Noting that the Constitution doesn’t permit the feds to seize intrastate land with the mere stroke of a pen (corrections welcome), what was the constitutional status of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge before the feds administratively took over? Was it possibly privately owned land which would raise concern about fed compliance with 5th Amendment? Or was it state-owned land which would raise concern about fed compliance with the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I?
I suspect that the feds never paid a dollar for the land which would be required with both statutes, the consent of the state legislature also required in Clause 17.
In fact, if this land grab is a Clause 17 issue, then payment with the consent of the state legislature would be required to expand the refuge imo.
Am I overlooking anything?
Purchase from Russia by the FEDS, not by individuals in Alaska. Like many western states, I believe there are conditions of statehood, among which are federal claims to land.
The US Govt bought Alaska from Russia and owned every square inch of it. But as they did with other states, they made Alaska a state, and out of that Alaska got land that the state owns. The tribes got some of the land also.
The federal govt owns the land in question, and has owned it since they bought it from Russia. Contrary to what you think, the Refuge is not being expanded or enlarged, it is being re-designated from refuge to wilderness, which means it would have a higher level of protection.
As for privately owned land, there is not much of that in Alaska.
Here's the real issue.
When oil/gas is produced on land owned by the federal govt, the federal govt shares the royalty with the state in which that land is located.
In all states, except Alaska, the feds gives the state 50% of the royalty. In Alaska, they get 90% of the royalty. So if ANWR were drilled, Alaska would get 90% of the royalty.
Alaska also has the drilling rights to the inner continental shelf, from the low tide line out 3 miles. Oil can be produced from this submerged land, it is the same oil as in ANWR. But they can't get any oil company to drill it because the cost of the infrastructure needed to get the oil to market is prohibitive. But, if the feds were to open ANWR to drilling, the infrastructure would be built, after which, the potential offshore drillers could use the same infrastructure.
So if the feds were to open ANWR to drilling, Alaska would get 90% of the royalty from ANWR and 100% of the royalty on the offshore oil.
Its a pretty good deal for Alaska, but doesn't do much for the US Treasury or the US taxpayer.
But, Obama opened up drilling in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. 3 oil companies own leases in these federal waters. Shell drilled there in 2012, but damaged both their drill ships and had to send them back to Korea to be repaired. They were planning on returning in 2015, but with price of oil, they may delay.
All of this is in federal waters, so the feds get 100% of the royalty and don't have to give Alaska any of it. Its a good deal for the US treasury and US taxpayer. That's where we need to be drilling.