I think that what you need to do is look at a lot more flexibility for the state, and I think you have that.

It seems to me it is squarely undermining the intent of ANCSA.

I think we have gotten a lot of good ideas from this panel.

It seems like Federal agencies come in with all kinds of different requirements, completely uncoordinated.

Not on the North Slope, though. We will be very curious about your numbers on the North Slope.

I agree with you, the state has done a good job of coordinating on large projects.

These statistics are why this is such an important issue for us.

It seems to me that that is completely at odds with both the goals of both of those statutes.

The authority has to derive from the Congress. You have to be able to point to a statute.

I think that violates the tenth amendment or any other aspect of the Clean Water Act.

If that is not enough, we will turn to the legislative and appropriations process to secure the fair treatment that we deserve.

Two years in a row the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that you have not abided by the statute or the Constitution.

I think it is an area that, in terms of Congressional oversight, that is important.

Do you have a statutory provision that you can provide us that allows Federal agencies to require compensatory mitigation of a co-equal sovereign to pay mitigation?

I would respectfully request that the headquarters back at the Department of the Interior come back with detailed, detailed, legal authority.

the problem is when Washington, DC dictates certain policies with, kind of, a one-size-fits-all mentality

I wish that I could say the same for EPA, but its prerogative often seems to be finding a way to get to, or to perhaps stay at, no.

I commend you for your company's willingness to actually challenge this because that takes a lot of guts, a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of uncertainty.

If our Alaska Native Corporations, regional corporations, village corporations want to develop the land that they were given by the Federal Government and the State to develop to take care of their shareholders, their people they are…

Actually I think you can make the opposite argument.

You don't have $1.4 million and you should not be required to give up land to develop lands.

Isn't that part of the huge conundrum that a one-size-does-not-fit-all for Alaska when it comes to the Clean Water Act?

Almost $3.4 million in 2014 we had to pay to the Federal Government for mitigation to build roads in Alaska.

I think it is important to go back and look at the statute. We are the co-regulator. We are the co-sovereign here.

No equal regulator under the Clean Water Act became the subservient sovereign.