Court Opinion

ID: 9553985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:38:35.707434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:42.919161
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from one aspect of today’s opinion.
*1220Part III.A.2 of the opinion discusses the coastal development standard applicable at the lease sale stage. The standard in question is embodied in 6 AAC 80.040(a). It mandates that in planning for and approving development in coastal areas priority shall be given in the following order to
(1) water-dependent uses and activities;
(2) water-related uses and activities; and
(3) uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water delated for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity.
DNR did not address the question whether undersea leases accessible by directional drilling from shore were water-dependent uses. Under the definition of water-dependency, the critical inquiry is whether onland directional drilling can be conducted far enough back from the shore so that it is not “adjacent” to the shore.1 Given the priorities expressed in 6 AAC 80.040(a), in areas of conflict DNR may not permit nonwater-de-pendent activities which conflict with existing water-dependent activities. This means that DNR has a duty to require nonadjaeent directional drilling where nonadjaeent directional drilling is feasible.
DNR concedes that, if feasible, directional drilling should be required, but states that there was no reason to require this at the lease sale stage since it can, in some fashion, be imposed later. I quote from footnote 19 of DNR’s brief: ■
Therefore, if it is feasible and prudent to access oil and gas deposits within the fishing corridor by directional drilling activity, the law requires directional drilling. To require DNR to repeat in its mitigation measures laws that apply with specificity in the future when an actual activity is proposed, is irrational.
Today’s opinion notes DNR’s concession, Op. at n. 10, expresses the view that it would be preferable “that the lease or mitigation measures expressly mandate nonadjaeent directional drilling when possible,” Op. at n. 9, but holds that DNR was not required to impose such lease or mitigation measures at the lease sale stage.
I disagree. DNR is required to take “all feasible and prudent steps to maximize” the biological and physical habitat of the inlet when permitting activities such as oil exploration, drilling and extraction, which are potentially degrading to the environment. 6 AAC 80.130(d). The requirement that all feasible and prudent steps be taken is not inherently flexible. If there is a feasible and prudent step which would tend to protect the environment, that step must be taken.
The leases issued by DNR could require nonadjaeent directional drilling when such drilling is feasible from a technical and economic standpoint. Inclusion of such a requirement would forestall claims by lessees that this is not a requirement that they have bargained for, and thus would reduce the chances that conventional drilling will take place where directional drilling is feasible. By failing to impose a requirement of directional drilling when feasible DNR has violated the “all feasible and prudent steps” command of 6 AAC 80.130(d).
On remand I would add the following instruction:
DNR should insert in the leases a clause that nonadjaeent directional drilling will be required where feasible. If a particular lessee does not agree to this clause, the affected lease should be rescinded.

. "Water-dependent” is a "use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body.” 6 AAC 80.900(17).