## Facts

- Nome, Alaska planned port facilities (causeway, breakwater, and offshore terminal) extending into Norton Sound to create a functional harbor.
- The City of Nome applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a federal permit under § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (and related Clean Water Act authority).
- The Department of the Interior objected that the project could create artificial accretion that would shift the coastline baseline used to measure Alaska’s offshore boundary and submerged lands under the Submerged Lands Act.
- The Corps advised Alaska that it would not issue the § 10 permit unless Alaska executed a waiver/quitclaim (disclaimer) preserving the existing coastline and federal–state boundary despite the artificial construction.
- Alaska submitted a conditional disclaimer: it disclaimed any additional submerged lands arising from a seaward shift caused by the project, but purported to reserve the right to those lands if a court later held the Corps lacked authority to require such a disclaimer.
- The Corps issued the permit; the port facilities were built.
- After the federal government proposed an offshore mineral lease sale, Alaska asserted the sale included areas covered by its reservation and indicated it would challenge the Corps’ authority to require the disclaimer.
- The United States filed an original action in the Supreme Court; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Corps of Engineers, to condition a permit for structures in navigable waters on a state’s disclaimer of any boundary change attributable to the permitted construction.
2. Whether imposing such a condition improperly constrains a state’s ability to assert submerged lands claims under the Submerged Lands Act or otherwise impermissibly intrudes on state sovereignty.

## Decision

- The Court granted summary judgment for the United States.
- The Court held the Secretary of the Army acted within statutory discretion under § 10 in conditioning the Nome permit on Alaska’s disclaimer preventing the project from shifting the federal–state offshore boundary.
- The Court treated the Corps’ longstanding “public interest” review regulations as a permissible construction of § 10 and entitled to deference.
- The Court rejected Alaska’s sovereignty objection, viewing the condition as a permissible measure to protect federal boundary and property interests from the effects of artificial accretion created by a federally permitted project.

## Legal Principles

- Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act confers broad discretion to approve or deny permits for structures in navigable waters and is not limited to navigation-only considerations.
- The Corps may consider a wide range of “public interest” factors under § 10, including federal property interests and stability of intersovereign boundaries.
- Where an agency could deny a permit based on public-interest concerns within its statutory remit, it may impose reasonable conditions aimed at addressing those concerns.
- The Submerged Lands Act’s grant of certain submerged lands to states does not bar the federal government from using lawful permitting conditions to avoid conceding or altering the federal–state boundary due to artificial accretion.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Corps may condition a § 10 permit for offshore construction on a state’s disclaimer preventing the project’s artificial accretion from shifting the federal–state offshore boundary, because § 10 permits broad public-interest review and the condition reasonably protects federal boundary and property interests without unlawfully infringing state sovereignty.


United States v. Alaska, 503 U.S. 569 (1992)