| |
Hauled from senate, a bad road bill flies
 "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."
I think I first heard that from my dad when I took the family barometer to sixth grade show-and-tell and took it apart to show classmates how it worked. I think my dad knew the phrase really was: "If it ain't broke . . ." The word "ain't", however, is just one of the four-letter words mother wouldn't tolerate in our house.
I suspect the reason the phrase turned into a cliche is because we too often have a compulsion to fix what isn't broken. The state senate did it again this week by passing SB 85, a bill that allows a swarm of off-road vehicles in the remote pipeline corridor north of the Yukon River. If the bill makes it through the House, not only will the results be bad but it will validate a flawed process.
Here's what the bill does: it allows off-road vehicles (ORVs) to be used in the five-mile-wide corridor along the industrial haul road between the Yukon and the North Slope. Right now, ORVs can only be used for oil and gas exploration, to access mining claims, or to transit from one side of the corridor to the other. Banned is other ORV use that begins or ends inside the corridor.
The bill is flawed policy on several levels.
First, the haul road corridor is the utility corridor for one of our nation's most vital and vulnerable sources of energy. Alaska newspapers reported just a few weeks ago that the pipeline route and maps have been found on web sites connected to potential terror groups. Why would we allow uncontrolled access to the pipeline in one of Alaska's most remote areas?
Security officials demand restricted zones around the tankers and docks at the pipeline terminus--no jet skis, no water skiing, no recreational craft. This bill allows ORVs to park under the pipeline.
Second, the bill puts incredible pressure on the caribou that migrate along and through the corridor. Hunting is allowed but ORV hunting is not. This bill potentially turns a traditional hunting experience into a Steese Highway or Taylor Highway kind of hunt. Far more hunters and X number of caribou means the hunting experience gets sliced thinner and thinner.
Third, the University of Alaska Toolik field station folks have asked for the protection of untrammeled tundra near the field station. This bill, despite some assurances that it would, does not protect the field station, which has been gathering data for nearly 30 years.
Fourth, this bill does not define what an ORV is or is not. ORV is not otherwise defined elsewhere in statute, either. Is an ORV a Hummer, a 4-wheel-drive Jeep?
Fifth, this bill has a fiscal note that says no further public protection or game and fish protection or security protection will be necessary when the corridor is thrown open to motorized access. Who really believes the one trooper who covers the corridor and the Brooks Range can simply add the new security, service and game and fish management enforcement to existing duties?
Sixth, and finally, this bill is bad policy because it breaks commitments and understandings and fragile alliances we've made to all residents of the North Slope--whether they live in Coldfoot or Wiseman or Barrow.  Here's what the then-mayor of the North Slope Borough said in public testimony on the bill in early October: "For North Slope residents there's nothing in the bill but pain and suffering."
The then-mayor noted that North Slope residents see an even greater expansion over access along the road--a road that originally was presented to them as an industrial road with restrictions on industry employees hunting in the corridor. A few years later it was opened to vehicles and tourists. Now it is potentially being thrown wide open. We need to listen when he and others remind us that SB 85 makes them wonder whether they really are our partners or public relations props when it comes to ANWR and other issues.
What's the sponsor's response to these six big issues? It's kind of a "and the skies are not cloudy all day" answer. He says don't worry about any of the issues. After all, he notes, the effective date of the bill is 12 months after it's signed so it gives bureaucrats time to work out all the issues and, if they don't, the legislature can always do it later.
That's not good enough. That answer also can excuse a homebuilder hammering together a roof before drawing up the plans. This is an important bill. It implicates post-9/11 terrorism concerns, game and fish management, science, public safety in a corridor with few services, and the expectations of Alaskans who live there. We can go through 15 or 20 drafts of bills that pertain to licensing of landscape architects but don't even bother to amend the one and only draft of this bill?
I want to close with a comment--well, to be honest--a very strong criticism about a failure in legislative process. SB 85 moved from its final standing committee last April even though the committee promised extensive public hearings on the bill before the convening of this session. I objected to moving the bill from committee before those public hearings but was told by the chair the bill could come back if needed and by the sponsor (this is from the official committee minutes) it would come back after public testimony. A third member who favored moving the bill noted it could come back if necessary.
Well, this bill hit the road for public hearings in October and well over 150 Alaskans showed up to testify against it. Overwhelmingly. Support was so thin at the hearings it couldn't cast a shadow on a sunshiny day. Many of the policy issues I enumerated above were strong elements of concern at the hearings in Nome, Fairbanks, Coldfoot/Wiseman, Barrow and Peters Creek. I asked for the bill to be returned to committee so we could at least consider whether to incorporate any of the concerns we heard on the extensive and expensive road trip.
Didn't happen. Too bad. The message that sends to the public is horrible--it apparently ain't broke but we'll fix it anyway.
Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
 Got a scoop? Call or email your tips and suggestions to any of the email addresses below: |
Capitol Undercurrents
BAAD news bear--I didn't see it but reliable folks say it's true. While  some labor folks were in town for a legislative fly-in this week, they had a peaceful demonstration on the front steps. Bouncing around the fringes was a guy in a white, furry costume with a red shoe tied to his snout. Apparently he represented BAAD--Balanced Alaskans for Arctic Development. My friends from the big city up north figured it out pretty quickly--the costumed character was miming the Anchorage zoo polar bear that mauled an Australian tourist who wandered into the polar bear exhibit. Remember? The real polar bear for several days carried around the young woman's red shoe and used it as a chew toy.
'Ello guvnah!--Whose side is internet mogul Google really on? According to them, the official website of Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski falls under the bold title "Governor Tony Knowles". You can check it out by putting Tony Knowles into the Google search engine--it's the second link on the page.
Slip slidin' away--Periodically, SurveyUSA measures then publishes the approval/disapproval ratings for the  governors and congressional delegations of the 50 states. The January 19 poll shows the 22 Democratic governors averaged an approval rating of 55 percent and disapproval rating of 38 percent. The 28 Republican governors were just slightly behind, averaging 54 percent and 39 percent. But the detailed look shows the Republicans had three big anchors tied to their averages. The three lowest ranked governors were all Republicans--California's Arnold Schwarzenegger (34 percent approval and 62 percent disapproval), Alaska's Frank Murkowski (28 percent and 68 percent), and Ohio's Bob Taft (18 percent and 76 percent).
|
|
