Page images

one or another of the alternatives passing in part through Canadian territory, if the inquiry we are urging shows minimal environmental impact. If this is the case, we cannot believe that the difficulties of reaching a firm agreement between Canada and the United States for these routes would be so great as to involve any serious risk for deliveries. And there is much reason to believe that differences in construction and operating costs between Valdez and MacKenzie have been declining rapidly with the passage of time and could at least be equalized ; if the environmental damage factors are considered, the balance would seem to swing clearly toward the alternatives.

Your leadership in directing a fundamental change in public policy on this issue at this time would have powerful support from large segments of the environmental movement of the United States. Your good offices might be heavily influential in reaching an agreement with the oil companies to give serious consideration to the alternative routes. Your recommendations to Congress would certainly be highly influential with that body in considering action for a broader right of way based on applications for one or another of the alternatives. The result might well be to expedite a fundamental solution to the whole problem, avoiding further delays and rising costs. The Environmental Coalition for North America would be happy to lend its vigorous support to an ecologically sound solution to the controversy. With assurances of our high esteem, Respectfully yours,



Vice Chairman. SAM LOVE,

Secretary-Treasurer. P.S. The Environmental Coalition consists of persons associated with most of the major environmental organizations of the United States including major labor and farm organizations. A descriptive folder is enclosed.


OCTOBER 30, 1972. President and General Counsel, National Parks and Conservation Association

since 1958. Attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York and the District of

Columbia. Chairman, Environmental Coalition for North America ; General Counsel, Citi

zens Permanent Conference on the Potomac River Basin (Citpercon) ; Executive Committee member, Citizens Committee on Natural Resources ; President, South Central Pennsylvania Citizens Association; in all cases serving in a personal, professional capacity on personal time without compensation pro

bono publico. Co-Chairman, Everglades Coalition: for personal identification only in this re

spect, the Everglades Coalition protested successfully in April, 1969 against a proposed giant jetport in Big Cypress Swamp in the Florida Everglades

country. Member of and executive in conservation organizations and movements in water

shed management, river basin planning, forestry, soil conservation, and wild

life management for over 20 years. Professional student of government operations, specifically with reference to

natural resources management and regional planning; specialist in the co

ordination of disciplines involved in such management and planning. Graduate of University of Pittsburgh and Yale School of Law; Board of Editors,

Yale Law Journal. Secretary to Governor Gifford Pinchot of Pennsylvania 1932–33. Practiced law in New York with Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, Two Wall

Street, after graduation from Law School. Assistant General Counsel, Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1937-56 ;

Assistant Director of CIO State and Local Central Organizations 1941-56; Executive Secretary of CIO Committee on Regional Development and Conservation 1945-56; Committee on Political Education, AFL-CIO 1956-58.

Commercial dairyman, Franklin County, Pennsylvania since 1954. Member Farm

Bureau, Grange, Milk Producers Federation, Soil Conservation District, and other farm organizations.

Jr. Smith. Finally, you people, of course, are the judge of the order of witnesses here. If you feel that I might possibly have further time which I could yield, I would like to point out to you that you have present people from the plaintiffs in the pipeline case, and you might want to give them some priority here.

I would be glad to yield any further time you may think I have to Mr. Stewart Brandborg, who is one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Senator HASKELL. I was going to go out of order here. I was going to ask Mr. Hensley to appear next and Mr. Brandborg to follow him.

Thank you very much.

Senator HASKELL. Mr. William Hensley, president of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Introduce the gentlemen with you and proceed in your own way.

I would prefer if you could just talk rather than read your statement. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HENSLEY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FED

Mr. HENSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to introduce Mr. Ed Weinberg, one of the legal counsel, and on my left is Mr. Ken Bass, also one of the legal counsel we work with.

Senator HASKELL. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. Hensley. I do have a prepared statement. I prefer not to read it. However, I will speak more or less off the cuff.

Senator HASKELL. Fine. Your statement will be included as part of the record.

Mr. HENSLEY. I am William Hensley, president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc.

I am also a member of the State senate. I do represent the arctic snow barrier; also the entire area virtually north of the Yukon down to the delta.

I come primarily to speak to one particular issue that has concerned the Native people in Alaska, particularly those living along the route of the pipeline and also in the neighboring areas.

I think you may be aware that there was a passage of the Settlement Act in the last Congress which authorized the Native people to select certain areas of land; also providing some payments to the Native people for the lands that we were giving up to the United States.

We understand that this hearing is primarily devoted to the general question of rights-of-way across the Federal lands and not directed at the trans-Alaska pipeline as such. However, we will have to refer to that inasmuch as we have sought from the Secretary of the Interior for sometime now for over a year to try to obtain a stipulation in the pipeline permit that would provide for the protection of the people who live on the fish and game along the route of the pipeline.

93-1 45 0.73 - 15

Within the Claims Act itself, the act does specify that half a billion dollars of payment that is to go to the Native people is to come from resource development. That is essentially the 2-percent royalty on oil and gas and mineral production in the State.

Essentially we will not be paid very much at all for many, many years unless there is a large production of oil and gas in the State.

The primary concern we have at this point with regard to the legislation before you is section 6(h) of S. 1081. This would provide for an indemnification to people who live on fish and game and other biotic resources.

The environmental protection impact statement with regard to the pipeline indicated the amount of dependence that the Native people have on fish and game.

I would like to read this one section, if I may. A majority of the Alaska Native population still utilizes the renewable resources of the land and water to satisfy important physiological needs. Indeed, much of village Alaska is dependent upon these resources for its very existence, and the prospects are that it will be required to remain so for many years to come. Even where use of the marketplace to satisfy primary needs is dominant there is substantial reliance on the harvesting of renewable natural resources as the Native point of entry into the cash economy. However, the importance of these resources to the Native peoples goes much beyond their use in satisfying physiological or cash income needs. The roots of traditional Native cultures can be found in the patterns of resource harvesting activities, and the values associated therewith continue to be important in satisfying significant emotional and social needs.

The construction and operation of the trans-Alaska pipeline could entail sig. nificant negative impact on the resource utilization patterns of the Alaska Natives. The extent of this impact is largely a matter of speculation, but it is apparent that, barring a major disaster, it is those Natives in the area of the Yukon River northwest of Fairbanks, and in the Copper River Valley area, who would be most subject to the disruptive forces.

The potential pipeline-related causes of interference with the subsistence resource utilized by the Natives consist of disruption to the habitat of fish and game as the result of construction or operational activities, and increased competition from the non-Native population for the limited available resources.

Mr. Chairman, we have sought, as I mentioned earlier, for sometime to achieve a provision in the permit to be issued by the Secretary of the Interior that would protect us.

We did get some encouragement from the Secretary in a letter to us that indicated that since Alaska was such a unique situation where there were substantial number of Native people still basically living off the land and would continue to do so for sometime, that they felt they would have to provide for our people.

Our counsel had provided a brief on this subject indicating that the Secretary did have the authority to provide this and nevertheless the Secretary refused to include a stipulation such as that which is provided by section 6(h).

We have never understood fully the reasons why the Secretary refused this provision and this is why we come essentially supporting your provision in section 6(h). However, we would like to see the language tightened up somewhat in view of the Secretary's failure to include a stipulation of his own.

We feel the Native people feel—that those individuals, corporations, or groups that seek a right-of-way across public lands should

bear the brunt of the cost for such an indemnification and for that reason we seek and support that provision.

Senator HASKELL. We are still not going to talk to the merits of the various routes proposed for the pipeline. But you feel that a pipeline through this area will have the adverse effect on the Native population's means of subsistence. Is that your point? I want to be sure I understand.

Mr. Hensley. There is potential in some of the communities in the areas of the pipeline for some adverse impact. This could be due to activities related to pipeline construction.

There is a substantial amount of caribou in the area above the North Slope and down along the rest of the route and to varying degrees the people depend on caribou and other wildlife for subsistence.

Our feeling is that if there is no fish due to pipeline construction activity or a lack of caribou or other game, we see no reason why the people should have to go on welfare when they can be indemnified for their loss.

Senator HASKELL. You made yourself clear. If there is an adverse effect the organization responsible for putting in the pipeline should make recompense. That is your point, isn't it?

Mr. HENSLEY. That is right.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Native people of the State support the construction of the pipeline.

As you heard the Governor state this morning, we are taking in our belts and we feel if we have to wait 5 or 6 years that the State will essentially be going broke. This affects the Native people particularly because we don't have the strength we should have in the legislature to protect ourselves.

The payments to the Native people from resource development, of course, are affected if the pipeline is not constructed soon.

Senator HASKELL. Thank you very much. You made yourself very clear.

I really don't have any further questions.
Senator Hansen.
Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to make one observation, if I may, aside from complimenting you on your testimony.

As I recall the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, that were part of the rationale for the land grant and the remuneration provisions written into that bill was to decrease the subsistence. Is this not the case ?

Mr. HENSLEY. Mr. Chairman, the land provisions are really insufficient in themselves to assure that we could continue to hunt and fish. My feeling is that even though there was cash provision in the settlement for an extended period of time the people will continue to live off fish and game, sea mammals, fish, caribou, moose, and this sort of thing.

This, I feel, will carry on for some number of years.

Mr. Bass. If I could add a bit on the legislative history of the Claim Settlement Act on this question, the Senate bill had two options on land packages.

Under one of those options, there was a 20-million-acre package of subsistence rights in addition to roughly 30 million acres of vested land rights for a total of 50 million acres.

In conference, the final figure was 40 million acres of land rights with no guaranteed subsistence provisions in the areas outside of those lands.

The Conference Committee report specifically stated that while there are no guarantees in the legislation for subsistence rights, the committee was confident that the Department and that the State would recognize and protect the subsistence needs of the Alaska Natives outside the land area selected under the Act, recognizing that even 40 million acres of land in Alaska today is not sufficient to protect the subsistence of all the areas.

In many of the areas, because of the requirements of the contiguous selections and the limitations on selections within 25 townships, the areas of land that the Natives will own are not the same as the areas of land on which they hunt, trap, and fish.

It is particularly true up on the North Slope, where the migration areas of many of the caribou are in the wilderness areas or in the natural wildlife refuges where there are no selection rights for the Native villages.

The danger we fear from the pipeline proposal that would not provide an indemnification to the Natives is that there could be interference with those migration patterns, with the spawning of the salmon or other fish in the various streams, that would not be within the areas of land selection rights granted to the native people, but would represent a severe detrimental depletion of their way of life—the very .food they live by.

Unless there is provision for indemnification, the burden of that risk will fall on the Alaska Natives and not on the pipeline customers who would be paying for the cost of doing business.

Senator HANSEN. Maybe I missed the thrust of the Senator's testimony.

I thought, among other things, that he was lending his endorsement to a broadened concept in this legislation which would go beyond the question of what now might most expeditiously be done in order to get the pipeline built.

But in addition to that rather simple issue, I think it would encompass a whole range of other considerations. I want to say here and now that I don't take issue with you at all for raising those issues. I would simply ask, as a matter of your best judgment, Senator, how important do you feel it is to try to resolve these other issues that could be tied into the question of the necessary width of a pipeline right-of-way on the one hand, and the many other considerations on the other? These are issues which conceivably could delay the building of the pipeline for several years.

You have spoken about the need for some of the things to happen under the terms of the bill that obviously are not going to happen very quickly.

Mr. HENSLEY. I am, of course, quite concerned, as the entire State of Alaska is, with regard to the resolution of the width of the right-of

way issue.

« PreviousContinue »