A significant legal battle concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has reached a conclusion as a U.S. District Court judge in Anchorage has ruled against the state of Alaska.
On Wednesday, Judge Sharon Gleason delivered her decision regarding a dispute that has persisted for over a decade, stating that the laws and regulations defining the western border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are “ambiguous.”
The ruling confirmed that federal regulators made a reasonable call by determining the border to be the western bank of the Staines River, as opposed to the western bank of the Canning River.
This decision affects a tract of land estimated to be 20,000 acres potentially rich in oil reserves, situated just east of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, an area that Alaska sought to claim for oil and gas drilling ventures.
With the federal government now moving forward with plans for oil and gas leasing within the disputed region, the court’s decision implies that the state of Alaska stands to gain significantly less revenue if oil and gas are discovered there, compared to ownership of the land.
Patty Sullivan, the communications director for the Alaska Department of Law, expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating, “The state of Alaska is disappointed that the court failed to recognize the state’s ownership of this disputed area on the border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
Sullivan underscored the land’s resource potential, suggesting that state management could have allowed for thorough exploration and development.
She added, “We will evaluate our options and are glad to, at least, have a federal administration currently in place that recognizes the importance of responsible resource development in this area.”
The dispute arose from differing interpretations regarding whether federal cartographers considered the Staines River to be a distinct waterway from the Canning River or merely a distributary in 1957.
This boundary was pivotal when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960, which became designated as a wildlife refuge in 1980.
Maps from that era indicate that the border is drawn along the Staines River.
Judge Gleason elaborated in her 74-page order that if the Staines River were deemed part of the Canning River, then the westernmost bank would align with the Staines distributary.
Conversely, if the two rivers were considered distinct, the boundary would follow the western bank of the main Canning River.
The legal conflict also involved a boundary marker indicating the northwest, seaward boundary of the refuge, but the primary point of contention was the river-defined border.
In 2014, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources formally requested ownership of lands situated west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Alaska Statehood Act, still partially unfulfilled after over 65 years, grants the state the right to select upwards of 100 million acres of federal land for state control.
In 2016, the BLM responded to Alaska’s request, indicating that the state had already selected all available land in the area.
The state contended that federal officials misidentified the border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by relying on the Staines River rather than the Canning River.
Following this argument, Alaska appealed to the U.S. Interior Board of Land Appeals, which sided with the BLM.
The state subsequently sued in 2022, achieving an early victory when Judge Gleason previously ruled that the land appeals board failed to take into account a 1951 map indicating the Staines as a separate river from the Canning.
However, in 2024, the land appeals board ruled against Alaska once more, prompting the state to renew its case in U.S. District Court, seeking a summary judgment that culminated in Wednesday’s verdict.
In her order, Gleason cited a 1906 U.S. Geological Survey dictionary labeling the Staines and Canning as the same river, while acknowledging that some contemporary maps designated the two as separate entities.
Ultimately, she concluded that, despite evidence favoring the state’s arguments, the land appeals board’s interpretation of the boundary was reasonable and therefore not arbitrary, thereby, leaving Alaska with no grounds to overturn the decision.
The ruling establishes that the boundary of the refuge follows the Staines River, classified as a distributary of the Canning River.
image source from：alaskapublic
