United States v. Alaska

Background

The United States and the State of Alaska disagreed about who could offer submerged lands in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for mineral leasing. The Court allowed the United States to file a complaint in 1979, appointed a Special Master to oversee hearings and reports, and received the Master’s report. In 1997 the Court resolved exceptions to that report and directed the parties to prepare a decree consistent with its decision. The parties agreed on a proposed decree and asked the Court to enter it.

Reasoning

The Court entered a final decree that fixes the offshore federal–state boundary by coordinates listed in Exhibit A (NAD 83 coordinates are authoritative). As against Alaska, the United States has exclusive rights to explore and exploit resources seaward of that line, subject only to limited statutory exceptions; Alaska has exclusive rights shoreward of the line except inside the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Submerged Lands Act exceptions. The decree enjoins each side and persons claiming under them from interfering with the other’s rights. It also sets rules for leases and money: funds held in escrow under §7 agreements must be distributed under those agreements, leases intersected by the fixed line generally remain administered by the original lessor, and other accounting and administration rules are specified.

Real world impact

The decree decides who may issue and benefit from offshore oil and gas leases in the disputed area and governs how existing escrowed revenues and intersected leases are handled. The decree notes that coastal boundaries for the petroleum reserve and the wildlife refuge can migrate with physical changes and allows the parties to negotiate disputes or ask the Court to resolve them. The Court also retains jurisdiction to enforce and supplement the decree, so some implementation matters may return to the Court.