[Alaska] EPA illegally threatens Alaska

[medi]

Yes, but not with regard to Alaska's waterways. In this particular case it regarded Anchorage's Water & Wastewater treatment. A private environmental organization sued the EPA on Anchorage's behalf in Alaska Clean Water Alliance, Alaska Center for the Environment, and Trustees for Alaska v. EPA (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, No. 96C-1 762R). The EPA lost because their decisions were considered "arbitrary and capricious" by the court, and this time it had national implications.

The EPA had to establish a water quality standard docket in each region, which, according to the background materials, would allow the EPA "to establish a baseline of approved water quality standards for each state, tribe, and territory."

Nor would this be the last time the EPA attempted to impose its arbitrary and capricious will upon Anchorage. In 1998 the EPA threatened to fine Anchorage $5 million for not removing enough "particulates" from the drinking water. What the EPA failed to comprehend was that Anchorage's drinking water comes from glacial run-off and has very few particulates. In this particular case Anchorage avoided the EPA fine by dumping 15 tons of fish waste into the drinking water supply, just so they could remove it and be in compliance with the EPA's moronic demands.

The EPA have a very long history of doing incredibly stupid shit in Alaska. Like prohibiting wood burning stoves on Christmas Eve, in a State where many residents only means of heat during the Winter is a wood burning stove.


I already cited the relevant law, and the Supreme Court decision supporting that law against misuse by the National Park Service. As far as what justification the EPA thinks they have, I'm not interested in their leftist delusions. Both the law and the Supreme Court have stated that the federal government has no authority over navigable waterways in Alaska. Which makes any attempts to exert authority over navigable waterways in Alaska by any federal agency illegal.

My old man brain is not that far behind. I just reached my seventh decade last month.

A case like this is going to look like one of them porcupine creatures with all those needle thingies and each of the little needle like thingies would represent just one aspect of what's going on and so creating a file for information beyond what the media wants to offer is really important.

After just about 90 minutes of poking around I have a few links to offer that may help anyone that really takes an interest in thread:

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act - Alaska (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

What Is Gates of the Arctic? - Gates Of The Arctic National Park & Preserve (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/157_orig._alaska_v._us_-_response.pdf

And I'll throw in the brief conclusion of the above's pdf>

CONCLUSION
The motion for leave to file should be denied. If the
Court grants the motion, it should permit the defendants
to file a motion to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted.
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR
Solicitor General
TODD KIM
Assistant Attorney General
EDWIN S. KNEEDLER
MALCOLM L. STEWART
Deputy Solicitors General
CAROLINE A. FLYNN
Assistant to the Solicitor
General
BRIAN C. TOTH
CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON
Attorneys
NOVEMBER 2023

 

[ALiberalModerate]

As I previously posted, the Supreme Court already has in Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. ___ (2019). Only it applied to the National Park Service's illegal actions, not the EPA.

What is or is not illegal, and what is or is not constitutional, is a question for the courts. If the federal courts don't block the EPA on this, then by definition, their actions are legal and constitutional.

 

[mrjurrs]

Alaskans do indeed eat considerably more than 6.5 grams of fish per day. I eat on average 248 grams of fish per day. While most Alaskans probably average between 150 and 200 grams of fish per day. The EPA has set a timeline of 6 to 12 months for the changes to be made.

The EPA have no authority over Alaska's navigable waterways. Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), Public Law 96-487, Congress ceded all its authority with regard to navigable waters to the State of Alaska.

This was further upheld by the Supreme Court in Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) when the National Park Service tried to make the same claim.

All of Alaska's navigable waterways are state-controlled. The federal government, including the EPA, has no authority to make any demands. Which makes the current EPA threat illegal, and Alaska will absolutely not comply will illegal demands.

Alaska has already published online maps depicting the navigable waterways and state-owned submerged lands.

Navigability Project – Alaska Division of Mining, Land, and Water

The mission of the Division of Mining, Land & Water's Navigability Project is to protect the public rights associated with navigable and public waters, and to ensure that the state's title to lands beneath navigable waters is protected.

dnr.alaska.gov

The EPA can go pound sand.

Fundamental fact about the states and the federal government. When their laws conflict, federal law is superior.

And if they want to pound sand in Alaska, they can. Even if you have a law about it.

 

[mrjurrs]

As I previously posted, the Supreme Court already has in Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. ___ (2019). Only it applied to the National Park Service's illegal actions, not the EPA.

A ruling from 1980 sounds like the kind of precedent this SCOTUS likes to ignore.