuals, like the Courtney brothers, the government instead used its power to protect a politically influential private business from competition, ruling that if the Courtneys in any way competed with the existing business, they would not be permitted to operate—hardly an appropriate use of government power.
In 1997, Jim applied for a certificate to provide a Stehekin-based ferry service between points on Lake Chelan. Not surprisingly, the monopoly holder, Lake Chelan Boat Company, protested Jim’s application. In August 1998, after a hearing that saw 18 witnesses testify, the WUTC denied a certificate, finding a lack of evidence that Lake Chelan Boat Company failed to provide “reasonable and adequate service.” Revealing the protectionist nature of the public convenience and necessity requirement, the WUTC found it particularly problematic that Jim’s proposed service would “tak[e] business from Lake Chelan Boat Company.”12
Several years later, in November 2006, Jim sought to provide another boat service on the lake: a Stehekin-based, year-round, on-call boat, which Jim believed fell within a “charter service” exemption to the public convenience and necessity requirement.13 Because many of the docks on the lake are federally owned, he applied to the U.S. Forest Service for a special-use permit to use the docks in conjunction with the business. Before it could issue the permit, the Forest Service had to confirm with the WUTC that Jim’s proposed service was, in fact, exempt from the certificate requirement.14 At first, WUTC staff opined that Jim did not need a certificate.15 But soon thereafter, Lake Chelan Boat Company contacted the WUTC and Forest Service to express concern about Jim’s plan.16 WUTC staff abruptly “changed its opinion” and informed Jim that he would need a certificate of public convenience and necessity.17 After some further equivocating by the WUTC staff, the Forest Service’s district ranger wrote to the WUTC’s executive director requesting his opinion as to whether Jim needed a certificate. The executive director, however, never provided the opinion, and Jim was therefore unable to obtain a special use permit from the Forest Service.
In September 2008, while Jim was trying unsuccessfully to launch the on-call boat service, Cliff contacted the WUTC’s executive director by letter to describe certain types of boat services that he might offer and determine whether such services would require a certificate. First, Cliff described a scenario in which he would charter a boat for patrons of Courtney family businesses—for example, guests who want to stay at Stehekin Valley Ranch and go river rafting with Stehekin Outfitters—and offer a package with transportation on the chartered boat as one of the guests’ options. The second scenario Cliff proposed was one in which he would buy the boat and carry his own patrons.18
In a November 2008 response, the WUTC’s executive director opined that even these services would require a certificate. He added that “the Commission would provide you a certificate to operate a commercial ferry service on Lake Chelan (assuming you provide appropriate financial and other information) only if it determined that Lake Chelan Boat Company was not providing reasonable or adequate service, or if Lake Chelan Boat Company did not object to you operating a competing service.”19 Cliff sent a follow-up letter seeking further guidance and clarification. In February 2009, however, the executive director reiterated his earlier conclusion that the services Cliff described would require a certificate.20
Frustrated that he and Jim had been repeatedly thwarted by the anti-competitive ferry regulations, Cliff sent a letter in February 2009 to the governor and state legislators describing the need for competition on Lake Chelan, explaining the problems created by the public convenience and necessity requirement, and urging them to eliminate or relax the requirement. That spring, the Legislature directed the WUTC to conduct a study and report on the regulatory scheme governing ferry service on Lake Chelan.21
Not surprisingly, the WUTC’s January 2010 report recommended that there be no “changes to the state laws dealing with commercial ferry regulation as it pertains to Lake Chelan.”22 The report suggested that there might be ways under the existing regulatory framework that the WUTC could “allow some limited competition” on the lake—for example, by “conclud[ing] that a boat service offered on Lake Chelan . . . in conjunction with lodging at a particular hotel or resort, and which is not otherwise open to the public, does not require a certificate”—but it added that any such interpretation would have to be “supported by expert testimony in an adjudicative hearing” and would have to be shown not to “significantly threaten the regulated carrier’s ridership, revenue and ability to provide reliable and affordable service.”23 The report concluded that it is “unlikely” that such an interpretation “could be relied upon to authorize competing services on Lake Chelan.”
The WUTC’s self-serving report amounted to little more than a fox’s report on how to guard a hen house.
Realizing that the state is more concerned with protecting established interests than fostering economic freedom and opportunity, Jim and Cliff have now decided to pull anchor and navigate the federal courts to protect their right—and the right of every American—to pursue an honest calling free from protectionist interference by the government. They have teamed with the Institute for Justice to challenge Washington’s “public convenience and necessity” requirement under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Restoring Economic Liberty through Judicial Engagement
Jim and Cliff’s fight is not simply about operating a boat on Lake Chelan. It is about restoring what has always been an essential part of the American Dream: economic liberty.
Although there is little doubt that the Constitution protects economic liberty, rights have no meaning unless the courts are willing to enforce them. Unfortunately, for generations, the courts have refused to enforce the constitutional right to earn an honest living, and the rise of government-created and government-protected monopolies and cartels in hundreds of fields across the country is a direct result of this widespread failure.
The demise of economic liberty began almost as soon as it achieved its most important recognition. After the Civil War, emancipated slaves counted economic liberty as among the most significant of their new civil rights. To protect entrenched white businessmen from competition, however, Southern governments soon suppressed economic opportunities for their newest citizens by heavily regulating entry into trades and business. The national government tried to curtail these abuses through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sought to protect the economic liberty of all Americans by forbidding states from abridging the “privileges or immunities” of citizenship (better-known today as “rights”), including the right to earn an honest living in the lawful occupation of one’s choice.
But in the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases,24 a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court substantially narrowed the scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause by a mere 5-4 vote. In upholding a Louisiana law that created a private monopoly on the slaughtering of livestock in New Orleans, the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to protect only a handful of rights of national citizenship, which did not include the right to earn a living in a marketplace free of state-chartered monopolies.25
That decision gave states carte blanche to enact shameful Jim Crow-era laws that restricted economic opportunities for black Americans. In addition to oppressing their black citizens, the states also used their now-unchecked regulatory power to protect all sorts of entrenched interests.
Today, nearly every commentator agrees that the Slaughter-House Cases were wrongly decided.26 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision remains the law of the land, and courts ever since have refused to apply the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect economic liberty. Instead, emboldened by Slaughter-House and equally troublesome precedent from the New Deal era, states have enjoyed free rein to erect arbitrary barriers to entry in countless trades and professions, including the so-called “public convenience and necessity” regulations that are preventing Jim and Cliff Courtney from competing with the ferry monopoly on Lake Chelan.
Although the Slaughter-House Cases were incorrectly decided, the Supreme Court did get one thing right in that ruling. Among the handful of rights the Court deemed to be protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause is the “right to use the navigable waters of the United States.”27 By restricting the right to use Lake Chelan, which the federal government has designated a navigable water of the United States,28 Washington’s public convenience and necessity requirement is effecting precisely the type of unconstitutional infringement that even the Slaughter-House Cases prohibit.
Jim and Cliff’s challenge to the ferry monopoly will thus put the Slaughter-House Cases squarely in play. And by illustrating how access to Lake Chelan is inextricably linked to the success of the Courtney family’s and other Stehekin-based businesses, the case will help restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause to serve not only as a guarantor of the seemingly arcane right to use navigable waters of the United States, but also as the primary constitutional bulwark of economic liberty.
Institute for Justice Team
The lead attorney in this case is Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Michael Bindas.
Founded in 1991, the Institute for Justice (IJ) is the nation’s only libertarian public interest law firm. It advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. To that end, IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government. IJ has successfully represented entrepreneurs nationwide in fighting arbitrary and anti-competitive government regulation.
St. Joseph Abbey v. Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors—IJ scored a major victory for economic liberty when a federal court in Louisiana struck down a law prohibiting anyone but a licensed funeral director from selling caskets. That decision was later affirmed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. IJ represented the monks of St. Joseph Abbey to break Louisiana’s casket cartel and allow them to sell their simple, wood caskets to the public as a means of supporting themselves and their mission.
Chauvin v. Strain—As a result of IJ’s lawsuit, the Louisiana legislature abolished the demonstration portion of the state’s only-in-the-nation florist licensing exam, while leaving in place (for now) a short written exam that presents no serious obstacle to would-be florists.
Jones v. Temmer—IJ helped three entrepreneurs overcome Colorado’s anti-competitive taxicab monopoly to open Denver’s first new cab company in nearly 50 years. IJ used this victory to help break open government-sanctioned taxicab monopolies in Indianapolis and Cincinnati.
Craigmiles v. Giles—IJ led a federal court to strike down Tennessee’s casket sales licensing scheme as unconstitutional, a decision upheld unanimously by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and not appealed. This marked the first federal appeals court victory for economic liberty since the New Deal.
Swedenburg v. Kelly—IJ represented vintner Juanita Swedenburg in convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down New York state laws barring the interstate direct shipment of wine to New York consumers.
Clutter v. Transportation Services Authority—IJ broke up Las Vegas’ entrenched limousine cartel that had stifled competition by blocking new entrants.
Ricketts v. City of New York—IJ’s advocacy helped strike down the New York City Council’s veto of new van services.
Wexler v. City of New Orleans—IJ won an important victory on behalf of book vendors in New Orleans when a federal court struck down as unconstitutional the City of New Orleans’ blanket ban on selling books on the street.
Cornwell v. California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology—IJ represented African hair braiders to defeat California’s cosmetology licensing requirements for their craft.
Farmer v. Arizona Board of Cosmetology—IJ’s Arizona Chapter filed a lawsuit on behalf of braider Essence Farmer to dismantle Arizona’s onerous cosmetology regime, which required braiders to attend 1,600 hours of courses that taught nothing about braiding. As a result of the case, Arizona’s legislature exempted braiders from the regime.
Armstrong v. Lunsford—IJ successfully challenged Mississippi’s cosmetology regulations, which barred braiders from practicing their craft. Prior to receiving a ruling from the court, Mississippi’s legislature exempted braiders from the cosmetology licensing requirement.
Diaw v. Washington State Cosmetology, Barbering, Esthetics, and Manicuring Advisory Board—After being sued by IJ’s Washington Chapter, Washington Department of Licensing filed an “Interpretative Statement” exempting braiders from the state’s cosmetology licensing requirements.
Uqdah v. D.C. Board of Cosmetology—IJ’s work in the court of law and the court of public opinion on behalf of D.C. hairbraiders led the District of Columbia to deregulate the practice.
Clayton v. Steinagel—IJ won a significant federal court decision striking down Utah’s onerous cosmetology licensing requirements for African hair braiders.
For more information, contact:
John E. Kramer
Vice President for Communications
Institute for justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320, ext. 205