Alaska Clean Water Act (2008)

From Ballotpedia

The Clean Water Act, also known as Ballot Measure 4 is an initiated state statute that was aimed at stemming the discharge of toxic materials from large metallic mineral mines in Alaska.

After extensive legal wrangling in the wake of a lawsuit filed by opponents, it appeared on the statewide August 26 ballot. On July 2, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld lower court judge Douglas Blankenship, and ordered that the measure appear on the ballot.^[1]

Election results

Alaska Clean Water Act
		Votes	Percentage
Yes		-	43%
No		-	57%
Total votes		2,069,205	100%

Overview

The initiative was born out of protests over development of a mine near Pebble, Alaska, which has large deposits of copper, gold and molybdenum in the vicinity of Lake Iliamna. The state legislature tried various ways to craft legislation that both sides could live with, such as HB 41, which transfered the project to the Fish and Game Department. None of the bills gained any traction, prompting opponents to file the initiative. Unlike legislation, state initiatives are not allowed to specifically address an issue or location and thus if passed will have a lasting impact on the mining community in Alaska.

The Pebble Beach mine, proposed by the Anglo-American Mining Company, is thought to contain the largest deposit of gold in North America. The mine would sit in the Bristol Bay watershed, home to the world’s most productive salmon fishery.^[2] The mine would cover 72 square kilometers, dewater free-flowing salmon streams, and build a dirt dam to hold back 7 billion tons of mine waste.

Pebble Beach is home to one-third of the sockeye salmon in the world. The location is unique in that it feeds the wildlife, Alaska Natives and is one of the largest salmon fisheries. Currently the salmon business of Bristol Bay grosses $400 million annually.^[3]

Some of the toxins that the act targets include copper, silver, nickel, chlorine, cyanide, sulfuric acid, compounds of cyanide or sulfuric acid, and other toxic agents found to be harmful.

Support

Primary sponsors on the initiative are Arthur J. Hackney, Dale E. Wagner, and Mark A. Niver. They are part of the Renewable Resources Coalition which is also sponsoring the Pollution Zone Act and the Fisheries Conservation Act. The coalition was formed in 2005 to fight the development of the Pebble project.

Bob Gillam, one of Alaska's wealthiest individuals, has reportedly been a major donor to the campaign to block Pebble from being built. Gillam, a financial manager and fervent sportfisherman, has a personal stake in blocking development in the region, as owner of a large, private lodge on Lake Clark, 30 miles northeast of the Pebble deposit.^[4]

Last year, Gillam told The Wall Street Journal his cabin has nothing to do with the Pebble fight. He has not said how much he has spent to fund Pebble's opposition.^[4]

It was reported in May 2008 that a company owned by Gillam, McKinley Capital Management, has invested millions over the past year in an international mining firm involved in the Pebble development.^[4]

Many said they weren't surprised that McKinley would invest in a rising stock and found it merely ironic that Gillam's company was investing in one of Pebble's major backers.

"I applaud him for keeping his personal and professional obligations separated," said Brian Andrews, Alaska deputy revenue commissioner.^[4]

"I think it is interesting," said Dick Cattanach, executive director emeritus of the Associated General Contractors of Alaska, and a board member of a pro-Pebble group, Truth about Pebble. "Bob is a smart investor and he wouldn't buy a company for personal reasons. ... He may disagree with Anglo being out there. If (Anglo) is a good investment, he should buy it for (his clients)," Cattanach said.^[4]

Anders Gustafson, a fishing guide in the region, says that the coalition is acting on behalf of concerned citizens in the area, especially those in the area that run fishing lodges, such as money manager Robert B. Gillam who is actively fighting Pebble project.

"Wild salmon and clean water should be more important to Alaskans than gold and copper. Renewable resources should always trump nonrenewable ones," said Richard Jameson, director of Renewable Resources.^[5]

Others that support stopping Pebble Mine include Nunamta Aulukestai, Alaskan Native Corporation, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, David Keen of the American Conservative Union, Tiffany & Co., and Fortunoff.^[5]

In a debate in Kodiak on August 11, Aurah Landau, the Southeast Alaska coordinator for Alaskans for Clean Water, presented the argument in favor of the initiative. In response to the assertment that the measure wants to shut down mining in Alaska, she said, “We want to support fish and fisheries. We don’t want to stop mining. “It’s just really common sense. (The initiative) simply says that new, large metallurgical mines in Alaska cannot release toxic chemicals into salmon spawning areas that will adversely impact those salmon.”^[6]

Opposition

The Resource Development Council for Alaska is opposed to the initiative, saying that it will shut down the $10 billion mining industry in the state. The group is organized under the Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown.

Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown has retained public relations and government affairs consultants to help battle the initiatives. They will be conducting a print, radio, and television campaign to dissuade voters from supporting the initiative. "It is deceptive and defective this ballot measure," says Cynthia Toohey, campaign chairwoman for AAMS. "I am concerned it will shut down all mining."^[7]

Karl Hannesman, a Pogo mine manager and president of the Council of Alaska Producers, asserts that the initiative is too broad and that it will affect both current and future major meta mines on state, federal, university, borough, and native lands, even if they are currently adhering to federal and environmental standards.^[8]

Marie Green, president of NANA Regional Corp. (a Native-owned Alaska company which has enterprises in mining as well as other industries), has announced her oppositiong to the initiative. She writes, "I was among those who originally opposed developing what would become the world’s richest zinc mine 90 miles north of Kotzebue. I was worried about what it would do to our subsistence way of life and our land. But I was also concerned about how we as a people would sustain ourselves, and how we could create an economy that would provide for our children." NANA, as well as other Native-owned companies, have a vested and monitary interest in mining development, an interest that Green says is threatened by this measure: "Now some are challenging our ability to fully develop our mineral potential. Proposition 4, an initiative on the August ballot, would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Alaska to extract its mining wealth. This ill-conceived initiative would rob us – and all Alaska – of the full value of our land. That’s wrong and I strongly urge you to vote no."^[9]

Leaders of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority are concerned that Proposition 4 could hinder the efforts to receive mineral royalties from the million acres the trust holds on behalf of Alaska's mentilly ill. Says Jeff Jessee, authority CEO of AMHTA, “However you feel about Pebble, that’s one thing,” Jessee said. “But this is about a lot more than Pebble.” Harry Noah, trust land office director and former commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, agrees with Jessee: “We know there is a ballot measure that wants to change the regulatory environment. The trouble is, the initiative is so poorly written, it’s hard to understand exactly what that means. Therein lies the problem.”^[10]

Controversy in Gov. Palin voicing opposition

Days before voters went to the polls, Governor Sarah Palin publically stated her opposition to Proposition 4.

"Let me take my governor's hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop. 4, I vote no on that."

While polls before her statement showed Proposition 4 ahead by a small percentage, in the end almost 60% of voters went against it. Not only did critics call Gov. Palin's statements highly unethical, but a legal complaint was filed against the state for improperly taking sides on the measure, which is illegal. The Alaska Public Offices Commission ordered the content to be taken off the state website, but cleared Palin, saying she made it clear it was a personal opinion.^[11]

Natural Resources Department website

A government website for the Natural Resources Department was found by the Alaska Public Offices Commission to have improperly featured text about the issue that favored a "no" vote.^[12]

What miners are saying about the initiative

Mining Trade Groups have been working to stop the initiative by communicating with every trade association, chamber of commerce and government official willing to listen. The initiative allows for a grandfather clause, excluding existing mines from the new regulations, but mine operators say they are constantly renewing permits and seeking new permits.^[13],^[14]

The Alaska Miner Association member said the measure is drastic and "[They] could effectively stop mining. It's brutal."

Borough Mayor John Williams' official pledging to fight the initiative.^[15]

The Council of Alaska Producers, a mining industry group, has filed court complaints against the initiative. The group was the first to report it's donors to the APCO on March 13, 2008.^[16]

Ballot status challenged in court

The ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit to keep Measure 4 from the ballot was filed by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Regional Corporation Presidents, who plan to build mines in the future. Renewable Resources Coalition has vowed to fight back, and both sides plan to appeal until the decision reaches the Alaska Supreme Court.^[17] The miners are arguing that, if enacted, the Clean Water Act will cost the state $10 billion in deposits from Pebble Beach alone and possibly halt future projects. Renewable Resources Coalition argues that just as much money could be made for the state from salmon sales.^[18]

Ruling

A Superior Court judge in Fairbanks has ruled a clean-water ballot initiative is unconstitutional because it usurps the Legislature's duty of allocating state resources. It's expected that the case will be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.^[19],^[20]

Campaign tactics and ads

As the August 26 vote approaches, supporters and opponents of Measure 4 have raised at least $3.6 million, with the mining industry outraising and outspending supporters of Measure 4.

In television advertisements, the pro-mining group says that the ballot initiative goes too far and could prevent existing mines from renewing their permits.^[21]

On its website, Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown is calling the measure "deceptive and defective," and says passing the issue could "result in the loss of thousands of mining and industry-related jobs across Alaska; undermine economic opportunity in the rural areas of our state; and seriously impact operations at existing mines, restrict development of new facilities at existing mines and prevent any future mines.”^[22]

However, the supporters are saying there will be no impact on existing mines. Art Hackney, the political consultant and primary sponsor of the Clean Water Initiative explained, “It’s a political tool wielded purposely to confuse. If you want them to vote ‘no,’ you get them to scratch their heads.” Further, as Bruce Switzer, Senior Technical Advisor for the Alaskans for Clean Water, says, "“This initiative was specifically designed to focus on the Pebble Mine ... The measure clearly states that it refers to new, large-scale, metallic mining operations.” The measure also states that the regulatory standards do “not apply to existing large-scale, metallic mineral mining operations…or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites.”^[22]

See also

• Alaska 2008 ballot measures
• Petition drive deadlines in 2008
• Alaska signature requirements
• Alaska Initiative Law
• Campaign finance requirements for Alaska ballot measures

External links

• Renewable Resources Coalition web site
• Truth about Pebble web site
• Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown web site
• Pebble partners donate $5 million for fisheries grants, Alaska Journal Commerce, March 2, 2008
• Fairbanks Judge Douglas Blankenship Rules The Long Version Of The Alaska Clean Water Initiative To Be Unconstitutional, Alaska Pride Blog, March 1, 2008
• Palin's hand seen in battle over mine in Alaska

References

---

	v • d • e Alaska ballot initiatives and referenda
Laws	Alaska ballot access laws • History of I&R in Alaska • Signature requirements • All ballot measures including referrals
2000-2009	Property Taxes ('00) • Marijuana ('00) • Land-And-Shoot Referendum • Run-Off Voting ('02) • Move Legislature ('02) • Gas Pipeline ('02) • Marijuana ('04) • Bear Baiting ('04) • Replacement of U.S. Senators ('04) • Campaign Finance ('06) • Shipping Tax ('06) • 90-Day Legislative Session ('06) • Gasline Now! ('06) • Gambling ('08) • Wolves and Bears ('08) • Clean Elections ('08) • Clean Water ('08)
1990-1999	Gambling ('90) • Railroad ('90) • Marijuana ('90) • Capital Wasilla ('94) • Cost of Capital Move ('94) • Term Limits ('94) • Airborne Hunting ('96) • Term Limits ('96) • Wolf Snares ('98) • Marijuana ('98) • Term Limits ('98) • English Official Language ('98) • No Billboards ('98)
1980-1989	Stock Ownership ('80) • Fish and Game ('82) • Abortion Funding ('82) • Federal Land ('82) • Transportation Regulation ('84) • Nuclear Weapons Freeze ('86) • Higher Education ('88) • Civil Liability ('88)
1970-1979	State Capital Relocation ('74) • Campaign Disclosure ('74) • Fishery Permits ('76) • Compensation Referendum • Bottle Bill ('78) • Homesteading ('78) • Cost of Capital Relocation ('78)
1960-1969	Cook Inlet State Capital ('60) • Relocate State Capital ('62) Voter Registration Referendum ('68)

---

Additional information about ballot litigation in 2008