I always look forward to Jill Burke's articles on rural and Native issues. Her coverage of the Point Hope caribou case was by far the most comprehensive and insightful of any reporting on the issue. Her Jan. 6 article, "New argument in polar bear debate," made some good points and covered a wide range of views on offshore oil and gas development. In the article, she concluded that I have "had a change of heart" about offshore development based on two recent positions taken by the borough. Her conclusion was understandable, but it was also wide of the mark.
The positions that caught her attention were:
1. The borough's decision not to join litigation against federal approval of Shell's revised Beaufort Sea exploration plan; and
2. Our opposition to the federal designation of 200,000 square miles of Arctic Ocean and North Slope coastal area as critical habitat for the polar bear.
I decided not to join the recent litigation because Shell had made changes to reduce the size and scope of its exploration plan as a result of our concerns. In addition, the federal government strengthened the permits by stipulating when drilling will have to shut down to accommodate the subsistence whaling season. Am I ready to say "full steam ahead" on offshore development? Absolutely not. I have major concerns about sediment discharge, air quality and other features of the proposed activity, and I am continuing to work with industry and the agencies to improve them. But there were good and consistent reasons for my position on Shell's permits.
My opposition to the polar bear critical habitat designation was a much easier decision. Fish and wildlife listed the polar bear as a threatened species and declared vast areas as critical habitat because global climate change is melting the sea ice, which provides an important platform for polar bear feeding at certain times of year. There is nothing that North Slope residents can do to mitigate the warming of the ocean and disappearance of the sea ice. Restricting our activity in a 200,000-square-mile area will not help the polar bear. It will only make life more difficult for people who live in and use this area. In a worst-case scenario, the designation could restrict subsistence activities, which would do real harm to people on the North Slope without making any difference to the health of the polar bear population. This makes no sense at all, and it understandably upsets people throughout the region.
We don't know what specific restrictions the feds will come up with, but the polar bear listing gives them plenty of latitude to interfere with all kinds of ordinary community activity. For example, it is entirely possible they could choose to block construction of a new landing strip at Kaktovik. Storm surges routinely swamp the existing airstrip, so the village desperately needs an alternative. But it is within the critical habitat zone and fears of disturbing a polar bear den could stall the project.
The borough submitted comments on the critical habitat designation jointly with Arctic Slope Regional Corp. We pointed out that severe economic constraints would violate the intent of the land claims act. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act contained an economic development mandate in its formation of Native regional and village corporations, and blocking the exercise of that mandate would deny us the path of economic development that Alaska Natives were directed to pursue through ANCSA.
In her article, Jill said, "For the borough, this argument represents a departure from the legal battles it waged in recent years against federal regulators that had approved exploration plans for oil companies hoping to tap vast oil reserves beneath the Arctic seabed." She said that, while we had sued over federal approval of Shell's Beaufort Sea exploration plan in 2007, my decision not to join in the latest litigation on Shell's revised plan indicates that I have had "a change of heart."
This is not true. I have consistently supported oil and gas development that does not threaten the future of our subsistence hunting tradition. We have long considered ourselves a partner with industry in onshore development, and we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our communities, the state and pro-industry groups in promoting ANWR development.
Offshore is a different matter because it introduces a new level of risk to our most cherished cultural activity -- the bowhead whale hunt. I continue to oppose offshore development as a matter of principle. The risks are too high. A substantial spill would be impossible to clean up, and even the everyday issues of noise, discharge and small-scale spills could impact the bowhead migration and the hunt.
At the same time, I'm a realist. As long as the industry believes there's a lot of oil and gas out in the ocean -- which they do -- and as long as the Obama administration supports Arctic OCS development -- which they do -- then we are likely to see activity in our waters. So I have to ask myself: what's the most effective way to deal with that reality? We can either build a wall of lawsuits between us and the feds and industry, or we can sit down and challenge them to meet our expectations. I believe we will ultimately do a better job of protecting our subsistence resources if we work with them to achieve the highest standards and then hold their feet to the fire.
And believe me, the agencies and industry are getting an earful about our expectations, which include deferral areas and mitigation measures and discharge requirements that will make offshore activity in the Arctic as safe as it is anywhere in the world. We are looking for protections that achieve the same level of safety for Arctic Ocean operations that exists in Prince William Sound, where a disabled tanker did not turn into a disaster last weekend. It's this kind of precautionary planning that we seek, and there are early indications that our efforts are getting results.
If all else fails, I will still consider going to court, but I have never believed in litigation as a good way to get things done.
ANCSA inextricably tied us to the modern world and its economic solutions, but a foothold in the cash economy also gave us the wherewithal to sustain our involvement in the subsistence economy. A large percentage of calories consumed by North Slope Inupiat still come from subsistence activities, and our day jobs help to make this possible. After all, it costs a lot of money to purchase the snow machines and boats and other gear required for subsistence hunting.
Clearly, Native people have to walk a tightrope between traditional and modern worlds. It is a difficult balancing act, which is reflected in our lives and our politics. And while it may appear that one decision or another represents "a change of heart," it is more likely the result of a change in circumstances. I know that my heart hasn't changed. It is still intent on finding solutions today that will make it possible for my children's grandchildren to share the values and practices of my parents' grandparents.
Edward S. Itta is the mayor of the North Slope Borough.
Talk of the Tundra features commentary by Alaskans from across the state. The views expressed are the writer's own and are not endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. We welcome a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail editor(at)alaskadispatch.com.