Conflict by design: Stafford Act incompatibility with Alaska tribal sovereignty.

Abstract

The Robert T. Stafford Act unintentionally marginalizes Alaska's Tribes and hinders their ability to exercise sovereignty following disasters. Although there has been significant academic analysis of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act since its passage in 1971, the monumental agreement that settled Alaska Native aboriginal land claims was not critically considered during the creation of the Stafford Act, nearly two decades later in 1988. The consequences have resulted in increased confusion and controversy as Alaska's Tribes attempt to exercise their sovereign option following emergencies and disasters. This paper is a summary of extensive research that explored the government-to-government relationship between Alaska's Tribes and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is intended to illuminate statutory and programmatic shortcomings emanating from the Stafford Act when applied to Alaska Natives, their tribal governments, and the greater Alaska Native Community. Effects of these shortcomings include, but are not limited to, the inability of most Alaska Tribes to sustain participation in certain FEMA disaster programs; undetermined impacts on local health and community well-being; and an overarching sentiment of abandonment during times of greatest need. Parallels can also be drawn to other United States (US) Tribes, Indigenous US islands, and circumpolar communities. This paper will assist the reader in recognizing the unique governing structures found throughout Alaska and the negative impacts of the Stafford Act on Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty in the face of increasing disasters and a changing climate.