Alaska Beacon

Landslides, storm-driven floods, infrastructure-damaging permafrost thaw and intensifying wildfires are among the expensive disasters that scientists link to Alaska’s rapidly changing climate.

Now a state legislator is proposing to levy a 20-cent surcharge on every barrel of Alaska-produced oil to fund programs that respond to and prepare for disasters related to climate change.

Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, introduced the measure, House Bill 247, in advance of the legislative session scheduled to start on Jan. 20.

To explain why the state needs such a fund, Josephson ticked off a list of recent disasters in Alaska that imposed heavy costs — and, in some cases, killed people. Those events, which include deadly landslides in Southeast Alaska, landslides that have blocked roads, severe flooding in Western Alaska last October from the remnants of Typhoon Halong and similar damage in 2022 from the remnants of Typhoon Merbok, all had some links to climate change that is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning, he said.

“It’s a true statement that a lot of the disaster dollars we need right now are related to climate change. That, in my opinion, is sort of inarguable,” he said.

Disasters like those that have occurred in recent years are expected to continue in the future, he said: “We’re in a new normal.”

The bill is logical from a fiscal standpoint, Josephson said.

As of now, the state’s disaster relief fund is “basically a sub-fund of the general fund,” and it gets whatever lawmakers are able to appropriate, he said. But if there is a new stream of money as proposed by his bill, “we would free up those dollars we’re otherwise spending in the disaster relief fund.”

At 20 cents per barrel, the proposed surcharge would raise about $30 million a year, he said.

In comparison, Gov. Mike Dunleavy in December proposed that lawmakers approve a $40 million appropriation for the state’s existing disaster relief fund. The need could increase from that total if the Trump administration fails to reimburse 100% of the costs for Typhoon Halong relief rather than the normal 75%. The Biden administration in 2022 approved 100% reimbursement for Merbok-related costs.

As introduced by Josephson, the bill would give the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation oversight over the money generated by the surcharge. It would distribute fund money in the form of grants to local governments and other entities for purposes like disaster response, disaster preparation and upgrades that make infrastructure better protected against climate change.

The surcharge idea has precedent in Alaska. The Department of Environmental Conservation already administers another fund with money coming from a per-barrel fee on oil produced in the state.

After the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, the state began levying a 5-cent-per-barrel surcharge on oil that goes into the state’s Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund. The fund itself was created by the legislature in 1986, with the surcharge established after the disastrous Prince William Sound spill.

That surcharge and rules concerning the fund’s operations have been modified over the years, broadening the purposes for which the fund can be used and boosting DEC’s reporting requirements, according to the department.

In its current configuration, each 5-cent-per-barrel surcharge sends 1 cent into a spill response account, to be used for spills that have been officially declared disasters. The other 4 cents goes into a spill prevention account, which can be used to address spills that have not been declared disasters, among other functions.

In 2015, refined petroleum products were added to the program. The state added a small surcharge, 0.95 cents per gallon, on refined fuel projects sold, transferred or used at the wholesale level, according to the DEC.

The idea of a similar levy to raise money for climate change preparedness and response is not new.

Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska marine conservation professor who founded and leads an environmental organization called Oasis Earth, has been advocating for the approach for several years.

“The legislature has so far seemed unable or unwilling to connect the dots between the many climate-related disasters we are experiencing — typhoon Merbok, wildfires, landslides, floods, coastal erosion, permafrost thaw, storm damage, infrastructure damage, subsistence impacts, commercial fishing impacts, etc..– to see the larger picture of the threat and costs these interrelated climate disasters pose,” he said in a letter to lawmakers sent last September. “The money to address these issues will have to come from government.”

In advocating for what he called an Alaska Climate Resilience Fund, Steiner said funding issues have become more pressing because of federal cutbacks.

The climate-response surcharge idea is not unique to Alaska, either.

Hawaii has put its version of a climate surcharge into law, a measure that seeks to raise money for responses to future disasters like the deadly 2023 Lahaina wildfire on the island of Maui.

In May, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, signed a bill that increases the state’s hotel and lodging tax by less than a percentage point. The increase is applied to the state’s Transient Accommodations Tax, known at TAT. The governor said the increase would amount to an additional charge of about $3 on a $400-a-night hotel room fee. It is expected to generate about $100 million a year, according to state officials.

An Alaska Superior Court judge has ruled that a state law limiting live shows at breweries, distilleries and wineries in Alaska is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and the Alaska Constitution’s protections for free speech.

Judge Adolf Zeman issued his decision Wednesday in a two-year-old lawsuit filed by three alcohol manufacturers against the state of Alaska’s alcohol regulator two years ago.

“The speech restrictions fail the tests of strict and intermediate scrutiny, and such suppression of speech by the state cannot stand,” Zeman wrote at the conclusion of his 25-page order.

Until 2022, alcohol manufacturers were prohibited from having entertainment — including TVs, dancing, games and live music — on site. That year, as part of a sweeping modernization of the state’s alcohol laws, breweries, distilleries and wineries were allowed up to four live events per year if approved by the Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, the state regulator.

Bars continued to be allowed an unlimited number of live events without permit; the difference in limits was billed as a political compromise necessary for the reform to pass the Legislature and become law.

Three companies — Zip Kombucha, Sweetgale Meadworks and Cider House, and Grace Ridge Brewing Company — filed suit to overturn the four-event limit, raising free-speech and equal-protection claims.

They were represented in court by a national group, the Pacific Legal Foundation. While the plaintiffs eventually dropped the equal-protection argument, the free-speech debate continued through written arguments.

Zeman ultimately concluded that the state failed to show how restricting live entertainment at breweries and distilleries, but not bars, would protect public health or safety.

“This court recognized that the challenged speech restrictions were once a critical piece of a grand compromise … however, political compromise is not recognized as a substantial government interest for the purposes of restricting speech under the First Amendment. Neither is the codification of preference for one industry actor over another,” he wrote.

While Zeman overturned a law limiting live entertainment, he upheld a law forbidding breweries, distilleries and wineries from having pool tables, dartboards and similar games, “because they are not speech.”

He also gave nodding approval to a law that restricts brewery, distillery and winery operating hours and serving sizes to less than what’s allowed for bars.

“The Legislature has, and can further address public health and safety risks associated with alcohol consumption in breweries and wineries by limiting the amount of product that can be served, the hours during which they can operate, or by reducing the cap for the number of brewery or winery licenses allowed in a given community,” he wrote.

Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers Association, or CHARR, a trade group representing all kinds of alcohol retailers — including bars and package stores — did not return a request for comment before the reporting deadline for this article.

An appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court is possible by either side. Representatives of the Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office and the Alaska Department of Law said those agencies were still analyzing the decision.

“AMCO does not have an opinion on the ruling and is discussing the matter with agency legal counsel,” said Jenae Erickson, acting public information officer for the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, the parent agency of AMCO. “At this time, we can’t definitively state how the order will be implemented, or what Alaskans can expect. When AMCO has appropriate guidance, an advisory notice will be released.”

Donna Matias, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who represented the plaintiffs, said she is “really pleased” with the decision and said Alaska limits on live events are “actually very unusual” on a national level.

“It was a political compromise, but the legislature really never had the breweries’ First Amendment rights to use as political bargaining chips,” she said, “and I think the court in this opinion recognizes that very explicitly.”

Lee Ellis, head of the government affairs committee for the Brewers Guild of Alaska, said by phone that the guild had been pushing for a legislative solution to the issue, “but we’re happy to see those entertainment live-music restrictions are finally lifted. I think it’s a win regardless, and we look forward to offering a lot of opportunities for small-time musicians to further present their craft.”

One of those musicians is Juneau singer-songwriter Marian Call, who also works as executive director of MusicAlaska, a group devoted to boosting Alaskan musicians.

Call hosted a Christmas concert in a Juneau distillery before the end of the year, one of four events allowed at that space last year.

She said her group applauds Zeman’s ruling.

“Musicians have a superpower — we can enter an empty room and fill it with people. We create economic activity out of nothing but sound waves. Many businesses benefit from our labor, but none more than restaurants, bars, and the alcohol industry at large,” she said. “Limiting music professionals’ opportunities to work as a part of the SB9 compromise was inappropriate and, as the Superior Court has now ruled, unconstitutional, since musical performance is a form of speech.”

Call said MusicAlaska would love to see Thursday’s ruling bring more music to all kinds of venues — bars, breweries and those that don’t serve alcohol at all.

“Alaskan musicians’ desire and ability to host music events is not a limited resource,” she said, “and the more we get to work, the more Alaskans get to play.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the state of Alaska’s latest attempt to alter Alaska’s decades-old system of subsistence fishing management.

In a one-sentence order Monday, the court said it will not review a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in August that Alaska cannot manage fishing on a stretch of the Kuskokwim River that flows through the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

If the Supreme Court had taken up the case, it could have redefined Alaska’s unique system of hunting and fishing management, which allows the federal government to restrict subsistence hunting and fishing on federal land to rural Alaskans. The state is forbidden by the Alaska Constitution from offering the same preference.

Alaska Native organizations, including the Alaska Federation of Natives, praised the court’s decision, but the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said by email that it would continue to work with the federal government on the issue.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision ends a five-year dispute that began during a salmon shortage on the Kuskokwim River in 2021. The state of Alaska issued orders to open fishing that contradicted federal fisheries managers’ decision to keep it closed.

Salmon fishing is a critical aspect of Alaska Native culture, tradition and survival. Salmon returns have plummeted in recent years, straining managers who must balance the wants and needs of Alaskans and Yukoners pursuing the same fish.

On the Kuskokwim, the state claimed it was simply interpreting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2019, but the federal government disagreed with the state’s interpretation and sued the following year.

Alaska Native groups sided with the federal government, and Alaska District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled in favor of the federal government in 2024.

The state appealed to the 9th Circuit, which again ruled in favor of the federal government. That prompted the state to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission was one of the lead groups standing with the federal government.

“Our Fish Commission is very pleased with this historic victory in favor of the people of the Kuskokwim River. The victory not only upholds rural subsistence rights in Alaska, but upholds the participation of local people, elected by the Tribes, in the co-management of Kuskokwim salmon,” said the group’s chair, Martin Andrew, in a written statement.

Attorney Erin Dougherty Lynch worked on the case for the Native American Rights Fund, which represented the Association of Village Council Presidents.

By phone, she noted that even though this case is over, the Bureau of Land Management is considering changes to the subsistence program.

“What the state is seeking to accomplish now is basically the same thing through administrative processes. They’re definitely still going after subsistence. This won’t be the end, unfortunately, of their efforts to restrict subsistence,” she said.

Safari Club International, which petitioned BLM for regulatory changes, backed the state in the appeal that was rejected Monday.

In a written statement after Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the group said it believes the federal government “has increasingly superseded Alaska’s wildlife authority” and that the state and federal government should continue to work on the issue.

By email, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang offered a similar comment and referred to the 1980 compromises between state and federal interests in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

“We will respect the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to not address the legal issues regarding fish and game management authorities over navigable waters belonging to the State of Alaska,” he said. “This said, we will continue to work with the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to ensure the rights Alaska was given under its statehood compact and envisioned under ANILCA are safeguarded.”

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 230-196 on Thursday to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years and reverse massive cost increases that went into effect with the new year.

The reversal must still be approved by the U.S. Senate and President Donald Trump before becoming effective.

Alaska’s lone member of the House, Republican Rep. Nick Begich III, voted against the extension, as did 195 other Republicans.

Seventeen Republicans voted for the extension of subsidies that were enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, joining all of the chamber’s Democrats.

The House’s Republican leaders opposed the extension, but a handful of Republicans signed a petition in December to force a vote.

Begich did not sign that petition, and on Wednesday, he joined other Republicans in an unsuccessful procedural vote intended to block Thursday’s decision.

In a written statement explaining his vote on Thursday, Begich said extending subsidies would not fix the problems he sees with the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. “The health insurance system created by Democrats under Obamacare has proven completely unaffordable for the American healthcare customer,” the statement said. “An extension of Obamacare COVID subsidies does not fix what is broken.”

He said he would like to see reforms to the Affordable Care Act, without which he said the extension “has no credible pathway forward in the Senate.”

In December, Begich voted in favor of a Republican-proposed alternative to the extension. That alternative, which focuses on drug costs, would not stop or reverse the new cost increases and has thus far been rejected by the Senate.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that the alternative would reduce health insurance premiums for insured Americans but would also reduce the number of Americans who are insured.

“I remain committed to working on reforms that lower costs, expand access, and improve outcomes for all Americans,” Begich said in his statement. “Temporary extensions without meaningful reform are not the solution. Real reform that puts patients first is.”

In December, Alaska’s two U.S. Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan — both Republicans — joined Senate Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to advance a condition-free extension similar to the one passed by the House on Thursday.

That was a change in position for Sullivan, who had previously opposed extensions that were not coupled with changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Begich and Sullivan are each up for election this fall. Sullivan does not have a Democratic Party-backed opponent yet, but former U.S. House Rep. Mary Peltola is widely expected to enter the race this month.

Begich is being opposed by Anchorage pastor Matt Schultz. Alaska Democratic Party Chair Eric Croft said by email that Thursday’s vote will be a campaign issue in the fall.

“After allowing lifesaving ACA tax credits to expire on December 31, Nick Begich doubled down on his betrayal of Alaska families and blocked the extension of these credits,” he wrote. “We cannot afford these health care price hikes, and we won’t forget about Nick Begich’s betrayal this November.”

A national support line for Native survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault has begun work to launch an Alaska-specific service.

Strong Hearts Native Helpline is a Native-led nonprofit that offers 24-hour, seven-day-a-week support for anonymous and confidential calls from people who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault.

The line is staffed by Native advocates, but Strong Hearts Deputy Executive Officer Rachel Carr-Shunk said there are not yet any Alaska Native people answering phone calls.

That is set to change soon.

“Even though we’re a Native organization and all of our advocates are American Indian, we do recognize that there is a difference for our Alaska Native relatives who experience violence in that context, whether they live in a rural village or they just live in Alaska, which is a different experience,” she said.

Carr-Shunk expects the organization to launch the Alaska-specific line within the next calendar year, after building partnerships in the state.

“When Alaska Native survivors reach out, we want them to trust that they’re going to have someone who understands their experience as an Alaska Native person, or who understands that identity,” she said.

To that end, the organization has hired Anchorage-based Minnie Sneddy, who is originally from Hooper Bay. Sneddy is tasked with explaining Alaska’s regional differences and specific needs to the organization, as well as helping create a database of Alaska resources.

Sneddy has years of experience in behavioral health work and said that her career and life experience have shown her the lack of resources for people who face domestic violence and sexual assault — and how many of those people need mental health support.

“The years I lived in Hooper Bay, and here in Anchorage and Alaska, there’s so many (people) that need help and want help, but they feel like if they do come forward and get help, they get in trouble — not only with their families, but with OCS, Office of Children’s Services,” she said. “I feel like Strong Hearts Native Helpline can help at least allow a person to be heard, because the majority of time, people want to be heard. Everyone just wants to feel seen and be heard.”

Sneddy said she is reaching out to resources that already exist in the state, and Strong Hearts is working with the Alaska Native Women’s Resource Center to build out its state-specific service.

Alaska has the third-highest rate of intimate partner violence against women in the nation, and men kill women in Alaska at a higher rate than anywhere else in the country. In a state where nearly half of women have experienced domestic violence in their lifetimes, Alaska Native women are particularly vulnerable.

“We don’t have a voice, really, in the villages,” Sneddy said, adding that when abuse happens: “There’s no help for an individual. And if a woman decides to do something about it, she’s seen as a bad person.”

The Strong Hearts Native Helpline is available now for Alaskans, even though there are not yet Alaska Native advocates on the other end of the line. A full list of Alaska shelters and victim’s services providers can be found in the state directory at law.alaska.gov.

Future assessments of U.S. landslide hazards could include the study of risks posed by atmospheric rivers, which caused extreme precipitation that was linked to recent deadly slides in Southeast Alaska.

The added focus on atmospheric rivers is one of the main updates in a bill that would reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness Act. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, passed the U.S. Senate on Monday and is now to be considered by the U.S. House.

The initial National Landslide Preparedness Act was signed into law five years ago. That bill broadened the National Landslide Hazards Program led by the U.S. Geological Survey and established a multiagency system to coordinate landslide preparedness and response.

Atmospheric rivers are long and transitory bands of moisture and heat, likened to rivers in the sky. They carry that moisture northward from more southern latitudes, and they can dump vast amounts of rain for several hours or even days.

“You can very rapidly saturate soils in the right conditions,” said Rick Thoman, a scientist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

When such large amounts of warm southern moisture hit the steep mountainous regions of Southeast Alaska, they can cause sudden downhill flows, Thoman said.

“It’s really that intense amount of rain that atmospheric rivers deliver that’s the link to landslides,” he said.

Numerous landslides in the United States have been triggered by atmospheric rivers’ extreme precipitation. Those events include the 2023 slide in Wrangell that killed six people, the 2020 slide in Haines that killed two people and the 2015 slide in Sitka that killed three people.

The National Landslide Preparedness Act Reauthorization Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It is co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, whose state was the site of the 2014 Oso landslide that killed 43 people.

Extreme precipitation events from atmospheric rivers are tied to shallow-seated landslides such as the deadly events that struck Southeast Alaska in recent years. Other types of Alaska landslides are caused by more deep-seated slope failures triggered by glacial retreat, permafrost thaw or a combination of those forces.

Also passed on Monday by unanimous consent in the Senate was another Murkowski-sponsored and disaster-focused bill, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act. That bill, co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, supports the federal program that maintains earthquake measurement resources and equipment and equipment and early warning systems.

“Earthquakes and landslides are active threats that have taken lives and damaged property across Alaska in recent years,” Murkowski said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Our passage of these bills puts us on track to ensure that federal agencies have the resources they need to help keep communities safe both back home and around the country. I thank my colleagues for working cooperatively to pass these measures and urge the House to take them up and send them to the President as soon as possible.”