The Alaska Contractor - Summer 2008

The Politics of Construction
Vote ‘No’ in support
of clean water, mining
Each year when you go to the ballot box your decisions
are pretty clean cut – candidate A or candidate B? Are
you in favor of road improvement bonds, or against
road improvement bonds? Unfortunately this year, Alaskan
voters face a much more difficult question in the primary
Aug. 26. Are you for clean water, or against it? At first, it may
seem like a pretty easy answer. Who is against clean water,
right? Well, there’s a lot more to the question than meets the
eye and the proponents of two clean water initiatives that
may appear on the August ballot aren’t being completely
honest with the voters.
First, the drafters of the two initiatives have said from
the beginning that these initiatives were about stopping the
Pebble Mine. You’ve seen the television advertisements, the
print ads and heard how Pebble will kill off salmon fishing
in Alaska. But in actuality, the way these initiatives were
written would shut down all large-scale mining in Alaska.
That’s a lot of jobs, economic stimulation and tax revenue
for state and local communities.
Both measures are embroiled in court battles. Clean Water
1 (CW1) because there are questions as to its constitutionality.
Clean Water 3 (CW3) due to questions about the
vague language used.
Recently, admitting that CW1 has gone too far, the sponsors
of the initiatives have asked that CW1 be removed from
the ballot. They did so in a recent letter to Lt. Gov. Sean
Parnell, citing “voter confusion” and “the time it will take to
clarify the legal status of both initiatives.” But Parnell has
said there’s no precedent for taking such action and that it
may be that only the Supreme Court can remove an initiative
from the ballot once it has been certified.
The fate of CW3 is also in the hands of the Supreme
Court. That’s because various interpretations of the measure
are contradictory. Interpreted one way, it is just like CW1
and would also be unconstitutional. Interpreted another
way though, CW3 would not make any significant change
to Alaska’s current statewide water quality standards. It
would accomplish nothing. So even if its drafters believe in
the latter interpretation, why waste voters’ time? And if it is
really harmless, it begs the question of why the measure’s
proponents would go through an extensive campaign solely
to affirm existing standards.
The truth is that one legal interpretation of CW3 suggests
it would prohibit any release of water, similar to CW1,
and thus would have the same drastic consequences: a total
mining shutdown in Alaska.
BY REP. CRAIG JOHNSON
So, with the primary election right around the corner,
there are a lot of serious questions about these initiatives
left unanswered. Will CW1 be removed from the ballot because
it’s unconstitutional? And what would CW3 really do?
Unfortunately, clarification from the courts won’t come until
the end of June.
I would argue such issues should not be handled by
citizen initiatives. Alaska already has very stringent, effective
environmental policies in place to monitor mining
and other resource industries. Those policies and procedures
are updated as new technologies emerge to ensure
Alaska’s water is clean, the air is pure and our soil is free
from contaminants. Every Alaskan cares about the environment.
Whether we fish, hunt, hike or kayak we want
to know that the outdoors is safe for our families and ourselves.
And no industry or amount of money is going to
change that.
As a legislator, I understand the critical need to diversify
Alaska’s economy and develop our state’s vast resources.
It truly holds the promise of our future. And I am equally
confident that we can do that in an environmentally safe
manner – by both letting industry know that we’re open for
business and making it clear that responsible development
is the only way we will conduct business here.
I have grave concerns about confusing, muddied initiatives
being brought up for a vote. One has to ask, what’s
hidden in these initiatives? If they’re so cut-and-dry, why
are both mired in court challenges? Alaskans deserve the
opportunity to vote on issues that are clear and understandable.
These initiatives are the opposite.
So when you vote in this year’s primary election,
please remember that everyone is in favor of clean air
and water. But these initiatives aren’t about clean water;
they’re about completely shutting down mining in our
state. And mining is an industry that’s been a part of our
state’s history and economic engine for more than a century.
It’s an industry that provides jobs and stability to our
communities, while at the same time holding themselves
to some of the strictest environmental standards in the
world. So before you vote, please understand the importance
of this issue.
By voting “no,” you will send a strong message that Alaska
supports clean water and its valued mining industry.
Rep. Craig Johnson represents Anchorage House District 28
in the Alaska Legislature.