The Alaska Contractor - Summer 2008

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
We all want clean water
Voters in the primary election this August may still have
the chance to offer their opinion on “The Clean Water
Initiative.” Put forward by the Anchorage-based and nationally
financed Renewable Resources Coalition, purportedly
to protect the salmon runs of Bristol Bay, petitioners cleverly
captured the attention of signers by characterizing the initiative
as an effort to guarantee “clean water.” Consequently, they
turned in more than 60,000 signatures.
If passed, the initiative would override existing state and
federal environmental requirements and scientific review of
mine operations. It would prohibit storage or disposal of metallic
mineral mining wastes and tailings on land and water. If
neither land nor water can be used, then mining is impossible
– just about anywhere in our state.
Obviously, the coalition hopes Alaskans won’t read beyond
the title to learn what the initiative really means to our state.
In truth, the initiative is an effort to stop the Pebble Mine from
advancing to the extensive, exhaustive and lengthy permitting
process. If passed by voters in August, it will have the effect of
saying, “Stop now, do not proceed to permitting.”
Many believe Pebble should be allowed to go through the
regulatory process. Although all the rules and regulations that
are currently on the books can safeguard the public’s interest in
protecting the environment and the valuable fisheries resources
of the region, the project must pass numerous tests and meet
detailed requirements before it obtains the approvals necessary
to operate. And for this particular project, the level of scrutiny to
pass these tests will be done with a microscope. If Pebble can’t
pass muster it will not and should not be allowed to go forward
– but like every project, it deserves a chance to pass the test.
Not every proposed mine gets developed through production.
The list of prospects that began but never finished the
arduous process of permitting and environmental compliance
includes some big names.
In the 1970s, U.S. Borax spent hundreds of millions of dollars
on the Quartz Hill molybdenum deposit near Ketchikan. Borax
even got approval from Congress for a marine tailings disposal
in the deep waters of Wilson Arm. The claims have since become
an in-holding in one of the many Alaska National Interest
Land Claims Act Conservation Units that blanket Alaska.
Echo Bay Mines spent more than $100 million trying to reopen
the historic A-J mine in Juneau only to pull the plug because
environmental compliance affected the project’s feasibility.
In northern Southeast Alaska, Coeur d’Alene Mines has
invested some $270 million in the Kensington gold mine and
constructed a complete facility in a valley that had a handful of
JOHN MACKINNON
Executive Director
mining operations 100 years ago. They have yet to pour a single
bar of gold because environmental groups sued over their previously
permitted tailings disposal plan.
If this initiative passes, every proposed large-scale mining
operation in Alaska will be at risk. The targeted Pebble project
could not move forward and Donlin Creek gold project would
likely come to a screeching halt.
If the initiative passes, the unintended consequences (are
they really unintended?) are that all existing mining operations
in Alaska would have to cease. Although the folks at the Renewable
Resources Coalition say this will not affect existing permitted
large-scale mines – that is not true. The lifecycle of every mine
consists of a continuous process of permitting, amending permits,
re-permitting and compliance with a myriad of ever-changing
laws and regulations. The permitted mine of today will be applying
for new permits tomorrow. Existing mines like Greens Creek, Red
Dog, Fort Knox and Pogo would soon fall under the requirements
of the Initiative. In the hands of a zealous regulator (not even an
overzealous regulator) this new law, if passed, could even impact
sand and gravel operations, which by definition, are mining.
The initiative as written prohibits any discharge or potential
discharge of “toxic pollutants” into any groundwater, surface
water or stream. It’s not just major streams, but every tributary
to every stream that may be used for human consumption or
support salmon for survival or propagation. That sounds like
just about every stream to me.
Looking at the list of chemicals defined in the initiative as
“toxic pollutants” one notices a long list – benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
dieldrin, DDT, PCBs – to name a few of the more common
and pronounceable ones. These are already highly regulated,
and who would argue with preventing their discharge and
release into our water? I certainly don’t want them in my water.
Also on the list of “toxic pollutants” are metals, such as silver,
lead, nickel, copper and zinc. Natural waters contain many
of these trace metals. These metals are also found in the outfalls
of most municipal sewage treatment plants. Fortunately, municipal
sewage systems don’t involve mining or the initiatives
could jeopardize them, too.
We all want clean water. This initiative is not about clean
water; it is aimed at stopping one proposed mine and would
impact many more. Alaska’s exemplary record of responsible
development and stewardship of our lands and resources is the
envy of every other state and unequaled anywhere in the world.
In Alaska, we have worked very hard over the past few years
to hang out the sign that says “We’re Open for Business.” Why
turn out the lights on that sign now?