United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
| Citation | 435 F. Supp. 1009 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. A 75-215 Civil.,A 75-215 Civil. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
G. Kent Edwards, U.S. Atty. by John D. Roberts, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, James J. Clear, Land & Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.
Edward A. Merdes, Mark A. Sandberg, Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, O. Yale Lewis, Jr., Wickwire, Lewis, Goldmark, Dystel & Schorr, Seattle, Wash., for intervenor.
Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Alaska, for State of Alaska.
Richard O. Gantz, Hughes, Thorsness, Powell & Brundin, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Dowell, Div. of Dow Chemical, Exploration Logging of USA, Exxon Co., USA, Halliburton Co., Loffland Bros. Co., McCulloch Oil Corp., Niedermeyer-Marting Co., Schlumberger, Ltd., Wagley, Inc., Teledyne Exploration Co., Teledyne Industries, Inc., Superior Oil Co., R. B. Montgomery Drilling, Inc., Humble Oil & Refining, National Geophysical Co., by Teledyne, Successor and Exxon Pipeline Co.
Atkinson, Conway, Young, Bell & Gagnon, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants ATCO Housing, dba ATCO Structures, National Mechanical Contractors, Polar Oil Field Services.
Birch, Jermain, Horton & Bittner, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant Hewitt Lounsbury & Assoc.
William V. Boggess, Fairbanks, Alaska, for defendants James A. Dalton & Assoc. and Stutzmann Eng. Assoc.
Burr, Pease & Kurtz, J. W. Sedwick, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Green Const. Co., Union Oil Co. of California, Alaska Geophysical, Inc. and Digicon Alaska, Inc.
Charles E. Cole, Fairbanks, Alaska, for defendants Burgess Const. Co. and Spruce Equipment Co.
Richmond & Willoughby, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Alaska Barge & Trans., Inc., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, General Const. Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Pac. Inland Navigation Co., Universal Services, Inc. and Alaska General Const.
Paul F. Robison, Robison, McCaskey, Reynolds & Frankel, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant Pipeline Technologists, Inc.
Charles E. Tulin, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants S & G Const., Inc. and Winship Air Service.
Hugh G. Wade, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Rivers C & M Co.
H. Bixler Whiting, Whiting & Blanton, Fairbanks, Alaska, for defendants J & J Equipment, Inc. of Alaska.
Klimit E. Giddens, in pro. per. and for defendants Borst & Giddens Oil Well dba Logging Serv., Inc.
Hagans, Smith & Brown, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Geophysical Service, Inc., Reading & Bates Offshore Drilling Co., Reading & Bates Oil and Gas Co. and United Geophysical Corp.
Hoge, Lekish, Cardwell, Marquez & Lawrence, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Sea Automotive, Inc.
Holland & Thornton, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Colorado Oil & Gas Corp., Era Helicopters, Inc., Forest Oil Corp., Hunt Oil Co., Marathon Oil Co., Merric, Inc., Mobil Oil Corp., Parker Drilling Co., Phillips Petroleum Corp., Placid Oil Co., Mobile Pipeline Co., Socony Mobil Oil Co. and Amerada Hess Corp.
Ely, Guess & Rudd, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., BP Oil Corp., by Sohio Petroleum Co., Successor Evergreen Helicopters of Alaska, Inc., Kaiser Steel Corp., Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., Newmont Oil Co., Prudhoe Bay Communications, by Sohio Trans. Co., formerly Prudhoe Bay Comm., Shell Oil Co., Sohio Petroleum Co., ARCO Pipeline Co., BP Alaska Exploration, BP Alaska, Inc., BP Pipelines, Inc. and Woodward-Lundgren Assoc.
Barry Donnellan, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Ramstad Const. Co.
M. P. Evans, George A. Dickson, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants S. S. Mullens, Inc., dba S. S. Mullen Const.
Faulkner, Banfield, Doogan & Holmes, Juneau, Alaska, for defendants Atlantic Refining Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., Richfield Oil Corp. and Sinclair Oil Corp.
James E. Fisher, Kenai, Alaska, for defendants Better Concrete Products Corp.
Gallagher, Cranston & Snow, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Sourdough Freight Lines, Inc.
Stephen S. Hart, Graham & James, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Nabors Alaska Drilling.
Cole, Hartig, Rhodes & Norman, Anchorage, Alaska, R. T. Robberson, Houston, Tex., for defendants Alaska Geophysical, Inc., Core Laboratories, Inc., Digicon Alaska, Inc., Dresser Industries, Inc., Lindsay & Associates, Lorac Service Corp., Madrel, dba Ray Geophysical, Occidental Petroleum, Western Geophysical Co. of America, Continental Laboratories and The Superior Oil Co.
Ralph G. Crews, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Gulf Oil Corp., Pan American Petroleum and Texaco, Inc.
Delaney, Wiles, Moore, Hayes & Reitman, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Alaska Airlines, Boatel Alaska, Inc., Eastman Oil Well Survey, Rowan Drilling Co., dba Rowan Drilling U.S., Standard Oil Co. of Cal., Whipstock Alaska, Globe Universal Sciences, Hamilton Brothers Oil and Frontier Rock & Sand, Inc.
Robert L. Hartig, Anchorage, Alaska, Michael R. Waller, Karen A. Berndt, Houston, Tex., for defendants Digicon Alaska, Inc. and Alaskan Geophysical, Inc.
Karl S. Johnstone, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants C. R. Lewis, Inc.
Denis R. Lazarus, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Olympic, Inc.
McCarrey & McCarrey, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Wien Air Alaska.
Philip D. Maloney, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Cities Service Oil Corp., Conoco, Inc., Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co. and Sun Oil Co.
Nosek, Bradbury & Wolf, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Arctic Marine Freighters, Dye Construction, Inc., Mukluk Freight Lines, Inc., Oilfield Service, Inc. and Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.
Thomas P. Owens, Jr., Owens, Riordan & Turner, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Atwood Enterprises, Inc. and Brinkerhoff Drilling Co.
Rice, Hoppner & Hedland, Fairbanks, Alaska, for defendants Earthmovers of Fairbanks, Inc.
Groh, Benkert & Walter, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants Locher Construction Co., dba Locher Co., Inc. and Western Offshore Drilling & Exploration Co.
The United States, acting in its own behalf and on behalf of Eskimos inhabiting the Arctic Slope of Alaska, sues the State of Alaska and one hundred forty corporations and private parties for trespass to Native land prior to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.1 The intervenor, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, a recognized Eskimo tribal entity, makes similar but somewhat more extensive claims.2
The underlying theory of both the complaint and the complaint in intervention is that until the 1971 Settlement Act the Eskimos of the Arctic Slope had a right of exclusive possession to the Arctic Slope of Alaska based on use and occupancy of that region from time immemorial, or as it is sometimes termed, "aboriginal title."
The case is here on defendants' joint motion to dismiss all claims of trespass to land claimed on the basis of aboriginal title.3 The case raises important questions of law arising under the Settlement Act and federal common law regarding Indian rights. In order to fully develop the issues presented, it is necessary to review the background of the Settlement Act.
Jurisdiction over the claims of the United States is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Jurisdiction over the claims of intervenor is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1362.
The claims of the Native people to the land and resources of Alaska had been a source of potential conflict and uncertainty for over a century before Congress finally undertook to settle the aboriginal claims in the late 1960's.
The Treaty of Cession4 by which the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 did not address the property rights of the Native inhabitants. It provided that the Natives would be subject to such laws as the United States might adopt with respect to aboriginal tribes.
The first statute to mention the land rights of Alaska Natives was the Organic Act of 18845 which provided for a civil government and extended the mining laws of the United States to Alaska. Section 8 of the Organic Act provided:
... that the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress ...
Congress proceeded to open Alaska to settlement and development by extending the general land laws to Alaska. The Act of March 3, 1891 authorized the establishment of townsites and conveyances of town lots to individual occupants.6 In 1898 Congress extended the homestead laws to Alaska7 and in 1900 the mining laws of the United States to Alaska in the second Organic Act.8 In 1914 Congress enacted the Alaska Coal Lands Act, directing the President to reserve potential coal-bearing lands and issue leases for those lands.9 The Mineral Leasing Act enacted in 192010 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to lease lands owned by the United States which contain deposits of coal, oil and other minerals. Some of these enactments contained provisions exempting or protecting from disposition lands actually occupied by Natives. The second Organic Act, for example, provided that Natives "shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands now actually in their use and occupancy ..." However, other statutes, such as the Mineral Leasing Act, did not contain any provisions respecting Native occupancy.
Under these laws, appropriate administrative officials authorized entries on, and disposition of, Alaska lands without regard to aboriginal title claims of Natives.
In the Alaska Native Allotment Act,11 Congress for the first time provided a means by which individual Alaska Natives could obtain legal title to land they occupied. The Act provided for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alaska Public Easement Defense Fund v. Andrus
...to the Act Congress had the power totally to extinguish aboriginal land title without compensation. United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 F.Supp. 1009, 1029-1030 (D. Alaska 1977); Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 279 & 285, 75 S.Ct. 313, 99 L.Ed. 314 (1955). Thus, ......
-
Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
...).32 The United States District Court for the District of Alaska cited the United States v. Gemmill decision in United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 F.Supp. 1009, as an application of the "complete dominion" theory, i.e., that the United States may extinguish aboriginal title "by ex......
- Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
-
Cape Fox Corp. v. United States
...Cir. 1974). 48 For a historical perspective on the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, see United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 F.Supp. 1009 (D.Alaska 1977). 49 United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 46, 34 S.Ct. 1, 58 L.Ed. 107 (1913); Joint Trib. Coun. of Passamaq......
-
"We Hold the Government to Its Word": How McGirt v. Oklahoma Revives Aboriginal Title.
...Ariz. 1990) (asserting a prescriptive easement over private land on behalf of the Pueblo of Zuni); United States v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Alaska 1977) (suing the State of Alaska and over 140 corporations and private parties on behalf of Alaskan American Indians of the Ar......
-
Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After Ancsa
...429, 30 Stat. 1253. [37] Act of June 6, 1900, ch. 786, § 26, 31 Stat. 321. [38]Id. § 27, at 330; United States v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 F. Supp. 1009, 1014- 15 (D. Alaska 1977) (citations omitted) ("The second Organic Act, for example, provided that Natives 'shall not be disturbed in the ......
-
Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After Ancsa
...429, 30 Stat. 1253. [37] Act of June 6, 1900, ch. 786, § 26, 31 Stat. 321. [38]Id. § 27, at 330; United States v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 F. Supp. 1009, 1014- 15 (D. Alaska 1977) (citations omitted) ("The second Organic Act, for example, provided that Natives 'shall not be disturbed in the ......
-
CHAPTER 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES PENDING AND FORESEEABLE, OFFSHORE ALASKA
...by Alaska Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts had been extinguished by Section 4 of ANCSA. See United States v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 F. Supp. 1009 (D. Alaska 1977), aff'd, 612 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888 (1980). However, Gambell noted that both the federal and energy co......