Anchorage Daily News

In the long fight for statehood, the most compelling symbol of Alaska's grievances was the fish trap. The device, authorized by the territory's federal overseers, allowed Outside-owned canneries to elbow aside local fishermen, vacuum up Alaska's salmon, and haul huge profits back to the Lower 48. Almost the instant Alaska joined the union, the new state abolished fish traps. Alaska went on to rebuild healthy salmon fisheries under more enlightened state management.

Since then, the most compelling symbol of what Alaska has done with our newfound power as a state is the trans-Alaska pipeline.

$96 BILLION

Oil flowing through the pipeline from the North Slope has produced an astounding $96 billion for the state treasury. The oil bonanza at Prudhoe Bay, located on land owned by the new state government, settled the question of how the fledging state would support itself.

Today oil drives a third of the state's economy. Once among the poorest of states, Alaska consistently ranks near the top of those with the highest household income.

Without the pipeline, Alaska probably wouldn't have the Permanent Fund -- the single wisest political decision of our young state's history. Even after the current market crash, the oil money stashed in that savings account is still worth $29 billion. An Alaskan living here since 1982 has collected $29,600 in dividends.

OUTSIDERS STILL SEEN AS OBSTACLES

During the battle in Congress and the courts to authorize the pipeline, Outside environmentalists and the federal government replaced Seattle canneries as the most-resented obstacles to Alaska's self-determination. For years after the pipeline vote, environmental battles continued on a different front -- the "D-2" lands issue. Contrary to what Alaska critics predicted, Congress' 1980 decision to put roughly 100 million acres into national parks, refuges and wilderness areas has not been an economic disaster.

Nonetheless, environmentalists and the feds remain the prime objects of some Alaskans' scorn. Left alone to decide the matters, Alaskans today would almost certainly embrace drilling in the environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

EXXON VALDEZ

In 1989, Alaska paid a heavy price for our enthusiastic embrace of oil. The Exxon Valdez fouled more than 1,000 miles of coastline and devastated numerous fisheries. Ironically, the spill was also a helpful economic tonic. At the time, oil prices had crashed, causing the state's superheated economy to collapse and 20,000 people to leave. The ineffective oil spill cleanup cost some $2 billion and helped pull Alaska out of the state's worst-ever recession.

A NEW OUTSIDE MASTER

In moving from fish to oil, Alaska traded one set of Outside colonial powers for another. Instead of Seattle canneries running the show in the territorial Legislature, oil companies carried the big clout in Juneau.

In 1981, the industry's allies rolled back the state's first effort to gain its fair share from windfall oil profits. After a modest tax increase in 1989, prompted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the industry won almost two decades of tax stability at rates far below what other oil-rich provinces in the world managed to collect.

CORRUPTION

The pipeline also symbolizes a darker side of Alaska's experience as a state: corruption.

As the pipeline was built, Teamster union boss Jess Carr emerged as the state's most powerful figure -- and not by playing according to Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Three decades later, Alaska's oil patch produced the worst corruption scandal in the state's history. Veco magnate Bill Allen was caught bribing legislators to hold the line on oil taxes. Only after that scandal erupted did Alaska lawmakers have the fortitude to demand a much higher share of the oil wealth being pumped from the state.

NATIVE CLAIMS

The fight over the oil pipeline triggered the settlement of long-standing land claims by Alaska Natives. Today, Native corporations are far and away Alaska's largest private landholders. The most successful Native firms have evolved into multi-billion dollar industries headquartered right here in Alaska, bringing home profits from around the world.

Native relations have, however, produced another of many ironic turns in Alaska's history as a state. After Alaskans so urgently sought self-determination by joining the union, the State of Alaska has generally resisted Alaska Natives' attempt to achieve the self-determination Lower 48 tribes commonly exercise under federal Indian law.

POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION

Some national Republicans had resisted statehood because the impoverished territory was a place that leaned Democratic -- it needed and welcomed a generous approach to government spending. Oil, though, hastened Alaska's conversion to a curious variant of Republicanism.

As oil came to pay most of the new state's bills, Republicans could crow about low taxes and condemn the supposed evils of Big Government while enjoying the political rewards of liberal government spending, both in Juneau and in Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL DEPENDENCE

Another ironic turn for our 50-year-old state: While oil has enabled Alaska to support state government, our economy and well-being still depend heavily on federal spending. Thanks to a huge military presence and the funding prowess of the now-departed Sen. Ted Stevens, federal money drives about one-third of Alaska's economy. With Stevens gone, the federal tap won't be turned off but it's likely to be turned down, adding to the challenges Alaska faces in its second 50 years.

ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY

At age 50, Alaska suffers the weakness that afflicts almost all oil-rich governments. Oil wealth comes so easily, there is no urgency to develop a more well-rounded economy.

Alaska's experiments along those lines -- Delta barley, the dairy industry, the Anchorage seafood plant, the Healy coal plant -- have been expensive flops. Modest economic contributions have come from big box stores, expanding local health care services, tourism and bottom fishing. Until recently, our leaders treated the state university as a costly burden instead of an economic building block.

Many Alaskans still dream of the next big resource boom -- if not in ANWR, then the North Slope gas line. Neither is coming any time soon.

With the gas line, the Palin administration and Legislature have outlined the terms Alaska wants instead of automatically catering to what gas holders demand. That's a healthy sign of growing political maturity, but we're a long way from seeing any economic payoff. Meanwhile, Alaska does have a cushion for state finances, with $6 billion in reserve funds, plus the $29 billion permanent fund.

Compared to the easy prosperity oil has supplied, Alaska enters its next 50 years facing big economic uncertainty -- but we're still in a position most of the other 49 states would envy.

BOTTOM LINE: Oil wealth has made Alaska a prosperous state, but some still chafe at Outside influences that restrict development.

ADVERTISEMENT