Judge Rules Against Alaska in Arctic Refuge Border Dispute

Court Decision

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A federal judge has ruled against the state of Alaska in a long-running dispute over the western boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, siding with federal regulators on the location of the line.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason concluded that the state does not own 20,000 acres of potentially oil-rich land between the Staines and Canning rivers on the North Slope. Gleason said the laws and regulations setting the boundary are “ambiguous,” but that federal agencies acted reasonably in determining the border runs along the western bank of the Staines River.

The land lies just east of Prudhoe Bay, one of the nation’s most significant oil fields. By keeping the acreage under federal control, Alaska would receive far less revenue if oil and gas are found there than if it were state-owned.

State’s Position

“The state of Alaska is disappointed that the court failed to recognize the state’s ownership of this disputed area on the border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” said Patty Sullivan, communications director for the Alaska Department of Law.

“This land may hold significant resource potential for the future of energy for Alaska and the United States and would likely be thoroughly explored and developed under state management. We will evaluate our options and are glad to, at least, have a federal administration currently in place that recognizes the importance of responsible resource development in this area,” she said.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice did not return messages seeking comment.

Background on the Dispute

The disagreement centers on whether federal mapmakers in 1957 considered the Staines River a separate river or a distributary of the Canning. When the Arctic National Wildlife Range was created in 1960 — later becoming the refuge in 1980 — maps showed the border running along the Staines River.

In 2014, Alaska sought ownership of lands west of the refuge under its statehood land entitlement. The Bureau of Land Management denied the request in 2016, saying the state had already selected all available land in the area. Alaska protested, arguing the boundary was drawn in the wrong place.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals initially sided with federal officials, but Alaska filed suit in 2022. Gleason later ruled the board had failed to consider a 1951 map that treated the Staines as a separate river. Even so, after reconsideration in 2024, the board again rejected Alaska’s claim, prompting the state’s return to court.

Judge’s Findings

In her 74-page order, Gleason reviewed conflicting records. A 1906 U.S. Geological Survey dictionary identified the Staines and Canning as the same river, while some mid-20th-century maps labeled them separately. Others did not label the Staines at all.

While that evidence could support the state’s case, Gleason wrote that the board’s interpretation of the border was reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and not contrary to law. She upheld its conclusion that the refuge boundary follows the Staines River.