I am troubled.

The Department of Interior (DOI) has issued a proposed management plan that effectively locks up about half of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) from development. The announcement was heralded in a federal news release as a compromise between development and conservation. In reality, it was just a wholesale land grab.

Apart from the obvious contradiction of stopping oil and gas activity in an area set aside specifically for the purpose of oil and gas development, this decision makes no sense to me. That’s why what troubles me most is not the announcement itself, but the reaction to it.

Oh, I know that many leading Alaskans spoke out against DOI’s final proposed plan. The arguments were strong and made sense. However, if you spend some time looking at the various statements, news releases and media coverage, you’ll see there was something missing – a serious conversation about the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 USC 3213) and how this action runs counter to it.

ANILCA was signed into law in 1980 and set aside 106 million acres of federal lands in Alaska for conservation. Added to the already protected existing spaces, over 148 million acres of federal land was declared off limits to development.

Long-time Alaskans will tell you that the full impact of ANILCA on resource development is still not known, and, to this day, many still oppose the legislation. My purpose here is not to debate the merits of ANILCA. However, ANILCA is the law of the land and we must abide by it. We also need to understand that it did more than just lock-up federal lands.

There are many good resources to help us understand ANILCA – probably the best is RDC’s Who Owns Alaska? It describes the history and impacts of the legislation on Alaska and resource development. It’s a must read.

In my opinion, the most important parts of the law are Section 101 (d) – the purposes section – and Section 1326 – commonly referred to as the “No More” clause. In section 101, Congress said that ANILCA represents a proper balance between conservation and development and no more land would be withdrawn for conservation purposes by the federal government. Section 1326 put some teeth in the legislation and said the Federal Administration cannot withdraw more land for conservation without Congressional approval.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is exactly what it says:
SEC. 1326. (a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than five thousand acres, in the aggregate, of public lands within the State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance with this subsection. To the extent authorized by existing law, the President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the State of Alaska exceeding five thousand acres in the aggregate, which withdrawal shall not become effective until notice is provided in the Federal Register and to both Houses of Congress. Such withdrawal shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint resolution of approval within one year after the notice of such withdrawal has been submitted to Congress.
(b) No further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes shall be conducted unless authorized by this Act or further Act of Congress.

All of this brings me back to the debate over the DOI proposal for NPR-A. If ANILCA says no more conservation land is needed, how then can DOI propose to add more conservation land? Why is it Congress’ carefully crafted “proper balance” appears to be set aside by administrative fiat?

Now do you understand why I am troubled?

This should have Alaskans standing on our chairs, waving our arms and demanding an explanation. ANILCA prescribes the rules of the game. Alaska is playing by them. How is it that the federal government apparently doesn’t have to? Surely this was not Congress’ intent.

As Alaskans and as leaders in the responsible development of Alaska’s resources, we need to stand up and take this fight on. We need to draw a line in the sand. Every time the federal government takes an action that we believe is inconsistent with ANILCA, we must stand up and demand answers. Our elected leaders need to do the same. If we don’t, this won’t end. Think of the initiatives waiting in the wings today that could be next – ocean spatial planning and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan are just two examples.

George Santayana famously said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It’s time we all take a refresher course on ANILCA or expect to see more land grabs dressed up as “compromises.” The compromise was made 32 years ago.

Return to newsletter headlines