Page images
PDF
EPUB

the policies as is usually the case, through the focus provided by the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.

As to each of these greater policies, the

State of Alaska has substantial interests which bring

it to view this legislation with concern.

With regard to regulation, we believe it is

inappropriate to use the proprietary power of the Secretary of Interior to impose a regulatory regime he has no historic competence to administer. Should Congress wish to provide economic regulation of pipelines, it should

do so through exercise of its authority over interstate

We

commerce and consider well the placement of the power. are quite concerned that through relving on proprietary power alone, the legislation discriminates unwisely and perhaps unjustly between those states which already enjoy

a workable array of rights-of-way and those which remain essentially undeveloped, between those states, notably

Alaska, which have extensive federal inholdings and those that do not. We are concerned about conflict with

Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC")

jurisdiction;

we are concerned about possible preemption and pending litigation regarding Alaska's comprehensive state regulatory

system over intrastate pipelines

a far more rigorous

system than that utilized by the ICC or contemplated under

this Act.

(Ch. 139 Session Laws of Alaska 1972).

Unless

a comprehensive national regulatory system is to be estab

lished, we believe that these are matters which should be

left to the states.

If a national corridor system is to be established,

it also should be founded upon the commerce clause power

and on a broader foundation than the distribution of

federal land ownership.

With regard to the revision of the many laws

affecting rights-of-way and the centralization of authority

in the Secretary of Interior, we believe that the law
should be disturbed only in relation to the acquisition
of rights-of-way by private parties. There is no evidence

that the transfer of interests in land among sovereigns

for public purposes need be subject to the same constraints

as should surround the private acquisition of such interests.

We are concerned that the definition section

may preclude and abolish forever the right of federal

authority to grant rights-of-way, notably in refuges
but also in other categories of land, and puts Alaska at
a severe disadvantage in the development of a rudimentary

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

state and its proportion to the size of the state as a whole

is such that a straitjacket on future development in Alaska may be unintentionally imposed through this legislation.

These broader objectives, however laudable,

do not lend themselves to treatment in the technical legislation we believe is needed at this time. Section 4

of s. 1081 contemplates a study leading to identification

and designation of a national system of transportation and utility corridors across federal lands. No one can ignore the fact that coordinated transportation corridor planning on a national or continental scale is needed, but there is a certain anomaly in attempting to accomplish so compre

hensive a goal within the extremely narrow compass of an

act governing the disposition of certain interests in certain categories of public land. Indeed, transportation problems have shown little regard for patterns of land ownership; the most urgent planning problems exist in areas having the greatest concentration of private ownership. Creation of a study commission with particular orientations toward energy policy and the dynamics of international transportation, coupled with specific incentive devices such as those found in the "National Land Use Policy Act of 1972" (s. 632), would produce far more effective reforms

than could come from corridor planning in the restrictive

context of public lands legislation.

REGULATIONS

Both bills call for the promulgation of regulations on a wide variety of subjects (s. 1081, SS 4, 5 (c) and (d);

s. 1041, Title IV, SS 404 (c) and (g)). In some cases,

such regulations would merely be repetitive of legal

requirements imposed by the act itself or by other existing
federal statutes and regulations. In all cases, require-
ments imposed generally (by regulation) could be imposed
far more effectively on a case-by-case basis. As the

witnesses have generally agreed, most projects present

unique problems.

Providing for specific environmental

controls and other terms by regulation deprives the Sec

retary of the freedom to tailor all of the permissible

terms and conditions, both economic and environmental, to

We note

the problems presented by individual projects. that both the guidelines promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality to implement the National Environmental Policy Act and the Interior Department Manual recognize

that the promulgation of regulations may in certain cases

be considered a "major federal action significantly

affecting the human environment" thus requiring an Environ-
mental Impact Statement and generating at least a risk
of further litigation extending yet again the possibility

of an early start on TAPS.

LIABILITY

§ 5(g) of s. 1081 and S 404 (g) of Title IV of

s. 1041 set forth the terms upon which holders of rights-of-way

will be liable for damages arising out of activities con

ducted on the premises. In the event that the Congress determines that it will not leave these matters to the discretion of the Secretary (and we believe the record is clear that the Secretary is adequately performing the task through the imposition of environmental stipulations), the State favors the Jackson bill's provision over its counter

part.

S 5(g) offers third parties the same protection

which the federal government enjoys.

Similarly, S 6(h)

requires that where necessary a right-of-way must include

a condition protecting the interests of subsistence resources users in its vicinity. (This desirable provision

is also absent from the administration's bill.)

Most signif

icantly, inclusion of the protective guarantees of s 5 (g)

in any right-of-way is mandatory under the Jackson bill,

whereas s. 1041 contemplates the promulgation of regulations

describing "the extent to which" such requirements will

apply. (Again, the utility of regulations is not readily apparent with respect to a subject like this one. Congress itself is certainly the appropriate authority to make the essential economic judgment about whether liability of this

kind should be imposed.)

CORRIDORS

Both bills encourage non-exclusivity and multiple

use of rights-of-way over federal land. The State of Alaska

favors these concepts.

s. 1081's requirement of regulations

« PreviousContinue »