Opinion ID: 2639620
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Initiative 07WTR3 deals with a public asset.

Text: Initiative 07WTR3 directly concerns the use of public land and water by large scale metallic mineral (LSMM) mines. Initiative 07WTR3 seeks to protect the statewide public interest in water quality by limiting the discharge or release of certain toxic pollutants on the land and waters of the state. We have previously determined that public land, [14] public revenue, [15] a municipally-owned utility, [16] and wild salmon [17] are all public assets that cannot be appropriated by initiative. We have not, however, had an opportunity to determine whether watersin the form of waterways, streams, rivers and lakesare a public asset. In Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform v. Municipality of Anchorage, [18] we considered two criteria, either one of which, if satisfied, would qualify taxicab permits as a public asset. [19] First, we considered whether the municipality own[ed] the underlying resource the permits authorized holders to take. [20] Second, we considered whether issuing the permits served a regulatory rather than a revenue-raising function. [21] In that case, the taxicab permits at issue satisfied neither criterion and we concluded they were not public assets. In this case, in contrast, the waters of the state qualify as a public asset under either criterion. First, the state has a property-like interest in the waters of the state. [22] In holding that salmon are a public asset in Pullen v. Ulmer , we relied on article VIII of the Alaska Constitution. [23] We held that common law principles incorporated in the common use clause impose upon the state a trust duty to manage the fish, wildlife and water resources of the state for the benefit of all the people. [24] We reasoned that the public trust responsibilities imposed on the state by the provisions of article VIII of our constitution compel the conclusion that fish occurring in their natural state are property of the state for purposes of carrying out its trust responsibilities. [25] Because public trust responsibilities are sufficient to create a property-like interest in a natural resource, the waters of the state qualify as a public asset under the public ownership criterion identified in Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform. Second, the waters of the state provide a revenue-raising function. In Pullen, we noted that if the state's salmon population precipitously declines, the fishing industry would be devastated, causing ... harm to Alaska's economy and revenue base, and that [t]he state benefits from the harvest of salmon through the collection of taxes imposed on business enterprises engaged in the fishery and license fees imposed on sport, personal use, and commercial fisheries. [26] This same logic certainly applies to the quality of the state's waters, with harm to these waters having the potential toat the very least devastate Alaska's tourism and fishing industries and significantly reduce revenues raised from related taxes and licenses. The waters of the state, therefore, qualify as a public asset due to their revenue-raising function under the test described in Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform. [27] Because the state has a property-like interest in the waters of the state, and because the waters of the state play a revenue-raising function for the state, the waters of the state are a public asset under either factor of the Anchorage Citizens for Taxi Reform test. [28] Accordingly, both the land and waters of the state are public assets for the purposes of constitutional appropriations analysis, and 07WTR3 deals with public assets.