Relocation of Alaska’s Sinking Newtok Village Halted

In a setback for tribal communities threatened by climate change, the government freezes funding over a local political dispute.

Newtok Flood, September 22, 2005<a href="http://commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/dcra/PlanningLandManagement/NewtokPlanningGroup/NewtokVillageRelocationHistory/NewtokHistoryPartThree.aspx">Stanley Tom</a>/Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs


This story first appeared on the Guardian website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

An Alaskan village’s quest to move to higher ground and avoid being drowned by climate change has sputtered to a halt, the Guardian has learned.

Newtok, on the Bering Sea coast, is sinking and the highest point in the village—the school, which sits perched atop 20-foot pilings—could be underwater by 2017. But the village’s relocation effort broke down this summer because of an internal political conflict and a freeze on government funds.

The Guardian wrote about the strains placed on Newtok by the erosion which is tearing away at the land, and at the villagers’ efforts to move to a new site, known as Mertarvik, in an interactive series in May.

Those tensions fed a rebellion against the village leadership, the Newtok Traditional Council, which had run the village for seven years without facing an election, and the administrator overseeing the relocation effort, Stanley Tom. His critics said he had botched the move to Mertarvik, and neglected the existing village.

Since October, Newtok residents voted repeatedly to elect a new roster of candidates to the council. They also tried to remove Tom. But the council refused to recognize the results, and Tom refused to step aside.

In July, the Bureau of Indian Affairs took the unusual step of intervening in the internal dispute, and ruled the old council—which was working closely with Tom—no longer represented the villagers of Newtok. In a July 11 letter, Eufrona O’Neill, acting regional director of the BIA, noted the agency generally did not intervene in tribal political conflicts.

But she said the standoff put the village at risk: “The continuation of a leadership vacuum would be detrimental to the best interests of the tribe, particularly in the present circumstances, where the community is in the midst of trying to physically relocate to a new village site due to serious erosion occurring at the present site.”

O’Neill noted the confusion could freeze funds for the village, as government agencies withhold funds if there are doubts about lawful signing authority. She went on to determine that the BIA now recognized the new council, which had challenged Tom’s authority. Tom said in a telephone interview he would appeal the ruling—ensuring the political standoff continues.

The long stalemate has cost the village several months in its efforts to relocate, Tom said. “Everything is kind of frozen right now,” he said. “We’ve had a pretty big setback.” Other relocations efforts were also on hold for unrelated causes.

The internal dispute exposed the severe strain on native Alaskan villages—such as Newtok—in dealing with the effects of climate change. Some 186 native Alaskan villages—or 86 percent of all native communities in Alaska—are threatened by climate change, a federal government report found.

Many villages, like Newtok, are losing land to erosion. The Ninglick River, which encircles Newtok, is eating the land out from under the village. Others are sinking in the melting permafrost. A handful have started the process of relocation. But none had gone as far as Newtok in finding a new site and beginning the slow and laborious process of negotiating through the web of state agencies to find funds for their relocation.

Robin Bronen, a human rights lawyer in Anchorage, has argued extensively that the federal government’s failure to recognize slow-moving climate threats as disasters leaves such communities stranded, with no clear set of guidelines—or designated funds—to secure their communities in place, or plan a move.

Now even Newtok’s relocation effort is in trouble. Amid the funding delays and political crisis, Newtok did not take on any new building work—leaving the 350 residents with no place to go when the waters come in. It was the second year in a row the village was forced to cancel planned construction. In 2012, a barge laden with materials for a road project undertaken by the military ran aground—shutting down construction for the year.

Tom had said at the start of the year that he hoped 2013 would bring a burst of construction at the new site. He had initially hoped to use more than $4 million in Alaskan state government funds to bring in heavy equipment to quarry rock and to build housing for the villages. Tom also said he was hoping to complete a detailed planning survey.

There were plans also to complete the largest planned structure for the new village—an evacuation center designed to provide shelter to all of Newtok’s residents in the event of a severe storm. The evacuation center now consists of a simple concrete platform. But the funds were not released, and Tom’s determination to contest the BIA decision suggests the standoff could continue.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate