The community is very good at catching these sorts of things, so my apologies if this is already diaried (haven't seen it). Buried at the bottom of a Tuesday lead
article (
sub. req.?) in the Anchorage Daily News written by Liz Ruskin on the ANWR/Defense Bill vote is the following:
The bill says ANWR revenues would be split 50-50 between the state and the federal government. Stevens dedicated 80 percent of the federal share of the initial lease sales to a hurricane relief fund.
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said he thinks the chances are "very good" that Stevens will be successful. He also said the bill's passage in the House made Monday a good day for Alaska. As for the revenue split, Young said he thinks the governor could sue to get the 90-10 split promised by the Alaska Statehood Act.
"I have to say the 50-50 is something I don't relish," he said. "I think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court."
more in extended...
I found this a fairly stunning claim from Mr. Young. As mentioned above, to get fellow lawmakers to agree to attach ANWR to the defense bill Stevens
proposed taking 80% of the money generated on lease sales and diverting it to Katrina relief funds.
Under the new deal, 80 percent of the money the federal government gets from lease sales in the refuge would go to state and local governments in five states: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Florida. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that lease sales would generate about $5 billion in revenue, which would be split with Alaska.
The five hurricane-affected states could also be big winners in the long run, gaining 20 percent of all royalties from drilling starting in the year 2015. Louisiana would get 50 percent of the revenue, Mississippi would get 25 percent, Alabama and Texas would each get 10 percent, and Florida would get 5 percent.
Stevens told the Congressional Quarterly on Friday that his so-called Gulf Coast Recovery Fund would help Louisiana and other states with the long-term rebuilding effort.
"The levees will be paid for when we drill in ANWR," Stevens said.
However, some digging on the subject yielded a previous discussion involving Mr. Young and congressional reappropriation of oil revenue splits between the feds and Alaska in a previous ANWR bill.
Young's bill suggests no change to the existing federal law that would give 90 percent of the oil royalties to the state of Alaska. The federal government would retain 10 percent.
That split dates back to the Alaska Statehood Act, approved by Congress in 1958.
However, during recent sessions, the U.S. House has approved legislation that would split the revenues 50-50 between the state and federal governments.
Such a reduction in the state's share of what could be billions of dollars has been controversial within the state for decades. In 1983, for example, the Alaska Statehood Commission issued a report warning against such changes.
"Congress may attempt to change the formulas contained in the Statehood Act for revenue sharing," the commission said.
The Interior Department tried to do it unilaterally on the Kenai Peninsula in 1975, the commission noted, but was rebuffed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"But we are concerned with the court's language suggesting that these percentages can be changed in the future, at Congress' discretion," the commission said. "The Alaska Statehood Act required the consent of Alaskan voters to become effective. Similarly, Alaskan voters should have the opportunity to pass upon suggested changes to the Statehood Act."
However, in 1996, the U.S. Court of Claims dismissed that argument. Judge Eric Bruggink, ruling on a lawsuit filed in 1993 by former Gov. Walter Hickel, said Congress could change the 90-10 split unilaterally.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the state's appeal the next year, saying, "Nothing more needs to be said." The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case in 1998.
Its interesting that previous decisions have sided with the Congress in dividing the pot. But, I can't help but be taken aback by the arrogance of Mr. Young in suggesting that Alaska may be inclined to sue for what amounts to $4 billion that would otherwise go to Katrina areas.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Young would speak in such a manner without some backing of Sens. Stevens and Murkowski. Yet the idea that Stevens is brazenly setting the stage for Alaska to eventually bilk the government and Katrina relief efforts out of such a staggering amount of money seems almost too hard to believe, even for this most cynical observer.
Still, this is food for thought in anticipation of the filibuster efforts tomorrow, and I hope its drawn to proper attention as ammo in the fight.