Page images

Second, in regard to section 6 of S. 1081, Senator Jackson's bill, which sets forth the subject that can be treated through terms and conditions attached to permits for rights-of-way, we think the language should be clarified so as to insure the Secretary has the authority to attach stipulations to a right-of-way permit that would be designed to maximize the safety of the entire delivery system for which the right-of-way permit is sought.

That would include the marine transport component of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline system as well as the pipeline itself.

My understanding is that even though the Department of the Interior has proposed elaborate stipulations that would cover the design of the pipeline itself and would be attached to any pipeline permit, it has yet to formulate any stipulations that would similarly regulate the type of tanker equipment used.

As a result there are no assurances really that the companies will be obligated to use the best equipment available.

One last thing I would like to say before I leave.

This morning I heard some news that I tried to follow up on that I think was sort of a red flag to warn everyone of the gravity of the situation. That is that sometime in the last 24 hours there was a tanker ship that ran aground near the western end of the Alaska peninsula. It is estimated that the spill, resulting spill, right now is around 210,000 gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline. The circumstances of the grounding are not yet known, at least not to me.

The Coast Guard has undertaken an investigation. However it quite possibly will be determined subsequently that this grounding resulted in part from the adverse climatic and navigable conditions of the Northeast Pacific through which the marine transport system for the Alaska pipeline is also routed.

Secondly, even though right now there is extremely light tanker traffic, infrequent tanker traffic of any kind in the Northeast Pacific, there are still these mishaps.

I think it can be concluded that when this route is turned into one of the world's busiest oil routes their frequency will increase.

Senator HASKELL. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hillyer follows:]


Representative of the Cordova District Fisheries Union

Before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 9, 1973 Washington, D.C., concerning legislation providing for rights-of-way across the public lands.

Mr. Chairman, I am Saunders C. Hillyer, a representative for the

Cordova District Fisheries Union in southern Alaska.

From the beginning we have been following the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline matter with obvious interest because of its threat to commercial fisheries. In April, 1971, we filed a companion suite to Wilderness Society, et al., v. Morton, Nos. 72-1796-98, D.C. Cir. (February 9, 1973) which is

[blocks in formation]

the directive of the Chairman that witnesses not address themselves "to the desirability and routing of the trans-Alaska Pipeline," I will not elaborate

on the energy and environmental issues raised by the proposed trans-Alaska

pipeline. However, because of the special focus of the fishermen, it is

germane to briefly describe the circumstances that have given rise to their

concern about rights of way.

The Cordova District Fisheries Union is comprised of approximately 450

commercial fishermen, all of whom fish the waters of Prince William Sound

in southern Alaska. Their major fisheries products include several species

of salmon and crab as well as shell fish, herring and shrimp.

In 1969

the wholesale value of fishery products in the Cordova area was $13 million.

The value to the fishermen of these products was a little over $6.5 million.

Not only is the membership economically dependent on the now abundant marine life in Prince William Sound, but their entire way of life evolves around their benign relation to the sea. Their activities are compatible

with the extensive use now made of the area by recreationists for salt and

fresh water fishing, sightseeing, and photography. Both the fishermen and

recreationists enjoy the Sound's wildlife including porpoises,

sea otters,

and sea lions, the beauty of the rugged shoreline scalloped by bays and fjords,

and its backdrop of steep mountains that creep down to the water's edge.

Unfortunately for the fishermen, the oil companies that have proposed

the trans-Alaskan pipeline chose, for reasons of their own, the town of

Valdez on Prince William Sound to be the southern terminus for their pipeline.

They further propose to load the 2 million barrels per day throughput of

that pipeline on to tankers to be carried through Prince William Sound and

the Northeast Pacific to the west coast of the United States and foreign


Thus, in the short span of a few years, this quiet Sound will be

converted into one of the world's busiest oil ports.

The resulting oil

pollution would cause massive destruction to the commercial fisheries.

Because of the inadequate knowledge currently available, it is impossible

to fathom either the duration or full scope of this damage.

However, the

Final Environmental Impact Statement did recognize that the entire Sound

would be jeopardized and that the salmon fisheries in Valdez Arm, alone,

would suffer loses in the neighborhood of $400,000 per year for each year

of the life of the pipeline (FIS, Vol 4, pp 432–433.)

It is clear that the fishermen of Prince William Sound are expected

to absorb severe loses if not total dislocation as a result of the decision

made a few years ago to run a pipeline right of way across the entire state

of Alaska to Valdez.

This shock has spurred us to review the legislation

authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to grant oil pipeline rights

of-way permits across public lands.

In particular, we are concerned that

any such legislation contain safeguards adequate to protect the public interest

in the face of pressure from Industries as powerful as the oil industry

to use the public lands for their special profit.

We fully endorse the written statement submitted by Stewart M.

Brandborg, Executive Director of the Wilderness Society, on the legislation under consideration today. I would now like to summarize our main concerns

with the proposed legislation.

First, we feel that the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline presents momentous

issues of economic, energy, and environmental policy; that these issues

necessitate highly sensitive decisions and trade-offs of national and inter

national significance; and that Congress should exercise its authority to

decide these issues since they will shape our fundamental national policies

in these areas.

We therefore urge this committee to hold hearings at an

appropriate time that will focus on important consideration of how North

Slope oil can be delivered to the lower 48 states in a manner consistent with the multifold public interest.

Second, we feel that the common corridor concept put forth in the

Jackson Bill (s. 1081) would be a useful tool for protecting the public

interest if provisions were made to safeguard such a policy from destructive

manipulation by private interest.

In particular, we are concerned with the

potential for the multiplicity of common corridors such as the oil companies

propose for the delivery of North Slope oil and natural gas to market.


must be provided that will enable the administrators of our public lands

to take the initiative in planning for their use and development.

Third, in regard to Section 5(8) of the Jackson bill, clarification is

needed concerning the liability of a holder of a right-of-way across public

lands for damage caused "in connection with activities conducted on the

right-of-way". Specifically, this provision should include language that

would indemnify the commercial fishermen for loses in the value of their

fisheries, as well as for damage to their equipment and for any personal

injury they sustain, resulting from the transfer of oil from a pipeline to tankers at Valdez and from the tanker traffic to and from Valdez for

[blocks in formation]

Fourth, in regard to Section 6, entitled "Terms and Conditions" the

language should be clarified so as to ensure that the Secretary has the

authority to attach stipulations to a right of way permit that would be

designed to maximize the safety of the entire delivery system for which the

right of way permit is sought.

That would include the marine transport

component of the proposed trans-Alaska system as well as the pipeline itself.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »