and wilderness resources that are to be found in the general region. Other possibilities exist also, such as the proposal for a pipeline which would follow the general route of the Alcan highway out of Fairbanks, or the equally intriguing proposal, now demonstrated to be economical, for a railroad. We need not be locked in to any one particular route or alternative, just because the oil companies say that this is the only thing to do. We would hope that Congress would use some independent judgment here, and consider the environmental factors in a much more adequate manner. We reject the present proposed route, and will oppose it vigorously with all our strength. We would not be a responsible environmental organization if we accepted it. And we strongly support legislation such as that of Senator Mondale (S. 993, as ammended), which would require a detailed and careful analysis of the Canadian alternative, by an impartial organization which can be trusted by all sides to come up with some definitive answers to the questions which bother all of us right now. The Department of Interior is certainly not such a body, since it long ago was committed to the environmentally disastrous route. We can support legislation which will prevent permits being granted for any route or methodology until a careful analysis, by an unbiased organization, is made of the Canadian and other alternatives, and which then requires Congress to make the final decision, and not leave it up to an administrator whose mind is already made up. The crucial decision over what shall be done with oil from the North Slope at this time, and by what means and in what direction is shall be transported, is it is, should be reserved only to Congress. Vast public resources are at stake. The finest remaining wilderness on this continent is at stake. Some of the finest fishery and wildlife resources are at stake. The most magnificent scenery on the continent is at stake. Congress is the only body equipped under our laws to make such a crucial decision. If it does not seize this authority, by first requiring that it have access to all of the best information available to it from impartial sources, and if on the other hand it insists upon authorizing the Alaska route primarily because the big oil companies want it, it will have abdicated its authority, and will have made a mock decision which will haunt this Congress for years to come. There has been much talk in recent weeks about the "need" to get Alaskan oil to market "immediately" as if this somehow is the answer to the "energy crisis." We submit that what we really need to ask ourselves is whether we need to destroy much of Alaska to meet these "needs" without even considering other alternatives, or whether there isn't some better and less damaging way. one. There are a number of better ways, of which the Canadian route is just 25 to 30% of the energy we now consume by a series of reasonable conservation measures. It pointed out that a 1% savings in energy consumption is the equivalent of about 100 million barrels of oil a year. Figuring Alaskan oil at the maximum--2 million barrels per day--comes to about 700 million barrels per year. A 7% reduction of waste and oil consumption-1/4 of what Science feels we can easily do--would totally obviate the "need" for any Alaskan oil at all. Another interesting fact comes from the recent EPA ratings of gasoline mileage for cars. We learn from this that a Chevrolet Suburban gets only 7.2 miles per gallon (mpg), while a Chevy Vega gets 21.5; a Plymouth Sattelite gets 7.9, and a Plymouth Valiant gets 17.9; a Ford wagon gets 7.9, and a Ford Capri 2 gets 21.6.1 Plainly our auto industry has the capacity to reduce gas mileage by 2/3. When we further learn that our automobiles presently consume 6.1 million barrels per day, every day, it becomes apparent that a simple 1/3 reduction in this amount- Τ December 8, 1972 New York Times, April 26, 1973 the equivalent of driving a Hornet or a Mercedes or a Datsun--would again result in a savings equivalent to the projected ultimate flow of Alaskan oil, and the "need" for it. These and other options must be considered before Congress makes the vital decision to irrevocably allocate the resources, the magnificent scenery and wildness of Alaska, beyond repair. 95-290 O 73 18 Senator HASKELL. Mr. Anthony Wayne Smith, president and general counsel of National Parks and Conservation Association. Nice to see you again, Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WAYNE SMITH, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION Mr. SMITH. It is nice to be here. It is always nice to come before this committee. My name is Anthony Wayne Smith, 1701 Eighteenth Street NW., Washington, D.C. I am president and general counsel of the National Parks and Conservation Association and chairman of the Environmental Coalition for North America. We greatly appreciate the official invitation from this committee to testify in these proceedings, and hope to be helpful. One other brief comment before I present the paper. What we are dealing with here is the question of survival. We can talk about the environment, you know, as something which is just a pretty thing that we ought to have, scenery and so forth or more or less a pleasant place to live in the world, but basically what the environmental organizations are concerned with and the big conservation departments of these big labor organizations and farm organizations are concerned with also, when it comes right down to it, is the question of the survival of life on the planet. So when we are talking about the shipment of oil from Valdez down the western coast, we are talking about, really the question of the viability of the ocean, to a greater or lesser degree. We are not alarmists. We are pretty objective on this thing, but there are many reputable ecologists who believe life in the ocean is in danger, that the Baltic is almost dead, that the Mediterranean is dying and this death from pollution could spread very rapidly. So we believe we are not talking about things that can be tossed off lightly. Against that background, we have felt that a very thorough study of the alternative route by the Mackenzie River should be made before action is taken to authorize the construction of the Valdez route. We recommended on March 9 against general legislation empowering the Secretary of the Interior to grant broader rights-of-way for pipeline purposes than presently authorized by the Mineral Leasing Act, unless an exception be included with respect to the rights-of-way from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska until Congress itself had inquired into and decided upon the merits of the various routes which had been proposed. It is therefore, quite gratifying to find that the present hearings have been scheduled, and that legislation is under consideration which quite squarely raises the issue of the best route for getting oil from Prudhoe Bay. If the committee were to report the bill introduced by Senators Stevens and Gravel, S. 970, the Senate would have a decision to make on the Valdez route. If the committee were to report the bill intro duced by Senator Mondale, S. 993, on February 26, the Senate would have to decide on a route through Canada. The bill which was introduced by Senator Mondale on behalf of himself and others on April 12, S. 1565, provides for a number of steps which in our judgment definitely ought to be taken before a hasty decision is made on either the Valdez or Canadian routes. In our view S. 1565 is an excellent proposal and will expedite the decision in the matter and yet provide the Congress with much better information than it can possibly have at present on the merits of the alternate routes. The moratorium provided by section 8(a) against the issuance of any right-of-way for oil or gas pipelines from the North Slope until after negotiations with Canada, an investigation by the National Science Foundation, and a decision by Congress itself is the heart of the proposal, and we consider these arrangements to be desirable and indeed necessary if sound decision is to be made. The provisions of S. 1565 which look in the direction of a common corridor for gas and oil from Prudhoe Bay seem to us to be essential. One of the great weaknesses of the Valdez proposal has been that it was merely an oil pipeline, and the question of the delivery of gas was left unsettled. The trans-Alaska pipeline question is one of sufficient importance to justify specific legislation by Congress making the decision. It would not be acceptable procedure in our judgment, merely to authorize the wider rights-of-way which the courts have found to be illegal under the Mineral Leasing Act, and thus do by indirection what should be done after careful consideration and full public knowledge of the course being taken. The alternative to reporting out S. 1565, in our view, I would say in our view as far as the National Parks and Conservation Association is concerned, would be to report out S. 993, because the disadvantages of the Valdez route which would be authorized by S. 970 are so great that this route should not be approved, expressly or by indirection, without a very thorough study of the trans-Canadian alternatives. The reasons why the Valdez route is objectionable are well-known, but we repeat briefly what we said in the earlier hearings. 1. It cuts through to much permafrost, with well-known risks. 2. It cuts across the caribou migrations on the North Slope, with possible serious ecological consequences. 3. It must traverse the rugged Brooks Range, involving engineering risks and broad rights-of-way. 4. It cuts across the Alaska Range with great earthquake hazards. 5. It entails unavoidable pollution of a serious nature on Prince William Sound by reason of loading onto tankers. 6. It involves great navigation risks through dangerous waters and possibly serious pollution along almost the entire west coast of the North American Continent. A route coming down the Alcan Highway would avoid the Alaska Range, Prince William Sound, and tanker shipments, eliminating a significant segment of the hazards. |