adn.com | The Pebble Blog : More on the Clean Water Initiatives

The Pebble Blog

The gigantic Pebble copper and gold prospect in Southwest Alaska is one of the touchiest topics in Alaska today.

In this blog, I'll track news that is significant or interesting about the Pebble project. I'll also try to generate discussion and information sharing about some of the claims and counterclaims about the project, and mining in general.

Please keep your comments courteous and on topic. If you violate the ADN comment policy, your posts will be deleted.

------------------------------------------------

About Elizabeth Bluemink ebluemink@adn.com

I've been writing about mining in Alaska since 2004 and without a doubt, it is one of the most interesting topics that I cover at the Daily News. I've been a newspaper reporter for the past 10 years. In the Deep South, I specialized in reporting about environmental conflicts and pollution cleanups. For two years, I covered commercial fishing, mining and logging in Southeast Alaska. In my current job as a Daily News business reporter, I write about mining, tourism, Native corporations and other businesses.

More on the Clean Water Initiatives

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: June 4, 2008 - 5:09 pm

The Anchorage public radio station, KSKA, has hosted two radio call-in programs related to the Clean Water Initiatives. One of them was this afternoon and will air again at 7 tonight. But you can also listen to it on this podcast.

Today's call-in show featured Art Hackney and David Atkinson of the Renewable Resources Coalition, the Anchorage organization that opposes Pebble and favors the initiatives.

Last week, KSKA's call-in show featured several executives from NANA Regional Corp. who are opposed to the initiatives. NANA owns the land that the Red Dog Mine sits on.

Last week's program can be downloaded here.

It looks like each of the programs run about an hour long.

login or register to post comments

5 June 8, 2008 - 2:42pm | NoBob

Didn't anyone else listen?

It was very revealing. I know it might be embarrassing, but someone ought to jump in and defend Hackney. C'mon guys!

June 8, 2008 - 6:12pm | rfn

There's very little

for anyone to work with.....

4 June 5, 2008 - 11:29am | NoBob

One thing and one thing only--Pebble?

That’s what Hackney said on the show and I agree—to a point. But there is a whole lot more which I will get into below.

But my first take-away from the show is that Art Hackney (Bob Gillam’s paid advertising consultant) and his ilk are deeply dishonest. The whole radio show was an attempt to mislead people.

I for one don’t believe that Hackney hasn’t read Alaska’s current clean water statutes—specifically AS 46.03.070 and the implementing regulations. Those laws cover water discharges “actually or potentially deleterious, harmful, detrimental, or injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, to terrestrial and aquatic life or their growth and propagation, or to the use of waters for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other reasonable purposes . . .” If this doesn’t include salmon, I’ll eat my hat. What BS.

Of course the superior court looked at the rules and said . . . it’s already there. The standards are already there. The court said they aren’t going to be any different than those we already have. The regulators are going to be the same people. There aren’t going to be any more inspections, etc. That’s why “it won’t cost a dime” to quote Hackney.

And what a bunch of BS sweeping Water 1 under the rug. When Hackney was called on this by a caller, he claimed that Water 1 (the one Hackney himself said should be withdrawn--it hasn't been withdrawn yet--for “unintended consequences," i.e., shutdown) was drafted by 3 village people who got a lawyer somewhere. (Who paid their signature gatherers?) He then got involved and fixed it. What a liar. Those villagers were part of the multimillion dollar anti-Pebble ad campaign that Hackney had already been running for Gillam. He spread their pictures all over the state. And their lawyer was none other than Tim McKeever, Bob Gillam’s lawyer on such matters. And the lawyer on subsequent initiatives too. What a surprise! What a coincidence! What a stinking pile of BS.

All that said, Hackney was right on some things. Water 3 isn’t going to stop any mines. My expectation is that it isn’t even going to have an impact on the regulatory system other than to make regulators nervous about people with big money abusing the initiative process. (I suppose it will introduce some uncertainty and the mines—as any business would be—are concerned about uncertainty.)

Hackney did give a few clues about the strategy that drives this apparent nonsense. I have addressed this before and will try to write more later.

June 5, 2008 - 12:03pm | NoBob

Why do we have this meaningless Water 3 initiative?

And why do we have the draconian Water 1 that the sponsors have asked to be withdrawn? Hackney gave a clue on the radio show. He said that they couldn’t get a bill to kill Pebble through the legislature . . . because most of the lobbyists are employed by the mining companies, of all reasons! Because of that, they had to go to an initiative and Pebble couldn’t be specifically targeted. That’s sort of true . . . but only sort of.

The strategy is this. If the mining industry statewide took a position against Pebble, then the legislature would be far more likely to pass a bill killing Pebble. So just before the 2007 session, Gillam let it be known (to those of you who object to my using Gillam’s name, he didn’t disguise himself here) that unless the industry repudiated Pebble, he would finance a number of initiatives to destroy the industry. The most blatant of these threats was delivered by his “friend” Rep. Jay Ramras at a Fairbanks Alaska Miners Association meeting. The power of Gillam’s money was discussed front and center. The meeting was recorded and the threat was reported in the Daily News and the News Miner. The miners didn’t budge. They weren’t about to repudiate a project they didn’t own and disavow a regulatory system that they rely on for their right to operate.

Once the threat was made, it had to be carried out. Water 1 was filed shortly thereafter. With no discharge of the tiniest amount of substances and no storage of tailings, it was plainly a shutdown. (On the show, Hackney avoided this discussion by diverting to Water 3 which he—perhaps prematurely—said would be on the ballot whereas the other would not.) After Water 1 was filed, there was a dance between Gillam’s lawyer, Tim McKeever, and the AG’s office. The AG, advising the Lt. Governor, rejected Water 1 as being unconstitutional. The opinion gave clues on how to fix it. They then filed Water 2. This was also rejected in an opinion that provided some direction. Finally, Water 3 was filed and it was accepted. The opinion on Water 3 said that the subject was suitable for regulation, but didn’t say anything about how the initiative was different from existing law. (Judge Blankenship addressed this later.) The AG’s office was delighted to have pulled all the teeth from this monster.

For Gillam’s part, he had something to submit to the voters—a face-saver at the very least. And even if the initiative was toothless, if it is successfully packaged as a vote on Pebble (as Hackney tried to do), then a yes vote might still sway the legislature on the kill-Pebble bills.

The only problem is that if the legislature sees this for the dirty dishonest political thuggery that it is, there won’t be any benefit. I have spoken to a few legislators who view this whole thing as an abuse of the initiative process. That’s what it is. And that is how it should be known to the public too.

3 June 4, 2008 - 11:11pm | PuckFebble

As a side note

I notice there is a new round of ads out from the destruction committees, really laying it on pretty thick for everyone. Channel 2 must be rolling in the dough off those folks, well more or less all of the non-public media sources. Ill comment more when my downloads and listening are done. Im sure this will be charming for both sides.

June 5, 2008 - 8:28am | GrizzleyGal

The Pot is Calling the Kettle Black

The Renewable Resources Coalition (Alaskan's for Clean Water) has had their fair share of TV ads, and talk about laying it on thick. At least Pebble discloses what its spending to educate the public. I'm still waiting on Gillam to do the same. I don't know about PuckFebble, but I sort of like to hear both sides of the issue before voting. Give me a break.

June 5, 2008 - 4:25pm | PuckFebble

Thanks

I would agree it is important to review both sides of an issue. I also think it wise to inform yourself from a more neutral standpoint. I am fully aware of the ad campaigns involved from both sides. I was merely point out, that I watch the channel 2 news most nights and I havent seen nearly as many from RRC, and the latest ones from the miners are blatant, questionably true attacks. I would prefer all sides quit advertising until the AKSC decision comes down.

2 June 4, 2008 - 8:40pm | CingRed

KSKA

Is that a radio station here in Alaska? FM or AM? What channel? Who's their audience other than Ms. Sockeye? Hello,hello, is anyone THERE...There.....there.........ther.......

June 4, 2008 - 9:13pm | Sockeyemark

Sing Red must be from SouthEast

I'm sure the mining folks have got that area bought and paid for ( or at least the legislators ). But Anchorage will cast the votes that send Clean water into the books....
AM, Another Mine.... FM, Failed Miserably is Pebble

June 6, 2008 - 11:18am | asrcp9

Are you saying that

Are you saying that Anchorage is the only town that has the power to vote? I know that Anchorage holds the majority of Alaskan citizens, but the last time I checked, the percentage of Anchorage citizens that vote isn't that great, and they don't all vote the same on the issues.

Look into the facts, make your own opinion and vote August 26, no matter where you live in Alaska.

June 5, 2008 - 9:27pm | njalo99

??????

Whether she's from S.E or S. Central or the N.West ...it shouldn't matter....bottom line here Mark is Alaskans choosing whether or not we still Mine in Alaska.......

1 June 4, 2008 - 5:44pm | Sockeyemark

Tune in and Find out why to vote YES on cleanwater

you heard business speak last week, now hear common sense about protecting your clean water

June 4, 2008 - 8:11pm | rfn

But who speaks for the salmon?

The salmon doomed to be slaughtered by fishermen to line their pockets with green gold? The salmon to be slaughtered for "sport"; as barbaric an amusement as bullfighting and not nearly as much fun as bullslinging.

June 4, 2008 - 9:16pm | Sockeyemark

Singing for Red speaks for salmon

She's all about fish, those no net loss variety ones that Anglo will farm raise for the ones they kill at Pebble.....

June 5, 2008 - 4:05pm | rfn

A really good bullfighter,

after a gory spectacle of death, is sometimes awarded both ears and the tail.

So what does a fisherman get as a reward after a particularly bloody kill? No ears to hand out....and the tail, alone, seems sort of pedestrian.

Save the salmon! Ban all fishing that they might live in peace.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

More on the Clean Water Initiatives