Beware a Divided and Storm-Tossed Ship of State

by

Dave Harbour

If Rena Delbridge is right (NGP Photo), and she always seems to be, her Alaska Dispatch article yesterday reveals the tip of an iceberg that could well sink Ship Alaska.  

For our ship of state to have a chance of traversing a deep sea amid many economic and social storms–raging nationally and here at home–we must work together.  Working against each other could let our vulnerable vessel slip broadside into a deep trough before the coming seas.

Absent ANWR, a gas pipeline project or an important new oil and gas discovery, Alaska desperately needs development of her outer continental shelf (OCS) with the same sharing of the federal revenue stream enjoyed by some Gulf coast states.  Since Alaska’s government is fueled by a general fund 90% composed of oil dollars, a dwindling production curve means the state needs more production to maintain its government lifestyle.  On the private sector side, one notes that while almost all non-federal jobs in the state are directly or indirectly tied to Alaska’s oil wealth, about a third of the economy is absolutely and directly tied to oil.  So Alaska needs Federal OCS lease sales, exploration and development with Congressionally approved revenue sharing as soon as possible. 

One might also say that rural Alaska–more dependent on State revenue sharing, public safety, education, communication and welfare programs than urban Alaska–should be especially supportive of new oil and gas projects offering sustainable support for this oil-fired economy.

Determined efforts by some Members of Congress could convince their colleagues to end the special advantages Alaska Native Regional and Village corporations have in competing for federal government "8(a)" sole-source bid contracts.  Were that to happen, these home-grown companies would have to more fully rely on what is left of Alaska’s oil and gas economy.  Therefore, one would think enlightened self interest would guide Native corporate leaders to weigh in more visibaly against efforts to make oil, gas, mining, timber and other free enterprise activity in coastal areas more difficult, expensive, intimidating and risky.  But they seem very reluctant to interrupt shouts from the villages demanding more control over natural resource management decisions.

Ms. Delbridge’s article sheds light on at least two types of blackmail rural lawmakers are holding over their Alaska State Senate and House colleagues.  "Give us control over coastal and inland human activity," they seem to be saying, or 1) "we will help the democrats take control of the Legislature next year," and 2) "absent compliance with our demands we will begin more actively siding with outside environmental groups–against Alaska."  This sort of behavior prompts elected leaders to alter their focus from unified strategies to strengthen the state, to divided political defense/offense tactics.

Such a circumstance most certainly does not serve the public interest.  

On the one side we have coastal village leaders and their representatives arguing that they need more ‘voice’ in issues affecting the coastal areas; after all, "We live there", they might say.  On the other hand, we can understand the state’s position that its existing regulatory structure allows local voices to be heard multiple times throughout a project’s permitting process.  We’ve recently witnessed environmental activists saying, "the best thing to do is to stop a project from proceeding even before it engages the permitting process."  Then, the industry might argue, "We already face one of the most stringent regulatory structures in the world, one that allows all citizens and stakeholders to have their voices heard.  Adding another layer of bureaucracy will tend to delay projects, make them more risky and expensive and perhaps result in less investment in Alaska projects."  

If local leaders can obtain control of natural resource permitting in coastal and related areas, they can exercise intimidating economic control over oil, gas, mining, timber and other industries and use that control–as well–to obtain even more largess from the state.  Watch the related Senate (SB 4) and House bills (HB 74), for if they go anywhere, it will be at the expense of Alaska State Sovereignty, for the principles of the new coastal management board they espouse, would levy veto control in some ways and gatekeeper functions in other ways that block the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Conservation from exercising due process according to the law in the best interest of all Alaskans.