Alaska Spill Energizes Vigilance in California

The oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, is the result of a national energy policy founded on the oil industry’s plan to drill everywhere, at any cost. Looking back at history we see that the spill was an inevitable outcome--the worst-case scenario that for two decades the federal government refused to face.

The year was 1973, and despite the resounding opposition of environmental experts, the secretary of the interior, Rogers C. B. Morton, dismissed the risk of serious spills.

In a statement supporting construction of a pipeline to bring oil from northern Alaska to the port of Valdez in the south, Morton concluded: “I have carefully reviewed the potential damage to the marine environment that might be caused by tanker activity in Prince William Sound . . . two kinds of potential marine pollution exist: (1) small chronic discharges and (2) accidental discharges of large volumes. Strict regulations are being developed to minimize the pollution threat from both these sources.”

We move to the late ‘70s, and find the federal government unable to heed the lessons of experience. There are two major spills--7 million gallons off the coast of Massachusetts and 10 million gallons in the Gulf of Mexico. The Massachusetts spill results in losses for our fishing industry. In both cases, experts find it virtually impossible to control or clean up the oil slick. Only weather and circumstances specific to each spill spare the nation from catastrophic losses.

Now we’ve learned that the oil industry failed to fulfill the responsibilities it assumed in its Alaskan operations. The oil companies involved in the Valdez spill neglected to make even a good-faith effort to plan for a spill of the magnitude they now face.

Sadly for the nation, the result of this federal disregard and industrial recklessness is now one of the worst environmental catastrophes in America’s history.

In light of this, it was shocking for the American public to learn last month that Ronald Reagan’s Administration tried deliberately to cover up information about the risk of spills off California, leaving that coastline in jeopardy as well.

Internal documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act brought to light the serious risks of a major oil spill, the ineffectiveness of cleanup technology and the danger of other environmental damage that the proposed lease sale off Northern California poses.

More disturbing, these documents revealed a deliberate attempt by the Reagan Administration to whitewash this information.

After it was discovered last year that a devastating report on the environmental impacts of the Northern California sale had been sanitized, an inquiry was launched to find out why. Documents were obtained from four federal agencies, including the Minerals Management Service, which plans, approves and conducts all lease sales for offshore drilling.

Through the inquiry, it was learned that alarming concerns about spills were also deleted from another environmental report on the sale. And a third, previously unreleased report on environmental impacts also was uncovered. It, like the other two, specifically stated that the Minerals Management Service had “downplayed” the likelihood and impacts of a spill. These reports amounted to a damning indictment of the sale’s impact on the environment and the probability of a major spill.

Then the smoking gun of the agency whitewash was uncovered. A memo from J. Steven Griles, the assistant secretary for offshore development, addressed the substantive comments in one of the reports with a barrage of allegations.

His message came through loud and clear: Agency professionals were not to voice their honest opinion if it interfered with his lease sale. Shortly thereafter the most damaging comments in the report were removed.

These revelations have sweeping implications for plans to drill off California.

The agency professionals know about spills, they know about cleanup and they know about probabilities. It happened in Valdez. It could happen off California, perhaps not in the same astronomical size, but certainly in catastrophic impact.

The reports are striking because they appeared to be a premonition of, if not the scope, at least the precise nature of what was to come off the coast of Alaska--the worst oil spill in this nation’s history.

Those of us who represent California will not stand by quietly. We will not ignore the risks for our coast, as the government did for Alaska. And we will not allow any agency to whitewash the potential for another ecological disaster.

These documents must serve as the nail in the coffin for the four sales the Minerals Management Service has planned for our coast.

Therefore, a bipartisan coalition of 29 members of Congress is calling on the President to cancel the northern lease sale; cancel or indefinitely postpone the other sales planned for the rest of California’s coast, pending complete reevaluation, and overhaul his task force on offshore drilling to ensure real scientific review.

Now is the time for President Bush to fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to protect California’s coast. We look forward to hearing back from him.