Litigating and Liaising: Alaska's highly specialized attorneys support natural resource projects every step of the way.

• Author: Anderson, Tasha
• Position: NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Alaska is a big place, and its natural resource development projects match that scale: world-class deposits, budgets in the billions, hundreds and thousands of jobs in the making, and associated lawsuits and legal issues introduced by parties nationwide.

In September, fifteen states sued the US Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt (in his official capacity), and the Bureau of Land Management over the decision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a decision Bernhardt announced in August. According to the suit, the defendants "unlawfully authorized the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program, opening the unspoiled Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to expansive oil and gas exploration and development based on inadequate environmental review and an unlawful Record of Decision."

The suit asserts the decision to allow oil and gas exploration activities violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

In addition to these general, big picture problems, the states laid out their concerns individually.

A portion of Alaska's exported oil is refined in Washington, which "reasonably expects to receive oil extracted from the Arctic Refuge and to bear the impact of the oil transiting via Washington waterways and tidelands, emitting pollutants into Washington air during the refinery process, being distributed throughout and from the state as fuel, and contributing to the potential worker safety hazards associated with refinery operations."

California also objected to additional oil production supplying its in-state refineries. "In 2019, California refineries processed more than 73 million barrels of Alaska crude oil, accounting for 11.9 percent of the refineries' total production. Exposure to pollutants produced by these refineries--which include carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and arsenic--can cause cancer, birth defects, and asthma, among other health impacts, especially in environmental justice communities that are disproportionately affected by industrial pollution. Refineries also produce high levels of greenhouse gases, thus further contributing to the climate harms caused by oil and gas extraction."

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont all made similar claims that the decision to allow exploration sets at risk the wellbeing of many species of migratory birds and in turn endangers tourism-related activities in those states.

Oil and gas projects in less controversial areas still take significant time to develop, and with the approval for oil and gas exploration not even half a year old, any specific project in ANWR is hundreds of permits, thousands of man hours, millions of dollars, and billions of data points away.

Because of this, the suit by necessity argues that the process of approval was flawed, stating the defendants "unlawfully prioritized oil and gas development over the Refuge's conservation...