Author: Hal Shepherd

Imagine A Day Without Water in the Arctic

The theme of last year’s World Water Day was “Imagine a Day Without Water,” which focused attention on how we would manage for a single day without the many benefits that water brings to our lives. It appears that many coastal communities in Alaska, do not need to “imagine” not having access to running water because they are just one step away from the breaking down of their water systems due to the often intricate relationship of such systems to other critical infrastructure.

A case in point -, to work with the tribal staff on an instream flow data collection project. While waiting for my flight to Nome at the airport in Anchorage, during a business trip to Elim a couple of weeks ago, I received a text from out Project Coordinator, stating that “someone ran into a power pole and the entire village has no electricity or running water.”

While I was staying in the Village and the water was still out, I had a conversation with one of the janitors at the Aniguiin School, who said that once the power line was knocked out, “everything went down like a dominos because without electricity, the water pump blew a fuse. The city ordered a new pump but there’s no telling how long it will take to get here.” At the same time, people couldn’t rely on nearby creeks for drinking water which were frozen due to the temperature being in the teens.

Meanwhile city and school employees were working tirelessly to find back-up water for the school and other critical facilities. Ultimately, it took 5 days for the part to arrive before running water could be restored. But several days later, some were still boiling water because of worries about sanitation.

Last week’s situation in Elim is vivid example of the vulnerability of small Alaska communities to the impacts of climate change on water infrastructure. This winter, for example, the Arctic experienced the warmest March on record, and the second consecutive winter with extremely low levels of ice in the Bering Sea. The unprecedented loss of shoreline sea ice which normally acts a kind of barrier to protect coastal communities in the Arctic, from increasing storm surges means that drinking and other water infrastructure are more vulnerable to flood damage.

Other climate related changes to water resources in Alaska include the earliest recorded breakup for many rivers including the of the Tanana and Kuskokwim. Shorter ice seasons on rivers have profound impacts for the villages which use rivers for their main transportation routes.  As of the end of April this year, for example, around a dozen people died or had to be rescued after their snow machines or 4-wheelers fell through ice that was too thin. When rivers become too dangerous or otherwise, unavailable to use villagers are forced to either not travel at all or to rely on planes or other more expensive alternatives.

In light of the substantial impacts to Arctic coastal communities in the most rapidly warminig state in the country, it’s unfortunate that when asked about his strategy for addressing climate change during the campaign for Governor of Alaska, Mike Dunleavy’s response was “We are not a smokestack state, so we don’t contribute that much to climate change.” Ignoring the fact, therefore, that Alaska is one of the largest oil producing states in U.S., immediately after taking office, Dunleavy eliminated the Climate Action for Alaska Leadership Team established by Gov. Bill Walker, and removed the group’s strategy and action recommendations for helping Alaska Native and other communities adapt to climate change.

According to Dermot Cole, who is a columnist for Arctic Today, scrapping of the Team is a major loss for villages threatened by climate change because many of them “are one major storm away from being wiped out. If and when such a storm strikes, the state will respond — it just won’t be as organized as it could be with a mitigation plan.”

So, with the official response from the Dunleavy administration to impacts of climate change on the Alaska Native and other communities and for planning for the rapid changes coming to the state, being a resounding “We don’t care”, it’s a good thing that communities like Elim are already setting the example for resiliency when the grid actually does go down. Maybe the rest of us should take a page from their book.

This article was re-printed in the May 2, 2019 edition of the Nome Nugget News: http://www.nomenugget.com/sites/default/files/05_02_2019NN_0.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Criticizes Trump’s Arctic Refuge Drilling Study

In unusually harsh criticism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the Trump Administration failed to adequately consider oil spills, climate change and the welfare of polar bears in its rush to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The criticism which appeared in written comments filed by the agency stated that Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) failed to consider oil spill response planning, analyze impacts of climate change in the Arctic, require polar bear denning habitat surveys; pointed to substantial information gaps and implied that the agency in charge of drafting the DEIS (the Bureau of Land Management) failed to properly consult with USFWS as required by federal law.

The Fish and Wildlife oversight agency comments come at a time of increasing criticism of the BLM’s proposal to lease 400,000 acres in ANWR which is the largest wildlife sanctuary in the United States and which serves has habitat for multiple species including bears, caribou, lynx and muskox. Because 16 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil reserves also lie underneath the area, it is a major component of President Donald Trump’s “Energy Dominance” strategy.

Not only do the USFWS comments illustrates that even federal agency’s are starting to resist the administration’s rush to develop resources in the Arctic at the expense of environmental laws but, like the rest of Trump Arctic drilling campaign, the flawed permitting process which includes an order from the President that the National Environmental Policy Act process be completed within one year and the Final EIS be no more than 150 pages, may result in litigation. Such shortcutting of a process which is intended to be thorough and normally takes years and thousands of pages of documentation, can mean the failure to fully analyze significant impacts, tribal consultation and coordination will be inadequate, important scientific data will be ignored, and the public notice and comment process will be negatively impacted.

U.S. Supreme Court Tells Alaska Moose Hunter to “Rev Up Your Engine!”

The U.S. Supreme Court, recently, ruled in favor of John Sturgeon who sued the National Park Service in 2007, after rangers on the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve  told him he could not use a hovercraft for hunting moose on the Nation River near the Canadian border. While the Park claimed it had jurisdiction to manage navigable waters inside park boundaries, the state which which allows hovercrafts, joined in the law suit and maintained that it had the right to manage waters within the state including those of such rivers.

When in the Spring of 2019,  the U.S. Supreme Court made it’s decision it concluded that, for the purposes of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Nation River does not qualify as “public land” and, therefore, that the park service does not have authority to regulate Sturgeon’s activities on that part of the river found within the preserve. According to the Court “[t]hat means Sturgeon can again rev up his hovercraft in search of moose.”

Despite worries from tribal interests, that the Sturgeon litigation would reverse decades of  legal precedents for federal subsistence fishing rights in Alaska, the Katie John case was kept intact by a single footnote buried in the middle of the 46-page ruling which stated that the Katie John is “not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s holdings that the Park Service may regulate subsistence fishing on navigable waters.” As a result, immediately after the ruling was issued, the Alaska Federation of Native’s largely supported the decision stating “[o]ur Board previously approved two principles related to the case: private landowner’s access to – and use of – inholdings within conservation system units; and no net loss to subsistence rights. This ruling accomplishes both.”

In apparent agreement with AFN, Alaska’s congressional delegation said that the Court upheld “promises made to Alaskans in ANILCA” limiting the NPS rights over state and native lands and praised the decision for not over turning Katie John.

The decision could also impact other rivers in the state which could be interpreted as navigable waters and therefore, under the state, rather than the federal jurisdiction. Concurring opinions from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that the majority decision raises uncertainty about what remains of the park service’s authority over navigable waters in Alaska’s parks.