jacko v. state, alaska (2015)

7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)

1/21

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the at tention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, em ail

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

GEORGEG.JACKOandJACKIEG.

HOBSONSR.,

Appellants,

v.

STATEOFALASKA,PEBBLELTD.PARTNERSHIP,acting

throughitsGeneralPartner,PEBBLE

MINESCORP.,LAKE&PENINSULA

BOROUGH,andKATECONLEY,

inherofficialcapacityasClerkofthe

Lake&PeninsulaBorough,

Appellees.

)

) SupremeCourtNo.S-15516

SuperiorCourtNos.3DI-11-00053CI

and3AN-11-11833CI(Consolidated)

OPINION

No.7019July17,2015

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,Third

JudicialDistrict,Dillingham,JohnSuddock,Judge.

Appearances: Timothy A. McKeever and Scott Kendall,

HolmesWeddle&Barcott,P.C.,Anchorage,forAppellants.

Joanne M. Grace and Margaret Paton Walsh, Assistant

AttorneysGeneral,Anchorage,andMichaelC.Geraghty,

Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee State of Alaska.

Matthew Singer, Holland& Knight LLP, Anchorage, forAppelleePebbleLimitedPartnership.Noappearancefor

Appellees Lake & Peninsula Borough and Kate Conley.

VictoriaClark,TrusteesforAlaska,Anchorage,forAmicus

CuriaeNunamtaAulukestai.DanielL.Cheyette,BristolBay

NativeCorporationandPeterVanTuyn,Bessenyey&Van
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/21

Tuyn, LLC, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Bristol Bay

NativeCorporation.

Before:Winfree,Stowers,andBolger,Justices.[Fabe,ChiefJustice,andMaassen,Justice,notparticipating.]

BOLGER,Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

LakeandPeninsulaBoroughvoterspassedaninitiativeprohibitinglarge-

scaleminingactivitiesthathaveasignificantadverseimpactonanadromouswaters

within the Borough. Pebble Limited Partnership and the State of Alaska pursued

separatesuitsagainsttheBorough,laterconsolidated,claimingthattheinitiativewas

preempted by state law. Two of the initiative sponsors intervened to support the

initiative.ThesuperiorcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofPebbleandtheState

andenjoinedtheBoroughfromenforcingtheinitiative.Theinitiativesponsorsappeal,

arguingthatthedisputeisunripeandthatthesuperiorcourtspreemptionanalysiswas

erroneous.ButbecauseatleasttheStatehasarticulatedaconcreteharmstemmingfromthe initiativesmereenactment, the caseis ripefor adjudication. Andbecause the

initiativepurportstogivetheBoroughvetopoweroverminingprojectsonstatelands

withinitsborders,itseriouslyimpedestheimplementationoftheAlaskaLandAct,

which grants theDepartment ofNaturalResourceschargeof all matters affecting

exploration,development,andminingofstateresources.Wethereforeaffirm.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

TheLakeandPeninsulaBorough(theBorough)isahomeruleboroughin

southwestAlaskaborderingtheworldslargestwildsockeyesalmonfishery.Withinthe

Borough, on state-owned land, lies what may be the worlds largest discovery of

-2- 7019


3/21

undevelopedcopperore.PebbleLimitedPartnership(Pebble)holdsthemineralrights

tothiscopperandhasspentoveradecadeexploringthefeasibilityofmining.However,

becauseextractingthecopperwouldlikelygeneratesignificantamountsofwaste,there

isconcernthatthePebbleprojectmayhavedetrimentalenvironmentaleffectsthatcould

impairthelong-termsustainabilityoftheBoroughssalmonindustry.1

InMarch2011GeorgeJacko,JackieHobson,Sr.,andotherBorough

residentsproposedtheSaveOurSalmonInitiative#2(theSOSInitiative),aborough

initiativeprohibitingtheBoroughPlanningCommissionfromissuingapermitwhenever

aproposedresourceextractionactivity(a)couldresultinexcavation,placementoffill,

grading,removalanddisturbanceofthetopsoilofmorethan640acresofland,and(b)

willhaveaSignificantAdverseImpacton existinganadromouswaters.TheSOS

InitiativedefinedSignificantAdverseImpactas

a use, or an activity associated with the use, which

proximatelycontributestoamaterialchangeoralterationin

thenaturalorsocialcharacteristicsofapartofthestates

coastalareaandinwhich:

a) the use, or activity associated with it,

wouldhaveanetadverseeffectonthequalityoftheresourcesofthecoastalarea;

1 See, e.g.,Nunamta Aulukestai v. State, Dept of Natural Res.,___P.3d___,

Op.No.7011at2,26-48,2015WL3452438,at*1,*12-22(AlaskaMay29,2015)

(holdingthatcertainmineralexplorationpermitsforPebbleprojectweredisposalsof

Statelandrequiringpriorpublicnotice);Hughes v. Treadwell,341P.3d1121,1123,

1125(Alaska2015)(confirmingpreviousorderforelectionballotplacementofBristolBayForeverinitiativerequiringfinallegislativeauthorizationforanynewlarge-scale

metallicsulfideminingoperationsinBristolBayFisheriesReservewatershed);Pebble

Ltd. Pship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell,215P.3d1064,1078-81(Alaska2009)

(rejectingPebblesargument thatproposedcleanwaterinitiativewouldbe unlawful

speciallegislationdespitecurrentapplicationonlytoPebbleprojectandoneothermine).

-3- 7019


4/21

b) the use, or activity associated with it,

would limit the range of alternative uses of the

resourcesofthecoastalarea;or

c) the use would, of itself, constitute a

tolerablechangeoralterationoftheresourceswithinthecoastalareabutwhich,cumulatively,wouldhave

anadverseeffect.

TheSOSInitiativealsoreplacedtherequirementthatanapplicantobtain

[a]llapplicablestateandfederalpermits...beforeadevelopmentpermitwillbeissued

by the Borough with the recommendation that an applicant should obtain its

developmentpermitfromtheBoroughpriortoobtainingapplicablestateandfederal

permits.Additionally,theSOSInitiativeauthorizedtheBoroughPlanningCommission

toindefinitelyconsiderapplicationsforlarge-scaleresourceextractionpermits.

Beforethe2011election,PebblesuedtheBoroughfordeclaratoryand

injunctiverelief,contendingthattheSOSInitiativeexceededtheBoroughspowerto

legislate on matters governing land use permit requirements and was thus

unenforceableasamatteroflaw.PebbleaskedthesuperiorcourttoordertheBorough

nottocertifytheSOSInitiativeandtoremoveitfromtheballot.GeorgeJackoand

JackieHobson,Sr.(thesponsors)movedtointervene,andthesuperiorcourtgranted

theirmotion.Pebble,theBorough,andthesponsorsmovedforsummaryjudgment,but

thecourtabstainedfromrulingonthecertificationissueanddeferreditsevaluationof

theSOSInitiativesvalidityuntilaftertheelection. 2

InOctober2011BoroughvotersapprovedtheSOSInitiative,enactingit

asBoroughlaw.Pebblethenamendeditscomplaint,allegingthattheenactedinitiative

wasconstitutionallypreemptedbyarticleVIIIoftheAlaskaConstitutionandstatutorily

Pebblepetitionedthiscourttoreviewthesuperiorcourtsdeferraldecision.

Wedeclinedtoreviewthecaseatthattime.

-4- 7019

2


5/21

preemptedby the Alaska LandAct.3PebblefurtherclaimedthattheSOSInitiative

improperly appropriated state assets, violated equal protection, and was void for

vagueness.Finally,PebbleallegedthattheinitiativeviolatedtheBoroughscharter,

claimingthattheBoroughcouldnotamenditsmunicipalcodeintheabsenceofavalid

comprehensiveplan.4

TheStateseparatelysuedtheBoroughfordeclaratoryandinjunctiverelief.

LikePebble,theStateallegedthattheSOSInitiativewaspreemptedbytheAlaska

Constitution and by the Alaska Land Act. The State further claimed that it had

immunityfromtheoperationofthelawenactedbytheSOSinitiativetotheextentthat

it purports to prohibit developmentofState land and State-ownedminerals. The

superiorcourtconsolidatedtheStatescasewithPebblespreviouslyfiledcase.

EachofthepartiesPebble,theState,thesponsors,andtheBorough

movedforsummaryjudgmenton themeritsofPebblesandtheStatesclaims. The

sponsorsandtheBoroughalsoarguedthatthecasewasnotripebecausePebblehadnot

yetappliedforaBoroughpermit.

ThesuperiorcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofPebbleandthe

State.Turningfirsttoripeness,thecourtfoundthattherewasanactualcontroversy

because the likelihoodof permitdenialwouldhaveadissuasiveeffecton potential

investorsandplacearealburdenonPebble.Likewise,thecourtfoundthattheability

of local government entities . . . [to] impede natural resource development via

permittingordinanceswouldhaveaprofound[][e]ffect[]ontheregulatoryclimate

inAlaskaandharmtheStatesroyaltyandtaxrevenues,regardlessofwhetherlocal

entitiesultimatelychosetograntordenylocaldevelopmentpermits.

3 AS38.05.005-.990.

4 SeeLake&PeninsulaBoroughCharterart.VII,7.01-.02.

-5 7019


6/21

Onthemerits, thesuperiorcourtconcludedthattheSOSInitiativewas

impliedly preempted by state statute. The court noted that the state legislature

comprehensively conferred authority over all aspectsofmining inAlaska to [the

DepartmentofNaturalResources](DNR).AndthecourtfoundthattheSOSInitiative

purportedtogranttheBoroughPlanningCommissionco-equalpermittingauthority

withDNR authority thatwassubstantially irreconcilablewith thelegislatures

intent that DNRbe the sole gatekeeper of mining permits. Accordingly, the court

concludedthattheSOSInitiativewasimpliedlypreemptedbystatestatuteandenjoined

theBoroughfromenforcingit.

Thesponsorsappeal.5

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere,view[ing]thefactsinthelight

most favorable tothenon-movingparty,the recordpresents nogenuine issue of

materialfactand...themovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.6Themoving

party has the initial burden of proving, through admissible evidence, that summary

5 TheBoroughdeclinedtoappeal.

6 Olson v. City of Hooper Bay,251P.3d1024,1030(Alaska2011)(citations

andinternalquotationmarksomitted).

-6- 7019


7/21

judgmentiswarranted.7Wereviewagrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo.8Wealso

reviewthesuperiorcourtsripenessandpreemptiondeterminationsdenovo.9

IV. DISCUSSION

A. ThisDisputeIsRipeBecauseTheStateArticulatesAConcreteHarmStemmingFromTheSOSInitiativesMereEnactmentAndBecause

TheControversyIsPrimarilyLegal,NotFactual,InNature.

AlaskaStatute22.10.020(g)grantsthesuperiorcourtjurisdictiontoissue

adeclaratoryjudgment[i]ncaseofanactualcontroversy.Thisactualcontroversy

languagereflectsagenerallimitationonthepowerofcourtstoentertaincases...[and]

encompassesanumberofmorespecificreasonsfornotdecidingcases,includinglack

ofstanding,mootness,andlackofripeness.10

Thesponsorscontendthatthiscaseisnot

ripebecausePebbleandtheStatebrought[theirclaimstothesuperiorcourt]priorto

anyapplicationforapermitevenhavingbeenfiledwith[theBorough].

Aripesuitfordeclaratoryjudgmentwillpresentasubstantialcontroversy,

betweenpartieshavingadverselegalinterests,ofsufficient immediacyandreality.11

7 Mitchell v. Teck Cominco Alaska Inc.,193P.3d751,760n.25(Alaska

2008);AlaskaR.Civ.P.56(c)(Theremust...beservedandfiledwitheachmotion[forsummaryjudgment]amemorandumshowingthatthereisnogenuineissueastoany

materialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.).

8 Olson,251P.3dat1030(quotingBeegan v. State, Dept of Transp. & Pub.

Facilities,195P.3d134,138(Alaska2008))(internalquotationmarksomitted).

9 State v. ACLU of Alaska,204P.3d364,367(Alaska2009)(ripeness);cf.

Catalina Yachts v. Pierce,105P.3d125,128(Alaska2005)(preemption).

10

Brause v. State, Dept of Health & Soc. Servs.,21P.3d357,358(Alaska2001)(citingBowers Office Prods., Inc. v. Univ. of Alaska,755P.2d1095,1096(Alaska

1988)).

11 Id.at359(quoting13ACHARLESALANWRIGHTETAL.,FEDERALPRACTICE

(continued...)

-7- 7019


8/21

Wehavenotedthatthereisnosetformulafordeterminingwhetheracaseisripefor

adjudication.12Instead,[w]eexaminethefitnessoftheissuesforjudicialdecisionand

thehardshiptothepartiesofwithholdingcourtconsiderationinanefforttobalance[]

theneedfordecisionagainsttherisksofdecision. 13

Forexample,inState v. ACLU of Alaskaagroupofcitizensclaimedthat

thestatestatuteprohibitingmarijuanapossessionconflict[ed]withtheprivacyclause

oftheAlaskaConstitution...totheextentthatitcriminalize[d]possessionofsmall

amountsofmarijuana inthehomebyadultsforpersonaluse.14Weheldthisclaim

unripe.15 The citizens need for a decision was slight because the penalties for

marijuanapossessioninthefederalControlledSubstancesAct 16exceededstatesanctions

andwouldnotbeaffectedbythecase,andbecausethecitizensdidnotsuggestthatthey

themselveswerelikelytobethesubjectsofenforcementorthattheywouldaltertheir

conductasaresultofourdecision.17 Moreover,significantdecisionalriskswerepresent:

concretefactswouldhaveaidedusinadjudicatingtheissue,and[d]uerespectforthe

11 (...continued)

ANDPROCEDURE3532,at112(2ded.1984))(internalquotationmarksomitted).

12 Id.

13 ACLU of Alaska,204P.3dat369(quotingBrause,21P.3dat359)(internal

quotationmarksomitted).

14 Id.at366(citationsomitted).

15 Id.at373-74.

16 Pub.L.No.91-513,84Stat.1236(1970).

17 ACLU of Alaska,204P.3dat369-71,374.

-8- 7019


9/21

legislativebranchofgovernmentrequiresthatweexerciseourdutytodeclareastatute

unconstitutionalonlywhensquarelyfacedwiththeneedtodoso.18

Similarly,inBrause v. State, Department of Health & Social Serviceswe

heldunripeasame-sexcouplesclaimthatAlaskasthen-existingprohibitiononsame-

sexmarriage prevented them from enjoyingat least115 separate rightsaffordedto

marriedcouples.19Wenotedthatthecouplesbrieflackedanyassertionthattheyha[d]

beenor...[wouldlikely]bedeniedrightsthat[were]availabletomarriedpartners.20

Andweobservedthatfurtherfactualdevelopmentwouldaidourabilitytodecidethe

issueinlightofthedifficultyandsensitivityoftheissuespresented. 21

Althoughthesponsorsaccusethesuperiorcourtofbasingitsripeness

22 23analysisonthedissenting opinionsinACLU of Alaska andBrause, weconcludethat

thesuperiorcourtcorrectlyappliedthebalancingtestsetforthinthosecases.Citing

Brause,thesuperiorcourtnotedthatasageneralmatter,[t]herisksofdecisioninclude

ruling on undeveloped facts[] or on difficult and sensitive issues that could be

advantageouslydeferred.AndthecourtconcludedthatPebblesandtheStatesneed

fordecisionoutweighedanycountervailingrisksofdecision.Inparticular,thecourt

foundthat themerepassageof theSOS Initiativeexert[ed]a dissuasive effect on

[Pebbles]potentialinvestors.Likewise,thecourtfoundthattheabilityoflocal

18 Id.at371-74.

19 21P.3d357,360(Alaska2001).

20 Id.

21 Id. (quoting13ACHARLESALANWRIGHTETAL.,FEDERALPRACTICEANDPROCEDURE3532.1,at114-15(2ded.1984)).

22 204P.3dat374-82(Carpeneti,J.,dissenting).

23 21P.3dat360-66(Bryner,J.,dissenting).

-9- 7019


10/21

governmententitiesstatewide[to]impedenaturalresourcedevelopmentviapermitting

ordinanceswouldhaveaprofound[][e]ffectontheregulatoryclimateinAlaska

...fromthemomentsuchrisksaremanifestinlocallaws,andnotonlyatthemoment

ofpermitdenial. Asaresult,thecourtconcludedthatthecase[fell]squarelywithin

thebroadswathofAlaskacasesfound...toberipeforadjudication.

WedonotneedtoevaluatePebblesclaimsofharm,becausetheStates

claimedharmissufficientlyimmediateandrealtorequireafacialreviewoftheSOS

Initiativesvalidity.Initssuperiorcourtbriefing,theStatenotedthatitdidnotsue[]

as a potential permittee. Instead, the State contended that the Initiatives mere

enactmentinappropriatelyinfringe[d]onitssovereignpowerandthereforeimpose[d]

aconcreteharmevenwithoutapplication.

InanefforttorebuttheStatesclaimedharm,thesponsorspointedoutthat

theStatehadnotsuedotherboroughsregardingtheirlanduseregulations.Butthe

superiorcourtfoundthislackofpreviouslitigationunpersuasive,andwearesimilarly

unpersuaded.TheStatesdecisionnottosueotherboroughsfordifferentordinances

doesnotmeanitcannotsuethem.Asthesuperiorcourtnoted,the[S]tatehasscant

incentivetochallengeotherboroughsordinancesinsofaras[they]fill[]inunregulated

intersticesofstatelawandonlytheoreticallyconflictwithDNRauthority.TheSOS

Initiative isdifferent,thecourtconcluded,becauseitgrants theBoroughregulatory

power that was co-equal and concurrent with the States authority over natural

resourcepolicy.

Onappealthesponsorsripenessarguments largelypertaintoPebbles

claimsanddonotdirectlyaddresstheStatessovereigntyargument.Critically,thesponsorsripenessdiscussiondoesnotaddressthesuperiorcourtsfindingthatthe

enactmentoftheSOSInitiativehinderstheStatesabilitytoregulatenaturalresource

-10- 7019


11/21

policy. This finding provides adequate and independent support for the courts

conclusionthatthiscontroversyisripe.

ThesponsorsalsopointtooursuggestioninACLU of Alaskathatevena

facialchallengetoastatutecouldbeaidedbyoneormoreconcretefactualscenarios. 24

Butitisunclearthatadditionalfactualscenarioswouldaidouradjudicationofthemerits

inthiscasebecausetheunderlyingissuesarerelativelystraightforwardandpurelylegal:

doestheSOSInitiativegranttheBoroughthepowertoexercisecoequalpermitting

authoritywiththeStateregardingtheutilizationofnaturalresources,and,ifso,issuch

authoritypreemptedbystatestatuteorbytheAlaskaConstitution?TheBoroughsgrant

ordenialofadevelopmentpermitwouldshedlittleifanylightonthesequestions.

Finally,thesponsorsaccusethesuperiorcourtofrest[ing]itsripeness

determinationentirelyon...facts...obtainedinanexparteinvestigation. 25This

allegationpertainstothecourtsobservationthat

[i]n September of 2013 the British mining giant Anglo

American withdrew from [Pebble], abandoning its $541

million investment and citing a need to focus on more

promising prospects. Anglo Americans departure left

Northern Dynasty Minerals the sole stakeholder in theproject. NorthernDynastyannounced thatitwouldseeka

replacementpartner.

ThesponsorspointoutthatthenewsofAngloAmericanswithdrawalfromthePebble

projectbecamepublicfivedaysafter oralargumentandwasthereforenevermadea

partof the record. (Emphasis in original.) As a result, the sponsors argue, [t]he

24

204P.3dat373(citingSands ex rel. Sands v. Green,156P.3d1130,113234(Alaska2007)).

25 See Alaska Code Jud. Conduct 3(B)(12) (Without priornotice to the

partiesandanopportunitytorespond,ajudgeshallnotengageinindependentexparte

investigationofthefactsofacase.).

-11- 7019


12/21

parties...wereprecludedfromanyopportunitytopresentargumentonthesepoints.

ButthoughthereissomevaliditytothiscriticismwithregardtoPebblesclaimsof

harm,26ithasnorelevancetotheStatesclaimedharmtoitsregulatoryauthority.

Forthesereasons,weagreewiththesuperiorcourtsconclusionthatthis

controversywasripeforadjudication.

B. TheSOSInitiativeIsImpliedlyPreemptedByStateLawBecauseThe

BoroughsAbilityToUnilaterallyVetoAProjectAuthorizedByDNR

SeriouslyImpedesTheRegulatoryStructureOfTheAlaskaLandAct.

ArticleX,section11oftheAlaskaConstitutiongrantshomeruleboroughs

alllegislativepowersnotprohibitedbylaworbycharter.InJefferson v. Statewe

notedthatalthoughhomerulepowersareintendedtobebroadlyapplied,amunicipal

ordinancemaybepreemptedorinvalidatedbystatestatute.27Butweheldthatthe

statutoryprohibitionmustbeeitherbyexpresstermsorbyimplicationsuchaswhere

thestatuteandordinancearesosubstantiallyirreconcilablethatonecannotbegivenits

substantiveeffectiftheotheristobeaccordedtheweightoflaw. 28

ThoughJeffersoninvolvedexpresspreemption,29weapplieditsholdingto

animpliedconflictoflawfouryearslaterinJohnson v. City of Fairbanks.30Theplaintiff

inJohnsonchallengedaFairbanksCityCharterprovisionthatshieldedthecityfrom

liabilityfornegligenceunlessaplaintiffsubmittedwrittennoticetothecitywithin120

26 See ALASKACOM MNONJUDICIALCONDUCT, ADVISORYOPINION2014-01

(discussingwhetherindependentInternetresearchcanbeconsideredjudicialnotice

andwhen[such]researchbecome[s]improperfactualinvestigation).

27 527P.2d37,43(Alaska1974).

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 583P.2d181,185-87(Alaska1978).

-12- 7019


13/21

31 32daysoftheincident. Becausethestatuteoflimitationsforatortactionistwoyears,

weconcludedthatFairbankssnoticerequirementwasimpliedlypreemptedbyAS

09.65.070,whichauthorizeslawsuitsagainstlocalgovernments. 33Althoughtherewas

noexpresspreemptionnoticeandfilingaretechnicallytwoseparateissues,andthe

120-daynoticeprovisiondidnotrequireplaintiffstofiletheircomplaintswithinthat

period we concluded that the citys notice requirement seriously impede[d]

implementationofth[e]statewidelegislativepolicythataplaintiffscommencement

ofaction istheaffirmativestepnecessary toassure thathis assertion ofa claim is

timely.34

Under the implied preemption standard articulated inJefferson and

Johnson,wemustdeterminewhethertheSOSInitiativeissosubstantiallyirreconcilable

withastatestatutethattheonecannotbegivenitssubstantiveeffectiftheotheristo

beaccordedtheweightoflaw.35

Article VIII, section 2 of the Alaska Constitution states that [t]he

legislatureshallprovidefortheutilization,development,andconservationofallnatural

resourcesbelongingtotheState,includinglandandwaters,forthemaximumbenefitof

its people. And the legislature, through its passage of the Alaska Land Act, has

delegatedtoDNRchargeofallmattersaffectingexploration,development,andmining

31 Id.at182-83.

32 AS09.10.070(a).

33 Johnson,583P.2dat187.

34 Id.

35 Id.at184(quotingJefferson v. State,527P.2d37,43(Alaska1974)).

-13- 7019


14/21

ofthemineralresourcesofthestate,...andtheadministrationofthelawswithrespect

toallkindsofmining. 36Thelegislaturehasfurtherclarifiedthat

[DNR] is the lead agency for all matters relating to the

exploration, development, and management of mining,

and...shallcoordinateallregulatorymattersconcerning

mineral resource exploration, development, mining, and

associatedactivities. Beforeastateagencytakesactionthat

may directly or indirectly affect the exploration,

development, or management of mineral resources, the

agencyshallconsultwithanddrawupontheminingexpertise[ ]of[DNR].37

ButwhileDNRhasbroadpowertoregulateminingthroughoutthestate,anactofthe

statelegislatureisnecessarybeforeDNRmaycloseanyareaofstatelandlargerthan

640contiguousacrestomining.38

Here the superior court concluded that the state legislature, [b]y so

definitively conferring gatekeeper permitting authority upon DNR, . . . impliedly

prohibited local governments from assuming a concurrent role. The court also

concludedthattotheextent...theSOSInitiativemaybeseenaspotentiallyclosing

theentire[Borough]watershedtolargescalemineraldevelopment,itwouldviolatethe

clearpurposeofAS38.05.300theprovisionrequiringDNRtoobtainlegislative

approvalbeforecompletelyclosingofflargetractsoflandtoresourceextraction.

Thesponsorsarguethattheseconclusionswereerroneous.Theycontend

thatthereisnoexpressedorimpliedpreemptionof[theBoroughs]authoritytoregulate

large-scaleresourceextractioninthemannertheSOSInitiativemandates,becausethe

36 AS27.05.010(a).

37 AS27.05.010(b).

38 SeeAS38.05.300(a).

-14- 7019


15/21

SOSInitiativedoesnotconfer[theBorough]withco-equalpermittingauthoritywith

thestateorfederalgovernment. 39Wedisagree.

Accordingtoitsstatementofpurpose,theSOSInitiativewasdesignedto

preventthedevelopmentofanylarge-scaleresourceextractionactivity(includingmining

activities) which would destroy or degrade salmon habitat. To accomplish this

objective,theSOSInitiativerequirestheBoroughtodenyadevelopmentpermittoany

large-scaleresourceextractionactivitythatwouldhaveasignificantadverseimpacton

existinganadromouswaterswithoutregardtowhethersuchimpactcanbemitigated.

Thisstandsinstarkcontrasttootherresourcedevelopmentpermittingprocesses,which

comparetheadverseimpactsofaprojectwithpotentialmitigationmeasures. 40Asa

result,theBoroughspermittingstandardisnowmorestringentthantheStates.

Thesponsorscontestthispoint,claimingthattheSOSInitiativemerely

insertsanadditionallocallayerintothepermittingprocessinanefforttominimizethe

39 Thesponsorsmaketwoadditionalarguments: first,thattheSOSInitiative

doesnotclosetheentireBoroughwatershedtolarge-scalemineraldevelopment,and

second,thatthesuperiorcourtsdecisionwasinappropriatelypaternalisticandoffensive

towardBoroughofficials.Butthesuperiorcourtdid not findthattheSOSInitiative

closedtheentireBoroughwatershedtolarge-scaleresourceextraction,andouranalysis

doesnotdependuponsuchafinding.Andthesuperiorcourtsstatementsaboutpolitical

forcesinfluencingBoroughofficialsarebesidethepoint: thesuperiorcourtsrulingwas

basedonaconclusionthatBoroughofficialscould exercisevetopoweroverthePebble

project,notafindingthattheynecessarilywould.

40 OneofPebblesexpertsstatedinanaffidavit,Typically,anenvironmental

impactassessmentinvolvesdevelopingaclearunderstandingofbaselineconditionsand

aclearunderstandingofhowthoseconditionswillbechangedoraffectedbyaproject.Fromthisfollowsanevaluationofwhetherthosechangesareacceptableorcanbe

mitigated.ItdoesnotappearthattheSOSInitiativeallowsroomforsuch[mitigation]

analysis. Although thesponsorsarguedthat[p]resumably,appropriatemitigation

measures could qualify an otherwise ineligible project, they did not present any

evidencetosupportthisassertion.

-15- 7019


16/21

adverseenvironmentaleffectsoflarge-scaleminingonthe[B]oroughanditsresidents.

Butasnotedabove,theSOSInitiativesetsahighstandardforBoroughdevelopment

permitsandwouldallowtheBoroughtovetoprojectsotherwiseauthorizedbystateand

federalregulators.Indeed,theSOSInitiativegoessofarastosuggestthatanapplicant

shouldobtainitsdevelopmentpermitfromtheBoroughprior toobtainingapplicable

stateandfederalpermits. 41(Emphasisadded.) Althoughthesponsorscorrectlynote

thatthepriortolanguageisnotmandatory,42thislanguagedemonstratesthattheSOS

InitiativewasintendedtoelevatetheimportanceoftheBoroughintheoverallpermitting

scheme.

Forthesereasons,thesuperiorcourtwascorrecttoconcludethattheSOS

Initiative,ifupheld,wouldrepresentapowershiftrequiringDNRthestateagency

taskedbythelegislaturetoregulateresourceextractiontosharepowerwithalocal

governmentthat...mayignoreDNRsrulings.Undersuchascheme,DNR[would]no

longerfunction[]asthesolegatekeeperingrantinganddenyingminingpermits. Such

apowershiftisimpliedlypreemptedbyAS27.05.010sprovisionthatDNRhascharge

ofallmattersaffectingexploration,development,andminingofthemineralresources

ofthestate.43

41 ThisBorough-firstlanguagereplaceslanguagewhichsuggestedthatthe

Boroughwoulddefertostateandfederalpermitprocesses. Therepealedlanguage

stated:Allactivitiesshallbeconductedinconformancewithallstateand/orfederal

permitstipulationsandconditions. All applicable state and federal permits must be

obtained by the applicant before a development permit will be issued by the Borough.

FormerLake&PeninsulaBoroughMunicipalCode09.07.050(B)(2010) (emphasis

added).

42 Theamendedprovisionusesthewordshouldinsteadofmust.

43 AlthoughthesuperiorcourtconcludedthattheSOSInitiativeisimpliedly

(continued...)

-16- 7019


17/21

Thesponsorsarguethatthispreemptionanalysisisincorrect.CitingPebble

44 45Ltd. Partnership ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell andBrooks v. Wright, they

contend that [i]t has been unequivocally established by this Court that the state

legislaturedoesnot haveexclusiveauthorityoverthestatesnaturalresources,andthat

natural resource management is an appropriate subject for a public initiative.

(Emphasisinoriginal.)Butthesecases,whichdealtwithstatewideballotinitiatives,46

areeasilydistinguished.ArticleXII,section11oftheAlaskaConstitutionprovidesthat

[u]nlessclearlyinapplicable,thelaw-makingpowersassignedtothelegislaturemaybe

exercisedbythepeoplethroughtheinitiative,subjecttothelimitationsofArticleXI.

Andbecausenaturalresourcemanagementisnot...clearlyinapplicabletothe

initiativeprocess,wehaveupheldtheabilityofvoterstopassstatewide initiatives to

exercisethelaw-makingpowersofthestate legislature inthisarea.47Butwehavenever

heldthataboroughmayexercisethelaw-makingpowersofthestatelegislaturethrough

initiative,norwouldsuchaholdingmakeanysense.

Relatedly,thesponsorsclaimthatwehaverepeatedlyfoundthattheState

doesnothaveexclusivelaw-makingpowersovernaturalresourcesmerelybecauseof

itsmanagementroleunderArticleVIIIandthatwehaveacceptedmunicipalregulation

43 (...continued)

preempted by state law, the initiative also appears to be expressly preempted by

AS38.05.135(a),whichstates:Exceptasotherwiseprovided,valuablemineraldeposits

in land belonging to the state shall be open to exploration, development, and the

extractionofminerals.

44 See 215P.3d1064,1077(Alaska2009).

45 See 971P.2d1025,1033(Alaska1999).

46 See Pebble Ltd. Pship,215P.3dat1068-69;Brooks,971P.2dat1026.

47 Brooks,971P.2dat1030,1033.

-17- 7019


18/21

ofminingasappropriate.(Emphasisomitted.)TheyciteOwsichek v. State, Guide

48 49Licensing & Control Board, Liberati v. Bristol Bay Borough, and Thane

Neighborhood Assn v. City & Borough of Juneau50 for these propositions. But

OwsichekconcernedaseparateconstitutionalprovisiontheCommonUseClause 51

anddidnotaddresspreemption.52Liberati issimilarlyinappositebecauseweconcluded

thattheordinanceatissuetherehadnoregulatorycomponentandthereforedidnot

directlyorindirectlyconflictwiththeStatesregulatorypolicies.53Andneitherpartyin

Thane Neighborhood Assnraisedtheissueofstatestatutorypreemption; 54thereforewe

didnotacceptmunicipalregulationofminingasappropriatewhensuchregulation

seriouslyimpedesstatepolicy.

Thesponsorsnextarguethatthesuperiorcourtmisconstruedourholding

inJohnson ,whichtheycontendwaspremiseduponthefactthatthelocalenactment

[must]yieldifitdirectlyorindirectlyimpede[s]implementationofstatuteswhich[seek]

tofurtheraspecific statewide policy.55 (Emphasisandfirstalterationinoriginal.) The

sponsorsstatethatthereisnospecificstatewidepolicythatprecludes[theBorough]

from implementing and carrying out theSOS Initiative as an ordinance under the

48 763P.2d488(Alaska1988).

49 584P.2d1115(Alaska1978).

50 922P.2d901(Alaska1996).

51 AlaskaConst.art.VIII,3.

52 See 763P.2dat496-98.

53 584P.2dat1121-22.

54 See generally922P.2d901.

55 See Johnson v. City of Fairbanks,583P.2d181,185(Alaska1978).

-18- 7019


19/21

[Borough] Code. Wedisagree. Thesuperior courtnot only accurately described

JohnsonsholdingbutalsoquotedJohnsonsdiscussionofthespecificstatepolicyat

issueinthatcase.Moreimportantly,theSOSInitiativeimpedesatleasttwo separate,

specificstatepolicies.Thestatelegislaturehasspecifiedthat[e]xceptasotherwise

provided, valuable mineral deposits in land belonging to the state shall be open to

exploration,development,andtheextractionofminerals. 56Andthelegislaturehas

specifiedthatDNRhaschargeofallmattersaffectingexploration,development,and

miningofthemineralresourcesofthestate...andtheadministrationofthelawswith

respecttoallkindsofmining. 57

Finally,thesponsorsarguethattheSOSInitiativedoesnotconferthe

Borough with co-equal permitting authority because the Borough has regulated

resourceextractionfordecades,andbecauseotherboroughs,includingtheCityand

BoroughofJuneau,theFairbanksNorthStarBorough,andtheNorthSlopeBorough,

haveenactedlanduseregulationsthataffectresourceextraction. Thesponsorscontend

thattheSOSInitiativeliketheseotherordinancesfallsundertheauthoritygranted

byAS29.35.180(b),whichrequireshomeruleborough[s][to]provideforplanning,

platting,andlanduseregulation. Butthegeneralprovisionofauthoritytohomerule

boroughstoregulatelandusedoesnotoverridethespecificdelegationofauthorityto

56 AS38.05.135(a).

57

AS 27.05.010(a). Additionally, article VIII, section 2 of the AlaskaConstitutionspecifiesthatthestatelegislatureisresponsibleforprovid[ing]forthe

utilization,development,andconservationofallnaturalresourcesbelongingtothe

State...forthemaximumbenefitofitspeople.Thesuperiorcourtspentlittletime

analyzing thisprovision, however, because the court decided the case on statutory

grounds.

-19- 7019


20/21

DNRtoregulateresourceextraction.58Andtheboroughregulationsthatthesponsors

citearenotbeforeusinthiscase;theywouldbesubjecttoreviewiftheStatechooses

tochallengethem.

The legislature has granted DNR charge of all matters affecting

exploration,development,andminingofthemineralresourcesofthestate.59Because

theSOSInitiativeallowsandinsomecasesrequirestheBoroughtoprohibit

miningprojects thatwouldotherwisebeauthorizedbyDNR,theinitiativeseriously

impedes the regulatory process set forth by the Alaska Land Act and is therefore

60 61preemptedbythatstatute. Accordingly,theSOSInitiativecannotbeenforced.

58 Cf. Norville v. Carr-Gottstein Foods Co.,84P.3d996,1004(Alaska2004)

(Incontracts,asinstatutes,whereonesectiondealswithasubjectingeneraltermsand

anotherdealswithapartofthesamesubjectinamoredetailedway,thetwoshouldbe

harmonizedifpossible;butifthereisaconflict,thespecificsectionwillcontroloverthe

general.(quotingIn re Estate of Hutchinson,577P.2d1074,1075(Alaska1978))

(internalquotationmarksomitted));see also ANTONINSCALIA&BRYANA.GARNER,

READING LAW : THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 185 (2012) ([T]he

[general/specific]canondoesapplytosuccessivestatutes.).

59 AS27.05.010(a).

60 CitingMacauley v. Hildebrand, the State also argues that home rule

boroughs are constitutionally preempted fromacting in the area of natural resource

managementwithoutexpressauthorizationfromthestatelegislature. See491P.2d120,

122(Alaska1971);see alsoAlaskaConst.art.VIII,2(Thelegislature shallprovide

fortheutilization,development,andconservationofall natural resourcesbelongingto

theState,includinglandandwaters,forthemaximumbenefitofitspeople.(emphasis

added)); accord Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 44 (1974) ([When] the state

constitution...vest[s]thelegislaturewithpervasivecontrolover[anareaoflaw,]...homerulemunicipalities[are]precludedfromexercisingpower[inthatarea]unless,and

totheextent,delegatedbythestatelegislature....(citingMacauley,491P.2dat120

22)). Although the State makes a compelling argument that natural resource

managementisanareaofpervasivestateauthorityunderthefactorsarticulatedin

(continued...)

-20- 7019


21/21

V. CONCLUSION

WeAFFIRMthejudgmentofthesuperiorcourt.

60 (...continued)

Macauley,wedonotneedtoreachthisconstitutionalissue.

61 PebblealsoarguesthattheSOSInitiativeisinvalidbecauseitexceedsthe

borough assemblys power to legislate and because it improperly appropriates state

assetsinviolationofarticleXI,section7oftheAlaskaConstitution. Becauseweagree

withthesuperiorcourtsconclusionthattheinitiativeispreemptedbystatestatute,we

donotneedtoreachtheseissues.

-21- 7019

jacko v. state, alaska (2015)

Documents