It has been 20 years since the passage of Jimmy Carter’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which placed more than 104 million acres into various protected designations against the protests of most Alaskans. It has been 20 years since Alaskans were promised that valid existing rights would be protected, that access to private lands inside the conservation units would be guaranteed, and that “no more” land would be set aside. It has been 20 years since a Washington senator described Carter’s bill as a “balanced and reasonable proposal; a proposal which protects the most outstanding natural and wildlife resources to be found in our country, while at the same time helping to insure that Alaska’s vast timber, mineral and energy resources will not be placed ‘off limits.'”
A newly published book, d(2), Part 2: A Report to the People of Alaska, tells a different tale. In its preface, state Senator Ted Stevens notes that Alaskans are continuing to fight for what was agreed to in the act. “From the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Kantishna to Glacier Bay, wave after wave of assaults on the Act’s protections have challenged the agreement.” The Alaska Miners Association (AMA) has chronicled these assaults in the hope of educating the world about the troubled aftermath of the d(2) land withdrawal.
The bill’s passage was devastating for all resource industries, including mining. It placed known deposits, even entire mineral districts, within conservation units. Last year, at a hearing in Anchorage, the AMA’s Steve Borell provided testimony to this effect before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On the issue of protecting valid existing rights, he told the committee that the National Park Service has done everything possible to stop mining activity within the boundaries of the park units. “This has been a calculated, deliberate and illegal effort to deprive the miners of rights that were promised by ANILCA.”
Borell cited numerous aspects of this strategy, including: stringing miners along by continuously asking for more data; not approving plans for mechanized mines; crafting an EIS such that mining could not be permitted; not allowing sampling, and thereby preventing miners from proving the value of “taken” properties; and delays, stonewalling and similar forms of harassment designed to make miners give up and drop their claims.
The rights to gain access to private lands within conservation units were repeatedly violated. Motorized access was opposed, and agencies often imposed permit requirements limiting times of travel to and from the properties. At the end of the day, activities on inholdings were invariably found to be “incompatible” with the “purposes” of the conservation unit. The blocking of natural transportation routes reduced the value of resources and claims on inholdings.
However, the most serious and egregious examples of broken promises were related to ANILCA’s “no more” clause, which states that Alaska has given its share of federal conservation lands. Section 101(d) states that the need for protected areas has been fully met in the state. Another section prohibits further administrative closures, including the use of the Antiquities Act (used by Carter), while still another prohibits federal agencies from even studying additional lands for withdrawal.
The “no more” clause has never been respected by environmental groups. In fact, the ink was barely dry on ANILCA when the Wilderness Society began drafting its “fight to save wild Alaska” for the 21st century. Its efforts were joined by other groups, who were still upset that they didn’t get the 140 million acres they wanted in the 1980 withdrawal.
A congressional bill was drafted to create buffer zones around the huge conservation units. Alaskans fought that tooth-and-nail, as it would have brought in most of the remaining territory and coastal waters. They reminded Congress that buffer zones had already been provided for in the 1980 law. The proposal died because of their efforts.
Next came proposals for marine sanctuaries (involving 18 million acres strategically sited where any coastal development might someday occur), illegal wilderness studies, and proposals for establishing world heritage sites, international parks (Beringia) and biosphere reserves. The last three are United Nations designations, to be applied without state or federal approval, that cede jurisdiction to an international body. When the going gets tough, environmentalists turn to the U.N. as their saviour of last resort. And in this case, the U.N. was happy to comply by suggesting a dozen World Heritage sites and biosphere reserves in Alaska!
Still unresolved are proposals to set aside millions of acres of critical habitat areas for various species. As one Alaskan put it: “Rest assured, there are handy lists of about-to-be-endangered species where future projects might occur.” Another ploy, representative of the environmentalism that marked the Clinton-Gore administration, is the “roadless area” plan, which would prohibit road-building in most of the Tongass and Chugach National Forests.
Environmental groups have also launched a myriad of lawsuits in the past 20 years: against oil and gas leasing on submerged lands; against regulation of mining by government agencies; against land exchanges; over navigability issues; over cumulative impacts of mining claims; over access to inholdings; over mining plans of operation; against commercial fishing in non-wilderness lands; and against cruise ship and air transport activity, to name only a few.
Sadly, most Alaskans would agree with a fellow citizen who concluded that it is impossible to win land-use battles, so long as there are politicians in Washington “committed to granting every wish of the national environmental organizations, whose mission in life is to lock up every last acre of land in Alaska.”
An exaggeration? Hardly. We’ve found web sites of environmental groups urging President Bill Clinton to use the Antiquities Act to set aside permanently land being considered for oil development. So much for the promise that this act will never again be used for land withdrawals in Alaska!
The time has come for environmental groups to respect the rights of Alaskans, including the promise of “no more” withdrawals. The state has already contributed 62% of all wilderness lands in the entire U.S., or roughly one-third its land mass. Yet, even after giving so much, Alaskans say they must fight for its side of the ANILCA bargain, and against a complex web of restrictions, requirements and regulations deliberately designed to remove all human activity from the Last Frontier.
If there is a light at the end of this dark tunnel, it is the recent election of George W. Bush as president of the United States. It is an opportunity to turn a new page in federal-state relations, and to find the balance that Alaskans need for a healthy environment and a strong economy. We urge president-elect Bush to respect the wishes of Alaskans in future land-use decisions.
Be the first to comment on "The d(2) aftermath"