Should the Alaska-Juneau Mine be regulated by the same requirements as the Greens Creek and Kensington mines? The answer might be yes if those mines were located in an urban area like downtown Juneau. But because that’s not the case, the proposal to rollback CBJ’s current mining ordinance, as submitted, should have been dead on arrival.
The proposed revisions would remove 13 separate sections and reduce the current 20-page ordinance to just four pages. It’s being sold as an elimination of unnecessary duplication of federal and state permitting requirements; claims that the environmental records at Greens Creek and Kensington are evidence those requirements are adequate; and that the changes are necessary because CBJ does not have and can’t afford to hire the expertise to “duplicate the state and federal permitting systems.”
The argument that existing federal requirements have proven sufficient to protect the environments at Greens Creek and Kensington is poorly timed. That may not be the case if President Trump and the Republican controlled Congress follow through with their promise to repeal or scale back numerous national health and environmental regulations.
Furthermore, Greens Creek’s record isn’t spotless. There was an ore concentrate spill in 1989 which wasn’t cleaned up until 1995. Unexpected increases in levels of metals have been found in marine sediments at two locations of Hawk Inlet. More recently, dangerously elevated levels of mercury were discovered in a seal harvested near the inlet.
No problems have occurred at Kensington. But mineral production there didn’t begin until 2010. So imagining it as a success story is premature.
[A miner matter: Proposal would make reopening AJ Mine easier]
More significantly, Greens Creek and Kensington aren’t located near a population center. That very fact means reopening the AJ will have unique health, safety and socioeconomic impacts. The intent of the current ordinance is to regulate such local concerns. It’s why it reserves “all regulatory powers not preempted by state or federal law” to CBJ. The proposed revision removes this language.
The drafters are correct that CBJ lacks the expertise needed to review a mining permit application, especially one that’s more complex because its proximity to downtown Juneau and the area’s water supply. But that’s hardly a legitimate justification for gutting the ordinance. If Juneauites think there are substantial economic benefits to reopening the mine, then we should be willing to expend a small portion of that promise to hire knowledgeable consultants to ensure any mining venture adequately addresses the impacts to our community.
The conditions at the abandoned Tulsequah Chief Mine in British Columbia is another reason why CBJ shouldn’t concede technical superiority to mining interests. We’re arguing that BC’s weak regulatory system is responsible for the toxic mess that’s been posing threats to Taku River fisheries and wildlife for decades. CBJ’s request to bring in an international commission to resolve that dispute is inconsistent with easing the permitting process in an environment where human health is at stake.
The magnitude of proposed changes, coupled with its grossly oversimplified arguments, wrongly implies the current ordinance was either poorly researched or entirely constructed by individuals with one objective — to discourage mining companies from exploring the possibility of reopening the AJ. But the fact is, it was a long arduous process that involved all sectors of our community in 1989 and survived intense reconsideration in 2003 and 2011.
[Assembly wants time to consider changing mining ordinance]
This isn’t a case of having overly restrictive laws imposed by a government thousands of miles away. It’s about doing the hard work of exerting local control within our own community. That will be largely undone if the proposed ordinance is adopted. And completely undone if an outside mining company is given the green light to put their bottom line ahead of the public and environmental concerns previously identified by Juneau residents.
What’s at play here is a contradiction regarding national policy, states’ rights and local control. Conservative politicians love to argue that big government is a bureaucratic roadblock to resource development. But they’re always ready impose a central authority whenever an informed local populace disagrees with their philosophies and objectives.
The drafters of this proposal are fully aware that much of the community will oppose their effort to roll back local protections. They must be hoping to ride the coattails of deregulation at the national level into a quick and decisive win here.
That can only happen if the Assembly completely ignores a significantly relevant segment of the people they serve. They should know better. It’s why they should send the proposed revisions back to the drafters with instructions to resubmit it only after reaching a consensus with the entire community of concerned citizens.
• Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
