Alaska Clean Water Initiative

Last updated

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.

Contents

Background

The ACWI was created by opponents of possible future development at Pebble mine: 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 constitution 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.

Both opponents and proponents of Ballot Measure 4 collectively spent over $10 million on advertising and other efforts. 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, 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. [1]

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 ballot 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]." [2]

Ballot Measure 4 (the Act), if it had passed into law, would have prohibited 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 would not have applied 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 stated 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. [3] On the other hand, an Alaskan Superior Court judge and the Alaska Department of Law interpreted the Act to mean that existing water standards for large scale mining may not dramatically change. [4]

All mining operations must regularly re-apply for mining permits. Opponents of the Act feared that the broad and ambiguous language in the Act would be used as a legal tool against all mining in Alaska. [5] Supporters of the Act accuse mining interests of, "crying that the sky is falling." [6]

The Superior Court noted that the Act was, "ambiguous and open to disparate interpretations." If the Act became law, its meaning and effects would probably have been determined by court rulings. In this case, to determine the proper meaning of the ambiguous Act, the courts would have tried 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 have been a critically important factor the courts would have considered in interpreting the meaning of Ballot Measure 4 as law. [3]

Interest groups

Supporters of the initiative included some residents of the project area, as well as business interests that benefit from fishing lodges in the area. Opponents of the initiative included some residents of the project area, the Alaska mining community, and the Alaska Federation of Natives. [7]

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 streams 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. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10] 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. [11] They followed up this symbolic act with a lawsuit in November 2007 seeking to stop the certification of the initiative. [12]

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. [13]

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. [14] On July 3, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision allowing Clean Water 3/Ballot Measure 4 to remain on the ballot. [15]

Related Research Articles

Ballot access are rules and procedures regulating the right to candidacy, the conditions under which a candidate, political party, or ballot measure is entitled to appear on voters' ballots in elections in the United States. The jurisprudence of the right to candidacy and right to create a political party are less clear than voting rights in the United States. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established in multiple cases that the federal constitution does not recognize a fundamental right to candidacy, and that state governments have a legitimate government interest in blocking "frivolous or fraudulent candidacies". As election processes are decentralized by Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, ballot access laws are established and enforced by the states. As a result, ballot access processes may vary from one state to another. State access requirements for candidates generally pertain to personal qualities of a candidate, such as: minimum age, residency, and citizenship. Additionally, many states require prospective candidates to collect a specified number of qualified voters' signatures on petitions of support and mandate the payment of filing fees before granting access; ballot measures are similarly regulated. Each state also regulates how political parties qualify for automatic ballot access, and how those minor parties that do not can. Fundamental to democracy, topics related to ballot access are the subject of considerable debate in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California ballot proposition</span> Statewide referendum item in California

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).

In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place legislation on the ballot for a referendum or popular vote, either enacting new legislation, or voting down existing legislation. Citizens, or an organization, might start an initiative to gather a predetermined number of signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure is placed on the ballot for the referendum, or actual vote.

Anglo American plc is a British multinational mining company with headquarters in London, England. It is the world's largest producer of platinum, with around 40% of world output, as well as being a major producer of diamonds, copper, nickel, iron ore, polyhalite and steelmaking coal. The company has operations in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 37 and 2007 Oregon Ballot Measure 49</span> Oregon ballot measures

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 was a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pebble Mine</span> Undeveloped copper-gold-molybdenum mineral deposit in Alaska, United States

Pebble Mine is the common name of a proposed copper-gold-molybdenum mining project in the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska, near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark. It was discovered in 1987, optioned by Northern Dynasty Minerals in 2001, explored in 2002, and drilled from 2002-2013 with discovery in 2005. Preparing for the permitting process began and administrative review lasted over 13 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in Oregon</span> Overview of the procedure of elections in the U.S. state of Oregon

Elections in Oregon are all held using a Vote by Mail (VBM) system. This means that all registered voters receive their ballots via postal delivery and can vote from their homes. A state Voters’ Pamphlet is mailed to every household in Oregon about three weeks before each statewide election. It includes information about each measure and candidate in the upcoming election.

The Juneau mining district is a gold mining area in the U.S. state of Alaska.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 4</span> Failed ballot proposition on abortion

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts Greyhound Protection Act</span> Referendum banning commercial dog racing

The Greyhound Protection Act is a Massachusetts statute that gradually eliminated commercial dog racing by 2010. It was enacted as Question 3 on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Massachusetts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Governorship of Sarah Palin</span> Sarah Palins tenure as the 9th Governor of Alaska

In 2006, Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska. Running on a clean-government platform, Palin defeated incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary election in August. She then went on to win the general election in November, defeating former Governor Tony Knowles 48.3% to 40.9%. Her running mate was State Senator Sean Parnell.

The South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, or Initiated Measure 10, was a South Dakota initiative that would ban taxpayer-funded lobbying, stop the exchange of campaign donations for state contracts, and open a website with information on state contracts. The Open and Clean Government Act was proposed as a citizen-initiated state statute and appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case addressed tailings from the Kensington mine, an underground mine located in Alaska. The gold mine had not operated since 1928, and Coeur Alaska obtained a permit in 2005 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 23</span> Referendum on environmental regulations

Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 Massachusetts Question 2</span>

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning Initiative, also known as Question 2, appeared on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Massachusetts as an initiative. Question 2 was rejected by the Massachusetts voters by 1,254,759 "No" votes to 900,405 "Yes" votes. The measure had been sponsored by Better Not Bigger, a local advocacy group in the state.

The Donlin Gold Project is a large, undeveloped, refractory gold deposit located 12 miles (19 km) north of Crooked Creek, Alaska, on the Kuskokwim River, about 280 miles (450 km) northwest of Anchorage. The deposit has proven and probable reserves estimated to be 33.9 million ounces of gold at a grade of 2.1 g/t and could produce an average of one million ounces annually over a 27-year mine life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

XS Platinum Inc., also known as XSP, is a wholly owned subsidiary of XS Platinum Ltd, and was founded in 2007 to be a sustainable mine that would get its platinum from mining waste as opposed to new mining. XSP had a contract with Tiffany & Co. On May 1, 2009, the BLM authorized the disposal of 200,000 cubic yards of processed tailing material as mineral materials from the following mining claims in the vicinity of Platinum, Alaska within the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge. At its beginning, day-to-day operations were to be under the direction of Phil Cash, a metallurgical engineer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Illinois elections</span>

A general election was held in the U.S. state of Illinois on November 8, 2022. The elections for United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, Governor, statewide constitutional officers, Illinois Senate, and Illinois House were held on this date.

References

  1. ↑ pebble_blog (2008-08-28). "The Pebble Blog : Tuesday night's election story | adn.com". Alaska Dispatch News. Archived from the original on 2010-03-09. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
  2. ↑ Alaska Elections Archived 2008-11-19 at the Wayback Machine
  3. 1 2 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2008-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2008-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ↑ "Community Forum: Red Dog Mine Operators Review Clean Water Initiative - Alaska Public Media". Alaska Public Media. May 21, 2008.
  6. ↑ "Community Forum: Why Stop Pebble Mine? - Alaska Public Media". Alaska Public Media. June 18, 2008.
  7. ↑ adn.com | Money : Anti-Pebble campaign turns in 60,000-plus signatures Archived 2008-01-19 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ "Bristol Bay residents submit petition for vote on Pebble". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2007-11-28.[ dead link ]
  9. ↑ "State to appeal clean water decision to Supreme Court". Alaska Journal of Commerce. Archived from the original on 2008-11-22. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
  10. ↑ "Clean water initiative wins Superior Court approval". Alaska Journal of Commerce. Archived from the original on 2010-11-29. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
  11. ↑ First Alaskans overwhelmingly oppose anti-mining initiative, KTUU Channel 2 News, retrieved 2007-11-28[ permanent dead link ]
  12. ↑ "Native groups sue state to try to halt Pebble ballot initiatives". Anchorage Daily News. Archived from the original on 2007-11-25. Retrieved 2007-11-28.
  13. ↑ adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Miners still nervous about initiatives Archived 2009-02-05 at the Wayback Machine
  14. ↑ adn.com | The Pebble Blog : Court dismisses anti-Pebble initiative Archived 2008-12-02 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ↑ ELIZABETH BLUEMINK (2008-07-03). "'Clean Water' initiative gets court OK: Alaska News". adn.com. Archived from the original on 2008-08-03. Retrieved 2010-10-20.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.