Last school year, I wrote a post about the proposed cuts in the Anchorage School District budget and how they would affect a family of a middle school student. It was then I became aware of the outrageous fees Mayor Dan Sullivan was charging the school district–for example: 100% of the salaries and benefits of those Anchorage Police–called Resource Officers–who only service the School District about 70% of the time. I tried to show how they were taking millions of dollars away from our kids. (Note: As of this week, these fees have not changed.)

Sadly, this week Jeanne wrote a post about this year’s cuts. They are much worse than last year and are precipitated by both Governor Parnell’s under-funding as well as Mayor Sullivan’s refusal to tax to the cap.

But it’s not just Anchorage that is suffering. Fairbanks, Juneau and many smaller and more rural schools are in deep trouble if things don’t change. The worst part: this is all orchestrated as part of a larger and more national attack on public education. Alaska is just next-in-line.

For over a year now, I’ve watched how the anti-public school drama has played out in Alaska on multiple fronts. From the Municipality of Anchorage to the Legislature to the Governor’s Office to outside organizations, the forces at work are performing a complex dance in multiple venues…a dance that is impossible to follow unless one is a complete research nerd (and then, only tenuously). I’ve wanted to write about it all in that context…I’ve started a number of posts. However, I haven’t been able to figure out how to present it. I started writing a list, like an outline…

…and realized that was the best way to start.

So here is a list of the characters in this drama and the means they are using to achieve their agenda — a summary of their activities so far. Jeanne and I will be writing multiple posts in the future on these education issues. This gives you a place to look up the various characters and refresh your memory about their place in the story.

Disclaimer: I want to emphasize that while the characters supporting these false “reforms” in Alaska seem to be Republican, the issue is not a partisan one. From what I can see, the majority of Alaska’s Republican Legislators are not yet “sold” on this bill of goods and are more than happy to receive input from their constituents.

The problem: Like every other Alaska issue, these strategies are generally pushed forward by those religious ideologues and/or those beholden to businesses/corporations who want privatization across-the-board. These businesses/corporations who are pushing this “education reform” agenda can do so with tons of money and the help of friendly politicians. We must contact our State Senators and Representatives to counter any misinformation. I hope this and future posts help you to do that.

Leading the attack:

– Governor Sean Parnell — I covered some of the issues with the Governor at the beginning and discuss his budget below. Since the election, Governor Parnell has truly shown his religious extremist leanings and tea party philosophy, which includes a strong “Christian” influence in the interpretation of law. An alarming number of his appointees also seem to reflect his beliefs.

– Representative Wes Keller — Originally appointed by Sarah Palin to fill a vacancy in the Legislature, Mr. Keller is a religious extremist and tea partier through-and-through. He is a state chairman for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Mr. Keller is the sponsor/creator of House Bill 145 and House Joint Resolution 16 (see below) with some help from ALEC’s “model bills.”

– Senator Fred Dyson — He wasn’t appointed by Palin but “ditto” to everything else. Dyson is sponsor of the companion legislation in the Senate, SB 106 and he attended the ALEC Conference with Keller last year.

– ALEC — A slightly re-worded summary from Pro Publica — I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire post: “For decades, a discreet nonprofit called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC has brought together state legislators and corporate representatives to produce business-friendly “model” legislation. These “model” bills form the basis of hundreds of pieces of legislation each year, and they often end up as laws.”

– The Friedman Foundation — Per the Nation: “For most of the half-century since economist Milton Friedman first advanced the idea of school vouchers, it’s been the ultimate weapon in our educational debates, always ticking just under the surface, never quite going off. But after last November’s Republican statehouse victories, the right, sometimes abetted by Democrats and liberals, has brought back vouchers and school privatization with a vengeance.”

The Foundation has been heavily involved in most of those voucher battles across the country. As I will discuss below, they have turned their sites on Alaska by conducting a poll of residents regarding school vouchers.

– Mayor Dan Sullivan — I have recapped some of the Mayor’s anti-education moves at the beginning of this post and Mudflats as a whole has covered many more. His “Education Summit” is ongoing and I discuss it below.

– Jim Minnery–Minnery’s Alaska Family Council lists “School Choice” as one of their top issues. Minnery has been a proponent of changing the AK Constitution in order to use State money for religious education since back in 2008, as this email between Gov. Sarah Palin and then Atty General Talis Coleberg shows.

– The Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage It’s not hard to guess the motivation behind the Archdiocese’s push for school vouchers, as reflected in the “Catholic Anchor.” A story in the Chicago Tribune on what the results of Indiana’s voucher program revealed: “…Just as backers had hoped and opponents feared, a new statewide school voucher program in Indiana is draining money from public education and offering new life to struggling parochial schools.” My understanding is that the economy has taken a serious toll on the enrollment in parochial (as well as private) schools in the state. Last year, one of them had a Senior graduating class of three. These schools may be counting on our State money to keep them afloat.

– KIPP Charter Schools — I included KIPP on this list even though their only actual appearance in the state was in the form of Dr. Mike Feinberg, who taught 5th grade for three whole years with Teach For America and then founded the “Knowledge Is Power Program” (KIPP) Charter Schools. The reason I list them is because the presentation by Feinberg at the Education Summit (third video, first speaker after Superintendent Comeau) sounded like he was trying to sell a Veg-O-Matic or a set of Ginsu knives rather than inform a group about education alternatives. And it makes sense…Alaska is a rich oil state with a surplus when most other states have deficits. You could almost see the man drooling.

The Artillery:

– Governor Parnell’s Operating Budget (HB 284 — starting on page 8) — The Governor promised that his budget was a “full funding of K-12 Education”. In actuality, the budget doesn’t even cover inflation (which averaged 3.16% in 2011) and now has school districts across the state scrambling to cut much-needed programs. How much of a slap-in-the face was it to K-12 Education in Alaska? The “Teaching and Learning” line-item in the Department of Education budget makes up the bulk of the money shared by every school district in Alaska. If the budget stays as-is, Alaska schools will receive a little over $237 million this year…an increase of about $3 million from last year or about 1.3%. However, the Office of the Governor “Executive Office” line-item (which includes the Governor’s Staff) will be receiving over $13 million this year — an increase of almost $2 million or over 13%!

– House Joint Resolution (HJR) 16 — A resolution which, if passed, would place an amendment to the Constitution on the ballot, allowing for public (education) money to go for a “public purpose.” According to the text of the resolution, it still specifically does NOT allow state money to go towards private or religious institutions. However, it DOES seem geared to allow state funds for privatized education. Also, I have been told of one more possibility (which will require more research)…it could leave open the option of a for-profit business that owns a religious school receiving funds. From Wes Keller’s Sponsor Statement:

HJR 16 opens some of these doors for both public and private education by allowing the release of funds to more than just public schools. This Constitutional Amendment allows those students seeking to excel in secondary and post secondary education to attend a school that meets their needs.

Like I said…more research…

– House Bill (HB) 145 (Senate companion bill SB 106) — Titled the same as the ALEC template voucher bill, HB145 is intended to establish: “…the parental choice scholarship program to be administered by school districts for the purpose of paying the cost of attending grades kindergarten through 12 at public and private schools…” In other words, it will establish school vouchers with State of Alaska money.

At this time, it suffers from some major drawbacks:

1) It’s unconstitutional per Article 7 Section 1 a) State money cannot be used to fund private or religious education (see HJR 16) and b) We must “establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State,” — since many village parents will be unable to utilize this “choice” (voucher), it could quite possibly get decimated in the courts.

2) Because there have been amendments on top of amendments in an attempt to get it to work, it is a huge pile of gobbledy gook that most of the members of the House Education Committee don’t even completely understand, based on their Friday meeting. Those pushing the bill (Rep Keller, Rep Dick) seem to think it’s been in the Education Committee “an embarassing” amount of time and just needs to get moved along…whether it functions or not.

**There is another meeting scheduled for Wednesday Feb 1st and I intend to send my testimony to the Committee beforehand. I encourage you to do the same.**

– “Alaska K-12 School Choice Survey” — Several months ago, I was listening to a conservative show when the host started discussing a poll that proves Alaska wants to have vouchers private charter schools. It turned out to be a poll that was funded by the Friedman Foundation. The host was quoting numbers over 60% in favor of various types of alternative education…pretty impressive. When I researched the poll, I discovered the most important question:

How familiar are you with [Charter Schools/Virtual Schools/School Vouchers] in K-12 education? Not that familiar/Never heard of it — 62%

So basically, the vast majority polled had no idea what these folks were talking about. So, when these Alaskans who were quite used to receiving free money in the form of a Permanent Fund Dividend Check each year were asked a question worded like this:

“An education savings account allows parents to withdraw their child from a public district or charter school and recieve a payment into a government authorized savings account with restricted but multiple uses. Parents can then used these funds to pay for private school tuition, virtual education programs, private tutoring or saving for future college expenses. In general, do you favor or opppose this kind of savings account system?”

61% were all for it!

Note that 61% is about the same percentage of folks who had no idea what “school choice” really is. In other words, the same percentage of folks who know what all of this means said “no” to the free money.

Another note: if you look at the survey demographics, only 13% were Alaska Native. That does not match the State of Alaska demographics according to the 2010 Census, but it does match the Municipality of Anchorage demographics. In other words, while these folks were claiming that their “sample size” was Alaska, it was probably just Anchorage.

Why is that significant?

Anchorage School District already has really nice charter schools within the system (and there is no reason we can’t have more). If you ask someone from Anchorage about charter schools, especially if they don’t know about the lower-48 kind, that will completely skew their responses.

– The Education Summit — Per Municipal Code, Mayor Dan Sullivan’s roll in enacting School District changes is generally signing or vetoing what’s been passed through the School Board and the Anchorage Assembly. However, being that it’s an election year, he adopted the role of Superintendent by collecting corporate and private business money for an Education Summit. It was set up in three parts:

1) He hired Viewpoint Learning, a company of professional “handlers,” then hand-picked a mostly-conservative 100 participants. They brought up seven panelists. All but two of them were clearly pushing a privatized charter school and/or voucher agenda, four of them worked for organizations whose funding was provided directly by privatization advocates and only one had proof of an education plan with long-term success…a non-privatization pro-union strategy in Finland.

2) Now in phase 2, The Mayor’s Office is currently asking for Anchorage residents to attend the “community conversations.” This is the only time that the general public will have any input n the “scenarios” reached during the Education Summit. I’ve already signed up for one and I encourage everyone to do the same.

3) There will be a “Capstone Summit” in June where some of the Summit participants and some of the Community Dialogue participants will get together and finalize “recommendations.”

To be continued…

By Elstun Lauesen

There is a culture war going on. And the epicenter of that culture war is right here in Alaska. It is outrageous in its brazenness and tragic in its effect. It is political in its tactic and economic in its objective. It is a classic tale of western frontier conquest. I am speaking, of course, of the war on the Native subsistence culture of Alaska.

The passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980 linked federal land policy in Alaska to a subsistence use priority. Congress, in Title VIII of ANILCA, made it clear that they wanted a ‘rural’ priority in the 60 percent of Alaska that is under federal management. A rural priority (which was a compromise for the original draft language that said “Native preference”) meant that the priority for harvesting wildlife should go to the people who live in the management area and for whom subsistence represents a ‘customary and traditional’ use.

The online journal Cultural Survival notes

“…ANILCA distinguishes Native subsistence as something exceptional and cultural noting that ‘the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska…is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence and to nonNative physical, economic, traditional, and social existence.’ Although the distinction seems minor, it betrays a deeper philosophical division between Native and non-Native conceptions of subsistence.”

One indicator of this ‘philosophical division’ may be seen in the 2006 decision by the Federal Subsistence Board to reclassify the village of Saxman near Ketchikan from a rural to non-rural community. This reclassification is in the news because the 5-year waiting period is over and the decision is scheduled to go into effect.

As KTUU’s Rebecca Palsha put it so succinctly back in 2006 for a new story on the board’s decision:

“Who should have first dibs on hunting and fishing on federal lands? A group of Anchorage residents are making that decision at a two day meeting of the Federal Subsistence Board…”

The rationale by this ‘group of Anchorage residents’ was that Saxman is connected by a road to a modern city and are effectively integrated with the Ketchikan economy.

My research on the question of the ‘integration’ of the village of Saxman with Ketchikan reveals that in 2006 the numbers do not support such a conclusion. The Division of Community and Regional Affairs utilizes the American Community Survey statistics from the Bureau of the Census that breaks data down to the community level. Here is what it tells us. Saxman is a majority Native community and Ketchikan is not. 51 percent of Saxman’s residents are Native Alaskan/American; 25 percent of Ketchikan’s population are Native Alaskan/American. Despite the road that connects the two communities, Saxman has retained it’s ethnic character. In fact the web tourism promotion by the city notes the following regarding the character of Saxman:

“Blessed with abundant resources, West Coast people survived by subsistence, living off the land and the water- still a crucial part of their cultural identity.”

The American Community Survey also tells us that while Ketchikan had an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent, Saxman had an unemployment rate of 30.7 percent. Again, it would seem that a complete socioeconomic integration would reveal a smaller difference. Finally, there is poverty. According to the ACS, the percentage of folks in Ketchikan living below the poverty rate in 2006 was 10.8 percent; in Saxman that figure is 25 percent.

Again, the visitor coming to Ketchikan learns that

“…Coastal Native people have a matrilineal society; children inherit rights through their mothers. The Tlingit social system is based on two equal moieties, or halves (the Eagle or Wolf and the Raven).

Traditions are changing with the times although much remains and is as strong as ever…”

So the question remains in my mind that, if the presence of the road has not altered the economic disparities between the communities, how can the Federal Board be so certain that the road has altered the cultural dependence on the customary and traditional uses of subsistence resources?

But if the Federal Board seems arbitrary in its subsistence policies, the state of Alaska is downright hostile.

From 1990-2002, three state governors, 12 regular legislatures, five special legislative sessions on subsistence, and a host of task forces, mediators and other initiatives all failed to resolve the unwillingness of Alaska’s lawmakers to allow a rural subsistence preference. In 2002, the outgoing Knowles administration gave up after 8 years of trying to work with the legislature. Federal management then became a reality. Since 2002, through the governorships of Murkowski, Palin and Parnell subsistence management on state lands became increasingly subjugated to the very lobby that had worked so assiduously against it. Murkowski’s appointment of Ron Sommerville to the Board of Game, for example, was a direct repudiation of a serious state subsistence management regime.

The Alaska Outdoor Council, the organization that spearheaded anti-subsistence political assaults since the passage of ANILCA, championed Sommerville’s appointment. Governor Sarah Palin then continued the Murkowski assault on the Federal Subsistence Board’s ‘customary and traditional’ use finding for the harvesting of moose by the small Copper River village of Chistochina. A positive C & T finding by the Federal Board entitles residents of a specific community to the subsistence priority under Title VIII of ANILCA and such a finding was anathema to the state Board of Game (BOG). Chistochina became a test case. The Palin administration sued the federal board and promptly lost in court.

Palin’s resignation and the ascent of Parnell simply meant the continuation of the Alaska Outdoor Council influence on the BOG. It was during this time that a Parnell appointed Wildlife Chief, Corey Rossi, who, along with BOG Chair, Cliff Judkins and BOG member Bob Bell — All past or present Alaska Outdoor Council — are alleged to have committed criminal violations of subsistence regulations.

Again, from Cultural Survival:

“As Nelson Frank, a Haida from southeast Alaska put it in his testimony before the Alaska Native Review Commission (recorded in the book Village Journey by Thomas Berger):”

“Subsistence living, a marginal way of life to most, has no such connotation to the Native people of southeast Alaska. The relationship between the Native population and the resources of the land and the sea is so close that an entire culture is reflected… Traditional law … was passed from generation to generation, intact, through repetition of legends and observance of ceremonials which were largely concerned with the use of land, water, and the resources contained therein. Subsistence living was not only a way of life, but also a life-enriching process. Conservation and perpetuation of subsistence resources was part of that life and was mandated by traditional law and custom.”

This is the casualty of Alaska’s culture war against subsistence.

[Photo: Clan House at Saxman, Alaska]

By Elstun Lauesen

One of the terms we often hear lately is “agenda.” This politician has an “agenda” or that group has an “agenda.” Mostly we mere mortals are left to speculate what an “agenda” might be among the players in the rarified climes of politics. Thanks to the just concluded trial over the lines of the political districts drawn by the redistricting board, we get an actual glance into one of these “agendas,” the agenda of the Republican Party of Alaska.

By way of background let me explain that every decennial census requires adjustments of political boundaries based on the “one man one vote” decision by the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. Sims — that is — each district must have an equivalent base which, in Alaska, is around 17,500 per representative. In sparsely populated areas, the districts can be very large. The districts need to conform to some standard of compactness, continuity and socioeconomic integration of the population. You can imagine that each 10 years, depending on who is in power, the party out of power will be suspicious of a political “agenda” in the drawing of the election map.

The board faced a difficult situation. Since statehood, Alaska required voters to read and write English, which was a common device used in southern states to limit Black voting. In Alaska it limited Native voting, and continued a controversial process that began in territorial days. More recently, Alaska has enacted “English-only” laws which prohibit use of ballots in any other language, and has not provided translators in Native communities where English is not the predominate language in use. These laws have been found to be discriminatory, and they have subjected Alaska to federal oversight intended to stop discrimination against Black voters in the south.

In the recent redistricting trial, Judge McConahy observed that talking about race and politics in Alaska is difficult. As Alaskans we often want to delude ourselves and pretend that we are better than the rest of the country and that we have progressed to the point that as a society we recognize and honor the humanity in all people. The recent litigation over the new plan redrawing Alaska’s legislative districts provided an ugly reminder that our smugness is probably not well earned.

The redistricting plan upset many because it created a district that included the Ester/Goldstream precincts in Fairbanks and the Yupik villages at the mouth of the Yukon River. Most Alaskans had difficulty understanding this plan, because the redistricting board didn’t publicly articulate why it was creating such a district. When the reasons came out in the trial, the press, unfortunately, focused on the easy and obvious: the partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats, and largely ignored the redistricting board’s stated reasons.

Under the federal Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Justice Department must review changes in Alaska’s election laws to insure that changes, such as redistricting, does not dilute the strength of Native voters. Some would like to characterize this as one more layer of senseless federal regulation, but as Alaska’s redistricting board started their work, they discovered Alaska’s dirty little secret.

The board found that racial block voting was increasing in Alaska. More specifically, they discovered that white Republican voters will generally not cross over to vote for a candidate preferred by Alaska Native voters. They discovered that white Democratic voters were more willing to cross over and vote for a candidate preferred by Alaska Native voters. The board claimed that the relative decline in Alaska Native population in rural Alaska required that a district combining some rural Native area and some “urban” non-Native area needed to be created. Thus, in order to not dilute Native voting strength, “urban” white Democrats needed to be added to this new “rural/urban” district. The theory is that urban white Republicans would never cross over to vote for a Native preferred candidate. Of course, the obvious unstated assumption is that white Republicans exhibit racist voting behaviors. The sensitivity of this unstated assumption is why the Republican-dominated board never publicly explained its decision, as well as the discomfort experienced by the press covering in the trial.

The challenge to the redistricting plan generated the predictable knee-jerk reaction by the Alaskan political and media establishment. “The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner,” for instance, has just called for an end to the federal Voting Rights Act review. They characterize the problem as unnecessary federal regulation. And they argue that Alaska should seek to end federal oversight of our election processes. But ignoring racism in our society only provides comfort for racists. It is in such comfort that racism gestates.

We Alaskans see ourselves as a tolerant multi-ethic society. We share that vision not because we are a tolerant multi-ethic society but because we want to be that tolerant multi-ethic society. But we will never achieve our dream if we do not confront the reality in which we find ourselves. We will not, nor should we, escape the need for federal oversight aimed at combating racism at the ballot box, until we take the necessary steps to purge racism from the soul of our society. Sadly, that cannot be accomplished by the Democrats in Ester/Goldstream. Rather the task is a challenge to the Alaska Republican party.

The GOP is pushing a pipeline that could blow you to pieces

Palast conducted a five-continent investigation of Big Oil for British TV’s premier current affairs program, Dispatches, and for BBC Worldwide. This report is based on the broadcast seen prime-time worldwide—but not yet in the USA.

Whistleblowers have told Britain’s “Dispatches” that the safety software on major US pipelines contains deliberate errors—and so pipelines can — and have — busted, leaked, exploded …and killed.

Congressional Republicans are holding extended unemployment benefits hostage until President Obama agrees to speed up approval to build the XL Keystone Pipeline. XL Keystone will slice down through the entire width of the USA, moving tar-sands oil from Canada to Houston.

The oil industry promises that the Pipeline will be safe. But the pipe is only safe if the PIG inside it can squeal.

Federal law requires the industry to run a diagnostic robot PIG, a Pipeline Inspection Gauge, that will squeal when something is wrong: a crack, dangerous corrosion, anything that might lead to a spill or explosion.

But PIGs are only as good as the software that tracks and analyzes their signals. And the software used by Big Oil has been compromised—deliberately.

Insiders told this reporter that the software was designed to fool the safety inspectors.

“The software feeds them incorrect information about the state of their pipeline.”

This source knows what he’s talking about: It was his team that designed the software with the known flaw. But so what?

The insider, quite nervous, told Britain’s Dispatches that, “If they don’t repair the pipelines the worst that can happen is similar to the disaster that we had near San Francisco, where natural gas pipeline exploded and killed 9 people.”

The insider—identified as Pig Man #1—appeared on Dispatches, Britain’s equivalent of “60 Minutes,” including the segments not yet broadcast.

Originally, our source thought that the deadly software code was an error—so he tried to fix it to meet the standards of the law.

“I was part of a team that corrected the error.”

But the error was deliberately left in place, and the correction hidden, “Because the software would increase the liability that a pipeline operator would, in this case a subsidiary of BP, would have to deal with.”

Pig Man #1′s story was corroborated by another member of the software team, too scared to come on camera, even in shadow, following a threat by the industry contractor hired by BP and other majors to design the software.

Dispatches provided the information to BP which said it complied with all rules and regulations.

That’s a reasonable alibi for BP, except that one of the nation’s premier public-interest lawyers doesn’t buy it. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dean of environmental law studies at Pace University in New York notes that “the dog didn’t bark,” that is, when the Trans-Alaska Pipeline burst then exploded, when pipes cracked in Yellowstone National Park and underneath homes in California, the companies didn’t turn around and sue their software contractor for failures which costs millions of dollars in fines — and several lives.

Why not? Why is Big Oil happy with what they call a “smart PIG” that’s often real stupid? Is it because the dumber the PIG, the less sensitive the software, the more they save? Sometimes, the industry quietly skips the “pigging” altogether.

After all, a few million in fines and payments to bereaved families adds up to a cheap license to pollute.

Making the diagnostic software less sensitive is like pulling the battery out of a smoke alarm. God forbid you have a fire. But in the case of the PIG, it’s not just dangerous, it’s illegal. The whistleblower saw that the software violated the very specific requirements of the law, and tried to fix what he thought was an accidental error.

And by the way, I’d like everyone reading this to say a quiet ‘Thank You,’ to Pig Man #1. Even speaking in shadow, he took a gamble on his career, on a threat of financial ruin by the company who made all the engineers aware of the problem to sign papers that they would never discuss nor reveal anything about this software and it’s deadly errors. That’s guts, that’s courage.

But that brings us to the XL Pipeline. This pipeline which will be benefit BP, Shell Oil, Chevron, the Koch Brothers’ Flint Hills Resources, will be safe, just as BP swore to Congress in Nov 2009 that all is A-OK with drilling in the Gulf of Mexico’s deep water.

We have good reason to fear the PIG in the XL pipeline and, given the history of this crew, even more reason to fear the pigs that own it.

***********************************************

Cross-posted from TruthOut.org

Read more about Pig Man and the industry in this excerpt from Greg Palast’s new book Vultures’ Picnic: in Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores

*****

Greg Palast is the author of Vultures’ Picnic: In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores, released in the US and Canada by Penguin.

You can read Vultures’ Picnic, “Chapter 1: Goldfinger,” or download it, at no charge: click here.

Photo by Joel Brady-Power

By Tele Aadsen

This photo was taken in Sitka, but could be almost anywhere in Southeast Alaska. The Tongass National Forest blankets most of our region, a crazy quilt of western red cedar, Sitka spruce, and western hemlock that covers almost 17 million acres. Not only is the Tongass the largest national forest in the US, it’s also the largest temperate rainforest remaining in the world. About 70,000 people call the Tongass home – as do 30,000 bears. This rare ecosystem also supports deer, wolves, over 300 species of birds, and all 5 species of salmon: chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink.

When we talk about protecting wild salmon, our national dialogue is heavy on fisheries management and healthy oceans.  Essential elements, but incomplete. These ocean swimmers begin and end their lives in freshwater, including  17,690 miles of streams, lakes and ponds in the Tongass. If we promote sustainable fisheries without placing equal value on salmon habitat, both are at risk.

One of my fellow fishermen, Karl Jordan, published an editorial in the Juneau Empire yesterday: “Forest Service Budget Just Doesn’t Add Up.” (Available here.) Karl examined the annual funding for habitat conservation/restoration ($1.5 million) and logging/road development ($25 million). Quite a discrepancy – especially when you note that timber-related jobs number less than 200, compared to over 7000 fisheries-related jobs.

A fourth-generation fisherman, Karl’s profiled here in Amy Gulick’s tribute to the Tongass,  Salmon in the Trees. He’s a powerful advocate for salmon, speaking from a place of deep love for Southeast Alaska, the Tongass, and commercial fishing.

Photo by Jon Corbett

That’s the place that I speak from, too. Life as a harvester is, for me, inherently bound to life as a conservationist. I believe it’s my responsibility to protect what I love. And between the photo at the top of this post, the many joys of our life at sea, and the honor of hand-delivering these gorgeous fish to our customers, I can’t even begin to count all of the ways I love salmon and trees.

If you speak from this place, too, please join me in quick, easy activism for salmon. If you support increased funding for salmon programs and habitat restoration in the Tongass, please email Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell (ttidwell@fs.fed.us) with your message. It doesn’t have to be long, but it does have to be received by December 16th to weigh in on 2012′s budget planning.

Not sure what to say? Karl’s editorial, here, is a great resource. And, below is a copy of my letter to Undersecretary Harris Sherman, which you’re also welcome to use as a resource. Whether your livelihood depends on the well-being of the Tongass, or your life is richer knowing that wild places like this still exist in our world, thank you for joining me in this effort.

December 1, 2011

Undersecretary of Natural Resources Harris Sherman

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave. S.W.

Washington, D.C.

Dear Undersecretary Sherman,

My name is Tele Aadsen, and I’m a second-generation salmon troller in Southeast Alaska. Salmon trollers are predominantly family operations; I began fishing at the age of seven, in 1984. My mother was one of a handful of female skippers at that time, and we comprised the only all-female troller. For the past 7 years my partner and I have run our own boat, the 43-foot Nerka, which he grew up on and took over as a 22 year old. Hook-and-line caught, we process and freeze our catch at sea, self-marketing a premium quality wild salmon to restaurants, grocers, and food co-ops across the U.S. This is our sole source of income.

Discussion of salmon sustainability frequently focuses on fisheries management and healthy oceans. Essential elements, yet incomplete. We must devote equal attention to the surrounding forests, which provide critical salmon habitat. In its streams, lakes, and ponds, the Tongass National Forest provides 17,690 miles of salmon habitat. Salmon are inextricably linked with the Tongass; the well-being of one directly impacts the other.

In Alaska, salmon mean far more than a meal or a paycheck. In a 2007 survey, 96% of Alaskans said salmon are essential to our way of life. In our remote region, where many communities are island-based, closed systems, the term “way of life” refers more to practical necessity than sentimentality. Nearly 90% of rural households in Southeast Alaska depend on salmon.

What does a dependency on salmon look like? It looks like over 7000 jobs: men, women, and young people working on fishing vessels or in processing plants. In a tremendous ripple effect, fisheries contribute to local economies. In some of Southeast Alaska’s small communities, salmon are the local economy. Grocers, restaurants, hotels, cold storages and transport systems all flourish with healthy salmon runs. The combined economic value of commercial, sports, and subsistence salmon fishing, plus hatchery operations, is estimated at $986.1 million.

The economic impact of salmon doesn’t stop at Alaska’s border. Many fishermen spend the off-season in the Lower 48, enhancing the economy of multiple states. In 2009, my partner and I were able to purchase our first home in Washington, where we frequently have boat work done. Maintaining a safe, successful fishing vessel is an expensive, on-going effort: all across the West Coast, harbors, boat yards, diesel mechanics, refrigeration services, craftsmen, fiberglass workers, metal fabricators, gear stores, and other marine service professionals are direct beneficiaries of our good salmon seasons.

Beyond these enormous economic considerations, the Tongass is one of the few remaining wild places in America, a rare ecosystem of deep cultural significance, beauty and wonder. I’m profoundly grateful for my life as a commercial fisherman, and hope to continue providing quality wild salmon to Americans in a responsible manner. I’m committed to protecting the natural resources that allow this unique profession, and want to thank you, Undersecretary Sherman, for joining me in this effort. Thank you for advocating for a healthy, sustainable future, prioritizing funding for watershed restoration and salmon habitat in the Tongass.

Sincerely,

Tele Aadsen, MSW

F/V Nerka

Cook Inlet has a problem. It used to have a large, healthy population of beluga whales. The population of about 1,300 animals was large enough, even, to support subsistence hunting. But back in the 80s, something started to happen. The population of these magnificent creatures began to decline.

In the early 90s, it was still possible to drive along the scenic Seward highway, south of Anchorage and spot what at first appeared to be white caps on the water, but on closer examination proved to be dozens of belugas making their merry way up, or down the Inlet. Clusters of motor homes would park at rest stops and scenic overviews and tourists and locals alike would stand, binoculars pressed to faces, smiling and gasping with delight. Whale watching from the road – it didn’t get any better than that.

~Cook Inlet beluga calf and mother [Photo from NOAA]

As the 90s wore on, these commonplace sightings grew less frequent. Between 1994 and 1998, the Native subsistence hunt took almost half the remaining population of 650 whales, and it was clear that if something didn’t change soon, the whales would be gone. The Native villages on Cook Inlet stopped the hunt altogether.

The state argued that after the hunting ceased, the whales would rebound, and everything would be fine. The last thing they wanted was for some pesky newly endangered species to halt things like the Anchorage Port expansion, or the Knik Arm Bridge, or oil and gas exploration in the Inlet.

Ten years passed, and the whales’ numbers still hovered around 400 – less than 1/3 of their population 20 years before. Clearly, there was something else going on, and stopping the hunt did not have the desired effect. The National Marine Fisheries Service declared the whales endangered.

In October of 2008, then Governor Sarah Palin decided she’d had enough of these rubbery white pains in the butt getting in the way of her “drill baby, drill” plans, and decided to do what she had already done with the polar bears – deny the facts and sue the feds. She had her very own “white whale.”

So she, and now Gov. Parnell have loosened up Alaska’s purse strings, NOT to determine what the cause of the problem is, but to litigate the belugas to death.  See, finding a solution that would return the whales to a healthy population size, and thereby make it much easier to push forward their development projects might mean inconveniencing the oil and gas industry. Shhhhhh. We don’t want to disturb them with stuff like this. The State suing the Feds on their behalf is much better for them. They like it.

Before you start thinking that this is all some great cosmic mystery and you have to have mystical whale whispering knowledge, or a PhD in some esoteric subject to figure out where to start, realize that all you have to know is this:

Cook Inlet is the only coastal waterbody in the United States where EPA allows the oil and gas industry to dump toxic drilling and production wastes into important subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it established five-year terms for discharge permits, with the intent that technology would improve over time and pollution eventually would be eliminated. However, according to the groups who brought the challenge to the oil and gas industry permit — Cook Inletkeeper, United Cook Inlet Drift Association, Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund, the Native Village of Port Graham, and the Native Village of Nanwalek — the current permit vastly increases the amount of toxic dumping in Cook Inlet compared to the previous permit. The industry is now authorized to discharge approximately 100,000 gallons of oil and over 835,000 pounds of toxic metals each year.

Maybe it’s just me, but 835,000 pounds of toxic metals and 100,000 gallons of oil every single year being dumped into the 180-mile body of water where the whales live just might be part of the problem. It’s a wild guess.  And that’s not including accidental spills, or leaks that happen on a regular basis. So, while the people of Alaska have been paying the bill for this frivolous lawsuit, and while Sean Parnell has been sticking his fingers in his ears, the dumping continues. Since Native Villages decided to stop hunting, about 83.5 million pounds of toxic metals, and a million gallons of oil have been dumped into the whales’ habitat. And it was all perfectly legal.

Why, oh why are they not recovering? If only we knew! Nature sure is mysterious.

To no one’s surprise, a federal judge told Sean Parnell today that yes, the fact that there are only 400 whales left and there used to be 1,300, and the fact that the thing he said would bring them all back had little or no effect, means the whales are indeed endangered. And whether or not keeping them from becoming extinct hurts economic development, it doesn’t change the facts.

Alaska’s Cook Inlet beluga whales were correctly listed as endangered, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a state lawsuit that claimed the listing will hurt economic development.

In this world, shipmates, sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport; whereas Virtue, if a pauper, is stopped at all frontiers.

–MOBY DICK, Chapter IX

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

Apparently someone put something in Don Young’s oatmeal this week. OK, yes… he’s got something in his oatmeal every week, but this week he got an extra helping. Or perhaps he jus needs a bran muffin instead. Or perhaps the propeller beanie he wore to the Resources hearing a few days ago was a liiiitle too tight.

Whatever the reason, our “Congressman for All Alaska” was busily at his favorite hobby of seeing how many Alaskans he can get to put bags over their heads.

This time, his display came when speaking with Dr. Douglas Brinkley, an “ivory tower elite,” known to the rest of the world as an “educated person.”

Here’s the background.

Republicans in the House have a plan. They’d like to increase oil production and use some of the money to build and repair infrastructure projects. One of the places they’d like to increase production is on Alaska’s northern coastal plain, in an area known as ANWR – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats also have a plan. They’d like to roll back subsidies that the oil companies are now getting, and use that money to fund infrastructure projects. They argue that whatever the country would get from new development like ANWR would fall far short of what is necessary to make a real difference, and that the oil companies who are making money hand over fist can afford to chip in a lot more.

Let it be said that the vast majority of Alaskans are all for drilling ANWR – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, it doesn’t matter. So, Alaska’s congressional delegation in its various incarnations over the years has been fighting tooth and nail to get this done. Whoever manages to be the catalyst for drilling in ANWR can count themselves Senator or Congressman for life.

Many in the Lower 48 are opposed to this plan. ANWR has become the symbol of wilderness, the last spot on which the environmental movement will make their stand, stick their flag in the ground, and die on the principle that there are some wild places, remote and desolate or not, that we should just leave alone. So, how Alaska’s congressional delegation chooses to handle this touchy situation is critical. Is there any way to develop Alaska’s resources in this area, and somehow make it okay with environmentalists? Negotiations such as this are tricky, as you can imagine. Diplomacy, kid gloves, compromise, concession, and thinking outside the box will all be necessary to make everyone happy.

I’ve often wondered if there wasn’t some way to do it. For instance, oil drilling on the rest of Alaska’s north slope has certain benefits for Alaskans. Offshore drilling doesn’t. In that case we take all of the risk and get none of the reward except for some jobs that may or may not go to Alaskans. But onshore, a portion of the money made by the oil companies goes into Alaska’s Permanent Fund. This money is invested by clever, capable people, and the dividend is shared with all Alaskans. Every man, woman and child gets a check every year with which they may invest in their children’s future education, donate to charity, buy a plasma TV, take a trip, or stash it away for a rainy day.

Is there some way to take a healthy chunk of profits from drilling in ANWR (on shore) and put it towards a green energy permanent fund, where we can develop and implement some of the massive changes we’ll need to get ourselves off the petroleum-based dead end energy resource track we’re on? Is there a safe (surely safer than offshore drilling amid floating pack ice as Shell will soon be doing in the Arctic) way to tap that reserve fast, and get the hell out? Perhaps this kind of targeted green energy investment would speak to the environmental movement and Democrats in the House more than road projects would? What if we developed electric cars, or built wind farms, or explored the possibilities for tidal energy, geothermal, or solar…?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource whether we, or the oil companies, would like to believe it. So, how can we develop what we have now in a safe, directed and intentional way to save our hind quarters when all that is gone? There are many smart people, with many good ideas. Can’t we ratchet back subsidies like the Democrats want, AND develop certain places like the Republicans want? We’re innovative people. All it takes is someone from Alaska to explain, and propose forward-thinking solutions in a way that speaks to all people…

It takes someone like… not Don Young. He loves yelling at people who disagree with him, especially environmentalists whom he has referred to collectively as:

“… a self-centered bunch of waffle-stomping, Harvard-graduating, intellectual idiots” who “are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans.”

But this time, one of those waffle-stompers (a reference to the imprints left by hiking boots) actually yelled back, and the Congressman didn’t like it much. The man in question is Dr. Douglas Brinkley, a professor and historian from Rice University. He opposes drilling in the Refuge, and has written a book on the subject.

The congressman starts off optimistically:

Young: If you ever want to see an exercise in futility, it’s this hearing. That side’s already made up its mind. This side has already made up its mind. And the, I call it garbage Dr. Rice… It comes from a mouth…

Brinkley: It’s Dr. Brinkley. Rice is a university. I know you went to Yuba college and couldn’t graduate.

Young: I’ll call you anything when you sit in that chair! You understand? You just be quiet!

Brinkley: Why?

Young: You be quiet!

Brinkley: Why? You don’t own me.! I pay your salary. I work for the private sector, you work for the taxpayer.

Here we must pause to enjoy the exact moment that Don Young and the staffer behind him react to the “You don’t own me” line.

At this point, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the committee reprimanded Brinkley and tried to gavel things back to order, telling him if he wanted to continue to be present he would follow the rules.

The Washington Post noted:

Young resumed, virtually spitting his words: “What I am suggesting, Mr. Brinkley. . .” And then went on for a few minutes, calling the prof an ivory-tower elite who doesn’t really know Alaska and describing the Arctic plain as a desolate, “nothing” kind of place that most Alaskans, he said, want to see drilled. The congressman also chided Brinkley for an earlier comment about Young’s absence from the room during his testimony — he was at a vote — and they kind of got into it again: “Don’t mention my name!” Young hissed.

So Brinkley didn’t. But he got his swipes in indirectly later in the hearing, contradicting statements from “the congressman who’s yet again left — doesn’t stay, blows smoke and then leaves.” That got a stronger reprimand from Hastings, who told the historian he was “disrespectful.”

A spokesman for Young later called the episode “a publicity stunt by Mr. Brinkley in order to sell books.” Witnesses, he said, “are invited to testify before Congress to answer questions and provide insight, not repeatedly interrupt.”

Brinkley was unapologetic when we reached him, calling Young “a crazy zealot for molesting the refuge” and saying he wished he “could have gone mano-a-mano” with him. “I was hoping for the chance to get into a heated debate with him, but, alas, it’s hard in that forum.”

Young: Now I have been all over that area.

Brinkley: I know you have.

Young: The Arctic plain is really nothing. You say it’s the heart, it’s not the heart.

Brinkley: I disagree with that.

Young: It’s part of the most deficit [sic] part of the area. And what hurts me the most, you sit there in the Rice University, when the people support drilling for their good and the good of the nation, as a college professor and ivory tower. You can go up there and camp and spend your time, and I hope you spent a lot of money. But the reality is this area should be drilled. I’ve been fighting this battle for 39 years.

Here is the video from CNN, clipped to the four minutes that were by far the most popcorn-worthy, and in which Don Young describes himself as “really pissed.”

Yes, we noticed.

“Destroying a wild salmon stream to sell coal to China is about the worst idea in Alaska’s proud history of salmon protection.  We’ve always promoted responsible mines.  But this one is irresponsible,” said Representative Les Gara, of state plans allowing dredging of eleven miles of the Chuitna River’s tributaries to keep moving forward.

We couldn’t agree more.

On October 26, Gara wrote to Governor Sean Parnell and Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources Dan Sullivan (no relation to the hinky Mayor) seeking proof of any wild salmon streams that have been so badly dredged, and that have fully recovered.  So far… crickets.

Here is the letter sent by Rep. Gara, an avid fisherman and published Alaska fishing writer.

Re: State Decision to Let Dredging Of Chuitna King Salmon Waters Move Forward Dear Governor Parnell and Commissioner Sullivan:

Alaska has a good track record of responsible mining, at least since statehood. We’ve developed Red Dog Mine, Ft. Knox, Kensington and others, with little if any wild fisheries impact (Kensington has a detrimental impact on hatchery, not wild fish), and have jealously guarded our fish. The Governor promised he would never trade Alaska’s fish for another resource.

But that has all changed with this week’s decision to destroy 11 miles of one of the best king salmon streams in the State of Alaska – the Middle Fork tributary of the Chuitna River by Tyonek.

I was deeply disheartened by the recent DNR decision to allow the Chinese Chuitna Coal Mine project to move ahead, which occurred over the objections of the Village of Tyonek and many fishing organizations. Not since statehood has the state allowed a mining project to move ahead that would destroy a wild king salmon riverbed. The argument – that 25 years after destruction, the stream can be re-built – seems erroneous, and takes away a prized fishing stream for a generation of Alaskans.

I would ask for the following information:

1. What is the statutory authority that allows the destruction of a salmon bed for 25 years, and what are the standards for rebuilding it?

2. In 2004 Governor Murkowski’s commissioner’s weakened the “no pollution in mixing zones” regulation that forbade pollutants in salmon streams. Can you please provide me with a copy of the replacement regulations?

3. What are the examples of wild king salmon streams that have had 11 miles completely dredged (which will drop lethal sediment into the lower parts of the river), and then restored back to their original legal of production with wild, and not hatchery fish?

I worry this state has lost its way. Until 2004 we had the strongest fisheries protection standards in the world, and it’s no mistake that we have the strongest fish runs in the world. In 2004 Governor Murkowski changed the law. Your administration has now threatened to move ahead with two projects, Pebble Mine and the Chuitna Coal Project, that will destroy a way of life for local residents, and threaten to vastly damage this state’s prized king and red salmon, trout and other fish that subsistence, commercial and sport fishermen rely upon.

While I suppose we disagree on these projects, I would like the information I have asked for.

Thank you.

Rep. Les Gara

Thanks to Rep. Gara for standing up for one of the few issues all Alaskans can agree on – keeping healthy stocks of wild fish for future generations.

By Wade Willis

The appointment of Corey Rossi to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is a first in Alaska’s history. Since statehood, no governor thought it necessary, or responsible, to let politics trump science. Yet Gov. Parnell appears to have little need for science even though he promised to end this culture of back room politics in Alaska.

~Corey Rossi

At the time of his appointment, Rossi was a founding member of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and a statewide spokesman for its sister organization, Sportsmen for Habitat, a group based in Utah and founded by Don Peay.

Don Peay openly bragged in SFW’s fall newsletter that “our members are politically positioned to help SFW,” and Corey Rossi has wasted no time paying back his political debts. He gave out four of the 11 governor’s permits to Don Peay’s organization this year.

As the director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Rossi has sole discretion in doling out these special hunting tags, called “Governors permits.” It’s one of the benefits of his appointed position. These organizations then “auction” or “raffle” these tags at their national conventions in places like Reno, Las Vegas, or Salt Lake City.

One of the recent permits Rossi gave to Don Peay’s group is for a bison hunt located in Wrangell St. Elias National Preserve. This coveted bison tag is virtually impossible for the general public to get. In fact, the Fish and Game advise the public that their odds of receiving this particular draw permit is only two percent each year. In 2010, a total of 22,637 people applied for Alaska bison tags which generated over a quarter million dollars for the Fish and Game in application fees.

The state has its own “auction” outlet in the form of a yearly draws for limited tags. Yet the state must abide by Alaska’s constitution and distribute the tags to the general public fairly and equitably. Why would Gov. Parnell prefer to remove the most coveted tags from the public pool just to allow them to be sold to the highest bidder of a political organization in the Lower 48?

Organizations that “auction” these tags to their rich donors are allowed to keep an unlimited amount of the money collected as “administrative” cost. In addition, the organization can then keep an additional 10 percent to directly fund the activities of the organization. And unlike other laws covering “gaming” activities, such as pull tabs, there is no legislative oversight of the financial records of these organizations. The state just assumes they pay the state what they are owed.

Gov. Parnell is endorsing Corey Rossi to use public assets to enrich political sponsors. This has very little to do with raising funds, which the state could easily do itself. But the most amazing fact is this, the state sends up to four biologists at a time to these conventions to promote the sale of the governor’s permits, consuming the very funds the permits are supposed to be generating for direct wildlife management costs.

Title VIII of Alaska’s constitution guarantees residents equal access to fish and game in Alaska. Giving one person or organization “privileged” access to wildlife is not only illegal, but a founding reason why Alaska became a state in the first place – to keep Alaska’s wildlife in the hands of its residents.

But Rossi has even higher ambitions. Under his leadership, at the January meeting of the Board of Game (Proposal 44), he is asking for the authority to authorize governor’s permits during times of the year when Alaskan’s are not allowed to hunt, say two weeks before the sheep season opens or during the rut for moose. He also wants to have the authority to let the rich hunt anywhere in the state with one tag, to harvest game the same day the hunter has flown, or even to use helicopters. Yes, King Rossi wants it all for his political allies, and both he and Gov. Parnell seem to think that’s just fine, even though our constitution clearly abhors such privileged access to our fish and game.

As predicted, Corey Rossi has been a disaster for Fish and Game. Gov. Parnell is going to have to answer for that.

Wade Willis is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game employee and is currently the director of the Science Now Project, a public education and advocacy organization. sciencenowproject(at)gmail(dot)com

[Cross-posted at The Homer Tribune]

~An Exxon Valdez oil-filled footprint on a beach in Prince William Sound, known as “The Death Marsh” and “Diesel Beach.” Taken July 4, 2010 – twenty-one years after the spill. (photo by Jeanne Devon)

By Prof.  Rick Steiner

In what could be the final court showdown regarding environmental damage from the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, tomorrow (1:30 PM, Tuesday Nov. 15, 2011) the U.S. District Court in Anchorage will hear oral arguments regarding the final payment from Exxon for long-term environmental injuries from the spill.

The present Court proceedings were triggered initially by my 12/7/10 amicus motion, then the Court hearing 3/4/11, at which the Court ordered the parties – Exxon, the State of Alaska, and the U.S. government – to seek to settle the Reopener for Unknown Injury claim pursuant to the 1991 Consent Decree (the historic $1 billion settlement), and to report back to the Court by 9/15/11 on progress in reaching settlement.

The governments (state and federal) submitted in May 2006 a restoration plan to conduct more beach cleanup of residual oil with reopener monies, followed by an August 31, 2006 “demand for payment” to Exxon for $92 million.  Since then – over 5 years ago – Exxon has not paid, and the governments have not pursued collection.  All the while, the ecosystem injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill remains far from fully recovered.  Government research shows that there exist many ecological injuries that were not anticipated at the time of the 1991 settlement, and there are reasonable, cost-effective restoration options to address these unanticipated injuries.  This was to be the sole trigger for the $100 million Reopener payment, but the parties have not finalized the payment and taken no additional restorative action.  Thus, I filed my amicus motion last December, triggering this final round of judicial review.

In response to the Court order that the parties seek to settle the claim and report back to the Court by 9/15/11,  Exxon filed an 8/9/11 motion asking the Court to dismiss the government claim, asserting that the Reopener provision was meant for additional “restoration,” not more cleanup as the government proposed.  The government objected on 9/9/11, and asked for more time “to study” the issue.  In response, I filed another amicus on 9/19/11 asking the Court for three remedies:

1.     Order Exxon to immediately pay the government demand ($92 million) + interest (about $25 million now) = total $117 million

2.     Grant the governments discretion regarding how best to use these monies in the best interest of full ecological recovery, and order government parties to expedite actions to do such; and

3.     Issue guidance to other Courts regarding the construction of future Reopener for Unknown Injury provisions in environmental consent decrees (e.g. BP Deepwater Horizon) seeking to avoid the problems that have plagued the Exxon Valdez Reopener provision.

The Court denied my 9/19/11 amicus, but it can still order the requested relief.  Or, the Court could agree with Exxon and dismiss the government claim altogether, or it could agree with the governments and allow them more time to study the issues.

Importantly, in my September amicus, I asked that Exxon make clear if it intends to invoke the 6-year statute of limitation regarding contract claims, which some legal scholars say would extinguish the government claim this coming August (2012).   Exxon’s opposition to my motion was silent on that request, leaving to a presumption that indeed Exxon intends to invoke this argument.   Thus, the clock is ticking on this claim.

“The failure of the parties in this historic Exxon Valdez case to make good on their agreement 20 years ago seriously undermines the credibility of promises by the oil industry and government today regarding their commitment to responsible development of the Arctic OCS.”

*************************************************