Coastal program worked for Alaska

Voices of Alaska

During my eight years as Governor, we used the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) to facilitate and effectively promote numerous development projects. Through ACMP, Alaskans were at the table to help government agencies and industries determine how best we could develop Alaska’s resources. The program worked well and made sense then. It still makes sense today. 


I’m pleased Alaskans have the opportunity to bring back smart coastal development by voting for Ballot Measure No. 2 in the Primary Election.

In my experience, coastal management was an important part of a successful process during one of Alaska’s most active periods of new exploration and increased development of oil and gas. We worked closely with industry and federal agencies in developing the Northstar, Alpine, and Badami fields. For the first time in a generation, we opened millions of acres of federal land in the NPR-A. All of these oil and gas projects and dozens of other projects on the North Slope and Cook Inlet moved forward with full utilization of the coastal management process. 

Why? The program was more than local participation. It succeeded because it also coordinated agencies and the permitting process between state and federal government. It gave industry simplified access and accountability. The ACMP was good government and made good sense. It’s still a good idea.

Our coastal program didn’t help just oil and gas projects. It included the massive development of Dutch Harbor industrial seafood processing facilities, improvements to Southeast fishing facilities, and numerous new mining projects. There were many improvements to urban areas, such as the major renovation of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, significant rebuilding of the Seward highway from Anchorage to Seward and Kenai. All of these important projects were planned and completed through the ACMP. 

What did local communities want to negotiate at the table with industry and government agencies? They wanted to protect water quality, ensure adequate safety and cleanup procedures, protect land and ocean wildlife and fish habitat, and provide revenues to mitigate local impacts. They wanted a forum for important community economic and cultural concerns.

These are hardly radical or extreme concepts. Most Alaskans embrace these important development considerations. Alaskans want people at ground zero to have a strong voice. They want locals to help make the case for the best possible resource development in their communities. 

The ACMP worked. Local residents and communities participated and their voices were heard. These projects had strong local support and all were developed. 

But because of political gridlock in Juneau, the legislature let the ACMP die. We lost an important opportunity to bring communities to the table when industry proposes projects in coastal areas. Losing the ACMP eliminated Alaska’s most effective tool to influence federal land and water use decisions. 

When Alaska became the only coastal state in America without a coastal management program, we no longer held what other coastal states had – a unique upper hand in dealing with the feds. This is the only national act that requires federal agencies to be consistent with a state program, and we gave it away. 

During my administration, the overarching accomplishment of coastal management was to replace litigation and confrontation with communication and negotiation. At the end of the day, the ACMP created a sense of common purpose and empowered local people to be the guardians of promises made. At a time when people are fed up with partisan polarization and political stalemate, we can take an important and positive step away from that sort of divisiveness. We can reinstate a program with has a proven record of accomplishment and moving development forward.

ACMP opponents claim it stops or delays development and that we need fewer regulations and no interference from residents and communities. I know they’re wrong and so do several states with no reputation for burdensome regulations or roadblocks to development. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana haven’t found the Coastal Management Program an obstruction to development. Neither did Alaska for the 34 years we used the program. Add to this list the entire Eastern and Western seaboards, the Great Lakes states, and Hawaii and we have an overwhelming consensus that coastal management is an effective pro-development tool for state and local control. In the entire Nation, only Alaska has missed the boat. 

We can correct that mistake. Look at the facts, not the sales pitches. Stand up for Alaska and positive resource development. Vote yes on Proposition 2.


Tony Knowles served as governor of Alaska from 1994-2002.


Tue, 05/22/2018 - 14:15

Op-ed: The GOP’s fear factor

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he could not have foreseen today’s Republican Party.... Read more

Tue, 05/22/2018 - 14:15

What others say: Undercutting birth control funding will backfire

For nearly half a century, the Title X Family Planning Program has been a crucial source of federal dollars for family planning and related health... Read more

Tue, 05/22/2018 - 14:14

Voices of Alaska: Bipartisan cooperation leads to results in health care policy

The Alaska Legislature ended its session May 12. With the final gavel falling, two years of the longest budgets fights between Alaskans in over a... Read more

Voices of Alaska: Stand for Salmon would hurt Alaska

I love salmon, but I care deeply about Alaska too. That’s why I oppose the salmon initiative that could be on the November statewide ballot.... Read more