No to the proposed national marine monument

I have listened, read, and watched the ongoing debate regarding the proposal to have 115,000 square miles of our limited resources designated as a national marine monument. After my exhaustive review, I have come to the conclusion that the proposal is not in the best interest of the people of the Commonwealth at this time.

I am a Chamorro of Northern Marianas descent and have had the opportunity to see and spend some quality time in our Northern Islands. As Special Assistant to the late Northern Islands Mayor Joseph Ogumoro, I have had the opportunity to see and walk on these beautiful islands.

I am happy that we are now realizing that the CNMI has 14 islands, 10 of which are north of Saipan. When I was with the Northern Islands Mayor’s Office, I tried to bring public attention to the fact that residents of Anatahan, Alamagan, Pagan, and Agrigan live in deplorable conditions and need basic infrastructure to improve their quality of life. There is no running water, no electricity, no schools, no health facilities, no ports, and no infrastructure to make daily living safe and sustainable. The Northern Islands are probably the last places on this planet that still flies the U.S. flag despite their living conditions being worse than most Third World countries. Can the federal government do something about this? Can the proponents of the monument, including Pew, allocate equal amount of time and resources to help address these inhumane conditions?

The proposal to designate a significant amount of the CNMI’s Northern Islands’ natural resources as a marine monument is inappropriate, untimely, a circumvention of the democratic process, and an affront to the people of the CNMI. The local proponents are helping Pew carry out their agenda by encouraging the use of the Antiquities Act of 1906. This old federal law authorizes the U.S. President to single-handedly designate any federal public lands as national monuments to cut through bureaucratic impasse and protect vital natural areas under imminent threat. Apparently, the Act was motivated by the destruction and looting of archaeological sites in the late 1800s and archaeologists were worried that “historical sites were being plundered and the artifacts disappearing into private collections or overseas museums.”

The 115,000 square miles of submerged land proposed for the monument is not under any imminent threat and the issue of submerged landownership is still emerging, thus it is inappropriate to use the Antiquities Act. There are mainly three types of threats that I am aware of that may adversely affect or cause imminent danger to the Northern Islands. These include pollution caused by human presence, biological, and geologic and/or other natural catastrophe.

Few people, if any, will object to “conservation” but most disagree with the mechanism or tool being proposed, the amount of misinformation being disseminated regarding imminent threats to the area, and the permanent stripping of local control over limited resources. Not supporting the current monument proposal does not mean that we do not support conservation. To the contrary, if the area proposed for the monument is under imminent threat, and designating the area as a monument will protect it from further damage, I will be the first one in line to support such a move. But in the absence of any urgency, let us not jump the gun and deprive our future generation the ability to decide for themselves what they want to do with the limited resources. This is also where the proponent’s use of our young children in their crusade is inappropriate.

To date, I have not seen any evidence to show that human presence is causing any type of damage to the area. Second, the threats from “crown of thorns” or other biological presence have not been documented either. Third, the designation of the area as a monument is not going to stop volcanoes, tsunami, earthquakes, typhoons, or other natural disasters from happening. To suggest otherwise is outright ludicrous.

Further, if you look closely at the proposal you will see that the proposed monument is not going to get any direct federal funding but a possible reprogramming of limited funds from other federal parks accounts. With only three months left in the Bush Administration, a projected budget deficit of over $600 billion, and the close to $1 trillion bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, bank rescue, and other Wall Street problems, there is no room for additional appropriation for the CNMI National Marine Monument. The federal government will, in effect, take possession of our land and invest almost nothing in it in return other than the initial publicity stunt from their “Blue Legacy” project.

I reviewed the Pew-funded economic report by Dr. Tom Iverson where he calculated that a marine monument would produce up to 400 new jobs, generate $10 million in new annual spending, and $14 million in sales. Unfortunately, the report is full of “assumptions” including findings that there are insufficient data in the CNMI to make any reliable predictions or forecasts to make economic projections based on these same questionable data. Further, efforts were made to “compare” with other marine monuments. Again, the jurisdictions and circumstances used in the comparisons are different and the existing state infrastructures at those jurisdictions are different. The report in my opinion is an excellent exercise within the circles of academia but in reality is nothing more than a pipe dream.

As a matter of principle, I do not agree giving up local control of our limited resources. However, if federalization is to occur, the U.S. Congress is the most appropriate body to act on this matter as more time will be available for local participation and federal funding can be appropriated to develop a true national monument. To use the Antiquities Act is not the appropriate vehicle as the only urgency in this matter is that President Bush has less than three months left in office and the issue of submerged land ownership is still being debated.

For those who claim that we have no right to object as we do not own the area now, I say do not be too quick. As noted, the issue surrounding ownership of our submerged lands is not final yet. As it currently stand, the Chamorros and Carolinians of Northern Marianas descent own the land in the Northern Marianas as provided for in our Constitution whether the land is surface or submerged.

The CNMI did not become a member of the American political family as “spoils of war”. The CNMI in the Covenant, establishing the political relationship between the CNMI and the U.S., did not surrender ownership of its submerged lands to the federal government. In fact, the federal government (recognizing the validity of the CNMI’s ownership over its lands) entered into long-term lease agreements for our lands, including the submerged lands, as in the case of the military leases on Tinian, Saipan Tanapag harbor, and Farallon de Mendinilla. Why then would the federal government lease land from us if they claim they own it in the first place?