New bill to stop Pebble creates more questions
Published Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Juneau — State lawmakers on Monday took up a new version of a controversial bill aimed at stopping development of a mine at the Pebble deposit in Southwest Alaska.
The new version takes into account testimony given during field hearings last fall in three Bristol Bay villages. It limits the prohibitions in the bill to a certain kind of metal mine and to streams that are important to salmon, rather than all streams within certain watersheds. It also calls for legislative approval of any state leases dealing with mining in the area.
The rewritten bill still has strong supporters and opponents and still raises questions, despite the changes.
At a hearing Monday morning, Rep. Bryce Edgmon, a Democrat from Dillingham and sponsor of the bill, said there was an overriding concern in the area about the potential impacts of large-scale mining.
“Everybody who testified came forward and said, ‘Whatever happens out there, we don’t want any harm done to our watershed,’” he said.
But residents also expressed concern that Edgmon’s bill, House Bill 134, would have the unintended consequence of blocking other kinds of economic development, Edgmon said. An earlier version of the bill prohibited disturbance of any waters in the area, with exceptions made only for drinking water, municipal uses and traditional or residential uses.
The new version of the bill prohibits only “sulfide mining operation(s),” defined as mines that produce copper, molybdenum and other metals.
Pebble is a massive deposit of copper, gold and molybdenum. The minerals involved have been valued at billions of dollars.
In addition to HB 134, two ballot initiatives are aimed in part at stopping the development of a mine at Pebble. Sponsors of the so-called Alaska Clean Water initiatives filed signatures last month, which the state is verifying.
Opponents of the initiatives argue they would block the development of new mines and harm existing mines around the state. Initiative sponsors deny they would impact existing mines.
The Alaska Superior Court considered a legal challenge to the initiatives last week in Fairbanks.
Danny Consenstein of the Renewable Resources Coalition, which was formed to fight the Pebble project and is supporting the initiatives, said in an interview Monday that his group has long supported Edgmon’s bill, and he suggested the bill would remove the need for the initiatives.
The only reason sponsors filed the ballot initiatives was because the Legislature wasn’t doing anything to address their concerns, he said.
The Alaska Constitution stipulates the measure be taken off the ballot if the Legislature passes legislation that is “substantially the same.”
That could happen with HB 134, especially if the motivation of the initiative sponsors is considered, Consenstein said. “It’s in the Legislature’s ballpark, in a way.”
Others question whether the bill would qualify as substantially similar.
“This bill, 134, is strictly one area of the state, and the ballot initiatives affect the entire state,” said Steve Borell, executive director of the Alaska Miners Association, who criticized the bill and the initiatives.
State law requires ballot measures to be statewide in nature.
HB 134 was introduced in February 2007 and had hearings last year in Juneau and the three Bristol Bay villages — Newhalen, Dillingham and Naknek.
Monday’s hearing in the House Special Committee on Fisheries was the first hearing this year. Committee chair Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, said he wanted to take testimony on the bill again Wednesday and then have a committee vote on whether or not to move it out.
“This is a very important issue — protection of salmon,” he said. “But at some point, we’ve done as much with the bill as the committee can do.”
Monday’s hearing lasted two hours and raised a number of questions on the new version of the bill.
Edgmon specifically blocked mines producing copper, silver, zinc and other metals in the bill but didn’t mention gold, saying he didn’t want the bill to apply to smaller placer gold mines. Committee member Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, R-Kodiak, and others questioned whether that would effectively leave a loophole for hard rock mines that produce only gold.
The new version applies to surface waters within the Bristol Bay watershed only if they’re important to salmon, but it also applies to all subsurface waters, regardless of whether they connect with salmon streams.
And the provision requiring legislative approval of mineral leases may not work. Edgmon said he specified approval by resolution rather than legislation to protect against legal challenges dealing with taking back a right already granted. But a legislative lawyer testified that a resolution probably wouldn’t stand up in court because it wouldn’t have a binding effect.
When asked specifically whether the bill would ban all mining in the area, Edgmon said that wasn’t the intention but he would like to hear what the mining industry thinks.
More than 15 people spoke during a public-comment period, most of them in support of the bill.
The Department of Natural Resources doesn’t have a position on the bill, but Ed Fogels, director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting, suggested the bill needed work.
Fogels said it was unclear which waters the bill covered and which agency would be responsible for levying fines on violators. He said the bill would prohibit all sulfide mines because all mines need water but it was unclear what would qualify as a sulfide mine.
After the hearing, Edgmon said he would research a few of the points Fogels raised.
“Some of his comments were definitely legitimate,” he said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
This state will survive and thrive without this mine. It is not 'needed'. We should increase protected areas adjacent to salmon streams 100 fold. It is not even close to worth jeopardizing the health of any salmon or habitat for the astronomical economic gains of a large mining corporation.
Just what we need.... another one of these:
http://www.ftknox.info/
The real question is whether we as Alaskans want to let outside environmental groups dictate what we can and can't do in our home state. Ft. Knox has been a very responsible neighbor that has created hundreds of jobs for over a decade now. These are good paying jobs that you can not find in the service industry. I trust the state and federal environmental groups to make sure that the Pebble Mine is developed safely with minimum potential hazard to the watershed. I do not trust outside environmental groups whatsoever.
What's unfortunate is when billions of dollars (I know it's not ALL about the money) can not be allowed to be extracted from the land BECAUSE of a few salmon. I think that restraints can be put on the mining operation and all oversight taken - and then let them go forward and take the metals out of the earth.
The PROBLEM is when environmental issues over-ride ALL EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION.
This is the ridiculousness of the legislature AND environmentalists.
Correct that legislatures!!!
Ask for restraints - do NOT completely ABOLISH mining in the great state of ALASKA!
Sadly, relying on the federal and even state governments to protect our enviroment hasn't always been the most efficient, cost effective, and wisest choice. At least as far as the enviroment's welfare is concerned. And relying on a corporate-controled mine to do the right thing on its own, even for its own employees, is rather foolish.
We don't need this mine.
If you eat salmon and want this mine to actually open your a complete utter fool! I hope Alaskans figure out that when all the fish are gone you can not eat metal. Alaska is not here for selfish corporate politricks to make even more money. Alaska is becoming the next Texas, and we all know Texas is whack and one of the worst states to live. So maybe all you intelligent Alaskans out there should think about more than money and the economy.
Oh wait that's why most of you greedy eco-terrorists live here.
To all you snowmachine riding, oil drilling, helicopter poaching, wolverine trapping, powerstroke diesel driving goons go back to Texas and find some metal!
The largest single producers of King (Chinook) salmon in the entire Yukon watershed are the Chena and Salcha rivers. They also have substantial Chum runs and all the other finny creatures native to this latidude. They were both dredged heavily, in the case of the Chena on it's main stem. This was before enviromental mitigation of any type. This mine will save Bristal Bay the way Prudhoe save this state jobs and revenue to the state for 100 years.Without mining, oil, timber ect we would not be here. This is a state not a park, we have parks but were are not a park. You people who were not here before oil, who have never paid state taxes, are living off the fat of the land and what others built and maybe, just maybe need to go back where you came from.
Mining and salmon can easily coexist in Alaska. With modern mining techniques the potential impact to water sources in virtually nonexistent. Less than 100 years ago Fairbanks was home to massive dredging operation that paid no attention to the environment. If you want to cry foul please give some real world examples of modern mining operations that have resulted in desecration of the surrounding areas.
There are fish swimming in the settling ponds at Ft. Knox. The discharge water from Pogo mine is better than the drinking water standards for most cities. I'm sure that Mr. Babylonian has some sort of government or state job and does not have to depend on industry to feed his family. I hope that he realizes that the only way we can support a state government that costs over $17,000 per Alaskan resident is to have these industries here in Alaska.
Gotta get that oil! Gotta get that gold! Gotta get that money! Gotta get to Alaska so InI can rape it first! Why do you think there is arsenic in Ester water?
To Mr. Fairbanks himself I do not have a state or government job and people in prison are making more money than InI. If the Pogo water is so delicious go ahead and bottle it up. Bristol Bay is quite fine without a mine.
To say that that large modern mines and fish/wildlife populations cannot successfully co-exist is ignorant and irresponsible of the facts. Case in point is the Stillwater Mine in Southcentral Montana, which literally lies astride a blue ribbon trout stream. This mine daily produces 3000 tons of palladium/platinum sulfides, employs 1500 people with full-time, year-round, living-wage jobs and since 1987 has not killed one single fish! Bighorn sheep were successfully re-introduced to the area some years ago and today, inhabit the mine area during the winter.
While the State of Alaska must absolutely hold mining companies "feet to the fire" and enforce stringhent safety and environmental standards, these blanket mining ban initiatives/bills will only ensure that many Alaskans remain in the poor house. This will become particularly critical as the tourism and retail/service industries begin to contract in the inflationary/recession times ahead.
The water dishcharged from all these mines is better for you than the water the city of Fairbanks makes you pay for. And, that's the sad truth of it. Never mind the water that Fairbanks, or any other city in Alaska, discharges. Go check out the facts for yourself.
Bottled water doesn't even compare in quality to the water standards that already exist for discharge from mines.
We don't need any more laws. And, we certainly don't need 'Chicken Littles' telling us how we're all doomed by spreading nonsense and getting another defacto park in the process.
NO MORE PARKS
NO MORE PARKS
NO MORE PARKS
Aye if so true then Bottle It Up Bombaclat!
hmmmm mabey you missed this page: http://www.ftknox.info/Photos_and_Videos...
There is arsenic in Ester water because it has been there for thousands and thousands of years! Arsenic, like all other heavy metals, occurs naturally. No one brings arsenic into a placer operation, or even a hard rock mine, it would serve no purpose. The majority of mining in fairbanks history was placer mining. This means mechanical, gravity separation of minerals, no chemicals. In fact, arsenic is an indicator mineral. In modern mineral exploration we take interest in high arsenic concentrations in soil and water because those are areas that likely contain gold.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.