United States v. Alaska

Rule of Law:

The Secretary of the Army has broad discretionary authority under § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 to consider all public interest factors, including the potential alteration of federal-state submerged lands boundaries, when evaluating permit applications for artificial structures in navigable waters, and may condition such permits on a state's disclaimer of rights to resulting accreted lands.

Facts:

• Since the 1899 Nome gold rush, the Seward Peninsula in western Alaska has been a focus for control over its natural resources, with Nome historically relying on seaward traffic due to a lack of road links to interior Alaska.
• In the early 1980s, the city of Nome developed plans to construct port facilities, including a causeway, breakwater, and offshore terminal area, extending into Norton Sound to address its reliance on sea access.
• On August 25, 1982, the city of Nome applied for a federal permit from the Alaska District Corps of Engineers of the United States Department of the Army to build these port facilities.
• A division of the United States Department of the Interior objected, stating that Nome’s construction would cause an “artificial accretion to the legal coast line” and requested that the Corps require Alaska to waive any future claims to additional submerged lands under the Submerged Lands Act (SLA).
• The Solicitor of the Interior Department issued an opinion recommending that approval of the permit be conditioned upon Alaska executing an agreement or quit claim deed preserving the existing coastline and the state-federal boundary.
• The Corps of Engineers informed the Alaska Department of Natural Resources that the federal permit would not be issued until a “waiver or quit claim deed has been issued preserving the coastline and the State-Federal boundary.”
• On May 9, 1984, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources submitted a conditional disclaimer of rights to additional submerged lands, reserving its right to challenge the Corps’ authority to compel such a disclaimer.
• On March 11, 1988, the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department published a request for comments for a proposed lease sale for minerals near Nome in Norton Sound, prompting Alaska to submit comments alleging the sale involved disputed lands and announcing its intent to sue to challenge the Corps’ authority.

Procedural Posture:

• On August 25, 1982, the city of Nome applied for a federal permit to build port facilities with the Alaska District Corps of Engineers of the United States Department of the Army.
• The Corps of Engineers transmitted a letter from the Solicitor of the Interior Department to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, advising that the federal permit would not be issued until Alaska provided a 'waiver or quit claim deed preserving the coastline and the State-Federal boundary.'
• On May 9, 1984, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources submitted a conditional disclaimer of rights to additional submerged lands, reserving its right to challenge the Corps’ authority to compel such a disclaimer.
• On March 11, 1988, the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department published a 'Request for Comments and Nominations for a Lease Sale in Norton Sound and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.'
• The following month, Alaska submitted comments, alleging the proposed Norton Sound Lease Sale involved submerged lands subject to its Nome project disclaimer and announcing its intention to file a suit challenging the Corps’ authority.
• The United States sought and was granted leave by the Supreme Court to commence this action against Alaska on April 1, 1991.
• The United States and Alaska both filed motions for summary judgment with the Supreme Court.