Now that election is over, we need Pebble facts

TIM BRADNER
ECONOMY

(08/30/08 22:40:00)

The ruckus over Ballot Measure 4 is behind us. It's time to set the rhetoric aside and take a careful and reasoned look at the Pebble mine prospect. I'd like to hear some thoughtful arguments from both sides. No more bumper sticker talk, please.

The companies working on Pebble should have a chance to figure out if a mine can be built at all, and if so what it might look like.

The possibility of a large copper/gold mine at Pebble, a remote location near Illiamna southwest of Anchorage, is what prompted opponents to the mine to fashion their "Clean Water/Wild Salmon" ballot proposition in last Tuesday's primary election.

Alaska voters wisely turned thumbs-down on the initiative, defeating it roughly 57-43. It was a blunt and crude instrument that could have hit all operating metals mines in the state, not just Pebble.

Its wording was also confusing. I talked to many people who have concerns about Pebble but who voted no on the ballot measure because they just didn't understand it.

What the ballot proposition attempted to do was set new prohibitions against discharges of pollutants that would affect water quality and salmon. The problem was that it was worded so vaguely that it would have tied up any mining proposal in lawsuits for years, including Pebble. The state already has strict regulations protecting water and fisheries.

There are legitimate questions on both sides for Pebble. On one hand the mine is in prime sport fishing habitat and in the headwaters of streams that support salmon fisheries. Having one of the world's largest mines at that location is a sobering thought.

On the other hand, Pebble would be a huge economic engine for a region that desperately needs one. Pebble holds the promise of jobs and business for local people and infrastructure, like power and roads that will lower costs of living.

There are ways risks can be mitigated, and these must be considered.

Alaskans deserve to have the full information on these things. They will with Pebble because it is on state-owned land.

Once the companies decide how a mine can be built, the applications they make to the state and federal agencies will describe their plan in detail and will include an environmental analysis.

The state has a rigorous large-mine permitting procedure that works in tandem with federal laws and rules, and the companies' environmental work will be subjected to an independent review.

In the end, the risks and benefits of the project will be described thoroughly in a state Best Interest Finding document.

It's through the state and federal permit procedures that factual, unbiased information about Pebble will be available to the public. That's why I support allowing the companies to finish their investigations and submit their permit applications.

What I find disappointing is that the opponents to Pebble seem to want to thwart information getting out to the public. Whether it is something like Measure 4 or equally unsuccessful efforts to create a big park where Pebble will be, the goal seems to stop the project before permits are ever applied for.

Instead of spending millions of dollars on advertising and television commercials I'd like to see the Pebble opponents contribute to some good science being done to understand the possible effects of the mine.

Conservation groups can and do contribute constructively to the public dialogue on mining issues. An example is work by the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council on the Kensington gold mine near Juneau. SEACC opposed Coeur Alaska's plans for the mine and both sides fought tooth and nail for a long time, but in the end they worked out alternatives which were agreeable to both sides.

Why can't we do this with Pebble?

The mine opponents' choice in jumping first to TV ads and bumper stickers raises questions, in my mind at least, on whether they are afraid that the science will show mining can be done safely.

No one knows this now, of course, because the companies have yet to define their project and release their studies, and the government's critique has yet to be done.

The opposition strategy seems to deny the public the right to see what the companies have in mind. That's improper, in my view, all the more so because the stakes in this are so high.

We owe it to the people of Southwest Alaska to have this project vetted thoroughly and fairly, because with few good jobs and sharply higher energy costs it's uncertain many villages in the region will survive, at least without something like Pebble.