State sues to stop anti-Pebble 'Save our Salmon' initiative
Eric Christopher Adams |
Oct 28, 2011
A widely expected lawsuit challenging the so-called Pebble mine referendum has been filed by the state of Alaska. The "Save our Salmon" citizens initiative, passed earlier this month by Lake and Peninsula Borough voters in Southwest Alaska, was written by supporters to protect the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery -- one of the largest and most successful in the world -- by banning open-pit mining in waters that feed the bay's watershed. The initiative passed by a slim margin. Questions of constitutionality plagued the initiative from the get-go and the state joined Pebble Partnership, a joint venture by London-based Anglo American and Canada-based Northern Dynasty Minerals, in suing to halt a vote on "Save our Salmon." The state Supreme Court allowed the vote to proceed, contending that without passage of the initiative, there wasn't anything to rule upon. Months later and with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by pro- and anti-Pebble mine forces, Alaska Attorney General John Burns announced Friday that the local ordinance voters passed would nullify state permitting processes and, according to a Department of Law press statement, "tilt the constitutional balance" and legislative prerogative on developing Alaska's resources from the state Legislature toward municipal government. The lawsuit announcement said, in part: The Alaska Constitution gives the Alaska Legislature the authority to determine how to develop resources for maximum use consistent with the public interest. It is therefore the state's duty to evaluate projects to determine whether they can be conducted in a way that serves the public interest, and if so, what safeguards to require. Under the Lake and Peninsula Borough ordinance, the state may never have that opportunity. While boroughs have limited power to regulate some of the activities associated with resource development, a small majority of voters in a local community cannot usurp the more comprehensive state authority and eliminate the entire state permitting process. Reached Friday afternoon, a spokesperson for Pebble noted that the prospect sits on state land that's designated for mineral resource development. "From the outset, the Pebble Partnership believed that the Lake & Peninsula Borough Save Our Salmon initiative was poorly worded and legally invalid. Alaska's robust and rigorous permitting system is designed to protect the state's natural resource, therefore, it is understandable that the state would object to a poorly worded ballot measure that usurps its comprehensive permitting authority," Nance Larsen said via prepared statement. Attorney General Burns added that the state's case should not be interpreted as support or opposition to the Pebble project. "It is about upholding the state’s constitutional authority and responsibility to evaluate whether, on balance, development of Alaska’s resources is beneficial to all Alaskans. This administration has consistently maintained that the state will not sacrifice one resource for another," Burns said. "In the case of Pebble, we haven’t yet even considered the pros and cons of any development that may be proposed." The Pebble Partnership still has to apply for dozens of state and federal permits in order to proceed with a mine near Lake Iliamna. Engineers and biologists working for the mine have told Alaska Dispatch that the project, if developed, could yield hundreds of billions of dollars (at today's prices) of gold, copper and molybdenum. A state judge will get weigh in on the initiative's constitutionality Nov. 7. Contact Eric Christopher Adams at eric(at)alaskadispatch.com
by rainman | November 2, 2011 - 10:23pm
Parnell is screwing the pooch getting involved doing the bidding of Pebble in the Lake and Pen Borough. If the court declares Murkowski's actions via DNR re-designating the Bristol Bay Area Plan as a mining district was unconstitutional it will make Parnell's administration look as corrupt as that of Murkowski's. Parnell is not invested in the future of Alaska. He is committed to corporate welfare. Parnell's political future is waning, Alaskans need to be preparing for the mess he is staging to leave us. Burns said. "In the case of Pebble, we haven’t yet even considered the pros and cons of any development that may be proposed." Really, well just what the hell is the state waiting for? Truly exemplary incompetence of DNR and Parnells appointed Hacks.
by Blam8o | October 31, 2011 - 3:51pm
Just like an episode of Boardwalk Empire Alaska style! Crooked.
by Mae | October 30, 2011 - 7:43pm
Good grief.
by beccadog | October 30, 2011 - 8:04am
Looks like there is corruption in the State of Alaska, just like the rest of the country. Most of the USA has been corrupted by the petrochemical industry money feeding legislators, judges, colleges and universities (to control thinking processes) all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It appears that Alaska is no different. But all the gold, copper and moly cannot feed the world when the world is being poisoned, when the fisheries and the animals that eat them are getting cancerous tumors from industrial practices starting with mining the poisons from the Earth and ending with emissions into the air which fall out with the rain and snows, poisoning our soils and waters. And for what? Human greed of the wealthiest corporations and the money hungry legislators in government.
by beccadog | October 30, 2011 - 7:51am
Can you eat gold, copper and molybdenum? With the world's food being genetically engineered to drink petrochemical weed, insect, and fungi killing chemicals and the devastating illnesses that are occurring from the constant spraying of these economic poisons which runoff into our streams, lakes, and estuaries, we looked to Alaska to provide some of the last cleaner fisheries of the world. But, this will put a nail in the coffin of Alaskan fisheries that feed both Alaskans and wildlife, and the world. The Pebble Beach mine will poison fresh and salt waters, and for what? Greed of the Alaskan legislators, the governor and the The Pebble Partnership. Shame on them!
by apachiejoe | October 29, 2011 - 5:19pm
I would say if you destroy what can never be replaced, you can mine with out strip mining. Do you need to destroy a area for a few dollars in Gold, or take what you can with out strip mining or blasting the whole mountain.
by Hello | October 28, 2011 - 7:50pm
It's a sad day for those who believe in the democratic voting process.
by Paul Bratton | October 28, 2011 - 10:45pm
The State has got it backwards, suing before it is at all clear whether there is any conflict between state interests and local concerns as reflected by the initiative.
by donl | October 30, 2011 - 10:31am
@ Paul, |













Comments