Northern Dynasty said the determination made under the Clean Water Act was arbitrary and capricious in violation of federal administrative law, because it failed to adequately consider the economic impact of the decision and used a “wild overestimate” of what protected waterways would be impacted by mining activity.
Northern Dynasty claims it has spent at least $1 billion over two decades in its efforts to develop the project, which was effectively killed by the decision, including $200 million on environmental studies.
“This is just another example of gross EPA overreach of the powers granted to it by Congress,” said Ron Thiessen, Northern Dynasty’s president and CEO, in a statement.
The EPA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
The Bristol Bay watershed in southwestern Alaska supports the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery and is known for its large mineral resources. The watershed also provides habitats for 29 species of fish, more than 190 birds and dozens of mammals, according to the EPA.
The proposed mine, which has languished in a lengthy approval and permitting process for decades but has not started construction, would tap one of the world’s largest copper and gold deposits.
The EPA claims it would permanently destroy over 2,000 acres of wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act.
The developer also filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Thursday alleging the veto amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its property in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment, which says that private property can’t be taken for public use without compensation, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.
The state of Alaska also sued the U.S. government in that court last week seeking $700 billion over the decision, arguing the EPA’s veto infringed on the state’s sovereignty and would deprive it of funds from taxes, licensing fees and royalties it would have received from the mine.
The state had already challenged the EPA’s decision last year directly with the Supreme Court, arguing it violated the state’s sovereign right to regulate its land and waters, as well as a 1976 land swap with the U.S. government that gave the state ownership over the area in question.
The Supreme Court declined to take that case in January, but did not say why.
The developer’s new lawsuit in Alaska makes similar claims, arguing the Clean Water Act does not give the EPA authority to override the state’s preferences for using the lands for extracting valuable minerals.
The EPA had previously argued in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that Alaska’s statehood and the land swap do not preclude the agency from evaluating projects to ensure they comply with environmental law.
The case is Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, No. 3:24-cv-00059.
For Northern Dynasty Minerals: Keith Bradley and Jeffrey Walker of Squire Patton Boggs
For the EPA: Not yet available
(Reporting by Clark Mindock)
