The Resource Development Council for Alaska supports responsible, well-designed coastal zone management (CZM), like the program described in H.B. 106, the bill that earned a 40-0 vote in the State House. Unfortunately, Ballot Measure 2 (BM2) is a far cry from the bill that passed unanimously. Instead, it is a bad law that was written behind closed doors without hearings or independent analysis. We can’t change or fix any of this measure – we may only vote on what was written, and the Legislature is prohibited from making substantial revisions for two full years.
The sponsors say BM2 is simply about restoring the coastal management program that expired in June 2011. The reality is that this measure creates a coastal management program that is unlike anything we’ve ever seen in Alaska.
Packaging this measure as something other than what it is may be good politics, but frankly it is deceptive. This measure will not streamline government, cut red tape and make permitting projects easier.
In November 2011, Alaska Attorney General John Burns pointed out to Lieutenant Governor Treadwell that BM2 has “numerous potential constitutional concerns,” and “numerous irregularities involving draftsmanship, inconsistencies and ambiguities in the bill itself.” This means uncertainty and delay for resource development.
Normally, the Attorney General summarizes measures for voters in 50 words or less. When it came to BM2, he couldn’t do it. He asked permission to write a 703 word description – 14 times the space – to attempt to explain to voters the massive new bureaucracy the initiative would create. Alaska has never seen a ballot initiative this long, its word count reflects the complexity of the measure and the extent of the bureaucracy it would create.
In the 1980s and 1990s the program was cumbersome and prone to legal challenges. In fact, there were 13 major legal fights that went all the way to the Supreme Court or 9th circuit because of this program. It wasn’t just industry that had concerns, one of the worst cases was an Alaskan who wanted to build a modest cabin. It took seven years, a trip to the state Supreme Court for one Alaskan to get permission just to build a simple cabin.
In 2003, the Alaska Legislature reformed the program by removing much of the delay and uncertainty that was stifling the economy. We need to learn from our short history as a state and not repeat the mistakes of the past. BM2 nullifies the repairs made, sending us back to dysfunction, project delays and litigation.
The measure is an environmental activist’s dream masquerading as a voice of the coast. BM2 comes with new obstructionist tools, including a new unelected board with broad regulatory powers; broad new authorities for enforceable policies to include visual appearance; lack of a time line for implementation, and no clear rules.
Absent a CZM program, coastal communities, like communities in Interior Alaska and the 20 interior U.S. states, still have a voice in federal and state decision-making. Countless opportunities to provide public testimony are afforded all but the most routine state and federal permitting and land use decisions. If you get RDC action alerts, you are well aware of the many hearings on issues affecting public lands in Alaska. The National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act both guarantee opportunities for public and community input. Moreover, local governments have significant influence over project development through their planning and zoning laws.
So who drafted this initiative and what is their true agenda? Had they been interested in restoring the coastal management program that sunset in 2011, they would have proposed a measure with broad acceptance like H.B. 106 which garnered a unanimous vote in the House and the full endorsement of RDC. If such a measure were on the August primary ballot, it would likely pass with flying colors. Instead the initiative supporters have over-reached with an agenda of more red tape, bigger government, uncertainty, litigation and delay. They have left organizations such as RDC with no choice but to stand up in opposition.
As throughput in the oil pipeline continues to decline, Alaskans can not afford more red tape and yet another barrier to the responsible resource development and investment that create jobs and drive our economy. Our resource industries need fair and predictable regulatory processes and standards. BM2 introduces an uncertain process with ill-defined standards.
BM2 creates a major new bureaucracy, guarantees legal and political fights for years to come, and will establish one of the worst hurdles to new investment and jobs in our state. Please learn more at votenoon2.net, and VOTE NO on 2 on August 28.
Return to newsletter headlines
