Ballot Measure 4 could impact mental health resources
Published Thursday, August 7, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority leaders are concerned that Ballot Measure 4 could severely limit the organization’s ability to generate mineral royalties from the million acres the trust holds on behalf of the state’s mentally ill people.
If Measure 4 — also called the Clean Water Initiative — meets with voter approval in the Aug. 26 primary election, predicted changes to state rules and regulations combined with a high likelihood for litigation could mean the trust, and Alaska’s mentally ill, loses out, authority CEO Jeff Jessee said.
The ballot measure was written to block the proposed Pebble Mine near Bristol Bay. The initiative bans large metallic mineral mines from releasing into water toxins that could adversely affect salmon or people. Supporters say the measure protects clean water, salmon and people. The opposition says rules are already in place that limit levels of toxins and that the initiative leaves enough open to interpretation that it could shut down large mineral mines statewide.
“However you feel about Pebble, that’s one thing,” Jessee said. “But this is about a lot more than Pebble.”
Based on his assessment and that by trust land office director Harry Noah, a former Department of Natural Resources commissioner, Jessee said the initiative mandates new state rules and regulations that would by nature affect all large mineral mines. At the least, the measure would spur litigation that could tie up new rules in courts for years, potentially limiting new gold and other mineral developments planned for mental health trust properties, he said.
Of particular concern are the future of the Fort Knox gold mine near Fairbanks and how the initiative could affect development of a gold property on trust land near Livengood, Noah said.
“We know there is a ballot measure that wants to change the regulatory environment,” Noah said. “The trouble is, the initiative is so poorly written, it’s hard to understand exactly what that means. Therein lies the problem.”
The trust holds about 1 million acres across the state. Money earned off that land, including mineral development, goes toward Alaska mental health services.
Funds don’t provide for individual treatment, but they do aid the state’s Department of Health and Social Services and are awarded outside of state government channels to bring projects across the state together. The trust was one funder of the new detox center in Fairbanks.
In fiscal 2008, the trust earned $1.6 million off mineral royalties. Fort Knox, which is on trust land, generated $1.4 million of that total.
“There is no real mechanism other than our resource development for preparing for the future, when there will be more beneficiaries and greater need for the trust to generate revenue to provide the same level of support that we do now,” Jessee said.
Art Hackney is a consultant for Alaskans for Clean Water, the group driving the measure. He said the measure will not impact the mental health trust, nor existing, permitted mines.
“There is no ambiguity. There just isn’t any,” he said of the measure. “There is just nothing in there that isn’t good for the state of Alaska. If there is a place where someone wants to put a mine where there are significant salmon runs, then by God, I think most Alaskans would like to see those salmon protected from adverse discharge of toxic chemicals.”
Willis Lyford is campaign director for Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown, which is opposed to Measure 4. He said the potential for the measure to impact the mineral development rights of landowners is one reason his group is encouraging people to vote no.
“This is all about the unintended and unknown consequences of Ballot Measure 4,” he said. “They (measure supporters) pretend this is about the Pebble mine, and it is not. It has serious consequences far beyond that. This could tie their (the trust’s) hands for future development and lock away tremendous resource values for the future — and that’s a drastic step.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Do you think Art Hackney may be in line to be the Mental Health Trust's nest 'beneficiary'?
I don't understand why there seems to be so much confusion surrounding the toxin discharge portion. It would appear that there is absolutely no way to extract minerals without releasing toxins since that is the point that is always brought up. Perhaps the pebble mine really is a bad idea.
And just how much of the royalties do the mentally ill patients get, are there "crazy" millionaires out there?
I bet they have "mad" money to spare. :D
I'm NOT a Tree-Hugger, but that said, I think pebble mine is a REALLY Bad Idea !
Ok, lets see if I understand this issue correctly -- because an organization, which supposedly provides a benefit (you'll notice it said it does nothing for treatment, and without treatment what good is the progream?) is unfortunate enough to have *all* its revenue generating eggs in the mining basket (anyone every hear of diversification), we should vote "No" against it. What kind of bullcrap is that?
Put another way, if I have a business wich provides widgets to the poor but is based solely on gems harvested from mines in Africa, then any trade deal that affects the acquisition and sale of those assetts should automatically be rejected?
Please!
Regardless which side of the debate you're on concerning this ballot measure, this latest "excuse" to vote against it is pathetic. But then again, the government is falling over itself in a rush to save homeowners who were to ignorant to understand that an "adjustable" rate mortgage may actually have its monthly payments increase. If they didn't purchase outside their ability to pay in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem. And, no, I'm not including those unfortunate families that have been put in dire starits due to death, or illness -- no matter what type of mortgage they had, they'd still be hurting.
I am a kotzebue resident and a nana shareholder in northwest alaska.
Our region depends on red dog mine for its revenue. If we didn't have
the mine our community would be plunged into severe poverty and economic depression. As it is our fuel oil costs on average well over $8.00 per gallon. A loss of the mine would push our economy over the edge. Our resources are our livelyhood. We have a fully functioning subsistence lifestyle alongside the resource development of red dog mine. It hasn't caused an ecological catastrophe. People in urban areas should realize that our land isnt here so that they have a pretty place to visit someday
to escape the damage thier urban pollution has done to thiers .
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.