jacko v. state, alaska (2015)
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
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] -
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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
-
7/25/2019 Jacko v. State, Alaska (2015)
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