Kaskanak Creek in the Bristol Bay’s Kvichak watershed is seen from the air on Sept. 27, 2011. The Kvichak watershed would be damaged by the Pebble mine project, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined. (Photo provided by Environmental Protection Agency)
Developers’ efforts to overturn the cancellation of a vast gold and copper mine planned for southwest Alaska are getting a boost from national mining and pro-business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
On Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, the Chamber and the National Mining Association filed separate friend-of-the-court briefs in the lawsuit brought by the developers of the proposed Pebble Mine against the Environmental Protection Agency, which vetoed the mine.
Neither group has intervened in the case against the EPA, but the briefs represent the groups’ support for the proposed mine and offer legal arguments that Judge Sharon Gleason could consider as she debates whether to move the project forward.
In 2023, the EPA invoked a rarely used “veto” clause of the Clean Water Act to say that there was no way that the proposed Pebble Mine could be developed without significant harm to the environment. The large mineral deposit is located at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, the most abundant sockeye salmon fishery in the world.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case directly, which has left the issue in front of Judge Sharon Gleason in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
Another lawsuit filed by the state claims that if the veto is upheld, the federal government will owe Alaska $700 billion, the state’s estimate for the value of the mine if built as planned. That case has been put on hold until the District Court rules.
In July, the administration of President Donald Trump indicated that it might try to settle the suit and withdraw the veto. If that occurs, it could come before Jan. 2, when the EPA is slated to file a written response to the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment.
If the EPA continues to fight the case, the last written arguments are scheduled to be finished by the end of February. Any oral argument would take place afterward.
If the federal government drops the case, it doesn’t mean a free path for Pebble: Several environmental organizations, fishing groups, tribal organizations and Bristol Bay locals have also intervened in the case and intend to fight in court.
The Alaska Legislature is also expected to consider a bill that would block both Pebble and any successor projects that might emerge.
In its brief, the National Mining Association — joined by the American Exploration and Mining Association and the Alaska Miners Association — call the EPA’s veto “overly broad” and say that if it is upheld, the act “will almost certainly chill investment in domestic mining activities” because other proposed mines could also be subject to a veto.
The Chamber of Commerce, which has backed the Pebble Mine project since at least 2022, said that if the veto is upheld, it has the potential of encouraging other vetoes, which would “disrupt important industries in which many of the Chamber’s members participate.”
Donlin mine camp, June 23, 2025. (photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld state regulators’ decision to grant permits for a large gold mine planned for Southwest Alaska, bringing the proposed Donlin project a step closer to construction.
In a unanimous ruling published Friday, the court’s five justices said the Alaska Department of Natural Resources did not need to consider the environmental impact of the entire proposed Donlin Mine when it approved water use permits and a right-of-way permit needed for a natural gas pipeline intended to power the mine.
Their ruling has implications for many major development projects on private land and likely applies to projects on federal land as well, such as the large oil projects on Alaska’s North Slope.
“This decision is a major win for Alaska,” said Attorney General-designee Stephen Cox in a written statement. “The Court rightly recognized that the State’s permitting process met constitutional standards and that Article VIII (of the Alaska Constitution) does not extend to lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations or other private entities. This ruling not only affirms the integrity of DNR’s work but also protects the rights of Alaska Native Corporations and provides certainty for future development.”
The natural gas pipeline will stretch across state land, but the mine itself will be dug on land whose subsurface rights are owned by Calista Corporation, a regional Alaska Native corporation.
Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Dario Borghesan said the distinction is important.
“Because these are private resources, rather than state resources, the Department was not required to consider the cumulative impacts of their development when deciding whether to allow the use of state waters and access over state lands to develop the mine,” he wrote.
The ruling says that to approve the gas pipeline, regulators needed to consider only the impact of the pipeline, not of the mine it allows.
Until Friday, a 2013 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court known as REDOIL had required regulators to “take into account all aspects of a project” and consider the “cumulative impacts” when issuing permits for work on state land.
Friday’s decision somewhat limits that precedent, particularly for Alaska’s North Slope oil and gas industry, where most new drilling is taking place on federal land, not state land.
“This decision, I believe, makes clear that the REDOIL requirement to assess cumulative impacts only applies to projects that are on state lands,” said Jon Katchen, an attorney familiar with the new decision and author of a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court.
Friday’s decision covered two lawsuits filed by the Orutsararmiut Native Council and other Alaska Native tribes opposed to the mine’s development.
They appealed the case to the Alaska Supreme Court after an Anchorage Superior Court judge also ruled in favor of the defendants. The high court heard arguments one year ago.
“While this ruling is unfortunate, our work challenging the Donlin gold mine continues,” said Gage Hoffman, Orutsararmiut Traditional Native Council President, in an emailed statement.
ONC and other plaintiffs are being represented by Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, and a spokeswoman for that organization said it has another case on appeal at the Alaska Supreme Court as well as federal litigation.
“We will be pushing to ensure that the supplemental environmental study that the court ordered from our federal victory adequately analyses the risks posed by the mine,” Hoffman said. “Our people deserve to know about these dangers; our ways of life are dependent on healthy lands and waters, and it is our responsibility to ensure they are protected for future generations.”
Friday’s ruling covered separate lawsuits filed over different sets of permits.
One lawsuit involved a permit challenged repeatedly since a preliminary decision in 2019, granting the use of state land needed to build a gas pipeline from Cook Inlet to the mine site.
Referring to legislative history and the text of the state’s Right of Way Leasing Act, Borghesan concluded, “none (of this) can be reasonably read to require the Department to consider the downstream effects of industrial activities by users of gas transported by the pipeline.”
The other suit addressed 12 water use permits issued in 2013 and 2016 by DNR to Donlin.
Plaintiffs argued that the Alaska Constitution, as interpreted by REDOIL, required DNR to consider the impact of the whole project.
Not so, Borgesan wrote.
“In our view, such a rule would extend article VIII (of the Alaska Constitution) far beyond its command to ascertain whether the development of state-owned resources is in the public’s interest.”
He also added that imposing such a restriction would be particularly problematic in the case of Donlin, because it involves land “chosen by ANCSA corporations as compensation for the loss of Alaska Natives’ aboriginal title to their ancestral territories. … These lands and minerals are reserved for their benefit, not for the benefit of Alaskans generally.”
Plaintiffs had argued that DNR failed to consider what will happen after the mine closes, when the mining pit will be filled by rainwater and seepage.
“Pumping will be required in perpetuity to ensure the lake’s water levels do not overtop its banks,” Borghesan wrote, adding that water treatment will also be required forever.
“This is because the water will have high levels of heavy metals due to contact with mining waste, and will have to be treated in perpetuity to protect downstream lands, waters, fish and wildlife, and people.”
Despite that conclusion, he said the justices “are persuaded that the Department was not required to consider the environmental impacts of the pit lake” because that lake will be regulated by state and federal pollution permits and rules, not just the water-use permits.
Friday’s decision emphasized that the justices are not intending to give an open hand to development.
“We hold only that the Department was not required, when deciding whether to issue water appropriation and pipeline right-of-way permits for use in mining privately owned minerals on private lands, to condition those permits on an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the mining itself,” the decision states.
