Groups Concerned about Alaska’s Clean Water Challenge State Policies
In a effort to protect clean water, eight conservation and tribal organizations filed suit in Alaska Superior Court to challenge the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) issuance of Interim Antidegradation Implementation Methods (“Interim Methods”) without any public input. The Interim Methods, issued in July of 2010, govern how the DEC will analyze and make decisions regarding the protection and degradation of water quality when making permitting decisions.
Anchorage, Alaska—In a effort to protect clean water, eight conservation and tribal organizations filed suit in Alaska Superior Court today to challenge the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“DEC”) issuance of Interim Antidegradation Implementation Methods (“Interim Methods”) without any public input. The Interim Methods, issued in July of 2010, govern how the DEC will analyze and make decisions regarding the protection and degradation of water quality when making permitting decisions.
Under the Interim Methods, the State can allow water quality to be degraded if DEC determines that it’s important for economic development without balancing other uses and values. “While economic development is important, protection of clean water is vitally important for our subsistence and culture,” said Patrick Norman, Chief of the Native Village of Port Graham. “Unfortunately, DEC’s Methods elevate economic considerations above subsistence needs instead of ensuring that subsistence is given equal consideration.”
“The State has a responsibility to protect the well-being of our Tribal members, including ensuring safe water for present and future needs. Our people and way of life will be directly impacted by further water degradation, and deserve the opportunity to voice our concerns,” said Lily Tuzroyluke of the Native Village of Point Hope. “We need a seat at the table to protect our subsistence from further pollution, in the best interests of our communities and environment.”
“A central purpose of allowing public participation is to ensure that the final policy is strong and that all factors were considered in the decision making process,” said Pete Dronkers of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center. “By failing to allow the public to participate in the development of the Interim Methods, the DEC excluded very important perspectives from the decision and the final product reflects that.”