The threat to the entire Juneau community due to annual flooding from glacial outbursts cannot be overstated. Juneau residents living in the affected area and other locals with subject-matter expertise in glaciology, geology and engineering have spent months brainstorming possible solutions.
Juneau residents fully expected that an open and thorough examination of cost-effective alternatives would take place, with a strong reliance on practical, proven, science-based solutions.
That’s not what seems to have occurred.
On December 5, KTOO announced that Federal agencies, local officials and scientists would discuss five options to prevent homes from flooding in the coming years and the meeting would be closed to the public.
A spokesperson was quoted saying that the 3-day meeting, which barred public and press attendance, was an “opportunity to work with our partners without any kind of public scrutiny.”
Allowed to participate were government agencies, consultants, five CBJ officials and two representatives from Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
At the conclusion of the meetings, it was announced that the preferred alternative is to blast a 2 ½ mile tunnel through Bullard Mountain, creating a “lake tap” so Suicide Basin’s water can drain more slowly into Mendenhall Lake.
This alternative seems risky and expensive, with a confusing emphasis on cultural preservation. Early cost estimates range from $613 million to $1 billion. It’s hard to understand how this could possibly be the quickest and least expensive solution, as the city has suggested.
A scheduled press briefing was cancelled and no official explanation or rationale was offered. Questions abound:
• Why was it necessary to hold secret meetings?
• Drilling a 2 ½ mile tunnel will produce thousands of tons of rock – where will it go?
• If the tunnel becomes “plugged” with ice or rock, how do you “unplug” it underwater?
• Why is a “cultural sensitivity” study required?
Secrecy breeds suspicion. Selecting a “solution” , albeit preliminary, before thoroughly discussing it in public does a disservice to our community. It leaves the impression that citizens are being sidelined.
The CBJ Assembly needs to regain the trust it has lost with voters over the last several years. Whether that happens depends on each Assembly member’s commitment to open communication and transparent processes.
That hasn’t been the case in the past.
When voters were told that mail-in voting was just “temporary” and then overnight it became permanent without meaningful public input. That wasn’t transparent. A later Assembly attempt to unilaterally impose ranked-choice voting engendered even more suspicion and cynicism of government processes.
When voters rejected new city offices and a huge, expensive new arts and culture center, they didn’t expect these items to continue to be top Assembly priorities. They expected that assumptions, rationale, and costs would be openly re-evaluated and corrective action taken.
That hasn’t happened.
As our population and economy remained stagnant while the city budget continued to increase, Juneau has become even more unaffordable. Voters expected that city leaders would closely examine the budget, hold departments and programs accountable for results and consider trimming non-essential spending. When that didn’t happen, voters took to the streets and passed two initiatives to limit property tax increases and exempt food and utilities from sales taxes.
Yet, there’s little appetite by the Assembly to change course as they reflexively consider cutting basic services without a serious attempt to trim the large increase in discretionary grant spending accumulated over the years. What they fail to recognize is that taxpayers don’t object to writing checks to the city if the money is used effectively, efficiently, and gets results.
These aren’t examples of good governance.
What has been created by the lack of transparency and disregard for the public is an atmosphere of distrust and doubt surrounding every government action and announcement.
Is it any wonder that civil discourse has become more heated? Would the opposition to Telephone Hill redevelopment been nearly as contentious or controversial if events leading up to it had been handled differently?
The secrecy and lack of transparency surrounding the flood solution process is disappointing. But it’s a new year and there’s time to get it right. Voters are watching.
