Back to StoriesTrading Away Wildness For Oil And Tax Breaks
Ms. Ann Harvey
Wilson, WY 83014
An Answer/Rebuttal From Ann Harvey
December 26, 2017
Trading Away Wildness For Oil And Tax BreaksA Wyoming Conservationist Schools A U.S. Senator After He Votes To Open The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge To Drilling
Few members of the younger generations may realize this, but
what remains of wildness in America has an arc of human connection that runs
from Moose, Wyoming to the northern tundra of Alaska.
Generations of the Murie clan, still with us and passed,
embraced as part of their heritage the national movement to draft a landmark
federal law, codifying the establishment of capital-W “wilderness” lands. In 1964, Margaret E. Murie left her home in Grand Teton National Park
bound for Washington D.C. to witness President Lyndon Johnson sign the
Wilderness Act.
Between them, the husband and wife couples of Mardy and Olaus
Murie, and Louise and Adolph Murie, were deeply committed to advancing
conservation in the Lower 48 but their favorite muse was Alaska—in particular the
mountains around Denali and a sweep of public land that became the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
Countless numbers of Americans, Democrats and Republicans,
regarded the refuge, often referenced by its acronym, ANWR, as inviolate,
particularly in recent years as climate change is rapidly altering the
environment for animals that live there. ANWR is a seasonal home to the famous Porcupine
caribou herd which is rivaled only by the elk, mule deer and pronghorn
movements in Greater Yellowstone for its long-distance seasonal migration.
But ANWR also has oil beneath it. In December, Republicans from Wyoming,
Montana and Idaho voted as part of the new tax bill promoted by Interior
Secretary Ryan Zinke and the Trump Administration to open up ANWR to drilling.
A recent poll shows that 70 percent of Americans are against energy development in ANWR and those who "strongly oppose" outnumber those who are "strongly in favor" of drilling by a 4 to 1 margin.
After many Wyomingites protested the Republicans embedding the
controversial development of ANWR in a tax bill, U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, from
Gillette, Wyoming crafted a form letter mailed to some of his angry
constituents.
What follows is Enzi’s note to one constituent, the
conservationist/biologist Ann Harvey (who also was a friend of the late Mardy
Murie and Louise Murie Macleod) and Harvey’s reply to the senator.
Mountain Journal wanted to share it with you. Enjoy.
—MoJo Eds
Constituent Form Letter From U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi
From:
"Senator Michael B. Enzi" <Correspondence_Reply@enzi.senate.gov>
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM
To: Ann Harvey
Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 2:33 PM
To: Ann Harvey
December
19, 2017
Ms. Ann Harvey
Wilson, WY 83014
Dear
Ann:
I
believe responsible, limited energy development should occur in places like the
ANWR and Outer Continental Shelf as a way to help us meet our energy needs and
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
By developing less than three percent of
the ANWR, we could create new jobs and generate billions of dollars while
preserving the vast majority of the area. Alaska’s senators, the folks who know
ANWR the best, have advocated for this limited development for many years.
I
keep in close contact with the Fish and Wildlife Service, officials at the
National Elk Refuge and the Wyoming Game and Fish when there are any
legislative proposals that might affect the wildlife these folks manage.
I
believe our tax reform bill would help grow the economy, encourage job creation
at home and, in turn, drive up wages. We would reduce taxes on average in every
tax bracket.
Sincerely,
Michael
B. Enzi
United States Senator
United States Senator
An Answer/Rebuttal From Ann Harvey
December
21, 2017
Senator
Mike Enzi
379A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
379A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear
Senator Enzi,
In
response to your email above, I have a question for you: Have you ever actually
been to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? I have. As a young field biologist
I, along with another young woman, spent more than 3 months camping and hiking
throughout the upper Sheenjek River drainage in the heart of the Refuge,
studying Dall Sheep for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our base camp was
more than 100 miles from the nearest road.
The
pristine wildness of the Refuge was absolutely stunning to me, even though I
had grown up in the Colorado Rockies and spent a great deal of time as a young
person out hiking, camping, and backpacking. I spent that long Arctic summer in
awe of the quiet, the gorgeous landscape, and the amazing wildlife that
surrounded me every day, including dozens of species of nesting birds (birds
who migrate to the Refuge to nest from all over the world), bears, wolves,
Arctic foxes, Dall sheep, caribou, and many small mammals. It was rich, it was
beautiful, and it was wild. It was an unforgettable experience of immersion in
the intact natural world, in a place where humans had not yet torn apart the
fundamental fabric of that wilderness. It taught me what wilderness really is.
After
returning from my months in the field, I also had the opportunity to fly over
other portions of the Refuge, including the coastal plain, conducting aerial
wildlife counts, and to float the Sheenjek River to survey hunter use in the
fall. One thing that is apparent from the air is that scars inflicted on this
land do not heal. I saw tracks of a vehicle that had driven, just one time,
over the tundra many decades before—still perfectly visible, not grown over at
all.
The tundra is fragile, Senator Enzi. It will not recover from the impacts
of energy development in our lifetimes, nor in many lifetimes to follow.
The
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is wild in a way we can’t even imagine in the
Lower 48.
You speak of “responsible, limited energy development in places like
the ANWR”—but there is no other place like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
and no energy development that in a place so pristine and so fragile can be
considered “responsible.” Your statistic that “less than three percent of the
ANWR” would be developed is completely misleading. That “three percent” would
be a spiderweb of roads, pipelines, pump stations, and other infrastructure
spread out over many thousands of acres.
"Your statistic that 'less than three percent of the ANWR' would be developed is completely misleading. That 'three percent' would be a spiderweb of roads, pipelines, pump stations, and other infrastructure spread out over many thousands of acres." —Ann Harvey in her response to Sen. Mike Enzi
If someone drew a spiderweb of
permanent lines over a great work of art, making sure that only 3 percent of
the actual surface area were covered and plenty of paint still showed between
the lines, would the artwork still be intact, in your opinion? The “1002 Area”
opened by the tax bill is 1.5 million acres, not some insignificant little piece
of land, and the two lease sales envisioned over the next decade would cover
400,000 acres each. Please don’t try to downplay the size and significance of
these leases.
I
don’t agree that Alaska’s senators are “the folks who know the refuge best.” The
folks who know the refuge best are those who have actually spent time living
and breathing the wildness of the Refuge, experiencing the 24-hour daylight of
the Arctic north, sleeping under the shimmering light of the aurora borealis in
the fall, noticing how the tundra plants change color through the seasons,
hiking the trailless terrain, watching the play of light and shadow across the
great expanses of mountain and valley, observing the flow of caribou migrating,
hearing the calls of the birds, adapting to the sudden changes in the weather.
The Gwich’in people who have depended on the Porcupine caribou herd for
generations (and who strongly oppose development of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge) would not agree either that Alaska’s senators know the refuge
best. Alaska’s senators (and many of Alaska’s citizens) want money from oil,
period. They do not care about the magnificent wildlife or any other values
that the Refuge provides.
But we as a nation should and do care.
As
for generating billions of dollars, the $1.1 billion that the Congressional
Budget Office estimates the federal government might receive in the first
decade would offset less than one tenth of one percent of the $1.5 trillion
lost to the treasury from this corporate-giveaway tax bill you just voted for.
And to get even that $1.1 billion, the two lease sales would have to bring in
$2,750 per acre—more than ten times what lease sales elsewhere on the North
Slope have been averaging.
According to the Center for American Progess,
revenue from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is likely to net only $37.5
million to the federal treasury over the next decade. How can destruction of
this irreplaceable wilderness be worth such a paltry return? As for longer-term
revenues, it’s a crap shoot. Your projections of billions in revenue are based
on probably unrealistic assumptions about what reserves might lie under the
Refuge and what is going to happen to the price of oil (at present far below
the break-even price for drilling on the North Slope).
The USGS says there is
probably no large pool of oil under the Refuge and that what oil there is is
probably scattered in as many as 35 small traps. If that’s the case, your
projections are certainly unrealistic. What is certain is that exploration and
development will irreparably damage this irreplaceable wildlife refuge that we
ought to be protecting, in exchange for unknown amounts of oil that we will
probably export.
This is the vision of full-field natural gas development as permitted on public land by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in the Jonah Field of western Wyoming near the foot of the Wind River Mountains. It has had devastating consequences for ungulate populations and sage grouse. Photo courtesy Ecoflight
I’d
like to close by reminding you of what a great Wyoming woman, Mardy Murie (who
as you ought to know was a passionate advocate, along with her husband Olaus,
for establishing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), said about the value of
this wild land:
“When
I think about that return to the part of Alaska which has meant so much in my life,
the overpowering and magnificent fact is that Lobo Lake is still there,
untouched. Last Lake is still there, untouched. Although the instant you fly
west of the Canning River man is evident in all the most blatant debris of his
machine power, east of the Canning the tundra, the mountains, the unmarked
space, the quiet, the land itself, are all still there.”
Your
legacy, and that of the other legislators who voted for this abomination of a
tax bill and the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to needless
destruction, will be to destroy that overpowering and magnificent fact, that
untouched wild land that Mardy dreamed might persist to the time of her
great-grandchildren and beyond. Shame on all of you for your short-sighted
destructiveness.
Ann
Harvey
Wilson, Wyoming
Wilson, Wyoming
Related Stories
January 12, 2020
Experts Say The Magna Carta Of American Environmental Law Is Under Siege
Special Report: The National Environmental Policy Act benefits the lives of all Americans every day. So why is the Trump Administration...
October 22, 2017
Whither The Mighty Wolverine?
Few in number and scattered sparsely across huge geographic areas, wolverines are still hanging on in Greater Yellowstone. But for how...
October 11, 2023
Seen from Above
Mountain
climbing, sense of place, and, after 15 years out of print, the second edition
of Select Peaks of Greater Yellowstone