newsminer.com

FAIRBANKS — Every Alaskan wants clean water, but that’s not what ballot measure 4 — otherwise known as the Clean Water Initiative — is all about, Lorna Shaw told members of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

Instead, she contended, the initiative is an attempt to stop large-scale metal mining in its tracks across the state.

Shaw is the executive director of the Council of Alaska Producers, whose 11 member companies are active in large-scale metal mining in the state. She spoke on behalf of Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown at the chamber’s weekly membership luncheon Tuesday. The local business organization has already taken a position against the ballot measure.

The debate is heating up, however, as the primary election nears and voters are targeted with contradictory messages. Glossy direct-mail fliers, TV ads and comprehensive Web sites show images of gorgeous scenery and robust salmon or the faces of regular, hard-working Alaskans who make a living in mining.

The only clear thing is that the messages are murky to many voters.

Alaskans for Clean Water, the group formed to advocate for the ballot, says that a citizens’ initiative is the only possible tool to shut down the proposed Pebble Mine, which, if built, could destroy important salmon habitat, pollute rivers and cause the loss of fishing industry jobs. The ballot measure, the group says, is designed to protect the world’s largest wild salmon spawning grounds — an “American treasure,” according to one flier.

The group organized to fight the initiative, Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown, is raising issues about the muddy meaning of the initiative as written, while explaining the value of mining to individuals, communities and businesses across the state. The group says the initiative doesn’t do any more than permitting already requires to protect water and salmon, but that it could shut down one of the state’s largest industries.

They also say that while some Alaskans have valid concerns about the Pebble Mine, an initiative that sets new, undefined rules for the whole mining industry isn’t the right way to address those reservations.

If voters approve the ballot measure, state regulators would have to re-draft regulations to meet the standards laid out in the measure. But because the ballot measure language lacks clarity, no one really knows what the effect will be on mining, Shaw said. That’s why her group and others are assuming the worst — a mining shutdown.

“It would be irresponsible to do anything else,” she said.

The chamber’s board of directors approved in April a resolution opposing ballot measure 4.

The resolution asserts that the ballot measure is too broad as written and would prohibit the development of new large-scale mines and force the shutdown of existing mines. The chamber further opposes the measure because of the potential loss of jobs, state revenue and associated benefits of the mining industry.

Chamber president Rick Solie said the measure is “deceptive” and would be bad for businesses and communities.

“Complex issues are not best handled at the ballot box,” he added.

Shaw and Solie encouraged chamber members to vote in the primary election Aug. 26 and to share their positions with others.