Although drilling proponents take pains to reassure the public that oil development in the Arctic Refuge would be done (somehow) without harming the environment, the proposed legislation certainly doesn’t inspire much confidence it those claims. Not only do the authors of this legislation exempt Arctic drilling from the most important environmental standards and dress up the remaining weak standards to look more protective than they really are, but they have gone out of their way to eliminate the checks and balances that usually ensure effective oversight of environmentally risky activities like drilling. Taken together, the legislation would pave the way for essentially unsupervised oil development across the Refuge’s Coastal Plain.

The legislation systematically undermines judicial review of agency decisions, minimizes public participation, and undercuts Fish and Wildlife Service oversight authority, all with an eye to fast-tracking oil and gas development in the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge.

Some examples:*

Cuts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) out of the loop – Section 2203(a)(1) – States that leasing would be done under the Mineral Leasing Act, which is administered by Bureau of Land Management (BLM). According to the Congressional Research Service, putting BLM in charge of the leasing program could “divorce the mineral development aspects from the biological/wildlife purposes and the expertise of the FWS personnel, and may result in the Coastal Plain receiving less protection than lands in other refuges do under current law and regulations” (CRS, pg. 7, see link below).

Limits public’s right to comment – Section 2203(c)(3) – Limits the public comments to those “that specifically address the Secretary’s preferred action” and must be filed within 20 days after publication of the preferred action analysis.

Time’s up! Puts oil and gas leasing on the fast track – Section 2203(g) – Numerous provisions in the legislation would limit the amount of time that the Secretary may devote to analyzing environmental impacts of oil leasing and developing adequate regulations to ensure environmental protection. The CRS notes that this “accelerated leasing schedule” is possible because “other bill provisions would eliminate comprehensive new environmental studies" (pg. 10).

Makes it easier for companies to shirk responsibility for clean-up – Section 2206(a)(4) – Allows companies leasing land to hand over reclamation responsibility and liability to a third party with the approval of the Secretary of Interior.

Limits the public’s right to appeal government decisions – Section 2208 – Limits judicial review to “whether the Secretary has complied with the terms of this title.” The CRS also points out, “[t]he requirement of clear and convincing evidence in this context differs from the usual standards for proof and may be confusing, but appears to be intended to make overturning a decision difficult” (pg. 32). They note elsewhere in their analysis that the broad discretion given to the Secretary, combined with the strict judicial review limitations, means that “the Secretary’s environmental choices could be difficult to overturn” (pg. 9).

* Referenced in these examples:
- Sections from the 2005 HR 6 EH, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6:  
- CRS report, “Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),” http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05May/RL31115.pdf