(Anchorage, AK) – 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 it defines as “waters of the United States.” 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 Alaska given that almost half of Alaska’s landmass has been estimated to be wetlands. With more land, water, and wetlands than any other state—and a unique need to build infrastructure and develop and protect its resources—Alaska is disproportionately harmed by the federal agencies’ expansion of power.

“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,” said Attorney General Treg Taylor. “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.”

The State urged the Supreme Court to respect state authority and recognize the already significant effort the State puts into protecting its local waters. The State also advocated for a test that it and private property owners could apply easily, without fearing that the federal agency would change its mind from one year to the next.  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 in the fall of 2022.

• Sackett v. EPA Amicus Brief – PDF(261KB)

# # #

  Alaska, amicus brief, clean water act