Opposition Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

a caribou walks next section of pipeline north of brooks range. opponents of pipeline asserted presence of pipeline interfere caribou.

although conservation groups , environmental organizations had voiced opposition pipeline project before 1970, introduction of national environmental policy act allowed them legal grounds halt project. arctic engineers had raised concerns way plans subterranean pipeline showed ignorance of arctic engineering , permafrost in particular. clause in nepa requiring study of alternatives , clause requiring environmental impact statement turned concerns tools used wilderness society, friends of earth, , environmental defense fund in spring 1970 lawsuit stop project.

the injunction against project forced alyeska further research throughout summer of 1970. collected material turned on interior department in october 1970, , draft environmental impact statement published in january 1971. 294-page statement drew massive criticism, generating more 12,000 pages of testimony , evidence in congressional debates end of march. criticisms of project included effect on alaska tundra, possible pollution, harm animals, geographic features, , lack of engineering information alyeska. 1 element of opposition report quelled discussion of alternatives. proposed alternatives—extension of alaska railroad, alternative route through canada, establishing port @ prudhoe bay, , more—were deemed pose more environmental risks construction of pipeline directly across alaska.

opposition directed @ building of construction , maintenance highway parallel pipeline. although clause in alyeska s pipeline proposal called removal of pipeline @ point, no such provision made removal of road. sydney howe, president of conservation foundation, warned: oil might last fifty years. road remain forever. argument relied upon slow growth of plants , animals in far northern alaska due harsh conditions , short growing season. in testimony, environmentalist argued arctic trees, though few feet tall, had been seedlings when george washington inaugurated .

the portion of environmental debate biggest symbolic impact took place when discussing pipeline s impact on caribou herds. environmentalists proposed pipeline have effect on caribou similar effect of u.s. transcontinental railroad on american bison population of north america. pipeline critics said pipeline block traditional migration routes, making caribou populations smaller , making them easier hunt. idea exploited in anti-pipeline advertising, notably when picture of forklift carrying several legally shot caribou emblazoned slogan, there more 1 way caribou across alaska pipeline . use of caribou example of pipeline s environmental effects reached peak in spring of 1971, when draft environmental statement being debated.

the pipeline disrupts caribou migration routes crossing points installed prevent disruption.the oil industry , pipeline provides money, can used protect local animal habitats , environment. 6-16 billion barrels of oil lies underneath anwr. however, senate blocked proposal drill under protected area.

native objections

the pipeline passes underneath many smaller rivers , streams bridges longer crossings

in 1902, united states department of agriculture set aside 16,000,000 acres (64,750 km) of southeast alaska tongass national forest. tlingit natives lived in area protested land theirs , had been unfairly taken. in 1935, congress passed law allowing tlingits sue recompense, , resulting case dragged on until 1968, when $7.5 million settlement reached. following native lawsuit halt work on trans-alaska pipeline, precedent mentioned in debate, causing pressure resolve situation more 33 years had taken tlingits satisfied. between 1968 , 1971, succession of bills introduced u.s. congress compensate statewide native claims. earliest bill offered $7 million, flatly rejected.

the alaska federation of natives, had been created in 1966, hired former united states supreme court justice arthur goldberg, suggested settlement should include 40 million acres (160,000 km) of land , payment of $500 million. issue remained @ standstill until alyeska began lobbying in favor of native claims act in congress in order lift legal injunction against pipeline construction. in october 1971, president richard nixon signed alaska native claims settlement act (ancsa). under act, native groups renounce land claims in exchange $962.5 million , 148.5 million acres (601,000 km) in federal land. money , land split among village , regional corporations, distributed shares of stock natives in region or village. shares paid dividends based on both settlement , corporation profits. pipeline developers, important aspect of ancsa clause dictating no native allotments selected in path of pipeline.

another objection of natives potential pipeline disrupt traditional way of life. many natives worried disruption caused pipeline scare away whales , caribou relied upon food.