The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied the request of the state of Alaska to review its arguments in ruling in favor of an Biden administration decision that blocks the development for Pebble Mine, a controversial Pebble mine.
The court, with only one sentence on the list of rulings it denied the state’s attempts to refer the matter directly before it, without having to pursue the matter through the lower courts.
The administration of Governor. Mike Dunleavy had made the unusual request for direct Supreme Court deliberation in a petition submitted in July.
The administration claimed against the Environmental Protection Agency’s January. 30th, 2023 decision to stop the permit for the Pebble project was in violation of the rights of the state and could be a loss to the state of its resources income.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor in a statement issued Monday, mentioned these arguments.
“The EPA set a dangerous precedent when it issued a preliminari decision to veto a plan located on State land. I pledged to protect the Alaskan Constitution which calls for developing and conserving Alaska’s natural resources to ensure the greatest benefit for its citizens. Due to the significance of the EPA’s decision to veto and the national significance of the veto, we wrote directly to Supreme Court directly asking it to consider the case to ensure that the matter is resolved as swiftly as it is possible.” Taylor said in the statement.
The state plans to submit its complaint to a different court, Taylor continued.
“While SCOTUS did not pick up the case at the moment however, it doesn’t indicate what it will decide. Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the merits of the case. This decision is that we’ll take the traditional approach and file the case first in Federal District Court. We will fight to defend the right of Alaskans to develop their resources using courts of the federal system.” said the president in his statement.
Alaska Native, conservation and fishing groups opposed to the Pebble project praised the decision of the Supreme court but expressed concerns about the state’s continuing efforts to thwart The EPA’s protections of Bristol Bay. Bristol Bay region.
“Although we’re pleased to have that the Supreme Court refuse to entertain Governor Dunleavy’s frivolous suit to challenge the agency’s Clean Water Act veto of the Pebble Mine, we should have never reached this situation in the first place,” Delores Larson, interim executive director of United Tribes of Bristol Bay in an announcement. “Governor Dunleavy’s lawsuit was and will remain an enormous cost to taxpayers that solely represents the interests of the corporation that owns Pebble Mine.” Pebble Mine. The Tribes, fishermen and other communities in the area were looking forward to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act protections for Bristol Bay, just to be plunged back into doubt less than an year more.”
The Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association another organization that’s opposed to the mine released a statement expressing disapproval of the Dunleavy administration’s legal decision.
“While we’re relieved and pleased to be able to witness that the Supreme Court dismiss Governor Dunleavy’s inane attempt to fight the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act veto of the Pebble Mine, as an Alaskan fisherman, I am worried over the sum of public funds which was wasted in pursuing this unfounded case” Mark Niver, a board member of the commercial fishing organization stated within the letter. “Unfortunately we recognize that this isn’t the final blow to the attacks upon Bristol Bay and we will not relent in fighting for our irreplaceable fishing industry. Our elected officials need to join us in helping create legislation that permanently protects Bristol Bay and all that the watershed is able to support to end the uncertainty that has hung over us for a long time.”
It is proposed that the Pebble mine is an enormous open-pit copper and gold mine situated in the upper regions in the Bristol Bay watershed. This Bristol Bay region holds the largest sockeye salmon runs anywhere in the world that support major subsistence, commercial and sport fishing. Wide opposition to the mine is focused on potential impacts on Bristol Bay salmon and the wildlife and people who depend on it.
To fight the Pebble case before the Supreme Court, the Dunleavy administration contracted a Virginia-based firm known for supporting the cause of conservatism. This firm Consovoy McCarthy, first hired with the Dunleavy administration in the year 2019 to fight a legal battle against unions representing public employees; they later signed a $60,000 contract which resulted in a controversy.
Consovoy McCarthy is also a representative of as a representative of the Dunleavy administration on its legal battle in opposition to the national government’s preference for rural areas in subsistence fishing on the Kuskokwim River, a place where salmon populations have declined. This position was a snub to several Native groups as well as it was the Alaska Federation of Natives and other groups took action to support that of the government’s Subsistence Management.
Within his budget that was announced in the month of December, Dunleavy proposed another $2 million in appropriations to the Alaska Department of Law for this type of “statehood defense” initiatives. In the December. 14 media conference regarding the state budget Taylor claimed that there was no need to worry about the Legislature has already approved $11.5 million over the last several years to fund such efforts, with about half of which was utilized. In the end, Taylor said then, approximately $15 million is anticipated to be devoted to these legal battles.
This article first appeared in Alaska Beacon and is republished here with permission.
