Editing Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (section)

==Opposition==
Opposition to construction of the pipeline primarily came from two sources: Alaska Native groups and [[Conservation movement|conservationists]]. Alaska Natives were upset that the pipeline would cross the land traditionally claimed by a variety of native groups, but no economic benefits would accrue to them directly. Conservationists were angry at what they saw as an incursion into America's last wilderness.<ref>Cole, p. 17</ref>

===Conservation objections===
[[File:Alaska Pipeline and caribou.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A [[caribou]] walks next to a section of the pipeline north of the [[Brooks Range]]. Opponents of the pipeline asserted the presence of the pipeline would interfere with the caribou.]]
Although conservation groups and environmental organizations had voiced opposition to the pipeline project before 1970, the introduction of the National Environmental Policy Act allowed them legal grounds to halt the project. Arctic engineers had raised concerns about the way plans for a subterranean pipeline showed ignorance of Arctic engineering and permafrost in particular.<ref>Coates, p. 185</ref> A clause in NEPA requiring a study of alternatives and another clause requiring an [[environmental impact statement]] turned those concerns into tools used by the [[The Wilderness Society (United States)|Wilderness Society]], [[Friends of the Earth]], and the [[Environmental Defense Fund]] in their Spring 1970 lawsuit to stop the project.<ref>Coates, pp. 189–190.</ref>

The injunction against the project forced Alyeska to do further research throughout the summer of 1970. The collected material was turned over to the Interior Department in October 1970,<ref>Coates, p. 193</ref> and a draft environmental impact statement was published in January 1971.<ref name="Coates196">Coates, p. 196</ref> The 294-page statement drew massive criticism, generating more than 12,000 pages of testimony and evidence in Congressional debates by the end of March.<ref>Coates, p. 199</ref> Criticisms of the project included its effect on the Alaska [[tundra]], possible pollution, harm to animals, geographic features, and the lack of much engineering information from Alyeska. One element of opposition the report quelled was the discussion of alternatives. All the proposed alternatives—extension of the Alaska Railroad, an alternative route through Canada, establishing a port at Prudhoe Bay, and more—were deemed to pose more environmental risks than construction of a pipeline directly across Alaska.<ref name="Coates196"/>

Opposition also was directed at the building of the construction and maintenance highway parallel to the pipeline. Although a clause in Alyeska's pipeline proposal called for removal of the pipeline at a certain point, no such provision was made for removal of the road. Sydney Howe, president of the Conservation Foundation, warned: "The oil might last for fifty years. A road would remain forever."<ref>Coates, p. 203</ref> This argument relied upon the slow growth of plants and animals in far northern Alaska due to the harsh conditions and short growing season. In testimony, an environmentalist argued that arctic trees, though only a few feet tall, had been seedlings "when [[George Washington]] was inaugurated".<ref>Coates, p. 200</ref>

The portion of the environmental debate with the biggest symbolic impact took place when discussing the pipeline's impact on caribou herds.<ref name="Coates207">Coates, p. 207</ref> Environmentalists proposed that the pipeline would have an effect on caribou similar to the effect of the [[First transcontinental railroad|U.S. transcontinental railroad]] on the [[American bison]] population of North America.<ref name="Coates207"/> Pipeline critics said the pipeline would block traditional migration routes, making caribou populations smaller and making them easier to hunt. This idea was exploited in anti-pipeline advertising, most notably when a picture of a forklift carrying several legally shot caribou was emblazoned with the slogan, "There is more than one way to get caribou across the Alaska Pipeline".<ref name="Coates208">Coates, p. 208</ref> The use of caribou as an example of the pipeline's environmental effects reached a peak in the spring of 1971, when the draft environmental statement was being debated.<ref name="Coates208"/>

=== Native objections ===
[[File:Trans Alaska oil pipeline crossing South fork Koyukuk River.jpg|thumb|upright|right|The pipeline passes underneath many smaller rivers and streams, but bridges cover longer crossings.]]
{{Main|Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act}}
In 1902, the [[United States Department of Agriculture]] set aside {{convert|16000000|acre|km2|0}} of Southeast Alaska as the [[Tongass National Forest]].<ref>Mead, p. 134</ref> Tlingit natives who lived in the area protested that the land was theirs and had been unfairly taken. In 1935, Congress passed a law allowing the Tlingits to sue for recompense, and the resulting case dragged on until 1968, when a $7.5 million settlement was reached.<ref>Mead, pp. 134–135</ref> Following the Native lawsuit to halt work on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, this precedent was frequently mentioned in debate, causing pressure to resolve the situation more quickly than the 33 years it had taken for the Tlingits to be satisfied.<ref>Mead, p. 135</ref> Between 1968 and 1971, a succession of bills were introduced into the U.S. Congress to compensate statewide Native claims.<ref>Taylor, Susan. [http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/articles/tundra_times/TT21_Bill_Disappoints.htm "Claims Bill Disappointing: Strong General Note of Dissatisfaction on Latest Claims Bill"], ''[[Tundra Times]]''. May 20, 1970. Accessed June 18, 2009.</ref> The earliest bill offered $7 million, but this was flatly rejected.<ref name="Mead136">Mead, p. 136</ref>

The [[Alaska Federation of Natives]], which had been created in 1966, hired former [[United States Supreme Court]] justice [[Arthur Goldberg]], who suggested that a settlement should include {{convert|40|e6acre|km2}} of land and a payment of $500 million.<ref name="Mead136"/> The issue remained at a standstill until Alyeska began lobbying in favor of a Native claims act in Congress in order to lift the legal injunction against pipeline construction.<ref name="Mead136"/> In October 1971, President [[Richard Nixon]] signed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Under the act, Native groups would renounce their land claims in exchange for $962.5 million and {{convert|148.5|e6acre|km2}} in federal land.<ref>Mead, p. 137</ref> The money and land were split up among village and regional corporations, which then distributed shares of stock to Natives in the region or village. The shares paid dividends based on both the settlement and corporation profits.<ref>Mead, pp. 137–139</ref> To pipeline developers, the most important aspect of ANCSA was the clause dictating that no Native allotments could be selected in the path of the pipeline.<ref name="Coates227">Coates, p. 227</ref>

Another objection of the natives was the potential for the pipeline to disrupt a traditional way of life. Many natives were worried that the disruption caused by the pipeline would scare away the whales and caribou that are relied upon for food.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/01/us/oil-means-comfort-to-alaska-natives-but-peril-to-their-culture.html?pagewanted=all.|title=Oil Means Comfort to Alaska Natives but Peril to Their Culture|last=Wald|first=Matthew|date=April 30, 1989|website=[[New York Times]]|access-date=November 30, 2017}}</ref>