Politicizing complex permitting decisions is bad public policy, period. That’s why I’m encouraging Alaskans to vote no on ballot measure 4 in the upcoming general election on November 4.

This initiative would require the legislature to approve future large-scale metallic sulfide mines in the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve (BBFR) by passing a law. The law would have to find that any proposed mine would not endanger the BBFR fishery. The approval would be in addition to any other required permits or authorizations.

Ballot measure 4 is targeted at Pebble, a world class copper deposit located in the upper headwaters of the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds that drain approximately 140 and 220 river miles respectively to tidewater at Bristol Bay.

The world class value of both the renewable salmon fisheries and the massive Pebble deposit are indisputable. What is also indisputable is the importance of protecting fish and their habitats. For the Pebble project or any other project of its magnitude to advance to permitting requires exhaustive, demanding and stringent data gathering, analysis, design and mitigation. This process relies on teams of scientists, including biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, chemists and engineers.

The notion of having politicians second guess this rigorous process is not my idea of how Alaska the owner state should be run. How do you suppose the legislature, confined to its 90 day sessions, would find the time and the professional and technical resources to objectively determine whether the project should proceed? What additional facts, analysis or objective scientific evaluation would the legislature bring to this decision? Legislators have enough on their plate with budget, education, law enforcement, capital needs, deferred maintenance, etc.

In this situation the legislature brings nothing, other than unwanted politics, to Pebble. Consider that over 60 state and federal permits must be approved before a project like Pebble can advance. In addition, a full Environmental Impact Statement is required in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Between the state and federal requirements, Alaska has some of the highest standards for environmental protection in the world.

Ballot measure 4 would invite the potential of a political mine veto after all these standards have been met. Who in their right mind wants to invest in a state where the legislature can trump such an exhaustive, demanding, and expensive permitting process?

What kind of message does ballot measure 4 send to other’s who invest in our resource-based economy? Alaska has no shortage of controversial projects, and salmon habitats are abundant. Ballot measure 4 sends a bad message to all our resource industries. Gather enough signatures in front of big box stores and instill the fear of salmon decimation through endless TV ads, and the rules change, the legislative trump card comes into play.

There are already abundant checks and balances to ensure state and federal regulators serve the public’s interest and do their jobs to balance development and environmental protection. There is no assurance that Pebble can obtain permits required to develop the project, but if it can, why should the legislature be able to veto the entire project?

While ballot measure 4 has thus far survived court challenges clearing it for the upcoming vote, it will likely face significant legal challenges should it pass in November. If you doubt this, consider the testimony of Donald Bullock, the legislative counsel, on SB 152 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012.

SB 152 was introduced by Anchorage Senator Hollis French, and was essentially the same as ballot measure 4. Mr. Bullock warned that the bill raised a separation of powers issue as Articles II and III of our State constitution describe the powers of the legislature and the executive branch. Mr. Bullock warned that the bill “would effectively give the legislature the opportunity to veto an executive branch decision that presumably was made within the authority received from the legislature.”

Mr. Bullock also warned that the state could be on the hook for a takings claim running the risk that it would have to compensate the Pebble owners because they would no longer be able to economically develop their claims in spite of meeting the permitting requirements. Given the many demands on our state treasury, exposing the state to a takings claim on a world-class mineral deposit is not my idea of prudent fiscal and risk management.

We have enough problems in Alaska including an over reaching EPA that by preemptively using its 404(c) authority refuses to allow Pebble to be vetted through the normal rigorous permitting process. The last thing we need to do is add to the uncertainty with the threat of a politically motivated legislative permit veto at the end of the permitting process.

We have high standards that should apply to all projects. Balkanizing our state with differing rules for specific projects makes little sense. Please join me in voting no on ballot measure 4 on November 4.

Return to newsletter headlines