RDC 2024 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VOLUME 2 | ISSUE 3 | SUMMER 2025
“ANILCA provides a prime example of why continual engagement and education is necessary to make sure laws are implemented as intended." — Connor Hajdukovich, RDC External Affairs and Policy Coordinator
REFLECTIONS ON ANILCA: ALASKANS' INPUT MATTERS
A S MANY OF YOU KNOW, ALASKA IS HUGE. OUR STATE CONTAINS OVER 365 MILLION ACRES OF LAND, ABOUT ONE FIFTH THE SIZE OF THE LOWER 48. In fact, I recently learned the distance from Attu to Hyder, Alaska, (2,261 miles) is almost twice the distance of the diameter of Pluto (1,471 miles). Today, 88% of land in Alaska is considered public land, with over 60% of land being federally managed. A common thread among our membership at the Resource De- velopment Council (RDC) is navigating com- plicated land ownership structures in Alaska and finding ways to access and responsibly develop our state’s resources. When Congress passed the Alaska Na- tional Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA) in 1980, they sought to balance conservation of Alaska’s lands and wildlife with paths to responsible development and economic pros- perity for Alaskans. A lofty goal to be sure, and one that Alaska’s late-Senator Ted Stevens fought hard to achieve. This legislation was years in the making, only getting across the finish line with significant compromises from all stakeholders. ANILCA saw to the creation of 106 million acres of conservation system units (CSUs) in Alaska and effectively tripled the size of the entire National Wilderness Preservation System. Having recently taken a course on ANILCA, I would like to provide some of my takeaways on how this bill has shaped Alaska and at times failed to live up to its Congressional intent. A key tenant in the making of ANILCA was to ensure Alaskans had reasonable access to the most resource-rich parts of the state while protecting the fish and wildlife that inhabit its vast lands and waters. Many exceptions to federal land management were
included in ANILCA to account for this purpose, and to accommodate for the unique characteristics of Alaska. A few examples I’ve identified to demonstrate Congress’ intent to provide these exceptions are as follows: 1. The No More Clause (Section 101(d) and other sections) expressed Congress’s intent that the conservation designations under ANILCA should represent a final bal- ance — not a starting point for future land withdrawals and lockups. 2. Consultation with the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Stakeholders is required many times throughout ANILCA and other federal laws, particularly for changes in subsistence uses, land management, and environmental studies. 3. A collaborative decision-making process between state and federal authorities was laid out to provide access for developing trans- portation and utility systems with the intent of ensuring Alaska can efficiently expand its underdeveloped infrastructure (Section 1101). 4. A transportation corridor was granted from the Alaska Pipeline Haul Road across the Gates of the Arctic National Preserve (Section 201(4)(b)), to allow access to the mineral-rich Ambler Mining District. These are only a few of many provisions that demonstrate Congress’ intent to provide a path to economic prosperity for Alaskans through development of resource-rich areas while maintaining strong environmental standards. Unfortunately, these provisions have not always been implemented in the way they were intended resulting in land lock-ups, lack of proper consultation, and federal overreach that is contradictory to the language and intent of the compromises made and promised in ANILCA. Though
access was granted, we’ve seen the feder- al government weaponize the procedural systems within regulatory processes to delay decisions indefinitely. This is particularly apparent with the Ambler Mining District example, which clearly granted specific ac- cess under ANILCA and yet access has been continually delayed for decades. ANILCA was written with a careful balance in mind, however, federal agencies and political forces have not always implemented the law in the same spirit. The federal employees based in Alaska typically do their best to maintain this balance, but D.C. is a long way away and educating our federal partners on the needs of Alaskans is a never-ending job. ANILCA provides a prime example of why continual en- gagement and education is necessary to make sure laws are implemented as intended. Alaska’s state and federal leaders rely on input from the resource development indus- tries to craft sound legislation and provide timely and impactful input on regulatory actions. As part of this effort, RDC regu- larly sends out Action Alerts to make our membership aware of comment periods and opportunities to engage on issues that impact our member industries. HOW THE NEXT GENERATION CAN GET INVOLVED Getting involved in organizations like RDC – becoming a member, attending public policy forums, and providing input on advocacy efforts – gives young professionals the opportunity to make sure Alaska’s voice is heard. On that note, I encourage all of our members to bring a young professional in your field to RDC’s Emerging Leaders and Established Professionals event on Nov. 11 to learn more about RDC’s advocacy efforts.
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online