Alaska’s isolated wetlands could soon lose their protected status

Final week, the State of Alaska despatched a friend-of-the-court temporary weighing in on an essential environmental case earlier than the U.S. Supreme Court docket. Sackett v. Environmental Safety Company may decide how a lot of Alaska’s wetlands are topic to federal regulation beneath the Clear Water Act.

If the ruling goes the best way the Dunleavy administration would really like, the Environmental Safety Company (EPA) will not have oversight over air pollution and contaminants in Alaska’s remoted wetlands. The State of Alaska will. Remoted wetlands are wetlands that aren’t proper subsequent to massive our bodies of water. They cowl a lot of the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-Okay) Delta, and different components of Alaska.

“Should you take a look at the tundra habitat all alongside the coast and the marshes, there are hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of little remoted wetlands,” mentioned Boyd Blihovde.

Blihovde is the refuge supervisor for the Yukon Delta Nationwide Wildlife Refuge, which encompasses many of the Y-Okay area. Blihovde mentioned that not less than 20% of the refuge is remoted wetlands. Beneath the 1972 Clear Water Act, the EPA has regulated pollution and toxins within the nation’s waters, together with these remoted wetlands. What Sackett vs. EPA will determine is that if remoted wetlands depend as “waters of the US.”

In a 2006 case, Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court docket determined that every one wetlands subsequent to a “navigable” waterway counted as water of the US and could be protected beneath the Clear Water Act. The thought was that if pollution go into the land close to a big river, they’ll make their technique to the river. What the justices didn’t agree on was what to do about remoted wetlands not near a navigable waterway.

On the whole, the EPA has been claiming jurisdiction over remoted wetlands and issues like our bodies of water which can be dry a part of the yr. The State of Alaska is asking for the courtroom to take a narrower view of the Clear Water Act.

The state’s temporary says that leaving the EPA in cost impedes the state’s capacity to develop its personal sources and construct rural infrastructure. It cites the group of Chefornak, which wants a brand new sewer system. To construct one beneath EPA oversight would value $8 million. The state says that it could fairly construct an “economical lagoon.” Sewage lagoons are among the many most cost-effective accessible choice to deal with uncooked sewage, however they do include dangers. Not too long ago, a sewage lagoon burst open within the Y-Okay Delta Neighborhood of Hooper Bay, dumping everything of the city’s sewage into protected wetlands.

These remoted wetlands are essential stopover factors for migratory birds, mentioned Blihovde. “That is why the refuge was established, as a result of it is good for waterfowl,” he mentioned.

Within the temporary, Alaska Lawyer Basic Treg Taylor additionally asks the Supreme Court docket to think about exempting frozen permafrost from safety beneath the Clear Water Act.

Janette Brimmer is a lawyer on the environmental legislation agency Earthjustice. She mentioned that frozen water continues to be water.

“It is bizarre to me that Alaska thinks that permafrost wetlands are by some means totally different simply because it’s frozen,” mentioned Brimmer.

Twenty-six different states, most of them run by Republican governors, are additionally asking the Supreme Court docket to finish federal Clear Water Act safety of remoted wetlands.

Robert Glennon is a professor of water legislation and coverage. He mentioned that there is no such thing as a technique to predict how the Supreme Court docket will rule.

“Many members of the courtroom are from the jap a part of the US, an entire bunch from the metropolitan New York space. They usually’re simply not conscious of or delicate to Western land points,” mentioned Glennon.

This temporary is simply a part of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s battle in opposition to what he considers to be federal overreach that limits Alaska’s growth. He’s making an attempt to go a invoice within the state legislature that he says would give Alaska larger management over riverbeds and different submerged lands. He has additionally proposed that the state take over the water high quality allowing course of in federal waters. All of those actions may open up the state to extra growth, and fewer federal oversight over contaminants in public land.