Thousands of Alaskans live, work and play along Alaska’s 44,000 miles of coastline. We fish for salmon and halibut, harvest herring, shrimp, herring roe, crabs, and seaweed, dig for clams, watch the whales for fun and hunt them for food, drill for oil and gas, dig for gold, pick berries, harvest timber, hunt, kayak, and surf, and, in the quiet of a summer evening, stand on a rocky shore and marvel at the wonder that is Alaska’s coast.
Giving Alaskans a voice in how to balance these potentially competing uses and activities is the reason a coastal program is needed in Alaska. That’s why I, along with other municipal officials, civic leaders, and interested Alaskans have banded together to promote a citizens’ ballot initiative to revive the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
A majority of this Nation’s resource use and economic activity occurs in the productive boundary between land and ocean. Congress foresaw that, as population and development pressures increased in this zone, so would conflicts. Rather than impose centralized federal management, however, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act to empower coastal states to manage, protect, and develop their coastal resources and granted state and local governments a decisive voice in federal coastal resource and development decisions.
In 1977, in response to increasing offshore oil and gas development, upstream timber harvesting, and a growing fishing industry, Governor Jay Hammond introduced the Alaska Coastal Management Act.
Two years later, the federal government approved Alaska’s first coastal management program. With that approval, regardless of where an activity occurred or who was responsible for permitting, the state and local coastal communities had a meaningful say in coastal projects — providing guidance for sound economic development while maintaining other coastal resource uses and values.
In 1984, Governor Bill Sheffield adopted a coordinated review process for coastal projects. In addition to a predictable timeframe for permit review, the process promoted development by providing a way to reach consensus among state and federal resource agencies, project applicants, and each affected coastal community. To achieve consensus, permit conditions were designed to ensure proposed projects could move forward with minimal impact to other resource values.
In 2003, the program was altered to all but silence local community voices. And finally, the Alaska Coastal Management Program died in the 2011 legislative session. As a result, Alaska garnered the distinction of being the only coastal state in the Nation without a coastal management program.
The ability to affect federal actions such as offshore oil and gas leasing and activities on federal land was a major reason Alaska established a coastal program over 30 years ago. Today, the federal government retains ownership of about 60 percent of Alaska lands, much of it along the coast. Considerable offshore activity permitted by federal agencies occurs beyond the state’s three-mile limit. The state coastal program needs to be revived because it provides the means for the state and local coastal communities to substantively influence federal actions that are otherwise out of state and local government jurisdiction.
With a new, improved coastal management program, Alaskans can regain their voices and once again have control over our coastal lands, waters, and resources.
For the coastal program initiative to appear on the 2012 election ballot, we must collect 26,000 valid voters’ signatures prior to the convening of the legislature on Jan. 17, 2012. Please make your voice heard by signing the petition when you see a signature gatherer. Also, go to our website where you can volunteer or donate to the cause — www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org. Together, we can make a difference for all Alaskans.
• Botelho is the mayor of Juneau and as Chair of the Alaska Sea Party:Restoring Coastal Management, the grassroots organization seeking to place the initiative on the 2012 ballot.





Comments (11)
Add commentAmazing
We have more coastline than the rest of the United States combined and we're the only state that has no voice over what happens on it.
Interesting that Jay Hammond, a republican, established the Coastal Management program, and republican Sean Parnell killed it. What's with these republicans?
How could Parnell, with all of his railing about the unchecked power of the big, bad federal government, take away one of our only tools for controlling it?
Could it be he's just a puppet of the oil companies? (that was just a rhetorical question...we already know he is)
Next gubernatorial election: 2014 (What say you, Bruce? Are you up for it? Who's going to stand up and snip the puppet's strings?)
Signed it!
We need to protect our shores, for deliberate development as well as conservation. Get it back - Alaskans deserve to have a voice in plans that affect our coastal areas.
What is the REAL reason that
What is the REAL reason that the Coastal Management Program died?
Too many layers of bureaucracy?
Was the program hijacked by special interests - environmental activists - and it became unworkable?
How much was it costing the state? Was it money well spent?
Answers, Frenchie
1. Real reason? Parnell's oil company masters wanted it to.
2. Layers of bureaucracy? Sure. Like EVERY State program.
3. Hijacked by special interests? Yes. By oil companies. And yes, it is now unworkable, since it is dead.
4. Costing money? Probably no more than Parnell's many pointless and politically motivated lawsuits against the Feds. Yes.
Is this another word for 'Blowback'?
Or perhaps to the point, special interest blowback? I really cannot see just what the point of it is. It is difficult to read past the governmental double-talk to see what it is really all about. I just Googled it and read the two page mission statement, and it is full of vague grandiose statements. I did perhaps see the reason for the thing; down in the lower right hand margin, the budget was about 4.5 million for the year.
One thing that gets me about this thing is remarks like the one above by Bruce:
'With a new, improved coastal management program, Alaskans can regain their voices and once again have control over our coastal lands, waters, and resources.'
What a load of bull. Magic fairy dust.
~Um~ Well, Alaska still cannot supersede Federal Law, no matter what. Seems to me that this is just another layer of special interest gunk gumming up the system to the tune of 4.5 million a year.
It is real hard for me, a semi-normal Alaskan person, to see what this plan has really accomplished, or where it is going, other than to make a few badly needed jobs for lawyers. If anybody can make a real nuts-and-bolts comment on what the heck this is really about, I would listen. So far, I just see money and some weak promises and a lot of smoke and mirrors.
spoor
"If anybody can make a real nuts-and-bolts comment on what the heck this is really about, I would listen."
I doubt it. You've already googled a two-page document, so what more could you possibly learn? But in case you can stretch yourself to read one more paragraph, here's the opening paragraph from the Federal program:
"The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted on October 27, 1972, to encourage coastal states, Great Lake States, and United States territories and commonwealths (collectively referred to as coastal states) to develop comprehensive programs to manage and balance competing uses of and impacts to coastal resources. The CZMA emphasizes the primacy of state decision-making regarding the coastal zone. Section 307 of the CZMA (16 USC ยง 1456), called the federal consistency provision, is a major incentive for states to join the national coastal management program and is a powerful tool that states use to manage coastal uses and resources and to facilitate cooperation and coordination with federal agencies."
Now do you get it?
Ditto, spoor.And you've got
Ditto, spoor.
And you've got the smart alec, partisan rhetoric from uninformed voters like 58 to prove your point.
If this makes it onto the ballot, it will be interesting to see who funds the advertisements, both for and against.
I'm guessing most voters don't have a clue and it'll be easy to sway them one way or the other - money will talk.
Hey 58 - what say you now?
"During the last legislative session, Senate Bill 45 and House Bill 106 were submitted at the request of Gov. Sean Parnell to extend the Alaska's coastal management program. Support for extending the program came from around the state, including Resolution 2011-005 from the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Numerous changes were made to the original legislation. What began as a one-page document grew to more than eight pages by session's end. After the Legislature failed to reach an agreement before adjourning in May and again during the special session in June, the program expired June 30."
58: Uh - ~No~ I don't really get it...
But thanks for your comment. It does show really well to the readers why I don't get it. The paragraph you inserted is really badly written. I suppose you could cut out most of the extra words out of it but it has been my experience that when anybody writes like that, they are faking it. And when it is a government program... But hey! If you can speak in plain English and tell me what is does and how, like I said, I am willing to listen. Since this was apparently written in 1972, I sincerely hope the author of this gobbledygook went on to a successful career in writing the legal notices on software programs. You know, those icky things we have to click 'I agree' on to get our software to work - you know, those things nobody reads because - well, they look just like that and don't seem to say anything we need to read.
Entitlement programs for English majors! You know how it goes, some guys just go through 4 years of college and learn stuff but fail to learn how to connect the dots. Oh well. I guess they just don't get it, if you don't learn to connect the dots, there is no reason to learn the junk. Unless, of course, you can get a government job...
Does THIS make any sense?
Yes, it does make sense...
It says: "Don't let ignorance hold you back from voicing your opinion loudly."
Carry on.
Calypso makes a good point
Calypso makes a good point about who will fund advertisements--both pro and con--should this issue make it on to the ballot. I have the impression that we are all in for a lot more fun before this issue ends up getting settled.
What I find absurdly funny is
What I find absurdly funny is this: Walk the harbors, note all the Eco Police Boats. FED State etc. Yes folks we are here to protect the environment so long as it is a warm summer day. I never see these expensive play toys protecting our eco system october thru April. These people who are saving us are elitist no fun cops. Period.