The State of Alaska filed an amicus brief asking the United States Supreme Court to consider Alaska’s unique interests as it reconsiders the extent of federal authority under the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act prohibits discharges to “navigable waters,” which is defined as “waters of the United States.” The Alaska Department of Law says that in Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court is considering how to determine whether a wetland is a “water of the United States,” a significant issue for the state given that almost half of Alaska’s landmass is estimated to be wetlands.
With more land, water, and wetlands than any other state, Alaska is disproportionately harmed by the federal agencies’ expansion of power, according to Attorney General Treg Taylor, who said:
“When read too expansively, the Clean Water Act unnecessarily hampers the State’s ability to manage its own land and water and responsibly develop its resources as promised at statehood. With more wetlands than the Lower-48 combined and unique areas such as permafrost, an overly broad, one-size-fits all approach does nothing to improve water quality. All it does is create another layer of regulation simply for regulation’s sake with no economic or environmental benefit.”
Alaska wants the Supreme Court to respect state authority and wants recognition in the effort they’re putting forth in protecting its local waters. They also advocated for a test that it and private property owners could apply easily, without fear of federal red tape. Under the test advocated for by the State, “navigable waters” would include “relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies.”
The Supreme Court will likely hear oral argument in this case this fall.
Click here for more information.