Alaska Clean Water Initiative, 2008
Encyclopedia
The Alaska Clean Water Initiative (ACWI) of 2008 was a citizens-initiative
ballot measure. In Alaska
, such measures become state law
, if a majority
of voters vote in favor of the measure. The ACWI contained regulatory language limiting the release and distribution of "sulfide mining"
effluents and products into the environment
. In August 2008, Ballot Measure 4, the "Alaska Clean Water Initiative," was voted down (approximately 57% against and 43% in favor) in the statewide primary election
.
: the same political forces that led to the Bill to create Jay Hammond State Game Refuge and the Bill for Protection of Salmon Spawning Water. Ballot Measure 4 was written to apply statewide; as the State constituition demands. The measure would have effectively outlawed large-scale metal mining in the Bristol Bay
drainage. Supporters of the Measure argued strongly that the Measure would not affect any other mining
operation in Alaska. Opponents of the Measure argued that it would have serious, and unnecessary, adverse effects on the mining industry statewide.
Over 10 million combined dollars were spent on advertising
and other efforts by the opponents and proponents of Ballot Measure 4. The largest portion of that was provided by the mineral industry to oppose the Ballot Measure; the largest publicly reported personal expenditure, over $800,000 dollars, was by Bob Gillam, an investment professional and owner of a private lodge a few dozen miles from the Pebble site, who helps lead opposition to Pebble.
to have it voted up or down by their fellow Alaskans. By law, an initiative can not be narrowly targeted, it must have statewide effect.[Ref. AS 15.45.010-245]."
The Act will not apply to, " operations that have received all required...permits, authorizations, licenses and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act, or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites."
An opinion on the Act issued by the State of Alaska Division of Legal and Research Services states that the, "Ambiguity, interpretation, and drafting issues...present...interpretive issues. Existing operations might not be able to expand or build new facilities without becoming subject to the initiative's provisions." The illogical misuse of the word, "effect," and the lack of definition of the terms, "facility," and "site," in the Act are presented as examples. On the other hand, an Alaskan Superior Court judge and the Alaska Department of Law have interpreted the Act to mean that existing water standards for large scale mining may not dramatically change.
All mining operations must regularly re-apply for mining permits. Opponents of the Act fear that the broad and ambiguous language in the Act will be used as a legal tool against all mining in Alaska. Supporters of the Act accuse mining interests of, "crying that the sky is falling."
The Superior Court notes that the Act is, "ambiguous and open to disparate interpretations." If the Act becomes law, its meaning and effects will probably be determined by future court rulings. In this case, to determine the proper meaning of the ambiguous Act, the courts will try to determine the intents of, and state of mind of the enacters of the law, i.e., the voters of the State of Alaska. The neutral ballot summary ( a one-paragraph summary printed on the ballot) may be a critically important factor the courts would consider in interpreting the meaning of Ballot Measure 4 as law.
lodges in the area. Opponents of the initiative include some residents of the project area, the Alaska mining community, and the Alaska Federation of Natives
.
and rivers and prohibits even the use of any amount of any "toxic agent that may be harmful". It applies to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²), although it has no effect on operations conducted under currently issued mining permits.
In June 2006, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell
denied the application on grounds that it would act as an illegal appropriation of state lands. By the Alaska State Constitution
, only a vote of the Alaska Legislature
can appropriate state lands. Initiative backers appealed to the Alaska Superior Court, which in October 2007 ruled that the initiative did not violate the Alaska constitution and approved it to begin collection of signatures. The State of Alaska appealed the Superior Court decision to the Alaska State Supreme Court.
Backers of the Alaska Clean Water Initiative were pleased with the timing of the Superior Court ruling because it enabled them to petition for signatures at the 2007 Alaska Federation of Natives conference. They hoped that Native Corporations
from around Alaska would work together to approve the initiative and oppose Pebble Mine. However, at the conference, delegates from around the state overwhelming voted to oppose the initiative on the basis of it hurting not only the Pebble Mine but any other mining operation in the State. They followed up this symbolic act with a lawsuit in November 2007 seeking to stop the certification of the initiative.
In 2007 Anti-Pebble activists circulated petitions for two versions of an "Alaska Clean Water Initiative", applying to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²); with the first version being more restrictive than the second. Both versions collected sufficient signatures of registered Alaska voters and were certified by Alaska state officials for placement on the statewide August 2008 election ballot.
The stricter of the two versions contained language that arguably would effectively make it impossible to permit any new large mine in Alaska, or to issue new permits to allow existing large mines to continue operations, effectively placing a ban on all mining in Alaska. The less-strict version would be little different from existing regulations, but with ambiguous language arguably open to interpretations that would severely restrict or eliminate mining in Alaska.
Proponents of Pebble challenged the constitutionality of both versions; the more-restrictive "Clean Water 1", and the less-restrictive measure, now known as Ballot Measure 4. During the course of months-long legal and regulatory battles over the two initiatives the anti-Pebble activists that initially created and supported both initiatives asked that the first initiative be struck from the ballot, stating that their cause would be best served by concentrating on a single initiative, i.e., Ballot Measure 4.
On June 9, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court
dismissed a pending case concerning Clean Water 1; an action that effectively removed Clean Water 1 from the August ballot. On July 3, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision allowing Clean Water 3/Ballot Measure 4 to remain on the ballot.
Initiative
In political science, an initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote...
ballot measure. In Alaska
Alaska
Alaska is the largest state in the United States by area. It is situated in the northwest extremity of the North American continent, with Canada to the east, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, with Russia further west across the Bering Strait...
, such measures become state law
State law
In the United States, state law is the law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by the state legislature and adjudicated by state courts. It exists in parallel, and sometimes in conflict with, United States federal law. These disputes are often resolved by the federal courts.-See also:*List of U.S...
, if a majority
Majority
A majority is a subset of a group consisting of more than half of its members. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset; i.e. a plurality is not necessarily a majority as the largest subset may consist of less than half the group's population...
of voters vote in favor of the measure. The ACWI contained regulatory language limiting the release and distribution of "sulfide mining"
Sulfide mining
Sulfide mining a colloquial term used in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota to describe the act of mining of ore which contains significant quantities of sulfide minerals....
effluents and products into the environment
Natural environment
The natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species....
. In August 2008, Ballot Measure 4, the "Alaska Clean Water Initiative," was voted down (approximately 57% against and 43% in favor) in the statewide primary election
Primary election
A primary election is an election in which party members or voters select candidates for a subsequent election. Primary elections are one means by which a political party nominates candidates for the next general election....
.
Background
The ACWI was created by opponents of possible future development at Pebble minePebble Mine
Pebble Mine is the common name of an advanced mineral exploration project investigating a very large porphyry copper, gold, and molybdenum mineral deposit in the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska, near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark. The proposal to mine the ore deposit, using large-scale...
: the same political forces that led to the Bill to create Jay Hammond State Game Refuge and the Bill for Protection of Salmon Spawning Water. Ballot Measure 4 was written to apply statewide; as the State constituition demands. The measure would have effectively outlawed large-scale metal mining in the Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay is the eastern-most arm of the Bering Sea, at 57° to 59° North 157° to 162° West in Southwest Alaska. Bristol Bay is 400 km long and 290 km, wide at its mouth...
drainage. Supporters of the Measure argued strongly that the Measure would not affect any other mining
Mining
Mining is the extraction of valuable minerals or other geological materials from the earth, from an ore body, vein or seam. The term also includes the removal of soil. Materials recovered by mining include base metals, precious metals, iron, uranium, coal, diamonds, limestone, oil shale, rock...
operation in Alaska. Opponents of the Measure argued that it would have serious, and unnecessary, adverse effects on the mining industry statewide.
Over 10 million combined dollars were spent on advertising
Advertising
Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade an audience to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering, although political and ideological advertising is also common...
and other efforts by the opponents and proponents of Ballot Measure 4. The largest portion of that was provided by the mineral industry to oppose the Ballot Measure; the largest publicly reported personal expenditure, over $800,000 dollars, was by Bob Gillam, an investment professional and owner of a private lodge a few dozen miles from the Pebble site, who helps lead opposition to Pebble.
Procedure
In Alaska, an initiative is, "the procedure by which the people instead of the legislature introduce and enact a law. A specified number of voters propose the law they wish to be placed on a ballotBallot
A ballot is a device used to record choices made by voters. Each voter uses one ballot, and ballots are not shared. In the simplest elections, a ballot may be a simple scrap of paper on which each voter writes in the name of a candidate, but governmental elections use pre-printed to protect the...
to have it voted up or down by their fellow Alaskans. By law, an initiative can not be narrowly targeted, it must have statewide effect.[Ref. AS 15.45.010-245]."
Legal Interpretations of the Act
Ballot Measure 4 (the Act), if passed into law, will prohibit the State of Alaska from issuing permits to any metallic mining operation with a footprint larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²) that; " releases...a toxic pollutant in a measurable amount that will effect [sic] human health or welfare or any stage of the life cycle of salmon, into, any...water...," and, "stores...overburden, waste rock, or tailings in a way that could result in the release...of compounds that will effect [sic], directly or indirectly, surface or subsurface waters or tributaries thereto used for human consumption, salmon spawning, rearing, migration, or propagation..."The Act will not apply to, " operations that have received all required...permits, authorizations, licenses and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act, or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites."
An opinion on the Act issued by the State of Alaska Division of Legal and Research Services states that the, "Ambiguity, interpretation, and drafting issues...present...interpretive issues. Existing operations might not be able to expand or build new facilities without becoming subject to the initiative's provisions." The illogical misuse of the word, "effect," and the lack of definition of the terms, "facility," and "site," in the Act are presented as examples. On the other hand, an Alaskan Superior Court judge and the Alaska Department of Law have interpreted the Act to mean that existing water standards for large scale mining may not dramatically change.
All mining operations must regularly re-apply for mining permits. Opponents of the Act fear that the broad and ambiguous language in the Act will be used as a legal tool against all mining in Alaska. Supporters of the Act accuse mining interests of, "crying that the sky is falling."
The Superior Court notes that the Act is, "ambiguous and open to disparate interpretations." If the Act becomes law, its meaning and effects will probably be determined by future court rulings. In this case, to determine the proper meaning of the ambiguous Act, the courts will try to determine the intents of, and state of mind of the enacters of the law, i.e., the voters of the State of Alaska. The neutral ballot summary ( a one-paragraph summary printed on the ballot) may be a critically important factor the courts would consider in interpreting the meaning of Ballot Measure 4 as law.
Interest Groups
Supporters of the initiative include some residents of the project area, as well as business interests that benefit from fishingFishing
Fishing is the activity of trying to catch wild fish. Fish are normally caught in the wild. Techniques for catching fish include hand gathering, spearing, netting, angling and trapping....
lodges in the area. Opponents of the initiative include some residents of the project area, the Alaska mining community, and the Alaska Federation of Natives
Alaska Federation of Natives
The Alaska Federation of Natives is the largest statewide Native organization in Alaska. Its membership includes 178 villages , thirteen regional native corporations, and twelve regional nonprofit and tribal consortiums that contract and run federal and state programs...
.
History
In April 2006 the first iteration of the Clean Water Initiative (Clean Water 1) was submitted to the State of Alaska for approval to begin collecting signatures. The initiative proposed to severely limit the byproducts of mining operations that can be released into streamsSTREAMS
In computer networking, STREAMS is the native framework in Unix System V for implementing character devices.STREAMS was designed as a modular architecture for implementing full-duplex I/O between kernel or user space processes and device drivers. Its most frequent uses have been in developing...
and rivers and prohibits even the use of any amount of any "toxic agent that may be harmful". It applies to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²), although it has no effect on operations conducted under currently issued mining permits.
In June 2006, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell
Sean Parnell
Sean R. Parnell is an American Republican politician who is the tenth and current Governor of Alaska. He succeeded Sarah Palin following her resignation, and was sworn in at the Governor's Picnic in Fairbanks on July 26, 2009...
denied the application on grounds that it would act as an illegal appropriation of state lands. By the Alaska State Constitution
Alaska Constitution
The Constitution of the State of Alaska is the constitution of the U.S. state of Alaska. It was ratified in 1956 and took effect with Alaska's admission as a state on January 3, 1959.-The statehood movement:...
, only a vote of the Alaska Legislature
Alaska Legislature
The Alaska Legislature is the state legislature of the U.S. state of Alaska. It is a bicameral institution, consisting of the lower Alaska House of Representatives, with 40 members, and the upper house Alaska Senate, with 20 members...
can appropriate state lands. Initiative backers appealed to the Alaska Superior Court, which in October 2007 ruled that the initiative did not violate the Alaska constitution and approved it to begin collection of signatures. The State of Alaska appealed the Superior Court decision to the Alaska State Supreme Court.
Backers of the Alaska Clean Water Initiative were pleased with the timing of the Superior Court ruling because it enabled them to petition for signatures at the 2007 Alaska Federation of Natives conference. They hoped that Native Corporations
Alaska Native Regional Corporations
The Alaska Native Regional Corporations were established in 1971 when the United States Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled land and financial claims made by the Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of 13 regional corporations to administer those...
from around Alaska would work together to approve the initiative and oppose Pebble Mine. However, at the conference, delegates from around the state overwhelming voted to oppose the initiative on the basis of it hurting not only the Pebble Mine but any other mining operation in the State. They followed up this symbolic act with a lawsuit in November 2007 seeking to stop the certification of the initiative.
In 2007 Anti-Pebble activists circulated petitions for two versions of an "Alaska Clean Water Initiative", applying to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²); with the first version being more restrictive than the second. Both versions collected sufficient signatures of registered Alaska voters and were certified by Alaska state officials for placement on the statewide August 2008 election ballot.
The stricter of the two versions contained language that arguably would effectively make it impossible to permit any new large mine in Alaska, or to issue new permits to allow existing large mines to continue operations, effectively placing a ban on all mining in Alaska. The less-strict version would be little different from existing regulations, but with ambiguous language arguably open to interpretations that would severely restrict or eliminate mining in Alaska.
Proponents of Pebble challenged the constitutionality of both versions; the more-restrictive "Clean Water 1", and the less-restrictive measure, now known as Ballot Measure 4. During the course of months-long legal and regulatory battles over the two initiatives the anti-Pebble activists that initially created and supported both initiatives asked that the first initiative be struck from the ballot, stating that their cause would be best served by concentrating on a single initiative, i.e., Ballot Measure 4.
On June 9, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court
Alaska Supreme Court
The Alaska Supreme Court is the state supreme court in the State of Alaska's judicial department . The supreme court is composed of the chief justice and four associate justices, who are all appointed by the governor of Alaska and face judicial retention elections and who choose one of their own...
dismissed a pending case concerning Clean Water 1; an action that effectively removed Clean Water 1 from the August ballot. On July 3, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision allowing Clean Water 3/Ballot Measure 4 to remain on the ballot.