Community Perspective
Measure 4 sends mines to court
Mental health funding menaced
Published Sunday, August 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!With the approach of Tuesday’s primary election, arguments are swirling regarding Ballot Measure 4, the Clean Water Initiative, and its potential impact on Alaska’s mining industry.
The measure calls for restrictions on large-scale metallic mineral mines to protect Alaska’s lakes, streams and other waterways.
At first blush, this seems like a no-brainer. Who among us is opposed to ensuring we have clean water for fish and humans?
The Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority certainly supports clean water.
As a public entity, the trust would never support development on trust-owned land that would adversely affect water quality.
In fact, as the public owner of 1 million acres of resource-rich land, it is our belief that an insufficiently regulated environment would actually put us at a competitive disadvantage, because developers less concerned about clean water would not find our land attractive.
However, we believe current state and federal regulations effectively protect fish in Alaska’s waterways.
The issue for us, therefore, is not clean water or fish or even the proposed Pebble Mine, which seems to be the target of this initiative.
Instead, we believe there are serious, unintended consequences from this initiative and, if passed, it would adversely impact the trust’s ability to generate funds for mental health programs.
Ballot Measure 4 is poorly written and so vague that extended litigation is bound to occur if it passes.
During the ensuing era of uncertainty this would create, all mining development, not just Pebble, will be negatively impacted.
Virtually every Alaskan is touched in some way by the issues addressed by the trust, whether personally or through a family member, neighbor or co-worker.
That is why, prior to statehood, land was set aside as a trust to ensure future beneficiary needs could be addressed.
The trust’s beneficiaries include people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism and other substance abuse disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia and permanent brain injury.
These are real people for whom treatment and services are essential to their quality of life.
This year, the trust will spend about $22 million on programs that provide treatment and services for trust beneficiaries.
Funds for these programs stem from our cash investments and land management.
This is where mining and mental health are linked.
Last year, we received about $1.6 million from mining leases, royalties and fees, primarily from the Fort Knox gold mine, which is located on trust land.
There are other large reserves of gold and coal on trust land that have yet to be developed.
One especially promising gold prospect north of Fairbanks could contribute millions in annual income if it is allowed to go forward. The loss of mining as a revenue source could substantially reduce trust income.
Likewise, forest management and oil and gas exploration and development also are linked to mental health in Alaska.
These valuable resources are all found on trust land and are generating revenue for trust-supported programs throughout Alaska.
For example, in Fairbanks, the trust is a major funding partner in the new $4 million Golden Heart Gateway to Recovery — Fairbanks Community Enhanced Detox Facility under construction on trust land.
The trust also awarded the Ralph Perdue Center $200,000 for a substance abuse treatment program.
Tanana Chiefs Conference received $133,400 for telebehavioral health equipment this year.
For the past two years, the trust has funded crisis-intervention team training for Fairbanks police, state troopers and probation officers.
Nearly two dozen Fairbanks law enforcement representatives are trained now in safe, effective ways to respond to calls regarding individuals experiencing a mental illness crisis.
Last May, the community of Old Minto received $40,000 in emergency funds after flooding damaged the community’s spirit camp.
The trust sponsors many such programs in communities throughout Alaska.
The trust is in favor of keeping Alaska’s waterways clean.
But Ballot Measure 4 goes beyond clean water.
We believe this initiative could impact all mining in Alaska and that would be detrimental to the work of the trust.
So, if you never knew about the connection between mining and mental health, it is important to understand there is a definite link and it is a crucial one for Alaskans who need mental health treatment or services.
Jeff Jessee is the chief executive officer for the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. Harry Noah is a former commissioner with the Department of Natural Resources and currently serves as the executive director of the Trust Land Office, which is responsible for managing the trust’s land and non-cash assets.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Messieurs Jessee and Noah,
Thank you for the information. I was aware that AMHTA derived some of its annual revenues from mining, but I was not aware to what degree.
I was planning on voting NO on this ballot initiative and I now know more reasons to vote NO on 4.
Okay trolls and the anonymous cowards, start posting your drivel.
No on 4! No reason to throw out the baby with the bath water. The no to Pebble people need to narrow their focus.
The anti-mine...anti anything crowd will lose this round but they will be back and turn any mine development into a lawyers relieve act before this is all over...
Vote yes on Ballot #4. Red Dog and Pogo were permitted prior to 2002 when environmental and water guality standards were tougher. Mixing zones will now allow more toxic material into our streams and cause great harm to the world's largest wild salmon run on the planet. If the Pebble mine proponents say that IF a single salmon will be harmed there will be no mine. If that is so, then why don't the foreign owned mine proponents support Ballot #4?
Do no harm and vote yes on 4
First, THANKS for a clear letter.
I am annoyed for the reason, as you pointed out, that we all want clean water, clean fish, etc....and I do not approve of Pebble Mine at all. However, I do not like this ballot measure because it IS so sketchy.....so, what does a "no" vote mean for Pebble Mine?-Does it mean they can build and operate or what? Thanks for anyone's help!!
I considered voting yes on 4 but after reading the initiative several times I came to the conclusion that it is far too vague and not very well thought out. I also agree with the above perspective regarding litigation and that will result in opening up a very ugly can of legal worms.
Ulises - I finally get it. You want to attract the trolls. Get a hobby man.
Andora, on one side (the YES side), is backed from an out of State lobbying group in Washington DC, in the middle is a Canadian company, and at the other end there is the NO side, mostly from Alaska.
There are lots of foreign companies operating in Alaska, too, including BP. What is wrong with that?
Yes on 4 It's the only logical choice for Alaskans. Will not hurt the mining industry at all.
surrender claims -- "Yes on 4 It's the only logical choice for Alaskans. Will not hurt the mining industry at all."
Really?
If Pebble is abandoned due to the endless leitigation that BM4 forces, that alone is a $500,000,000,000 hit.
I've had to lay off 70% of my workforce this summer due to cancelled projects as clients wait to see how the vote goes. That hurt my crew very much.
Under Alaska state regulations, mining companies must make sworn promises and post bonds to cover any damage that they might cause. Will the anti-miners do the same? Will you swear on affidavits and post bonds to ensure your promise that BM4 "Will not hurt the mining industry at all"?
Due to heavy metal concentrations, it is unsafe to eat fish from San Francisco Bay. This is a result of historical mining practices and current industrial discharges. In contrast, one wonderful thing about Alaska is the current abundance of salmon, and how they benefit all members of this region. Whether you fish professionally, fish for subsistence, visit from out of state to catch them or buy fish from the store, they are still here for us. Salmon also benefit ecosystems during their life and after death by cycling nutrients.
Measure 4 will allow a way to protect one of Alaska’s most important legacies. So, to allow Anglo American Corporation, based in the London, to bully voters with fear mongering tactics into not passing this protection would be sheer folly. Recent history suggests that multinational corporations and CEOs may not truly care about local economies, citizens and their environment.
Surrender apparently hasn't been doing his/her research.
No on 4.
Pebble is just a thought, though a bad one at that. No loss there, your clients must not have been very good ones to drop
you so easily.
No this won't hurt mining, only help it's image.
Salmon have their place in Alaska, hopefully it's first place.
There will be mines and salmon in Alaska for many years with
the help of Ballot measure 4
Measure 4 is nonsense. surrender and kelly newman's comments are as common sense as the ballot measure. Those afraid to poison the salmon, need to ask how much lead is at the bottom of bristol bay as a result of fishing. Then, you want to hold a mine to the standard that the fishing community doesn't meet. Hypocrits! Can't stand em, don't need their emotional nonsense here. Also, why are all the big commercial fishing vessels steaming out of Seattle and fishing up here, I don't recall them having a big mining industry that killed their fishing industry. Seems to me that it was overfishing that killed off everything from Seattle south to BAHA Mexico.
Polluters win, There's some solace in the fact that over 70.000 voters do get it.
The fight over Pebble is just starting. I hope everyone pays attention to the details of this debate as it moves forward and that it's really true what some posters said....that you can be opposed to both Prop 4 and Pebble.
Ms. Newman -- sorry, but you're half full of moose plop. Name the mines in the SanFran area that are polluting the bay. That pollution is due to you and the other residents and the industries that you require. Just as the majority of pollution in Alaska coastal habitat is caused by the fishing industry and the local villages. Most "dead zones" in estuarine environments in the world are caused by farm pollution. You should argue facts, not half-truths.
Prospector says...
"Under Alaska state regulations, mining companies must make sworn promises and post bonds to cover any damage that they might cause..."
Oh gee a sworn promise, that's pretty serious. Bonds....let's take a close look at the DNR's Bond Pool that miner's contribute to....smoke and mirrors.
skinfish -- what more do you want?
You seem to want it all with no cost and you want someone else to do it for you, someplace else. This is the mind of a child.
Breaking my one post per article rule again but I can't help myself...
What I want is Pebble to go away. If it doesn't ND should be a responsible developer and fully insure and bond their activities (with real $$ not sworn promises---that's a joke right?) to be certain no harm comes to the fish or land. Pretty simple really even the mind of a child can figure it out.
skinfish -- ND is insuring and bonding their activities. Your choice is to be fantasy based or fact based. Pebble is not going away, any more than Denali or Bristol Bay. Only a child would think otherwise.
Pebble's not going away but all the money from it is. We get 20% royalty and a dividend on oil production, but we're only getting 3% from Pebble. The rest goes to foreigners.
There's absolutely nothing to stop our legislators from increasing mineral royalties on gigantic operations like Pebble so that the people actually get a fair deal. The argument that 3-500 billion dollars worth of extraction and its effects pays off because it will provide 200 million dollars a year in jobs is an insult to every man, woman, and child in Alaska. Those jobs would literally have to last centuries to even figure meaningfully in the calculations, never mind assure a fair stake.
And, oh yeah, what about the fish?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.