Clean water ballot measure a muddy mess among voters
Published Saturday, July 12, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — After Interior Democrats and their guests listened to both sides of the debate surrounding ballot measure 4, some were left wondering what the facts are.
“No one can make a decision based on this presentation,” said David Bantz, who works in computing at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He said both sides make many claims, and he’s left wondering which are correct and where the information comes from.
Ballot measure 4, also known as the Clean Water Initiative, was the topic of discussion at the Democrats’ monthly Fahrenkamp Luncheon on Friday. Former mining executive Bruce Switzer spoke on behalf of Alaskans for Clean Water, a group formed to support the initiative. Switzer is a senior technical adviser for that group. Mining company Teck Cominco’s Director of Corporate Affairs Karl Hanneman represented Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown, a group formed to fight the initiative.
The initiative was designed to shut down the Pebble Project’s proposed plans for a copper, gold and molybdenum mine at Bristol Bay, known as the red salmon capital of the world.
“It’s not about mining generally. It’s about the Pebble Project, and the only way we could deal with that was through an initiative,” Switzer said, adding that Bristol Bay and its environs are an environment too special to risk. “This ballot initiative is about salmon, and it’s about Pebble.”
However, some say if the initiative meets with voter approval and becomes law, new rules could shut down new facilities and mine expansions across the state.
“There are valid concerns about the Pebble Project that shouldn’t be addressed through a proposal that will adversely affect the entire industry,” Hanneman said. “In fact, we can’t even be sure what it is we’re voting on.”
If the initiative becomes law, state agencies would need to revise regulations to comply. At this point, no one really knows what, specifically, those regulations will say, Hanneman said.
“We are considerably at risk of how this could be interpreted in the future,” he said. “We cannot commit to a blank sheet of paper.”
Switzer said that mines claiming compliance with existing regulations shouldn’t be worried about the potential effects of new rules geared specifically to salmon protection.
During a brief question and answer period, people wanted to know whether existing regulations ban acid discharge, which occurs during some mining processes.
Hanneman said federal and state laws do regulate acid discharge. Switzer said it is “theoretically prohibited” but that state and federal regulatory agencies don’t have enough money and are understaffed with regulators who lack the expertise to thoroughly evaluate monitoring reports compiled by consultants hired by mining companies.
Those in favor of the initiative say it is necessary in order to protect the world’s last great salmon fishery and pristine wilderness. They claim that the initiative would not affect existing mines and that the stiffer environmental regulations are necessary because salmon are especially sensitive to chemicals in water.
Opposition has centered around the potential effects on Alaska’s mining industry, such as loss of jobs and revenues. Some claim the initiative could shut down any future new facilities, including expansion of existing mines. Those against the initiative also say that new regulations are unnecessary when the state and federal governments already have an extensive permitting process that protects people and fish.
Voters will be asked whether ballot measure 4 should become law in the primary election Aug. 26. The initiative will become law if a majority of votes are in favor.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I am glad the DNM article cleared that up for me. Knowing what measure 4 says would help us all understand and make an informed decision at the poll. Generally, more regulation means more expense. I am not a fan of less develpment and more enviornmental regulations. We can't enforce what is in place now so let's regulate it some more. How dumb.
I also have been confused about this initiative. This debate at the Dem luncheon as reported here did little to clear it up.
Nobody wants to see Bristol Bay destroyed. Then again, many of us dont want to see the mining industry destroyed either.
So, to me so far, it comes down to which side is more credible. The "Vote Yes on 4" advocates have a 20 years (at least) history of initiative deceit. Time and again, they have burdened Alaskans with fighting off initiative after initiative designed to shut down any and all human activity in Alaska, except for bicycle riding and camping. They believe in a "pristine" Alaska, humans be damned.
Unless convinced otherwise, I will vote no on 4.
Pebble is a good project in a bad place. That land is far more valuable for it's long term sport and commercial fishing values than a short term mine. Over the next several hundred years far more economic value will be realized for these unique and irreplaceable qualities.
Ak DNR is not capable of managing the project. Managing for DNR is a misnomer, all agency bureaucrats do is make sure forms are filled out. Don't trust this group w/something so special. Vote yes on 4.
Certainly one claim by the ads I see coming from the mining industry, must be false: that they're *already doing* what measure 4 says. If this were the case, what would they be so afraid of? I get very suspicious of any of the industries in this state, when they put on multi-million dollar media blitzes like this, or the one the oil companies are pouring out about the gasline. I think both take the people they're targetted at for simpletons.
BigMike,
I find it suspicious that most of our big mines are owned by non-US companies, Pebble included.
I'm voting yes. The minerals will still be there and I don't see prices declining.
It's the same issue as ANWR drilling, the pro drilling crowd would have had us pumping that oil 20 years ago at $18/barrel. I think we will do much better to wait.
I have talked to people at red dog mine, and the water is now cleaner because of them. Before that mine was devolved the river was poisonous not fit for human or fish. As the mine has progressed the river now supports fish and is 100% cleaner then before the mine.
We need to develop
our vast resources, and we can develop
them responsibly we have the knowledge.
Vote no on 4
I work for a US owned mine in Alaska and am a lifelong alaskan. I can tell you (fsjec6) that we do already do what they are claiming with the fresh water iniative but the problem with that (and what we are afraid of) is that the legislation to go along with a yes vote is not written yet so we dont know what will come out of it and it could be something simiular to the iniative that the courts threw out saying that all new permits are not allowd. Ballot measure 4 was written by the same people that wrote the one that the courts threw out. I KNOW that mining and envirnmental issues CAN COEXIST visit one of the mines currently operating in Alaska.
Minning is so very important for Alaska and for thousands of Alskan families. Villages depend on the mines to support schooling and to provide jobs for people in remote locations. And not to mention the small buisness of Alska that will be effected by the mines shutting down and wont be getting thier buisness anymore. I would hate to see thousands of Alaskans to move from the place they love and grew up. Please vote no on 4. We have had minning around for ever and I know I have always had to clean water.
I am voting NO on ballot #4 . As someone already mentioned...has anyone noticed that the iniators of this iniative ARE NOT from or in Alaska?
My husband works at a mine here in Alaska and I know that everyone works hard to keep everything enviromently clean, expecially the water. This iniative is very decieving, especially some of their ads, I hope all that might be a little unsure about the facts will do some research before listening to the propagana. Alaska needs mining, not only for the revenue ,but also the jobs and development.
Swimming red salmon in those anti-pebble ads we've been seeing deserve closer scrutiny. Are they really red salmon or just red herring?
If we believe the "clean water" initiative promoters, Pebble mine will wipe out all fishing in Bristol Bay, and State mining compliance personnel are equal to drunk drivers, human rights, and child abusers. How insulting. Their initiative isn't a blank sheet for no reason. It is plainly defective and deceptive and those red salmon are definitely red herring as regards the Pebble issue. It isn't about subsistence either. This initiative is really about setting up a de-facto fishing refuge for well-heeled fishermen from Anchorage and elsewhere. We have already proven our ability to approve/disprove and manage these sort of projects and don't need local or (mostly) outside environmental extremists to dictate if we can or not.
I think they (resources) can be used wisely and for benefit too, Beav920, but not if the main goal is the enrichment of a select few people's wallets. Once the income stops, such people are all too willing to simply turn their backs and walk away.
Well mining enriches more than a few wallets, it enriches the people that work in them and the surronding communities where in Alaska those opportunities are few and far between. There are several thousand "Alaskans" employed in mining and their money goes to the communities that they live in. I struggled for years to make ends meet in an area where the cost of living is high,and mining has provideed a comfortable living for me.I love Alaska and intend to stay here. The last thing I want to see is damage done to it because when I'm off I'm fishing or hunting Thats why I live here. Vote no, I dont want to go back to seasonal work in the construction industry!!
I must say that I was very confused about #4 after seeing all the ads from both sides. Now I am just slightly confused. I, like 99% of all Alaskans, want our environment to be protected, not only for ourselves, but for our children. On the other hand, so many Alaskans depend on the Mines for their livelyhood. Most of us know that you can not trust the Government and thinking that they have our best interests in mind is just foolishness. As of now, I am leaning towards "NO" on #4, just because there are too many unknowns about it. If you want the people's vote, tell them exactly what this measure is, what is will do, and how it is going to affect them, that's what they want to hear.
DUSTOFF_14
I must say that I was very confused about #4 after seeing all the ads from both sides. Now I am just slightly confused. I, like 99% of all Alaskans, want our environment to be protected, not only for ourselves, but for our children. On the other hand, so many Alaskans depend on the Mines for their livelyhood. Most of us know that you can not trust the Government and thinking that they have our best interests in mind is just foolishness. As of now, I am leaning towards "NO" on #4, just because there are too many unknowns about it. If you want the people's vote, tell them exactly what this measure is, what it will do, and how it is going to affect them, that's what they want to hear.
DUSTOFF_14
Doesn't sound like what we think is all that different, Beav920. I think Pebble probably *could* be done safely, but the result if it isn't would be terrible. The thing needs layers and layers of oversight, and a *fully funded* multi-billion dollar bond, or not dug at all in my opinion. I still lean toward a + on 4.
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.