STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL It is tragic that while the United States is facing an energy crisis, including shortages of petroleum products, one of the largest reserves of petroleumAlaska's North Slope-remains undeveloped. At a time when the U.S. is forced to increasingly rely on oil imports-with resultant loss in American jobs, damage to this country's balance of trade and potential threat to national security-development of Alaskan oil reserves is blocked by outdated right-of-way requirements and environmental concerns, some real and some imagined. The fastest, most economically feasible and most secure method of transporting Alaskan oil to the burgeoning American markets is by pipeline to Valdez and by tanker to West Coast ports. Jobs for American workers would be generated not only in building the pipeline and related plant construction, but also in maintaining it and in manning the transshipment facility at Valdez. Approximately 33 new U.S.-flag tankers would be needed to carry the oil, thus stimulating employment in U.S. shipyards and for U.S. shipboard workers. However, the key to transshipment is construction of the Alaskan pipeline, and construction of the pipeline depends on Congressional action to give the Secretary of the Interior legal authority to grant the right-of-way. Congressional action is also necessary to legalize many oil and gas pipelines in all regions of the country which, as a result of a recent court decision, are technically illegal. Unless legal remedy is provided, these pipelines could be enjoined and the jobs of many workers endangered. Senator Henry M. Jackson, chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, has sponsored legislation (S.1081) that would solve the right-of-way program while providing very tough environmental safeguards and stringent liability requirements for damages caused by the pipeline. Additionally, the bill would insure that the Alaskan oil reserves are used in America's domestic markets. We urge immediate enactment of S.1081 to eliminate a legal obstacle to construction of the Alaskan pipeline which we wholeheartedly favor. Enactment of the Jackson bill would leave one hurdle to construction of the pipeline-a court challenge to the environmental impact study conducted by the U.S. Department of Interior in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. This question now properly reverts to the courts where a decision should be rendered without delay. Various routes through Canada to the Midwest have been proposed as alternatives to the Alaskan pipeline. But this is not an "either . . . or" questionboth an Alaskan and a Canadian route will be needed. But a Canadian route is considered by experts to be at least 10 years away from construction, and time is of the essence. We believe a study of a Canadian route has merit, because the resources in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic will eventually require two or more pipelines. Therefore, we support the provision in S.1081 that establishes proper procedures for negotiations with the Canadian government leading to construction of a second, later route. We recognize that full development of Alaskan oil reserves will not solve America's larger energy crisis. The future stability of this country's economy requires immediate measures to insure America's self-sufficiency in all forms of energy. To meet this long-range need, we support S.1283, introduced by Senator Jackson and 27 other Senators, that would mobilize the nation's scientific and technological resources for a 10-year, $20 billion crash program to develop alternative energy sources. If America does not solve its immediate and long-range energy needs, this country will be forced to depend largely on foreign sources with political, economic and national security hazards. Without sufficient energy resources America will not be able to meet its economic and social goals, but if the Congress acts now it can assure Americans both a better environment and a better life for everyone. THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, Hon. JAMES HALEY, DEAR MR. HALEY: I have the honor of forwarding to you at the direction of the Conference of Western Attorneys General a resolution relating to the early construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline adopted at the May 16 meeting of the Conference. Your consideration and support and that of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is earnestly requested. Sincerely, Enclosure. JOHN C. DOYLE, Conference of Western Attorneys General, Director, Western Office, Council of State Governments. [Resolution adopted by 1973 Annual Meeting, Conference of Western Attorneys General, Council of State Governments, May 13-16, 1973, Scottsdale, Ariz.] CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE Whereas our nation is facing an energy shortage of increasingly serious proportions, and Whereas the development of the oil and gas resources of Northern Alaska, among other potential fuel development initiatives, offers the prospect of significant relief from the deepening energy crisis; and Whereas the Congress has before it various measures which would expedite the completion of an environmentally sound transportation system bringing this resource to the nation; Now therefore be it Resolved by the Conference of Western Attorneys General in annual meeting assembled on May 16, 1973 at Scottsdale, Arizona, That the Congress is urged to take action to allow the commencement of construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, under adequate environmental safeguards, at the earliest time possible. Mr. MELCHER. The committee is now adjourned to meet subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.] OIL AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY PART II TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee inet, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2359, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher presiding. Mr. MELCHER. The committee will come to order. This morning we will continue with the hearings on the right-ofway bills. The first witness scheduled is Mr. Stewart Brandborg of the Wilderness Society. Unfortunately, Mr. Brandborg could not attend today and we will reschedule him for a later date. The next witness the committee will hear from is Mr. Brock Evans, Washington representative of the Sierra Club. Brock, welcome again to the committee. We have always enjoyed your testimony on whatever particular bill happened to be before the committee, and I am sure we appreciate your testimony again today. STATEMENT OF BROCK EVANS, WASHINGTON Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. As I think you know, I am presently, of course, the Washington representative for two organizations, the Sierra Club and Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs. As I think you also know, I was the Northwest representative for these two organizations for the last 6 years, up until about February of this year. That area of my jurisdiction, when I was in the Northwest, included Alaska for most of that time. So I became quite familiar with the places concerned, that concern us, and also the issue we have here today. It is very important to point out to this committee that the Sierra Club has never taken a stand in opposition to the idea that oil from Alaska's North Slope should some day be removed and used as a source of energy, even though there are compelling arguments that it should either remain in the ground or be used as a source of foodstuffs or for other chemical purposes. Our position ever since the discoveries were announced in 1968 has been to point out that by every measure, the current route and method proposed for transporting it by pipeline to the port of Valdez, and thence by tanker to the west coast of America, will be (847) extremely damaging, even disastrous, from an environmental standpoint. I won't take up your time, except to bring up one point we don't think has been talked about very much, and that is super tanker traffic. One major and extremely serious and unavoidable environmental hazard, for example, is the vast increase in super-tanker traffic along the foggy and stormridden coasts of the North Pacific, which will be the inevitable result of the construction of the pipeline of Valdez. However much attention we pay to safety features on new super tankers and we certainly hope that this is done there simply is no way to compensate for human error. Two tankers collide in San Francisco Bay on a perfectly clear night; A so-called modern U.S.built tanker breaks inhalf at Long Island a year or so ago; Two drunks forget to shut a valve in Puget Sound; and oil pours into the water. This is the sort of thing that can and does happen all too often, even with the best of intentions. Sometimes safety devices don't work; sometimes they are poorly made; sometimes they are experimental, and don't prove out; and sometimes people just forget or are careless. We all know this, and this is one of the major problems with the present proposed route. In fact, the Honeywell Corp. ran a computer study about 2 years ago and predicted that, if tanker traffic increases in Puget Sound because of the Alaska discoveries, two to four major oil disasters can be assured within the next decade. It only takes one to completely destroy, for a long time, the pattern of life and the resources of a coastal area. We can avoid all this if we consider other routes and they do exist. And at the very least. we hope we can have a rational decisionmaking process, so that we do not get stampeded by the oil industries and the cries of "energy crisis"-with the illogical corollary that somehow by immediately approving the Alaska pipeline our energy problems will be solved. We all know realistically that they will not at all. The Canadian route, on its face, appears to be less damaging from an environmental standpoint. It avoids the major earthquake zones. It avoids the marine leg. If it is properly routed to avoid any contact with the existing Arctic wildlife range, it could conceivably avoid most of the important wildlife scenic 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 genera! route of the Alcan highway out of Fairbanks, or the equally intriguing proposal, now demonstrated to be economical, for a railroad. We should not be locked into 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 and other factors in a much more adqeuate 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 by the same token, we support a rational decision-making process, with a rational and careful consideration of all the alternatives-not just those pushed by the oil companies. There are lots of bills now, as we know, and some are |