It is important to emphasize that the state is not the applicant in this situation, yet the EPA has effectively said to the state that it cannot develop its lands as was first envisioned in the Alaska Statehood Act. This is a de facto taking and we should all be very concerned. It is worth noting that Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, who have expressed opposition to Pebble, have also expressed their opposition to the use of the preemptive veto against Pebble by the EPA for many of the reasons outlined in the state’s challenge. When we take Pebble out of this discussion, we see a federal agency seeking to use authority it was not granted under the CWA. EPA has decided it can act as a zoning agency for state-owned lands. This further precludes the state’s ability to make decisions about lands it selected under the Alaska Statehood Act. From the perspective of the business and resource community, this issue is about whether any project can get fair treatment in Alaska, because once an extraordinary precedent has been established, it becomes much easier for the bureaucracy and those who oppose development Alaska to use it again and again. — Kati Capozzi is the president and CEO of the Alaska Chamber — Tessa Axelson is executive director of the Alaska Forest Association — Karen Matthias is executive director of Alaska Metal Mines — Deantha Skibinski is executive director of the Alaska Miners Association — Rebecca Logan is president and CEO of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance — Alicia Amberg is executive director of Associated General Contractors of Alaska — Leila Kimbrell is executive director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska THE LINK: OCTOBER 2023 12 CONTINUED from PAGE 11 Photo Courtesy Pebble Limited Partnership
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcxMjMwNg==