Trans Boundary Mines and SE Alaska Fishing. By Joe Mehrkens November 01, 2014
This summer a large tailing dam failed at the Mount Polly mine, dumping 14.5 million cubic feet of water and slurry into salmon waters (Polly Lake, Hazeltine Creek, Quesnel Lake and Cariboo Creek). Even more disturbing, these polluted waters are tributary to the Frazier River – the largest producing sockeye salmon river in British Columbia. While total damages will be not quantified for years it is characterized as Canada’s worst environmental disaster in modern times. Many more large mines are planned as BC’s expands its energy grid to new large mineral deposits. The Mount Polly failure may be a harbinger of the future. Environmental restoration will be minimal or foregone and there will not be compensation for damages to non-mining interests -- on either side of the border. Even if damaged parties successfully sue for damages the mining company can go bankrupt and result in very shallow pockets for damage awards. One root cause for no-redress is that catastrophic events have low probabilities of occurring, but result in large negative consequences. And, as Dr. David Chambers presented at Friday’s forum, no insurance company is willing underwrite these operations -- not even Lloyds of London. Simply, the risk pools (other mines) are too small and the liabilities are too great. The same is true for bonding. The risks are too uncertain to accurately determine fair bid prices. That leaves public taxpayers and private victims on both sides of the border holding the bag. Since catastrophic events are nearly impossible to mitigate, trust fund investments are required for stronger safeguards to finance long-term waste management and perpetual pollution control. It is also needed to compensate for economic damages. Qualifying damages need to include both catastrophic problems as well as low level chronic problems to water quality and fish habitat. The only possible solution is an international treaty that allows both industries to co-exist. While no solution today, there is a U.S –Canada treaty signed in 1908 and with it an International Joint Commission (IJC). More important, there are explicit treaty provisions to protect water quality. This is a good start, but this policy group cannot enforce its recommendations. Any international agreement will take a long-time. This means there are certain high risk mines that should not be permitted until this institutional framework is fully operational. One industry should not have total immunity to severely damage another via direct and unmitigated water pollution. The developing KSM mine located in the headwaters of the Unuk River is a good example. The realities are future mines will be constructed at larger and large scales, requiring larger and multiple waste disposal sites and the need for virtually perpetual water pollution control. At the same time the momentum for weak regulations continues. Actual experience shows that environmental safeguards for mining are over promised and adverse environmental impacts are underestimated by a disturbing 80% -90%. This is tantamount to “if I can get it permitted then I’m good to go with little or no accountability”. This status quo is not going to work for us. At the same time, we must recognize that large scale mining in Canada is becoming a primary economic driver and cease and desist solutions will not work. What will also not work out for us is to apply simple ideological policies from our side. Solutions will be truly complex and changing. One local elected official characterized Friday’s forum as just an anti-mining and a demonizing event. This strategy of tagging valid concerns and opposition as obstructionist is profoundly tone deaf. The clear focus at the Friday forum was on the risks and magnitude of dangers facing the SE Alaska fishing industry. The problems are not small or inconsequential and NO mechanisms exist to minimize or compensate damages. That is hardly obstructionist. Equally disturbing, the Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan have clearly shown they are aligned with the Pebble’s mine interests. Both support the demise of the Coastal Management Program. Both promoted the failed HB77 which would have severely disenfranchised local stakeholders from the public participation process for new development. And Dan Sullivan’s “EPA overreach” are simply code words for pro-mining and ignores that fact that fishing interests had no other place to go. So the beat goes on - a state employee charged with overseeing mining and timber development in SE Alaska has characterized the proposed KSM mine in the Unuk River Basin as responsible modern mining. Rather than seeking more accountability and better safeguards “our guy” has facilitated the status quo. If we are not successful in engaging new international compromises, then we put SE Alaska in the same win/loss column as the salmon watersheds to the south. Forty one percent of the original salmon watersheds have no salmon left. Where salmon still exist 31% of the watershed have threatened or endangered populations. This is a death by a thousand cuts and Southeast Alaska is cued up next. It is foolhardy to rely on just hope that an Exxon or Mt Polly type failure will never occur again. Or, that private capital interests will not strive to increase profits. Thus, the one chance we have is to get all levels of U.S. government, industry and special interests to engage the IJC and start the process. There is a clear rationale to act under the 1908 treaty in the name of international water quality. However, it is unreasonable to expect the IJC to be the clearinghouse for each mine with trans-boundary issues. We need a much bigger solution. And, even that may be insufficient. To paraphrase Dr. Chambers: the issue is really global in scale and even a larger world-wide solution is in order. Joe Mehrkens About: "Joe Mehrkens is a retired forest economist residing in Petersburg." Received October 29 2014 - Published November 01, 2014 Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author. E-mail your letters
& opinions to editor@sitnews.us Published letters become the property of SitNews.
|
||
