Exxon Valdez Settlement Hasn’t Settled Very Much
ANCHORAGE — After all the millions of gallons of oil sloshed into the sea, after all those tears, the dead and suffering animals, poisoned shellfish, drowned otters, uncaught fish, defiled beaches, economic dislocation, finger-pointing and excuse-making--after all of that, now a pot of gold tantalizes Alaska at the end of disaster’s rainbow.
The tortured tale of the Exxon Valdez lives on.
Almost four years after the supertanker ran aground atop Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, the bounty is now on the table: $900 million in civil penalties and $100 million in criminal fines, the result of pretrial settlement between Exxon, the George Bush Administration and the state of Alaska.
Well, not actually that much anymore.
Something in excess of $200 million has already been gobbled up--to reimburse government agencies and Exxon for completed cleanup efforts and for continuing studies of the spill. And savvy Alaskans are now voicing the question: Will the state and the nation do better in spending the remaining rewards than they did in preventing the damage of the nation’s worst oil spill?
“The framework we’re dealing with is what can we do as humans to fix this place we’ve screwed up?†says Pamela A. Miller of the Wilderness Society.
“The worst case is that the money will be used to build more roads for logging, more ports, more facilities for industrial tourism, or simply that we fritter the money away,†she says.
“The best case is that we prevent the ecosystem from being broken up. . . . We’ve been advocating that 80% be allocated to habitat acquisition. Of course, that’s no longer reasonable because 20% has already been spent.â€
And so far, no land has been acquired.
The requests for money are, as could be imagined, colossal and conflicting.
In general, these are the competing interests and some of their claims:
SCIENTISTS: Hundreds of scientists have produced millions of words, and among them are “needs more study.†Scientists view Prince William Sound as a vast laboratory that can provide knowledge for generations to come. Critics say it’s time to be asking, when is enough science too much? Should scientists, for instance, be paid to walk every foot of every stream that runs into the sound to make the best-ever map of the region?
AGENCIES AND EXXON: Under the terms of the settlement, government agencies involved with the cleanup and restoration are permitted to seek reimbursement for expenses. Ditto with Exxon. So far, Exxon has been paid $39.9 million for costs of cleanup efforts that occurred after January, 1991. The $2 billion Exxon said it paid for cleanup before then is not reimbursable.
LAND ACQUISITION: Environmentalists say the best long-term use of the settlement would be to buy and preserve wildlife habitat. Among those wanting to sell up to a million acres in and around the sound are Native Aleuts, who seek cash for investment. Moreover, several native groups are warning that if they don’t get some of the settlement cash soon, they will clear-cut the timber off their lands and sell that, or offer their choicest holdings inside federally protected areas for sale to resort developers.
DEVELOPMENT: This is the quietest front because many Alaskans and many Americans in the other 49 states resist the idea of further development in this wild region, which is primarily known for its commercial fishing. Gov. Walter J. Hickel, however, has indicated that he favors at least some further development, the extent of which he has not specified. Ideas range from fish hatcheries to port enlargements.
It bears mention that any one of these four interests could swallow $1 billion faster than a killer whale can suck down a duckling. Decisions on allocating funds rest with a six-member trust fund committee, three representing Alaska and three from the Clinton Administration. Terms of the settlement require unanimous votes.
This spring, the committee staff will offer alternatives for public discussion. This should highlight the different possibilities and priorities for long-term spending of the penalty funds.
“I want people to know there is an opportunity for something good to come out of this spill,†said Pamela Brodie, the Sierra Club’s expert on the issue. “We have to look at the big picture: The environment was damaged. Properly spent, the settlement will be a gift back to the environment.â€
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
