THE LINK: JANUARY 2024 12 Alaska will continue lawsuit against the EPA The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the state of Alaska’s long-shot direct appeal to the high court over the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s ban on a large mine in the Bristol Bay watershed west of Anchorage. Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said the state would continue its action through the federal courts. The proposed Pebble project would develop a copper, gold and molybdenum deposit near Iliamna. Northern Dynasty Minerals, a Vancouver, B.C. minerals exploration company, would develop the project through a subsidiary, Pebble Partnership. Fisheries and tribal groups in the region fought to block the mine arguing it could damage salmon-bearing streams. Pebble Partnership contested that, pointing to a federal Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers showing minimal impacts. “The EPA set a dangerous precedent when it issued a preliminary veto of a project on State land,” said Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor in a statement. “Due to the national significance of the EPA’s veto, we went to the Supreme Court directly, asking it to take up this case so the issue can be resolved as quickly as possible.” “While SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.) did not pick up the case at this time, it does not indicate how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the merits. All this decision means is that we will take the more traditional route and file first in the federal district court. We will continue fighting for Alaska’s right to develop its resources through the federal court system,” Taylor said. The direct appeal to the Supreme Court is allowed under certain circumstances but it was always considered a long shot by Pebble’s supporters and even the state, but the justices must agree to hear the case, which they did not. EPA had used its Section 404c authority under the federal Clean Water Act to ban a large mine in an area of state-owned lands. It was a highly unusual move because it was taken before federal permits were issued and without consideration of environmental mitigation steps the developer would pursue. The state argued the action usurped Alaska’s rights to develop its own lands which is given under the federal statehood act that set the terms for the Territory of Alaska’s admission as a state in 1959. John Shively, CEO of Pebble Partnership, said: “While it is a disappointing decision, it is important to note that this is not a comment on the arguments put forward by the state. We have long stated our belief that the EPA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and that remains our position today.” “The legal issues raised by the state will now work their way through the federal courts. We will also evaluate our legal options in contesting the extraordinary steps the EPA has taken to preemptively stop the Pebble Project,” Shively said. “Pebble is an important project for Alaska and the nation. It could create jobs for Alaskans, provide an economic catalyst for the state and provide a much-needed source of critical minerals for the long-term safety and security of the United States,” he said. The Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a U.S., environmental organization, praised the court’s decision. “This does not mean that the inevitable legal challenges to EPA’s veto from the destructive project’s will not eventually be filed. It means only that the challenges must first be heard beginning in federal district court or, in the case of a claim for ‘taking of state property without just compensation,’ in the Federal Court of Claims,” the NRDC said. — Tim Bradner Supreme Court nixes state’s Pebble appeal Photo Courtesy Pebble Limited Partnership
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcxMjMwNg==