No more: NPR-A compromise was made 32 years ago.

• Author: Cochrane, Phil
• Position: OIL & GAS

I am troubled. The United States Department of Interior has issued a proposed management plan that effectively locks up about half of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska from development. The announcement was heralded in a federal news release as a compromise between development and conservation. In reality, it was just a wholesale land grab.

Apart from the obvious contradiction of stopping oil and gas activity in an area set aside specifically for the purpose of oil and gas development, this decision makes no sense to me. That's why what troubles me most is not the announcement itself, but the reaction to it.

Oh, I know that many leading Alaskans spoke out against DOI's final proposed plan. The arguments were strong and made sense. However, if you spend some time looking at the various statements, news releases and media coverage, you'll see there was something missing--a serious conversation about the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 USC 3213) and how this action runs counter to it.

ANILCA was signed into law in 1980 and set aside 106 million acres of federal lands in Alaska for conservation. Added to the already protected existing spaces, over 148 million acres of federal land was declared off limits to development.

Long-time Alaskans will tell you that the full impact of ANILCA on resource development is still not known--and, to this day, many still oppose the legislation. My purpose here is not to debate the merits of ANILCA. However, ANILCA is the law of the land and we must abide by it. We also need to understand that it did more than just lock-up federal lands.

There are many good resources to help us understand ANILCA--probably the best is RDC's "Who Owns Alaska?" It describes the history and impacts of the legislation on Alaska and resource development. It's a must read.

In my opinion, the most important parts of the law are Section 101 (d): the purposes section--and Section 1326--commonly referred to as the "No More" clause. In section 101, Congress says ANILCA represents a proper balance between conservation and development, and no more land would be withdrawn for conservation purposes by the federal government. Section 1326 puts some teeth in the legislation and says the Federal Administration cannot withdraw more land for conservation without Congressional approval. Don't take my word for it. Here is exactly what it says: "SEC. 1326. (a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than five...