Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) on Alaska Natives

Vanessa Jiménez

At 12:04 a.m, on March 24, 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of Prudhoe Bay crude oil into the waters of Prince William Sound. The effects of this catastrophic event, North America’s worst oil spill, ranged from the massive killing of wildlife, loss of habitat, and economic, social, and political turmoil for residents of the area, the Alaska Natives being the most negatively affected group by far (Gill and Picou, 1997: 167). Tatitlek, Chenega Bay, English Bay, Port Graham, Ouzinkie, Larsen Bay, Karluk, Old Harbor, Akhiok, Port Lions, Chignik Lake, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Ivanof Bay, and Perryville were some of the communities affected by the spill (Wooley, 1995: 126).

The impact on these Native peoples varied depending on how far away they were from the area of the spill. The most affected areas were Prince William Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, and Kodiak Island, the villages of Tatitlek and Chenega being the most affected (Keeble, 1999: 122). These people not only lost natural resources in the years following the spill, but their way of living was also disrupted greatly; many agree that this disruption continues to this day. Other impacts of the spill on these people included a number of sociological and economic impacts that will be discussed in this paper.

Residents of some Alaska Native villages, such as Tatitlek and Chenega Bay, experienced high levels of stress in response to the threat posed to their subsistence way of life, and by the sudden influx of scientists, oil industry representatives and media into their isolated communities. Therefore, the impact of the spill on these two Native villages in Prince William Sound did not stop with contamination of oil on the water, land, and other resources in the region. Events such as oil cleanup, court settlements, efforts to restore the area, and the increase in attention from all sectors of society and government, also greatly affected these communities (Miraglia, 2002: 75).

A few sources, such as Rick Steiner and Greenpeace, have agreed that fifteen years after this tragic night oil is still present on the beaches of Prince William Sound and its surrounding areas and the Native people living there still suffer the consequences. This paper will focus on opposing ideas of what impact the oil spill had on some of these Native villagers and how they have tried to cope with such a devastating event. Most people believe that the oil spill was the sole impetus that brought many species’ population levels to record lows. Nevertheless, others have concluded that the oil spill was merely a catalyst in the succession of events that led to the ensuing social, economic, and environmental catastrophe.

In a personal interview and in several of his papers, Chris Wooley has stated that the oil spill was a “scapegoat” for the litigation and changes that have been going on in the environment since the Russians inhabited Alaska. He also states that events such as the Russian and American fur trade, mining, commercial fishing, fox farming, logging and others have been the real factors that have influenced socioeconomic and environmental changes and adjustments and that the EVOS was not a determining factor.

History

The area surrounding Prince William Sound has been what Gill and Picou (1997) called a “melting pot of various Native Alaskan groups including Eskimos, Aleuts, Athabaskans, Eyaks, and Tinglits.” These villagers have lived mostly from what they have been able to collect from the environment; therefore, their livelihoods depend greatly on the well-being of the ecosystem. They are dependent on hunting, gathering and fishing organisms such as deer, fish, clams, sea urchins, among others (Keeble, 1999: 10). It is partly because of the great abundance of resources in the area that many people have lived there for hundreds of years before the Russian colonization, and after its purchase by the United States.

In 1867, the Territory of Alaska was officially made part of the United States after being under Russian rule. Even then, Alaska Natives continued to live a subsistence life characterized by fishing and hunting. The Native Allotment Act of 1906 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 were laws that distributed land and money among Natives. In 1959, Alaska became the 49th state of the United States.

Most people agree that for over 200 years these people have been in contact with Europeans and Americans who have gone to colonize the land, but so far, the Native people of the area, the Alutiiq people, or Aluets, have maintained their subsistence way of life. They depend on fisheries and wildlife resources for their everyday life and for the continuation of their culture.

All this was destroyed with the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. Nevertheless, Chris Wooley, an archeologist who now works for Exxon, maintains that the spill did not destroy the Alutiiq culture, and that whoever believes this does not understand the concept of human culture being vital and adaptive (Wooley, 1995: 141-2).

Subsistence

As Gill and Picou once wrote (1997), subsistence is really the defining characteristic of the Alaska Natives. This is what defines their culture and way of life. Their way of living does not relate to modern economy. These Native people fish, hunt, and gather what they need to eat and enough to share with their neighbors.

This subject has become a legal and political issue in Alaska. In 1980, a federal law was passed which made subsistence uses of resources a priority over sport or commercial uses. This law defined subsistence as the "customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools or transportation, for the making or selling of handicraft articles out of "nonedible" byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption." Laws also established that only those who lived in rural Alaska were considered subsistence users (Keeble, 1999: 11-2).

Subsistence economies differ from traditional Western economies in a way because they do not attempt to convert resources or labor into capital. The resources are shared first with immediate family and then with the rest of the village and are used as food, shelter, and much more. This makes these communities highly dependent on natural resources These economies are also based on people who learn and use a wide range of skills that will then be taught to the younger generations (Gill and Picou, 1997: 167-187). There is a saying in Alaska that “when the tide is out, the table is set.” This is particularly true for subsistence users who get a considerable portion of their food from organisms found in the inter-tidal zone, between the lines of high and low tide.

More recently, Alaskans have introduced guns, snowmobiles, and other all-terrain vehicles which facilitate the gathering of resources into their traditional subsistence way of life.

The Natives have been blessed with environmental conditions which facilitate their subsistence lifestyles. Alaska Natives have greatly benefited from fish, and as Dune Lankard has said, temperate rainforests which contribute to a high-quality habitat for spawning fish must be preserved for the well-being of the Native communities (Lankard, 2004).

Immediate Impacts of the Spill

As Miraglia (2002) wrote, the spill affected two of the most important aspects of their lives: subsistence and control of their lives. She explained that the spill disrupted their lives by the actual contamination of resources, the fear of contamination they could not see and the possible health effects that these would bring. Another effect was the enormous increase in people arriving at the spill scene, mostly those employed in the cleanup, government officials, reporters and other people who arrived in Chenega and other affected areas in the days following the spill. This made it hard to harvest whatever resources were still available, and disrupted commercial fishing. After the spill, however, subsistence users did not stop gathering resources just because they were contaminated, but also because many of the Alaska Natives were part of the Exxon-sponsored cleanup process, which left them with less time to engage in their subsistence activities (Gill and Picou, 1997: 167-87).

“A ribbon of oil had entered the narrows, and in the first few days after the spill, the fumes had almost been overpowering” (Keeble, 1999: 178). The day after the spill, in an attempt to get rid of some of the oil, Exxon ran some burn tests without informing people in the nearby villages, who found out when they saw the flames and smelled the fumes (Keeble, 1999: 75). According to findings from Greenpeace, as many as 5500 sea otters died from the spill along with 200 harbor seals, and 430,000 birds (including eagles, and sea ducks). Mussels, clams and starfish were also killed because of the spill. The contamination of the area made it impossible to fish and hunt in the area which impacted on the subsistence life of the local Alaska Natives. However, Chris Wooley (1995), stated that “salmon, halibut, seals and sea lions, which were collected by the Alutiiq people, were minimally affected by the oil.”

Many families who fished in the area were completely shocked by the visible effects of the spill. It was traumatizing to see oil washing up onto the beaches and spread through the areas used to harvest resources. Locals then became irritated at the ever-deepening bureaucracy that involved every aspect of the cleanup and restoration processes after the spill which made it impossible to reach any visible results. The Natives first watched as Exxon and Alyeska (the consortium of oil companies that used the Port of Valdez to transport their oil) were slow at responding to the spill. Then they volunteered to help in the cleanup and were rejected. Finally, they did have a chance to do something about the spill and getting paid by Exxon to do so. They suffered the losses of the closing of the fisheries in 1989 which affected not only their subsistence way of life, but also altered the finances of the area. They also worked on supervising the new contingency plan set up by Alyeska.

Keeble (1999) noted that a considerable number of locals from Cordova “would eventually suffer the consequences of a violent alarm over the threat to the very substance of their life, and the long hours spent battling that threat as it stretched into months, and then their precipitous dip in energy, the confusion over the simple details of daily life, and the depression”.

The spill was also attributed to have caused a decrease in interactions between family members, friends, and neighbors. This affected the harvest of resources which had been a family operation. Other symptoms, such as health and psychological problems, domestic abuse and drug and alcohol abuse, also increased apparently due to the spill.

Psychologically, Alaska Natives suffered greatly in the immediate and cleanup time following the EVOS. This occurred especially because of the loss of subsistence resources which put a burden on people’s lives and thus caused a disruption in their cultures (Gill and Picou, 1997: 167-87). The effect was even more devastating because of the time of year. Early spring is the time when subsistence users start to prepare for the year’s harvest that will replenish resources. Gathering what they ate and needed for their daily lives had been their lifestyles for years, and as Keeble wrote, “to suddenly have it taken away from under them like that by an oil company hurts a lot”.

The influx of so many outsiders also made villagers uncomfortable. They could no longer trust leaving their doors unlocked. Places such as Tatitlek completely prohibited the entrance of non-locals into the town. Another reason all these people were not welcome into Native villages was because in the cleanup efforts they despoiled some of the historical and archeological sites villagers considered as sacred and cleanup crews also left garbage behind on the beaches. Fifteen years after the incident, outsiders are still not expected to go into some Native villages, but are well treated if permission has been granted for their arrival to the island (Gill and Picou, 1997: 167-87). Locals were also frustrated by the fact that their knowledge of the spill area was ignored at first by Exxon officials.

Many local boat owners from Tatitlek and Cordova tried to be part of the volunteer groups that were being organized at the time; they also helped in the task of taking foods into the Native communities where the oil had destroyed their resources. This group of people was known as the Native Assistance Program (Keeble, 1999: 178). This program was planned so that other Natives would secure some food and then distribute it to the communities most affected by the spill. Resources in Chenega were completely destroyed, while the impact to Tatitlek was yet to be assessed.

Residents of affected areas started noticing other types of effects from the oil spill. Chenega Bay residents noticed an overgrowth of brown algae that was everywhere. Later, seals with yellow pus were seen, and smaller-than-normal salmon with smaller eggs were also some of the effects of the spill. Some people that went seal hunting in 1991 only saw four seals on the whole trip. People were also concerned that mortality of microorganisms caused by the hydrocarbon contamination would also affect the larger animals connected by the food chain. "All the small creatures, such as clams, shrimp, crabs and other marine animals, were killed by the oil and therefore, they were also in decline (Miraglia, 2002: 77).

Miraglia also reported that scientific studies were being done on Chenega, where they were leaving some beaches untreated to later compare results with beaches which were treated to cleanup the oil. She states that “the subsistence way of life in Chenega was being sacrificed to benefit scientific studies which held no interest for its residents”. Other effects of the scientists that went to the area were the inconclusive tests with varying conclusions which created more controversy, confusion, and uncertainty for the local residents (Miraglia, 2002: 78) .

The Litigation

During the legal process, Native Alaskans were considered as a separate class of citizens with a separate suit; however, they were not able to make claims much different from other Alaskans (“Exxon Valdez Disaster”). Judge Holland, who was in charge of the trial, “rejected the claim that the Native Alaskan Corporations, which were created by Congress to manage lands deeded to Alaska's Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians, should be compensated for non-economic damages due to their culture and subsistence lifestyle.” He also stated that what Alaska Natives lost insofar as their culture was concerned was the same as any other Alaskan. Because being a subsistence user was a choice people made before the spill, they were only able to go to court to ask for economic damages of the lost harvests.

The cleanup efforts and the ongoing litigation process kept the residents of the spill in a continuing crisis with regard to the oil spill. Miraglia wrote that “many community members see the government settlement as a betrayal because it left them with less leverage to get a settlement against Exxon. Some leaders think that the money Exxon paid the government should have gone to the residents of the spill area to restore their losses” (Miraglia, 2002). The issue of putting a price on damages done to them was also problematic for many residents of the impacted communities. It was putting a price on something they considered priceless, the loss of culture, and therefore, no money would be enough to compensate the loss.

Long-term Effect of the Spill

In the long-run, subsistence users have needed to seek alternative resources since the availability of common subsistence resources is still low. As reported by Pamela A. Miller (1999), “harbor seals, herring, clams, and crabs are still suffering from the effects of the oil. Hunters have had to go farther to find resources with which to feed their families; this incurs in more time and money spent in this effort.” In order to get the money needed to do so, Native villagers have had to take on jobs to afford theses expenses. Roy Totemoff, from Tatitlek, stated in a personal interview that after the spill, the bank sold his boat for a small fraction of what it cost and that he has had to take on jobs in his native village of Tatitlek (Totemoff, 2004). John Allen, also from Tatitlek, now uses his son-in-law’s boat to shuttle visitors for an adventure company in Valdez (Allen, 2004).

The populations of many Native villages have declined greatly since 1989. For example, according to Miraglia (2002), in May of 1999, the population of Chenega Bay was only about one third of what it had been in the years prior to the spill. This was due in part to the spill and to the uncertainty experienced by the villagers as their way of life was severely disrupted. The selling of property, which furthermore alienated Natives from their land, contributed to this massive exodus towards what they considered would be better areas. In addition to these reasons, the money that the people gained from the spill was an incentive and the means they needed to move away. Residents of Tatitlek did not have to leave their community in such large numbers as residents from Chenega because leaders of this village have worked hard to create alternative means of employment and have helped develop the economy of the island. Also, Chenega Bay residents have experienced more concern regarding how the lingering oil remaining in the environment may affect their subsistence resources (Miraglia, 2002). Finally, the loss of control residents have had over their resources and lives due to the permanent exposure to the outside world, has affected communities as they agree that the loss of privacy has hurt them all.

With money obtained from the spill, the villages of Chenega Bay and Tatitlek have funded a variety of projects. These have been implemented to attempt to increase the involvement of local residents in the restoration process; some projects were executed to enhance or replace local subsistence resources, and some of the money has been used in workshops that are trying to teach subsistence and cultural values disrupted by the oil spill to the younger generations. Roy Totemoff, resident of Tatitlek, commented on the fact that many of the younger people know more about the culture than many of the adults due to renewed interest, pride, and encouragement to learn about their heritage, something strongly discouraged by the schools only a generation ago (Totemoff, 2004).

Moreover, projects such as airports and new docks have also been funded with oil spill money. All this has made the people take a much more active role in natural resource management. On the other hand, as Keeble wrote, “there was a group of people who, after receiving money from the spill, either left town with their riches, wasted it on items such as alcohol, or invested in high-priced fishing boats which were useless where the fisheries were no longer profitable” (Keeble, 1999: 273)

Many communities have seen legal constraints which impede them from realizing many projects. Very specific criteria have been identified as to how villages may make use of the money. These criteria have been settled by courts, government attorneys and other officials (Miraglia, 2002: 83). Because of this, many people do not feel that human necessities are taken care of with the restoration money. For example, undoubtedly there has been a sizeable decrease in resources available to subsistence users. Due to this, many people have had to turn to store-bought food to supply their basic needs. The village of Tatitlek had requested funds from this proposal to build a store in their community to satisfy some of their needs. This suggestion has been denied many times because it does not directly restore a damaged resource. New airports and docks have been built both in Tatitlek and Chenega with restoration money. These improvements make it much easier and less expensive to get in and out of these communities.

Many communities also suffered the effects of an increase in fights among people of the villages. The most obvious reason was the amount of cash that entered the village following the spill. Two ways this money was entering was through employment by Exxon which increased wage earnings greatly and through the different settlements the Natives were involved in. Many people went back to their local villages to seek profit from the settlements, this created a battle to decide who the real Alaska Natives were. Polls taken following the spill reported that about 40% of people who responded to the poll reported cases of lost friendship that ended over the spill cleanup-related issues (Miraglia, 2002: 82).

The conflict and stress took their toll on the physical health of the people as well with hypertension, arthritis, skin rashes, ulcers and emotional problems being the most prevalent. The lack of available mental health workers in the area intensified these problems “It is greed Exxon is bringing out in us. The greed is bad. Families are fighting amongst themselves and discrimination is going on. Many families are not taking care of their kids. And we are worried about what the money will do to the people this winter with drinking” (Keeble, 1999: 283). Many Native communities were in a process of getting rid of alcohol problems in the villages, and this stumped their efforts.

Miraglia also commented on the fact that even four years after the spill, residents of Tatitlek were still distrustful of their government, environment and food supply. They were pessimistic about the future and concerned about their health. Before the spill, the Natives trusted their ability to recognize when an organism was safe to eat or not.

To date, the $5 billion Exxon was ordered to pay injured fishermen and other Alaska Natives for punitive damages, is still being fought over in court. Many people who would have profited from this settlement have died and many more will never see any of this money.

The Media

There is no doubt in my mind that Exxon officials must have been truly concerned about the well-being of Alaska Natives who had their natural resources taken away as a result of the grounding of the Exxon Valdez. Nevertheless, I agree with Keeble that Exxon was also aware that Natives were regarded as special by Americans in the rest of the country and that this sentiment could work against Exxon in the media and how powerful the Natives were as owners of around 10% of the land in Alaska (Keeble, 1999: 233). In an attempt to make Natives happy, the corporation offered Alaska Natives large sums of money. Exxon official must have known how public reactions could influence the outcomes of events. As Leschine wrote in 2002, “day-to-day operational decisions will be constrained, directed down particular paths, or even compromised” (Leschine, 2002: 64).

Exxon used public relations to their advantage during the crisis. They worked out a strategy where it appeared as if they were helping out Alaska Natives and doing something about the spill. They sent food to Native villages such as Tatitlek, but not to others. Boats from Tatitlek were hired for the cleanup operations, yet other locals who were not Natives complained they were not able to get hired by Exxon (Keeble, 1999: 179). News broadcasts showed images of boats that appeared to be collecting oil out of the water, but later we learned that they were not doing much.

Conclusion

Although scientists employed by Exxon claim that Prince William Sound has been completely cleaned and that the ecosystem is the same or better than before the spill, we have seen evidence that pockets of oil still remain on many beaches. The impacts of this spill have changed forever the way Natives use natural resources, and therefore, it has affected the culture intrinsic to the area. Alaska Natives, although they may still depend on natural resources, will never do so to pre-spill amounts.

Whether or not there were already cultural, social, and economic changes occurring in the area before the spill occurred, as Wooley (2004) has stated, does not take away the impact this event had on the environment and therefore, on the Native communities. To say that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was not a major component of change in the area is to be to blinded by money not see the reality of what is happening.

It is obvious that Alaska Natives, locals and others who have moved to Prince William Sound after the spill, still feel strongly about the spill and what was not done in the aftermath. All you need to do is listen to one person and look them in the eye to understand the anger and frustration they have felt for over 15 years. Although shuttling tourists around Prince William Sound may be more economically profitable than being a subsistence user, it will never make a person feel as connected to the land as before.

Works Cited

Allen, John. 2004. Personal Interview. Prince William Sound, May 11.

“Exxon Valdez Disaster.” http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/exxon.htm

“Exxon Valdez to Northstar: The Impacts of Oil Development in Alaska and the Arctic.” http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/exxon1.html

Gill, Duane and J. Steven Picou. 1997. “The Day the Water Died: Cultural Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” http://www.jomiller.com/exxonvaldez/articles/picougill1.html

Keeble, John. 1999. Out of the Channel: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound. Tenth Anniversary Edition. Spokane, Washington: Eastern Washington University Press.

Lankard, Dune. 2004. Personal Interview. Cordova, May 4.

Leschine, Thomas M. 2002. “Oil Spills and the Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk.” Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7: 63-73.

Miller, Pamela A. 1999. "Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Ten Years Later." Arctic Connections. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Alaska/miller2.htm

Miraglia, Rita A. 2002. “The Cultural and Behavioral Impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on the Native Peoples of Prince William Sound, Alaska.” Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7: 75-87.

Totemoff, Roy. 2004. Personal Interview. Tatitlek, May 11.

Wooley, Christopher B. 1995. “Alutiiq Culture Before and After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19: 125-153.

Wooley, Chris. 2002. “The Myth of the ´Pristine Environment´: Past Human Impacts in Prince William Sound and the North Gulf of Alaska.” Spill Science and Technology Bulletin 7: 89-104.

Wooley, Chris. 2004. Personal Interview. Anchorage, May 1.

Top of Page